D. What other actions are we proposing?

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

Table 5. Summary of Technical Corrections/Clarifications to the
Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP

Correction/Clarification	Description

1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions (63.1503, 63.1506(q), 63.1520)
Addresses vacated General Provision (GP) requirements.

Deletes references to vacated GP sections.

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

Adds definition for affirmative defense. Adds affirmative defense
requirements for malfunctions.

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

3. Capture and Collection Requirements (63.1506(c)(1))	Requires use of
the 2003, or later, ACGIH manual.

Requests comments on methods other than ACGIH manual to ensure capture
and collection.

4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without Add-on Air
Pollutions Control Devices (63.1510(p))	Considering a requirement to
require a scrap inspection program.

Current requirement is optional.

Requesting comments and information.

5. Multiple Tests for Worst Case Scenarios (63.1511(b)(6))	Clarifies
that multiple tests may be required to reflect the worst case for each
regulated pollutant.

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

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

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

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

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

11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS) (63.1510(f)(1)(ii))	Removes
reference to an outdated guidance document and requires use of
manufacturer’s maintenance and operating instructions.

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

Allows other means of measuring molten metal level

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

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

15. Definition of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln and Scrap
Shredder (63.1503)	Clarifies definition of Scrap
Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln to include delamination of aluminum
from paper or plastic.

Clarifies definition of scrap shredder to include granulation.

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

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

Invites comments and solicits information on appropriated cleaning
procedures.

18. Measurements of HF in Addition to HCl (63.1503, 63.1505,
63.1511(c)(9), 63.1513)	Revises definition of HCl to account for HF;
adds definition of HF.

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

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

Revises compliance equations.

19. Uncontrolled furnaces that do not Comply with ACGIH Hooding
Guidelines (63.1512(e)(4))	Requires owner/operators with uncontrolled
group 1 furnaces to construct hoods for performance testing to
demonstrate compliance, or assume 67 percent capture efficiency if
hooding does not meet ACGIH guidelines.

Seeks comments on alternative approaches.

20.”Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 23rd
Edition (63.1506(c)(1))	Allows use of the 23rd or later editions, and
takes out references to chapters 3 and 5.

21. Clarify the possible Number of SAPUs (63.1503)	Revises “SAPU”
definition to clarify there can be more than 1 new SAPU.

22. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants (63.1503)
Clarifies “clean charge” definition to exclude anodized material
coated with dyes or sealants that contain organic material.

23. Afterburner Residence Time (63.1503)	Clarifies “residence time”
definition to include refractory lined ductwork up to the control
thermocouple.

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

25. Changing Furnace Designations (63.1514)	Allows owners/operators to
switch furnace designations.

Specifies requirements for switching.

26. ACGIH Hooding Requirements	Invites comments on alternatives to the
currently required ACGIH guidelines.

27. Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces	Clarifies that
owners/operators have the option to conduct performance tests under
different operating conditions to address charge/flux changes.

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

29. Applicability of Rule to Area Sources (63.1506(a), 63.1510(a))
Clarifies which operating, monitoring and other standards apply to area
sources.

30. Altering Parameters during Testing with New Scrap Streams
(63.1511(b)(1))	Clarifies that owners/operators can deviate from
established parametric limits during performance testing being done to
establish new parametric limits.

31. Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled (63.1506(q)(5))
Allows control device for furnaces to be shut down if furnace will
remain idle for 24 hours or longer.

1. Startup, shutdown and malfunctions

We are proposing to amend the provisions of the subpart RRR NESHAP
regarding compliance with the emissions limits during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These proposed revisions are
necessary to remove references in the subpart RRR NESHAP to certain
requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 regarding HAP
emissions during SSM periods. These General Provision requirements were
vacated by a recent court decision.

We are proposing to revise the subpart RRR NESAHP to require certain
affected sources to comply with work practice standards during periods
of startup and shutdown and numerical emissions limits at all other
times. Specifically, we are proposing several revisions to subpart RRR
including revising Table 1 to indicate that certain requirements of the
General Provisions pertaining to SSM do not apply. For reasons discussed
below, we are also proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of emissions standards caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense. These changes would go into effect upon the effective date of
the final rule.

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

We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 (the General
Provisions Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement
that the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate
or revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not
included in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any
such provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.

In proposing standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, the
EPA is proposing different standards for startup and shutdown periods
for some types of process units. However, for other processes, for the
reasons explained below, we are not proposing different standards for
those periods.

There are some processes that are part of the secondary aluminum
production source category for which startup or shutdown has no
relevance or for which the standard is already in the form of a work
practice (e.g., scrap shredders, in-line fluxers, group 2 furnaces and
rotary dross coolers). For most units subject to the current rule,
emissions limits for PM, D/F, HCl, and THC during normal operations are
expressed using a normalized format of mass of pollutant per unit of
feed (e.g., lb/ton of feed) or charge. Because aluminum feed and
production are reduced or halted during startup and shutdown,
determining compliance with such an emission limit format without any
feed materials is mathematically unrealistic. To apply a numerical
emissions limit during startup and shutdown operations would require
that we have data not yet available to us in order to address a suitable
emissions limit format.

We considered whether performance testing and enforcement of numeric
emission limits would be practical during periods of startup and
shutdown. The EPA determined that there are a number of significant
technical challenges associated with emissions measurements of PM and
HAP emissions during periods of startup and shutdown that make
establishing and complying with numerical emissions limits technically
and economically impractical.

The group 1 furnaces, dryers and kilns used in the secondary aluminum
process are heated during periods of startup through slow feeding of
natural gas with no scrap or other feed materials. During these periods,
many stack gas characteristics including temperature, flow rate,
pollutant and flow stratification, and stack gas molecular weight and
moisture content of the gas change far more dramatically and rapidly
than they would during normal operating conditions. An emissions tester
must account for these changing parameters with near-constant
measurements and adjustment during each test run and also conduct
multiple, sequential test runs in order to produce representative
values. The durations of these startup or shutdown periods are variable
depending on the state of the refractory or other equipment. These
periods could be on the order of 36 hours to multiple days in duration
(e.g., to cure new refractory) requiring many more than three test runs
to collect a representative measurement. During a shutdown, the period
over which process exhaust flow rate would change from full load
conditions to zero could range from less than a day to longer. Such
transient and variable conditions would make the conduct of multiple
test runs meeting the isokinetic or other proportional sampling
requirements physically problematic.

In terms of staff scheduling, multiple test crews would have to be
on-site ready to begin testing at the beginning of a startup or shutdown
period. Further, test crews must be prepared to stop and restart
measurements to coincide with process difficulties that can occur
particularly during startup. Scheduling such testing to coincide with
the beginning of less predictable shutdown periods would require having
testing crews on-site nearly full time. These staff resource issues
would dramatically increase the cost of testing to deal with startup and
shutdown periods.

In addition to the technical problems of collecting representative
samples in stratified stack conditions, sampling for PM, HCl, and D/F
must be isokinetic and sampling for THC concentrations must be
proportional in order to assure representative results. Maintaining
isokinetic or other proportional sampling when stack gas flows range
from zero to nearly full load conditions during either startup or
shutdown with measurement equipment commonly applied for this type of
testing would be an extremely difficult measurement challenge and very
likely lead to unacceptable test runs.

For these technical and economic reasons, we have determined that
conducting manual emissions testing during secondary aluminum startup or
shutdown periods for dryers, kilns, sweat furnaces, dross-only furnaces
and group 1 furnaces is impracticable in the context of section
112(h)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act. As a result, we have established a
separate work practice standard for emissions of PM, HCl, D/F, and THC
during periods of startup and shutdown for these portions of the
secondary aluminum manufacturing process. The EPA proposes in this rule
to require sources to meet a work practice standard for many processes
involved in secondary aluminum production. Work practice standards will
define the beginning and end of startup and shutdown periods and require
certain operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC, PM,
HCl, and D/F for each scenario anticipated.

For purposes of this rule, startup begins upon usage of natural gas or
other clean fuel to ignite a dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only
furnace or group 1 furnace from a cold start. Under the proposed work
practice provisions for startup, the operator must engage and operate
any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods and air pollution control
devices whenever fuel is fired in the device. At the point that feed is
introduced into the dryer, kiln, sweat furnace, dross-only furnace or
group 1 furnace, startup ends and the process is in its normal operating
mode and subject to the numerical emission limits.

Similarly for shutdown conditions, when an operator halts the
introduction of scrap or charge to and has removed all product (e.g.,
tapped a furnace) from an operating dryer, kiln, sweat furnace,
dross-only furnace or group 1 furnace, the shutdown phase has begun
during which the work practice provisions apply and the numerical
emission limits do not apply. During equipment shutdown, any associated
exhaust fans, capture hoods and air pollution control devices must be
engaged and operating until the kiln, furnace or dryer exhaust gas
temperature falls below 200ºF at which point shutdown ends.

The continued operation of the existing control devices and emission
capture systems will, in conjunction with the detailed proposed work
practices described above, be consistent with maximum achievable control
technology and will be adequate, along with all the other standards
described above, to ensure that risks will be acceptable and the rule
will provide an ample margin of safety.

Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable
and routine aspects of a source’s operation. However, by contrast,
malfunction is defined as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner *
* *” (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does
not require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section
112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than
the level “achieved” by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation “achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in section 112 that directs
the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
“achieved” by the best performing or best controlled sources when
setting emission standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emission standards consistent with the section
112 case law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses the
concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit in
defining the level of stringency that CAA section 112 performance
standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best controlled” or
“best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning presents
significant difficulties, as malfunctions are sudden and unexpected
events.

Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the countless types of malfunctions that can occur
across all sources in the category and the difficulties associated with
predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of
various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the performance of units
that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” foreseeable. See, e.g.,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (The EPA
typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision
to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to "invest the resources to 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 an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions
(Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to add to the final
rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1503
(defining “affirmative defense” to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 40 CFR 63.1520 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an
exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative defense,
the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that excess
emissions “[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner….”
The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct
the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR
§63.1506(a)(5) and §1520(a)(8) to prevent future malfunctions. For
example, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
“[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable
emission limitations were being exceeded…” and that “[a]ll
possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions
on ambient air quality, the environment and human health….” In any
judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge
the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not
met its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with
Section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

The EPA included an affirmative defense in the final rule in an attempt
to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to
ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite
the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under
circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish
emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.” 42 USC.
§7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and emission standard”). See
generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 emissions
limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction
events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable through
injunctive relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand,
are required, there is also case law indicating that in many situations
it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical realities of
technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427,
433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting
standards under CAA Section 111 “variant provisions” such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the ‘never
to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also, Portland
Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977
amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support
the EPA’s view that a system that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a
defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean
Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized
approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control of the permit
holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir.
1977). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C.
Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both
ensure that its emission limitations are “continuous” as required by
42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support
the reasonableness of the standard as a whole.

Specifically, we are proposing the following rule changes:

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

Revise language in 40 CFR §63.1515 that references notifications for
SSM events.

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

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

Revise Appendix A to subpart RRR of part 63 to reflect changes in the
applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart resulting from a
court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the General Provisions.

2. Electronic reporting.

The EPA must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews of
CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 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 website (www.epa.gov/cdx). The proposal to submit
performance test data electronically to the EPA would apply only to
those performance tests conducted using test methods that will be
supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We believe that industry
would benefit from this proposed approach to electronic data submittal.
Having these data, the EPA would be able to develop improved emissions
factors, make fewer information requests and promulgate better
regulations.

One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test data
through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much of
the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another
advantage is that the ERT clearly 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.

Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for
expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping
and reporting is available for many records and is the form considered
most suitable for expeditious review if available. Electronic
recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal and some
records and reports are required to be kept in electronic format.

3. Capture and Collection Requirements

The current MACT rule uses the ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual as
the standard for acceptable capture and collection of emissions from a
source. Since the inception of the rule, several different methodologies
of demonstrating compliance with capture and collection requirements
have been accepted by the EPA. We are proposing that facilities must
follow the ACGIH guidelines published in 2003 or, as an alternative that
facilities can follow any updated versions published by ACGIH since that
time. Nevertheless, we are considering allowing other acceptable
methodologies for demonstration of compliance, which will provide more
flexibility to the industry. We invite comments on other acceptable
methodologies in addition to the ACGIH guidelines and how the secondary
aluminum NESHAP could be revised to better characterize hooding
requirements that would be adequate to ensure good capture of emissions.
We are requesting information on minimum face velocity, elimination of
visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other parameter(s) that may
be used to demonstrate adequate capture.

4. Scrap Inspection Program for Group 1 Furnace without Add-on Air
Pollutions Control Devices

Under the current subpart RRR NESHAP, the owner or operator of a group 1
furnace that is not equipped with an add-on air pollution control device
must prepare a written monitoring plan describing the measures that will
be taken to ensure continuous compliance with all applicable emissions
limits. One such measure is the inspection of scrap to determine the
levels of contaminants in the scrap that will be charged to the furnace.
Section 63.1510(p) lists the requirements for a scrap inspection
program. However, this scrap inspection program is not mandatory.
Because the Agency considers a well designed and implemented scrap
inspection program important to ensuring that emissions are maintained
at levels below the applicable emissions limits, we are considering
adding a requirement in the final rule that all owners and operators
with uncontrolled group 1 furnaces develop and implement a scrap
inspection program similar to the existing optional requirements in
section 63.1510(p). We are requesting comments on what such a program
should include. We are particularly interested in receiving comments and
information from companies, organizations or individuals that may have
experience with scrap inspection programs and may have been involved in
developing and implementing such programs.

5. Multiple Tests for Worst-Case Scenarios

The rule currently allows testing to demonstrate compliance under a
“worst-case” scenario. Facilities that process a range of materials
(including dross, used beverage containers (UBC), etc.) may have
different “worst-case” scenarios (highest production levels, range
of charge materials, and highest reactive fluxing rate) for the
different pollutants. For example, the worst-case scenario for HCl may
be while processing dross; the worst-case scenario for D/F formation may
be while processing UBC; and the worst-case scenario for PM is most
likely UBC as well. The original rule and subsequent amendments did not
make it clear that different testing conditions may be required for
different HAP. We are proposing amendments to §63.1511 to clarify that
performance tests under multiple scenarios may be required in order to
reflect the worst-case for each regulated pollutant.

6. Lime Injection Rate Verification

The rule currently requires owners/operators to verify that the
continuous lime injection system maintain free-flowing lime in the
hopper at all times and maintain the lime feeder setting at the same
level established during the performance test. However the rule does not
specifically require that the feeder setting be verified with a pound
per hour (lb/hr) injection rate as established in the performance test.
Due to continuous usage of the equipment, the feeder setting and
injection rate may not correlate as they did during the performance
test. Periodic verification of the actual injection rate in pounds per
hour would ensure that the necessary amount of lime is reaching the
baghouse and it would give a better indication of continuous compliance.
We are proposing to revise §63.1510 by adding a requirement for the
verification of the lime injection rate in pounds per hour at least once
per month.

7. Flux Monitoring

Flux monitoring provisions in §63.1510(j)(3)(ii) require the
owner/operator to record, for each 15-minute block period during each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test during which
reactive fluxing occurs, the time, weight and type of flux for each
addition of solid reactive flux. Solid flux, however, may be added
intermittently during the operating cycle dependent upon the needs of
the bath. We are proposing amendments to revise these monitoring
requirements to clarify that solid flux should be tracked at each
addition during the cycle or time period used in the performance test.

8. Cover Fluxes

Cover flux is defined in §63.1503 as “salt added to the surface of
molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of
the molten aluminum for the purpose of preventing oxidation”. We have
received information indicating that most furnaces are agitated. Rotary
furnaces are constantly rotated until the metal is tapped and
reverberatory furnaces have a molten metal pump circulating aluminum
from the hearth to the charge well providing agitation to melt the
scrap. In order to avoid major source status, a few secondary aluminum
facilities have claimed that they were using cover fluxes when they were
actually using reactive fluxes. Other sources claiming to be using a
cover flux are using them in furnaces in which the melt is being
agitated and, therefore, does not meet the definition of cover flux. To
address this, we are proposing to clarify the definition of cover flux.

9. Capture and Collection System

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

10. Bale Breakers

	The current regulation exempts bale breakers from the requirements for
aluminum scrap shredders and the definition of shredders is
intentionally broad. To clarify that a bale breaker is not a scrap
shredder, we are proposing a definition for bale breaker. We are also
proposing to clarify in the definition of aluminum scrap shredder that
both high speed and low speed shredding devices are considered scrap
shredders.

11. Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS)

The current requirements for BLDS in the rule cite a 1997 guidance
document on bag leak detection systems that operate on the triboelectric
effect (when materials become electrically charged through contact and
separation from another material). BLDS currently in use operate
digitally and are not addressed by the 1997 guidance. We are proposing
to update §63.1510 to remove the reference to the 1997 guidance
document and require that the manufacturer’s maintenance and operating
instructions be followed at all times.

12. Sidewell Furnaces

The monitoring requirements for sidewell group 1 furnaces with
uncontrolled hearths specify recording the level of molten metal (above
or below the arch between the sidewell and hearth) for each charge to
the furnace. Because there are emission units that add charge
continuously and emission units that add charge intermittently, the
requirements to record levels during each charge can be problematic for
some sources. Also, the only option for verifying the molten level is
visual observation which may be difficult in some cases. To address
these issues, we are proposing revisions to §63.1510 to require the
monitoring to be done after each tap, rather than each charge. We are
also proposing that where visual inspection of the molten metal level is
not possible, physical measurement to determine the molten metal level
in sidewell group 1 furnaces will be required.

13. Testing Representative Units

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

14. Initial Performance Tests

Section 63.1511(b) of the current rule requires a source to conduct its
initial performance tests for a new or modified source within 90 days of
start-up to show compliance with emission limits and to establish its
operating parameters. If a furnace is equipped with a baghouse, the
temperature of the gas flow at the baghouse inlet must be determined.
The inlet temperature is significantly affected by ambient air
temperatures. Exhaust gases going to the baghouse control system usually
include more ambient air than furnace exhaust gas, because a substantial
amount of ambient air is necessary to achieve adequate capture
efficiency. The high ratio of ambient air to furnace gas in the control
system means that the ambient air temperature often controls the
baghouse inlet temperature. When a facility conducts an initial
performance test in colder months (in order to meet the 90-day window in
the MACT standard), it must frequently retest in warmer months because
they cannot maintain the baghouse inlet temperature established during a
cold month.

Other MACT standards provide sources 180 days in which to conduct their
initial performance test. The General Provisions in §63.7 set this time
limit at 180 days. Because a period of 180 days to conduct testing would
help the secondary aluminum industry avoid the cost of unnecessary
repeat testing and it is consistent with the General Provisions, we are
proposing to revise §63.1511 to allow 180 days to conduct an initial
performance test.

15. Definitions of Scrap Dryer/Delacquering/Decoating Kiln and Scrap
Shredder

We are proposing revisions to the definition of scrap
dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln to clarify that thermal delaminating
of aluminum scrap and mechanical granulation of the recovered metal are
affected sources under Subpart RRR. Heat is used to separate foil from
paper and plastic in scrap. The sources in question operate chambers
with a maximum temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit and with no melting
of the recovered aluminum. Subsequent melting of recovered aluminum need
not occur at the same facility that conducts the recovery operation. We
are also proposing to amend the definition of a scrap shredder to
include granulation in addition to crushing, grinding, shearing and
breaking of aluminum scrap into a more uniform size prior to processing
or charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln or
furnace.

16. Transporting Metal

We are addressing questions as to the applicability of the rule to pots
that are used to transport metal to customers. The rule does not
currently regulate these pots and we are proposing to amend the
definition of Group 2 furnace to clarify the fact that the rule does not
regulate these pots.

17. Specifications for Cleaning Processes

We considered whether to add specifications for cleaning processes such
as those required for runaround scrap to ensure that scrap processed by
certain methods qualifies as clean scrap. Specifications considered
include minimum residence time and temperature for thermal drying
process and minimum speed and residence time for centrifuging processes.
We are not proposing any of these revisions in today’s action.
However, we invite comments on this issue and solicit information on
appropriate specifications that could be applied to these processes to
ensure that the cleaning process produces clean charge.

18. Measurements of HF in Addition to HCl

The current standard contains limits for HCl emissions, and requires
operators to conduct performance tests for HCl emissions. The EPA’s
original intent was that HCl would serve as a surrogate for all acid
gases, including HF and chlorine. Where fluorine fluxes were used along
with chlorine-containing fluxes, lime coated fabric filters would
effectively control HF as well as HCl so that measuring HF was not
considered necessary. However, a facility that exclusively used
fluorine-containing fluxes would not be required to test for HF, and if
testing for HCl would have very low HCl emissions.

Therefore, we are proposing amendments to clarify the conditions under
which testing must be conducted for both HF and HCl. We are still
confident that, where fluorine flux is used, lime coated fabric filter
will effectively remove HF as well as HCl. However, in instances where
there is no add-on control device and fluorine fluxes are used, we are
proposing that testing for HF be conducted. Where testing for HF and HCl
must be conducted, we are proposing that EPA Method 26A, which is
capable of measuring HCl and HF, be the measurement method used. We are
also proposing that the emission limit for the combined HCl and HF
measurements be equal to the current HCl limit, on the basis that the
best performing facilities used to establish the current standard did
not use any fluorine-containing fluxes. Testing for HF as well as HCl
would be required at the next scheduled performance test. As an
alternative to testing for HF and HCl, we are proposing that the owner
or operator may choose to determine the rate of reactive flux addition
for an affected source, and may assume that, for the purposes of
demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, all chlorine and
fluorine in the reactive fluxes added to the source are emitted as HCl
or HF.

We estimate that approximately 20 facilities that are major sources use
fluorine-containing fluxes. Since most of these facilities also use
fluxes containing chlorine, they are required to determine HCl emissions
at least once every five years. Therefore, the only additional costs
would be the laboratory analysis for HF. We estimate these costs to be
approximately $1,000 per test and that there are approximately 70
uncontrolled furnaces at major sources that use fluorine-containing
fluxes, and would be required to test every 5 years. Therefore, the
total cost of this proposed rule revision is estimated to be $14,000 per
year for the entire industry.

19. Requirements for Uncontrolled Furnaces that Do Not Presently Comply
with ACGIH Ventilation Guidelines

	Section 63.1506(c)(1) requires that, for each affected source or
emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device, the
owner or operator must design and install a system for the capture and
collection of emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum
exhaust rates as published by the American Council of Government
Hygienists in chapters 3 and 5 of “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice(23rd Edition).” However, there are no similar
requirements for furnaces that are not equipped with an add-on air
pollution control device. Furnaces that are uncontrolled for fugitive
emissions do not account for fugitive emissions during testing that
escape for example through open doors and therefore underestimate
emissions during performance testing.

	Accordingly, we are proposing that owner/operators with uncontrolled
affected sources either: (1) construct hooding for testing that meets
the ACGIH guidelines, and include emissions captured by that hooding in
the compliance determination, or (2) assume a capture efficiency of
66.67 percent (i.e., multiply stack test results by a factor of 1.5) to
account for emissions not captured. If the source fails to demonstrate
compliance using the 66.67 percent capture efficiency approach, we are
proposing that the owner/operator retest with hoods meeting the ACGIH
guidelines within 180 days. These requirements would be implemented at
the next scheduled performance test. We recognize that there may be
situations (e.g., various furnace configurations) where constructing
hooding may be problematic. Therefore, we are seeking comments and
information on these proposed requirements and comments and information
regarding other possible approaches that could be applied, such as
emissions monitoring to address these unmeasured fugitive emissions. We
also seek comments and information on work practices that could be
applied during compliance testing that would minimize these fugitive
emissions, including approaches that could be adapted for different
furnace configurations, and ensure that the vast majority of emissions
from these units are accounted for during compliance testing.

	We estimate that there are 107 uncontrolled furnaces that would be
required to install hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines for testing or
assume the 66.67 percent capture efficiency. We estimate that the
capital cost of constructing the appropriate hooding would be $57,000
per affected furnace, resulting in a total capital cost of up to
$6,099,000 for the source category (conservatively assuming that all
these furnaces choose the hooding option), and an annualized cost of up
to $1,220,000 (again based on the conservative assumption that all
facilities choose the option of constructing hooding).

20.	“Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, 23rd
Edition

	The rule currently incorporates by reference “Chapters 3 and 5 of
Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice”, American
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 23rd edition,
1998. This version of the manual is no longer in print. Therefore we are
proposing that the 23rd or later editions to the manual may be used.

21. Clarify the Possible Number of New SAPUs

	The rule currently states that there can be only one existing SAPU at
an aluminum plant but is not clear on whether there can be more than one
new SAPU. We are proposing revisions to clarify that more than one new
SAPU is allowed under the rule.

22. Aluminum Scrap Containing Anodizing Dyes or Sealants

The current definition of “clean charge” does not clearly indicate
the status of anodized aluminum. Some anodized aluminum parts contain
dyes and/or sealants that contain organic materials. Therefore, we
propose to amend the definition of “clean charge” to indicate, that
clean charge does not include anodized material that is coated with dyes
or sealants that contain organic material.

23. Afterburner Residence Time

	Currently, the standard contains the following definition: “Residence
time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time required for gases
to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. Residence time is
calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone volume in cubic
feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas streams in actual cubic feet
per second.”

At some secondary aluminum facilities, the ductwork has been included as
part of the combustion chamber to increase the calculated residence time
and meet the requirements to qualify for alternative limits in
§63.1505(e). While this interpretation may not be consistent with the
current definition, it can be shown that in some afterburners, the
temperature in the duct work is adequate for D/F destruction, which
would justify the inclusion of the duct work in the calculation of
residence time.

	We found that the basis for the residence time requirements for sweat
furnaces and delacquering kilns in §63.1505 did include the refractory
lined duct up to the thermocouple measurement location. Therefore, we
are proposing to amend the definition of residence time as follows,
“Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time
required for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone.
Residence time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone
volume in cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in
actual cubic feet per second. The combustion zone volume includes the
reaction chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream is
exposed to the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory lined
portion of the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.”

24. SAPU Feed/Charge Rate

		Some enforcement officials have interpreted the SAPU requirements such
that a SAPU emission limit should be calculated based on feed/charge
rates during performance test. Our interpretation has always been that
allowable emissions are calculated on a daily basis using feed/charge
throughput, which can change daily. Because of the confusion over the
appropriate method, we are proposing clarifications that will make it
clear that the daily throughput, and not the throughput at the time of
the performance test, is used in the calculation of allowable emissions
in each emissions unit (group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer) within the
SAPU. Consistent with the existing rule, area sources of HAP would not
be required to calculate, or comply with a SAPU emission limit for PM or
HCl. The owner or operator would be required to demonstrate compliance
with these limits and these calculated SAPU emission limits would be
used to establish compliance in accordance with the procedures in
§63.1513.

25. Changing Furnace Designations

	The rule currently does not address whether a facility may change
furnace operating modes between group 1 controlled and group 1
uncontrolled, or between group 1 and group 2. The EPA sees no reason not
to allow owner/operators to change a furnace operating mode, as long as
the change is fully compliant with the substantive and procedural
requirements of the rule. Because the rule does not expressly provide
for such changes, we are proposing new provisions in §63.1516 that
specify how owners/operators can switch furnace operating modes. The
proposed amendments would apply to the following situations: 1)
switching from a controlled group 1 furnace handling other than clean
charge to an uncontrolled group 1 furnace handling other than clean
charge, 2) switching from a controlled group 1 furnace processing other
than clean charge to an uncontrolled clean charge group 1 furnace, 3)
switching from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled furnace to a group 2
furnace, and 4) switching from a group 1 controlled or uncontrolled
furnace to a group 2 furnace, for furnaces capable of completely
removing furnace content between batches. This would include furnaces
with a sidewell. The proposed revisions specify the emissions testing
that would be required to switch furnace designation; operating
requirements, such as labeling, flux use, and scrap charging for the
furnace before, during, and after switching; and requirements for
records to be kept. The proposed revisions also would limit changes in
furnace operating mode to occur no more frequently than once every 6
months, except situations wherein control device maintenance is being
performed. When following the substantive and procedural requirements of
this rule, the owners/operators would be able to turn off associated air
pollution control devices. Because of this, we estimate an annual
savings of $1,100,000, based on an estimate of controls for 50 furnaces
being turned off for 6 months per year. We estimate additional testing
costs of $500,000 per year. Therefore, we estimate the net cost to be
-$600,000 per year (a savings of $600,000 per year).

26.	ACGIH Hooding Requirements

	The current rule requires that emissions capture and collection systems
be designed consistent with the ACGIH industrial ventilation guidelines.
Industry representatives point out that the manual contains
“recommended” ventilation practices and that EPA has inappropriately
required compliance with the guidelines. For example, the guidance
establish a design criteria for determining minimum hood dimensions and
flow; however, the relevant equation is not appropriate for determining
minimum flow requirements for “oversized” hoods that are used in the
secondary aluminum industry. The equations for sizing hoods in Chapter 3
of the 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 other rules and
ventilation guidelines that are appropriate and could be used.

	We are inviting comments on alternatives to the ACGIH guidelines or
other suggestions for revising the rule to increase flexibility for the
industry while ensuring that capture and collection systems are
adequately designed and operated to insure that emissions are captured
and fugitive emissions minimized. In particular, we would be interested
in obtaining information on minimum face velocity, elimination of
visible emissions, minimum pressure drop or other suitable parameter(s)
to determine capture effectiveness.

27.	Dross Only Versus Dross/Scrap Furnaces

	The EPA’s current interpretation of the existing rule is that dross
only furnaces at area sources are not subject to D/F emission
limitations and therefore not subject to the MACT operating parameter
limitations. Industry representatives have inquired about the
requirements for a furnace processing scrap on some occasions and then
dross at other times.

	We point out that dross only furnaces have been defined as furnaces
that only process dross. A furnace that processes scrap may be a group 1
furnace or a group 2 furnace. Operators of group 1 furnaces have the
option of conducting performance tests under different operating
conditions to establish operating parameters applicable to different
combinations of types of charge and fluxing rates. We have added
language to clarify this in the proposed amendments. We note that dross
is not clean charge, as defined, and thus any group 1 furnace processing
dross is subject to limitations on emissions of D/F, and other
requirements for group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge.

28. Annual Hood Inspections

    Industry representatives have stated that our interpretation that
annual hood inspections include an annual hood flow measurement
represents an unnecessary cost burden for each regulated facility. They
recommended that flow testing should only be required after
modifications to the hood, furnace, and/or controls that could
negatively impact the capture and, only then if they cannot be
demonstrated by alternate engineering calculations or operating
parameters. They contend that due to stringent OM&M protocols, it should
be sufficient to certify that there have been no changes, with possible
verification of flow by visual inspections for leaks and possible
verification of fan amperage. We disagree that these measures alone are
sufficient to verify that flow is sufficient and that annual hood flow
measurement represents an unnecessary cost burden. We are proposing
changes to the rule to clarify that annual hood inspections include flow
rate measurements. These flow rate measurements supplement the
effectiveness of the required visual inspection for leaks (which may be
difficult or uncertain for certain sections of ductwork), to reveal the
presence of obstructions in the ductwork, confirm that fan efficiency
has not declined, and provide a measured value for air flow.

29.	Applicability of Rule to Area Sources

	While the emissions standards that apply to area sources is evident in
the current rule, the applicable operating, monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are less clear. In general, the
intent of the rule is to subject area sources to standards for D/F with
corresponding monitoring, testing, reporting, and recordkeeping. We are
proposing amendments that would clarify which of the operating,
monitoring and other standards apply to area sources.

30.	Altering Parameters during Testing with New Sources of Scrap

Currently, the rule requires that when a process parameter or add-on air
pollution control device operating parameter deviates from the value or
range established during a performance test, the owner or operator must
initiate corrective action. However, when the owner or operator is
conducting performance testing with a new type of scrap, it may be
necessary to deviate from the previously established values. It was
never our intent to prevent owners/operators from establishing new or
revised operating parameters, if necessary to process different types of
scrap. Accordingly, we are modifying the rule to allow deviations from
the values and ranges in the OM&M plan during performance testing,
provided that the site-specific test plan documents the intent to
establish new or revised parametric limits.

31.	Controlled Furnaces that are Temporarily Idled

Currently, the rule does not specify if an owner or operator may
discontinue the operation of its control device if a furnace is not in
use, but is not completely empty or shut down. Industry has requested
that the EPA provide allowances for control devices to be turned off
while the furnaces are not in operation or being charged with aluminum
scrap or fluxing agents. This typically occurs over the weekend and
accounts for unnecessary electrical and operating costs. Accordingly, we
are modifying the rule to allow for the discontinued use of control
devices for these furnaces that will remain idle for 24 hours or longer.

E. Compliance dates

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

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

No reductions are being proposed to numerical emissions limits. The
proposed amendments will add work practices for periods of startup and
shutdown to help ensure that emissions from affected sources continue to
be minimized. The proposed amendments would help to clarify the existing
provisions and would help to improve compliance. The proposed amendment
to limit and require testing of HF emissions for uncontrolled group 1
furnaces using fluorine fluxes is not expected to significantly reduce
HF emissions but will help to ensure that HF emissions remain low. We
believe that the proposed revisions would result in little or no
emissions reductions. Therefore, no air quality impacts are expected.

C. What are the cost impacts?

We estimate that there will be minor cost impacts associated with these
proposed requirements. We estimate the total cost of the proposed
amendments to be up to approximately $614,000 per year. Our estimate
includes an annualized cost of up to $1,200,000 for installing
uncontrolled furnace testing hooding that meets ACGIH requirements,
assuming that 107 furnaces choose that option (rather than assuming a 67
percent capture efficiency for their existing furnace exhaust system).
Our estimate also includes an annualized cost of $14,000 for testing for
HF on uncontrolled furnaces that are already testing for HCl. Finally,
we estimate cost savings of $600,000 per year for furnaces that switch
furnace categories and turn off their control devices. Our estimate is
based on 50 furnaces turning off their controls for approximately 6
months every year. This savings is net of the cost of testing to
demonstrate that these furnaces remain in compliance with emission
limits after their control devices have been turned off.

 D. What are the economic impacts?

Because there are only minor cost impacts, we do not expect economic
impacts.

E. What are the benefits?

We do not anticipate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as a
result from these proposed amendments. However, we think that the
proposed amendments would help to improve the clarity of the rule, which
can help to improve compliance and help to ensure that emissions are
kept to a minimum. Certain 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

Delete Comment	Describes the reason for deletion

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

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

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

Fugitive Length	Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-)
direction, commonly referred to as length (ft)

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

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

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

North American Datum	Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates
(NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, NAD83 is assumed

Process Comment	Enter general comments about process sources of
emissions

REVISED Address	Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility
here

REVISED City	Enter revised city name here

REVISED County Name	Enter revised county name here

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

REVISED End Date	Enter revised End Date here

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

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

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

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

REVISED Facility Name	Enter revised Facility Name here

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier	Enter revised Facility Registry
Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry
System

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

REVISED Latitude 	Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees)

REVISED Longitude 	Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees)

REVISED MACT Code	Enter revised MACT Code here

REVISED Pollutant Code	Enter revised Pollutant Code here

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

REVISED SCC Code	Enter revised SCC Code here

REVISED Stack Diameter 	Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft)

REVISED Stack Height	Enter revised Stack Height here (ft)

REVISED Start Date	Enter revised Start Date here

REVISED State	Enter revised State here

REVISED Tribal Code	Enter revised Tribal Code here

REVISED Zip Code	Enter revised Zip Code here

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

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

Stack Comment	Enter general comments about emissions release points

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

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

Year Closed	Enter date facility stopped operations

2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision
(i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address,
commenter phone number, and revision comments).

3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g.,
performance test reports, material balance calculations).

4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket
ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544 (through one of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite review of the
revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a copy of your
revisions to the EPA directly at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>in addition to submitting
them to the docket.

5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only submit one
file for that facility, which should contain all suggested changes for
all sources at that facility. We request that all data revision comments
be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Access files, which are
provided on the RTR Web Page at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.

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

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 [To be completed on
development of supporting statement]

For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to the
estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an estimate of
the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the
affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided
administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion
of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the
required notification, reports and records for any individual incident,
including the root cause analysis, totals $3,142 and is based on the
time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview
plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that
has caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also
includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for
submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of
this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a
violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative
defense.

Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could occur,
as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number would
be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
Thus we believe the number of instances in which source operators might
be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be
extremely small.

With respect to the Secondary Aluminum Production source category, we
estimate the annual recordkeeping and reporting burden after the
effective date of the proposed rule for affirmative defense to be 30
hours at a cost of $3,142.

We expect to gather information on such events in the future and will
revise this estimate as better information becomes available. We
estimate 161 regulated entities are currently subject to subpart RRR.
The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) for these amendments to subpart RRR is estimated to be
$1,384,821 per year. This includes 1,725 labor hours per year at a total
labor cost of $165,521 per year, and total non-labor capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $1,219,300 per year. The total
burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after
the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 271 labor hours
per year at an annual cost of $12,231. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these ICRs are
approved by OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers for
the approved information collection requirements contained in the final
rules.

To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for this
rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0544. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA
and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for
where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS
PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by
the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of 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.

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

Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried
to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To reduce the
impacts, we are correcting certain provisions of the rule as well as
proposing revisions to help clarify the rule’s intent. We have also
proposed new provisions that increase industry’s flexibility as to how
they operate group 1 furnaces. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by State governments, and, because no
new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed rule
will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

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

The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.

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

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, the agency does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. Nevertheless, the public is
invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data
that assess effects of early life exposure to HAP from Secondary
Aluminum sources.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

	This proposed rulemaking does not involve use of any new technical
standards.

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

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

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income, indigenous populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority, low income or indigenous populations.

These proposed standards may improve public health and welfare, now and
in the future, by limiting HAP emissions that may contribute to adverse
environmental and human health impacts. The control of HAP emissions
associated with the rule are expected to benefit all populations living
near the sources affected by this rule.

Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to determine if there is
an overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations
near the sources such that they may currently face disproportionate
risks from pollutants that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. This
analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-populations
that may be exposed HAP pollution from the sources affected by this
rulemaking; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the
most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify
the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities.

The major source demographic analysis shows that while most demographic
categories are below or within 10 percent of their corresponding
national averages, the African American percentage 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

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

____________________________

Dated:

____________________________

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 63.1502 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

§63.1502 Incorporation by reference.

(a) *	*	*

	(1) “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,”
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, (23rd
edition, 1998), IBR approved for §63.1506(c), and

*	*	*	*	*

3. Section 63.1503 is amended by:

a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions of “affirmative
defense,” “bale breaker,” “capture and collection system,”
“HCl/HF” and “HF”; and

	b. Revising the definitions of “aluminum scrap shredder,”
“chips,” “clean charge,” “cover flux,” “Group 2
furnace,” “HCl,” “residence time,” “scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kiln” and “secondary aluminum processing unit
(SAPU).”

§63.1503 Definitions.

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding,
a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are
independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative
proceeding.

Aluminum scrap shredder means a high speed or low speed unit that
crushes, grinds, granulates or breaks aluminum scrap into a more uniform
size prior to processing or charging to a scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kiln, or furnace. A bale breaker is not an aluminum scrap
shredder.

Bale breaker means a device used to break apart a bale of aluminum scrap
for further processing. Bale breakers are not used to crush, grind,
shear or break aluminum scrap into more uniform size pieces.

Capture and collection system means the system of hood(s), duct system
and fan used to collect a contaminant at or near its source and
transport the contaminated air to the air cleaning device.

Chips means small, uniformly-sized, unpainted pieces of aluminum scrap,
typically below 1 1/4 inches in any dimension, primarily generated by
turning, milling, boring, and machining of aluminum parts.

Clean charge means furnace charge materials, including molten aluminum;
T-bar; sow; ingot; billet; pig; alloying elements; aluminum scrap known
by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, coatings, and
lubricants; uncoated/unpainted aluminum chips that have been thermally
dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum scrap dried at 343
°C (650 °F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/decoated at 482 °C
(900 °F) or higher, and runaround scrap. Anodized aluminum that
contains dyes or sealants with organic compounds is not clean charge.

Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a group
1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum, for the
purpose of preventing oxidation. Any flux added to a rotary furnace or
other furnace that uses a molten metal pump or other device to circulate
the aluminum is not a cover flux. Any reactive flux cannot be a cover
flux.

Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or
processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs
fluxing using only nonreactive, non-HAP-containing/non-HAP-generating
gases or agents. Pots used to transport metal to customers are not
furnaces.

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

HCl/HF means the combined emissions of HCl and HF from an uncontrolled
group 1 furnace that uses one or more fluxes containing chlorine and/or
fluorine.

HF means hydrogen fluoride.

Residence time means, for an afterburner, the duration of time required
for gases to pass through the afterburner combustion zone. Residence
time is calculated by dividing the afterburner combustion zone volume in
cubic feet by the volumetric flow rate of the gas stream in actual cubic
feet per second. The combustion zone volume includes the reaction
chamber of the afterburner in which the waste gas stream is exposed to
the direct combustion flame and the complete refractory lined portion of
the furnace stack up to the measurement thermocouple.

Scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kiln means a unit used primarily
to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, lacquer, ink,
plastic, and/or rubber from aluminum scrap (including used beverage
containers) prior to melting, or that separates aluminum foil from paper
and plastic in scrap.

Secondary aluminum processing unit (SAPU). An existing SAPU means all
existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in-line fluxers within a
secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace or
existing in-line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a
secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of
individual group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers within a secondary
aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or
reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently
redesignated as new emission units pursuant to §63.1505(k)(6). Each of
the group 1 furnaces or in-line fluxers within a new SAPU is considered
an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing unit. A
secondary aluminum production facility may have more than one new SAPU.

*	*	*	*	*

4. Section 63.1505 is amended by:

a. By revising paragraph (d)(1)(iv);

b. By revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv);

c. By revising paragraph (i)(4);

d. By revising paragraph (j)(1);

e. By revising paragraph (k);

f. By revising paragraph (k)(1);

g. By revising paragraph (k)(2); and

h. By revising paragraph (k)(3)to read as follows:

§63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission units.

*	*	*	*	*

(d) *		*	*

	(1) *		*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(e) *		*	*

	(1) *		*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(i) *		*	*

	(4) 0.20 kg of HCl/HF per Mg (0.40 lb of HCl/HF per ton) of feed/charge
or, if the furnace is equipped with an add-on air pollution control
device, 10 percent of the uncontrolled HCl/HF emissions, by weight, for
a group 1 furnace at a secondary aluminum production facility that is a
major source.

*	*	*	*	*

(j) * 	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

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

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

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/HF
in excess of:

Where,

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

LcHCl /HF= The daily HCl/HF emission limit for the secondary aluminum
processing unit  which is used to calculate the 3-day, 24-hour HCl/HF
emission limit applicable to the SAPU.

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

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

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.

*	*	*	*	*

5. Section 63.1506 is amended by:

a. By revising paragraph (a)(1);

	b. By adding paragraph (a)(5);

c. By revising paragraph (c)(1);

d. By revising paragraph (g)(5);

e. By revising paragraph (k)(3);

f. By revising paragraph (m)(4);

g. By revising paragraph (n)(1); and

h. By adding paragraph (q)to read as follows:

§63.1506 Operating requirements.

(a) * 	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

 (5) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain any
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination
of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records,
and inspection of the source.

*	*	*	*	*

(c) *	*	*

(1) Design and install a system for the capture and collection of
emissions to meet the engineering standards for minimum exhaust rates as
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists in the “Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice” 23rd edition or later (ACGIH Guidelines) (incorporated by
reference in §63.1502 of this subpart);

*	*	*	*	*

(g) *	*	*

(5) For a continuous injection device, maintain free-flowing lime in the
hopper to the feed device at all times and maintain the lime feeder
setting at or above the level established during the performance test.

*	*	*	*	*

(k) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(m) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(n) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(q) Work practices for periods of startup and shutdown. During periods
of startup and shutdown the owner or operator must meet the requirements
listed in (q)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Use natural gas or other clean fuels such as propane, kerosene or
number 2 fuel oil during startup, which begins when a dryer, kiln, sweat
furnace, dross-only furnace, or group 1 furnace begins ignition and
equipment warming.

(2) All associated exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air pollution
control devices must be engaged and operated whenever fuel is fired to
the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section.

(3) Startup ends at the point that scrap or charge materials are
introduced into the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section
and the process is considered to be in normal operating mode.

(4) Shutdown begins when an owner or operator halts the introduction of
scrap or charge into and removes all scrap or charge from the affected
sources listed in (q)(1).

(5) During shutdown, any associated exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air
pollution control devices must remain engaged and operating until the
temperature of the exhaust gases fall below 200 °F at which point
shutdown ends. If a furnace will be partially shutdown at the end of a
cycle for at least 24 hours and will burn clean fuel only, will not
receive new charge, will not receive flux, and will not receive alloying
materials, then the applicable exhaust fans, capture hoods, and air
pollution control devices may be temporarily turned off. Before any new
charge is added to the furnace, the applicable exhaust fans, capture
hoods, and air pollution control devices must be engaged and operated.
Any molten aluminum remaining in the furnace must be covered to reduce
the likelihood of emissions from the furnace while the furnace is idle.
When the furnace resumes operation, it must operate in its current
furnace operating mode.

(6) For the affected sources listed in (q)(1) of this section, the owner
or operator must comply with all applicable emissions standards in
§63.1505 at all time except for startup and shutdown periods.

(7) The owner or operator must develop a written plan that describes the
procedures to be followed for operating and maintaining the affected
sources listed in (q)(1) of this section during periods of startup and
shutdown. Submit the plan to the applicable permitting authority for
approval within [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
RULE].

*	*	*	*	*

6. Section 63.1510 is amended by:

a. By revising paragraph (a);

b. By revising paragraph (b);

c. By revising paragraph (b)(5);

d. By revising paragraph (d)(2);

e. By revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii);

f. By adding paragraph (i)(4);

g. By revising paragraph (j)(4);

h. By revising paragraph (n)(1);

i. By revising paragraph (o)(1);

j. By revising paragraph (o)(1)(ii);

k. By revising paragraph (t);

l. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(i);

m. By adding paragraph (t)(2)(ii);

n. By revising paragraph (t)(4); and

o. By revising paragraph (t)(5)to read as follows:

§63.1510 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Summary. On and after the compliance date established by §63.1501,
the owner or operator of a new or existing affected source or emission
unit must monitor all control equipment and processes according to the
requirements in this section. Monitoring requirements for each type of
affected source and emission unit are summarized in Table 3 to this
subpart. Area sources are subject to monitoring requirements for those
affected sources listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4)of this subpart, and
associated control equipment as required by paragraphs (b) through (k),
(n) through (q), and (s) through (w) of this section, including but not
limited to:

(1) The operation, maintenance and monitoring plan required in paragraph
(b) of this section pertaining to each affected source listed in
§63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,

(2) The labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of this section
pertaining to group 1 furnaces processing other than clean charge, and
scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,

(3) The requirements for capture and collection described in paragraph
(d) of this section for each controlled affected source listed in
§63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,

(4) The feed charge weight monitoring requirements described in
paragraph (e) of this section applicable to group 1 furnaces processing
other than clean charge, scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns
and thermal chip dryers,

(5) The bag leak detector requirements described in paragraph (f) of
this section applicable to all bag leak detectors installed on fabric
filters and lime injected fabric filters used to control each affected
source listed in §63.1500(c)(1)-(4) of this subpart,

(6) The requirements for afterburners described in paragraph (g) of this
section applicable to sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, and scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,

(7) The requirements for monitoring fabric filter inlet temperature
described in paragraph (h) of this section for all lime injected fabric
filters used to control group 1 furnaces processing other than clean
charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap dryer/delacquering
kiln/decoating kilns,

(8) The requirements for monitoring lime injection described in
paragraph (i) of this section applicable to all lime injected fabric
filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces processing other
than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces and scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns,

(9) The requirements for monitoring total reactive flux injection
described in paragraph (j) of this section for all group 1 furnaces
processing other than clean charge,

(10) The requirements described in paragraph (k) of this section for
thermal chip dryers,

(11) The requirements described in paragraph (n) of this section for
controlled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean charge,

(12) The requirements described in paragraph (o) of this section for
uncontrolled group 1 sidewell furnaces processing other than clean
charge,

(13) The requirements described in paragraph (p) of this section for
scrap inspection programs for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces,

(14) The requirements described in paragraph (q) of this section for
monitoring scrap contamination level for uncontrolled group 1 furnaces,

(15) The requirements described in paragraph (s) of this section
secondary aluminum processing units, limited to only to compliance with
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than
clean charge,

(16) The requirements described in paragraph (t) of this section for
secondary aluminum processing units limited only to compliance with
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than
clean charge,

(17) The requirements described in paragraph (u) of this section for
secondary aluminum processing units limited only to compliance with
limits for emissions of D/F from group 1 furnaces processing other than
clean charge,

(18) The requirements described in paragraph (v) of this section for
alternative lime addition monitoring methods applicable to lime coated
fabric filters used to control emissions from group 1 furnaces
processing other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, sweat furnaces
and scrap dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns, and

(19) The requirements described in paragraph (w) of this section for
approval of alternate methods for monitoring group 1 furnaces processing
other than clean charge, thermal chip dryers, and scrap
dryer/delacquering kiln/decoating kilns and sweat furnaces and
associated control devices for the control of D/F emissions.

*	*	*	*	*

(b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or
operator must prepare and implement for each new or existing affected
source and emission unit, a written operation, maintenance, and
monitoring (OM&M) plan. The owner or operator of an existing affected
source must submit the OM&M plan to the responsible permitting authority
no later than the compliance date established by §63.1501(a). The owner
or operator of any new affected source must submit the OM&M plan to the
responsible permitting authority within 90 days after a successful
initial performance test under §63.1511(b), or within 90 days after the
compliance date established by §63.1501(b) if no initial performance
test is required. The plan must be accompanied by a 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.

*	*	*	*	*

(d) *	*	*

(2) Inspect each capture/collection and closed vent system at least once
each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in accordance
with the operating requirements in §63.1506(c) and record the results
of each inspection. This inspection shall include a volumetric flow rate
measurement taken at a location in the ductwork downstream of the hoods
which will be representative of the actual volumetric flow rate without
the interference of leaks, the introduction of ambient air for cooling,
or other ducts manifolded from other hoods. The measurement shall be
performed using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2 in appendix A to 40 CFR
part 60.

*	*	*	*	*

(f) *	*	*

(1) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(i) *	*	*

(4) At least once per month, verify that the lime injection rate in
lb/hr is no less than 90 percent of the lime injection rate used to
demonstrate compliance during your performance test.

*	*	*	*	*

(j) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(n) *	*	*

(1) Record in an operating log for each tap of a sidewell furnace that
the level of molten metal was above the top of the passage between the
sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless the furnace
hearth was also equipped with an add-on control device. If visual
inspection of the molten metal level is not possible, the molten metal
level must be determined using physical measurement methods.

(2) Submit a certification of compliance with the operational standards
in §63.1506(m)(6) for each 6-month reporting period. Each certification
must contain the information in §63.1516(b)(2)(iii).

*	*	*	*	*

(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, HCl/HF), and D/F and
the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must
establish the highest level of PM, HCl (and, for uncontrolled group 1
furnaces, HCl/HF), and D/F that will be emitted from the furnace. This
may be determined by conducting performance tests and monitoring
operating parameters while charging the furnace with feed/charge
materials containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings
and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate. If the permitting authority
determines that any revisions of the site-specific monitoring plan are
necessary to meet the requirements of this section or this subpart, the
owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and
resubmit the revised plan to the permitting authority.

*	*	*	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(t) Secondary aluminum processing unit. Except as provided in paragraph
(u) of this section, the owner or operator must calculate and record the
3-day, 24-hour rolling average emissions of PM, HCl, D/F and, for
uncontrolled group 1 furnaces, HCl/HF for each secondary aluminum
processing unit on a daily basis. To calculate the 3-day, 24-hour
rolling average, the owner or operator must:

*	*	*	*	*

 (2) *	*	*

(i) Where no performance test has been conducted, for a particular
emission unit, because the owner of operator has, with the approval of
the permitting authority, chosen to determine the emission rate of an
emission unit by testing a representative unit, in accordance with
§63.1511(f), the owner of operator shall use the emission rate
determined from the representative unit in the SAPU emission rate
calculation required in §63.1510(t)(4).

(ii) If the owner or operator has not conducted a performance test for
HCl/HF for a group 1 furnace or in-line fluxer, in accordance with the
provisions of  §63.1512(d)(3), §63.1512(e)(3), or §63.1512(h)(2), the
calculation required in §63.1510(t)(4) to determine SAPU wide HCl/HF
emissions shall be made under the assumption that all reactive flux
added to the emission unit is emitted as HCl or HF.

*	*	*	*	*

 (4) Compute the 24-hour daily emission rate using Equation 4:

Where,

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

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 µg/Mg of feed/charge); and n = The number
of emission units in the secondary aluminum processing unit.

(5) Calculate and record the 3-day, 24-hour rolling average for each
pollutant each day by summing the daily emission rates for each
pollutant over the 3 most recent consecutive days and dividing by 3. The
SAPU is in compliance with an applicable emission limit if the 3-day,
24-hour rolling average for each pollutant is no greater than the
applicable SAPU emission limit determined in accordance with
§63.1505(k)(1)-(3).

*	*	*	*	*

7. Section 63.1511 is amended by:

	a. By revising paragraph (a);

b. By revising paragraph (b);

c. By revising paragraph (b)(1);

d. By adding paragraph (b)(6);

e. By revising paragraph (c)(9);

f. By adding paragraph (f)(6); and

g. By adding paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:

§63.1511 Performance test/compliance demonstration general
requirements.

(a) Site-specific test plan. Prior to conducting any performance test
required by this subpart, the owner or operator must prepare a
site-specific test plan which satisfies all of the requirements, and
must obtain approval of the plan pursuant to the procedures, set forth
in §63.7(c). Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions
as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested.  Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests. (b) Initial performance test. Following
approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or operator must
demonstrate initial compliance with each applicable emission, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard for each affected source and
emission unit, and report the results in the notification of compliance
status report as described in §63.1515(b). The owner or operator of any
existing affected source for which an initial performance test is
required to demonstrate compliance must conduct this initial performance
test no later than the date for compliance established by §63.1501(a).
The owner or operator of any new affected source for which an initial
performance test is required must conduct this initial performance test
within 180 days after the date for compliance established by
§63.1501(b). Except for the date by which the performance test must be
conducted, the owner or operator must conduct each performance test in
accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in §63.7(c).
Owners or operators of affected sources located at facilities which are
area sources are subject only to those performance testing requirements
pertaining to D/F. Owners or operators of sweat furnaces meeting the
specifications of §63.1505(f)(1) are not required to conduct a
performance test.

(1) The performance tests must be conducted with the scrap containing
the highest level of contamination expected to be processed, at the
highest rate of production expected to be processed and using the
highest reactive fluxing rate expected to be processed in controlled
mode. Any subsequent performance tests for the purposes of establishing
new or revised parametric limits shall be allowed upon pre-approval from
the permitting authorities as specified in the site-specific test plan.
These new parametric settings shall be used to demonstrate compliance
for the period being tested.

*	*	*	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(c) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(f) *	*	*

(6) All 3 separate runs of a performance test must be conducted on the
same unit.

*	*	*	*	*

(g) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

8. Section 63.1512 is amended by:

a. By revising paragraph (c);

b. By revising paragraph (d)(3);

c. By revising paragraph (e)(1);

d. By revising paragraph (e)(2);

e. By revising paragraph (e)(3);

f. By adding paragraphs (e)(4);

g. By adding paragraphs (e)(5);

h. By revising paragraph (h)(1);

i. By revising paragraph (h)(2);

j. By revising paragraph (j);

k. By revising paragraph (j)(1);

l. By revising paragraph (j)(2);

m. By revising paragraph (j)(3)

n. By revising paragraph (n)(1);

o. By revising paragraph (o)(1);

p. By revising paragraph (p); and

q. By revising paragraph (p)(2)to read as follows:

§63.1512 Performance test/compliance demonstration requirements and
procedures.

*	*	*	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(d) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(e) *	*	*

 (1) If the group 1 furnace processes other than clean charge material,
the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to measure emissions
of PM, HCl/HF, and D/F (2) If the group 1 furnace processes only clean
charge, the owner or operator must conduct emission tests to
simultaneously measure emissions of PM and HF and HCl/HF. A D/F test is
not required. Each test must be conducted while the group 1 furnace
(including a melting/holding furnace) processes only clean charge.

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

(4) When testing an existing uncontrolled furnace, the owner or operator
must either:

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or

(ii) Assume a 67 percent capture efficiency for the furnace exhaust
(i.e., multiply emissions measured at the furnace exhaust outlet by 1.5)
if hooding does not meet ACGIH guidelines. If the source fails to
demonstrate compliance using the 67 percent capture efficiency
assumption, the owner or operator must re-test with a hood that meets
the ACGIH Guidelines within 90 days, or petition the permitting
authority that such hoods are impracticable and propose testing
procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions and

(iii) Comply with the requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section at the next required performance test.

(5) When testing a new uncontrolled furnace the owner or operator must
either:

(i) Install hooding that meets ACGIH Guidelines, or

(ii) Petition the permitting authority that such hoods are impracticable
and propose testing procedures that will minimize fugitive emissions.

*	*	*	*	*

(h) *	*	*

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

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

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

(1) *	*	*

(i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or

(ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and outlet from the
control device (for the percent reduction standard).

*	*	*	*	*

 (2) *	*	*

(i) Emissions of HCl/HF (for the emission limit); or

(ii) The mass flow rate of HCl/HF at the inlet to and outlet from the
control device (for the percent reduction standard).

*	*	*	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(n) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(o) *	*	*

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

*	*	*	*	*

(p) Lime injection. The owner or operator of an affected source or
emission unit using a lime-injected fabric filter system must use these
procedures during the HCl/HF and D/F tests to establish an operating
parameter value for the feeder setting and lime injection rate for each
operating cycle or time period used in the performance test.

*	*	*	*	*

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