[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 225-265]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-15]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Foundries Area Sources; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8509-6]
RIN 2060-AM36

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
and Steel Foundries Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel
foundries). The requirements for the two area source categories are
combined in one subpart. The final rule establishes different
requirements for foundries based on size. Small area source foundries
are required to comply with pollution prevention management practices
for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and binder
formulations. Large area source foundries are required to comply with
the same pollution prevention management practices as small foundries
in addition to emissions standards for melting furnaces and foundry
operations. The final standards reflect the generally achievable
control technology and/or management practices for each subcategory.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 2, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January
2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information Center, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
    B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution
prevention management practices?
    C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
    D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Applicability and Compliance Dates
    B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices
    C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries
    D. Implementation and Enforcement
    E. Definitions
    F. Impact Estimates
    G. Miscellaneous
V. Summary of Impacts of the Final Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/
SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED][EXTRACT][P]*[/P]
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
final action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          331511  Iron foundries. Iron
                                                  and steel plants.
                                                  Automotive and large
                                                  equipment
                                                  manufacturers.
                                         331512  Steel investment
                                                  foundries.
                                         331513  Steel foundries (except
                                                  investment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.10880 of subpart ZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources). If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of
subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A copy of this final
action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March
3, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for us to convene a
proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to
make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.

II. Background Information

    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v.
Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3). Among other things, the court order, as amended on October
15, 2007, requires that EPA complete standards for nine area source
categories by December 15, 2007. We are issuing this final rule in
response to the court order. Other final NESHAP will complete the
required regulatory action for the remaining area source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.
    \2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the preamble
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing emission standards based on GACT
for the control of the Urban HAP for which the source category was
listed (compounds of chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) that are
emitted from metal melting furnaces at area source facilities
classified as large iron and steel foundries.
    In addition, we are establishing pollution prevention management
practices based on GACT that apply to all area source foundries. The
pollution prevention management practices reduce HAP emissions of
organics, metals, and mercury generated from furnace charge materials
and prohibit the use of methanol as a component of binder formulations
in certain applications. Another pollution prevention management
practice requires that foundries keep a record of the annual quantity
and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder or coating
material used to make molds and cores. These records may assist area
source foundry owners or operators in their pursuit of pollution
prevention opportunities.

III. Summary of the Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

    The final NESHAP applies to each new and existing iron and steel
foundry that is an area source of HAP. The final rule allows 2 years
(instead of 1 year as proposed) for existing foundries to comply with
the pollution prevention standards for mercury. As proposed, all
foundries must comply with the pollution prevention management
practices for scrap management and binder formulations by January 2,
2009. A large existing foundry must comply with applicable emissions
limitations and operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2
years after initial classification.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If additional time is needed to install controls, the owner
or operator of an existing source can, pursuant to 40 CFR
63.6(i)(4), request from the permitting authority up to a 1-year
extension of the compliance date. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, different rule requirements apply to facilities
classified as large foundries or small foundries. Based on public
comment, we have revised the threshold level in the definitions of
large foundry'' and ``small foundry'' as they apply to existing
affected sources. For an existing affected source, we are defining a
``small foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal
melt production of 20,000 tons or less (instead of 10,000 tons). An
existing affected source that has an annual metal melt production
greater than 20,000 tons is classified as a large foundry. For new
affected sources, we have revised the basis for determining the
threshold. For a new affected source, we are defining a ``small
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt
capacity of 10,000 tons or less. A new affected source that has an
annual metal melt capacity greater than 10,000 tons is classified as a
large foundry. The term, ``annual metal melt capacity'' is defined in
the final rule as:

* * * the lower of the total metal melting furnace equipment melt
rate capacity assuming 8,760 operating hours per year summed for all
metal melting furnaces at the foundry or, if applicable, the maximum
permitted metal melt production rate for the iron and steel foundry
calculated on an annual basis. Unless otherwise specified in the
permit, permitted metal melt production rates that are not specified
on an annual basis must be annualized assuming 24 hours per day, 365
days per year of operation. If the permit limits the operating hours
of the

furnace(s) or foundry, then the permitted operating hours are used
to annualize the maximum permitted metal melt production rate.

    Each existing foundry must determine its initial classification as
a small or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008.
After the initial classification, an existing affected source
classified as a small foundry that exceeds the 20,000 ton annual metal
melt production threshold during the preceding calendar year must
comply with the applicable requirements for a large foundry within 2
years of the date of the foundry's notification that the annual metal
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons (provided the facility has never
been classified as a large foundry). For example, if an existing small
foundry produces more than 20,000 tons of melted metal from January 1
through December 31, 2009, that facility is required to comply with the
requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If the small foundry
has previously been classified as a large foundry, the facility must
comply with the requirements for a large foundry immediately (no later
than the date of the foundry's most recent notification that the annual
melt production exceeded 20,000 tons). If an existing facility is
initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry becomes a
large foundry), that facility must meet the applicable requirements for
a large foundry for at least 3 years, even if its annual metal melt
production falls below 20,000 tons. After 3 years, the foundry may
reclassify the facility as a small foundry provided the annual metal
melt production for the preceding calendar year was 20,000 tons or
less. A large foundry that is reclassified as a small foundry must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements for small foundries
immediately (no later than the date the foundry notifies the
Administrator of the reclassification). A large foundry that is
reclassified as a small foundry and then exceeds an annual metal melt
production of 20,000 tons for a subsequent calendar year, must comply
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately (no
later than the date the foundry notifies the Administrator of the
reclassification).
    The owner or operator of a new area source foundry must comply with
the rule requirements by January 2, 2008 or upon startup, whichever is
later. Each new foundry must determine its initial classification as a
small or large foundry based on its annual metal melting capacity at
startup. Following the initial determination, a small foundry that
increases their annual metal melting capacity to greater than 10,000
tons must comply with the requirements for a large foundry no later
than the startup date for the new equipment or if applicable, the date
of issuance for their revised State or Federal operating permit. If the
new foundry is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small
foundry subsequently becomes a large foundry), the owner or operator
must comply with the requirements for a large foundry for at least 3
years before reclassifying the facility as a small foundry. After 3
years, the owner or operator may reclassify the facility as a small
foundry provided the annual metal melting capacity is 10,000 tons or
less. If a large foundry is reclassified as a small foundry, the owner
or operator must comply with the requirements for a small foundry no
later than the date the melting equipment was removed or taken out of
service or if applicable, the date of issuance for their revised State
or Federal operating permit.

B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution prevention
management practices?

1. Metallic Scrap
    The material specification requirements are based on pollution
prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials from
metallic scrap before melting. All foundries must prepare and operate
according to written material specifications for one of two equivalent
compliance options.
    One compliance option requires foundries to prepare and operate
pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase and use of
only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do not
include metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil
filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free
liquids. The term ``free liquids'' is defined as material that fails
the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B (incorporated by reference--
see 40 CFR 63.14) in EPA Publication SW-846, ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods''. A new provision
states that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the
owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid results from
scrap exposed to rain.
    The second compliance option requires foundries to prepare and
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase
and use of scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of
organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by the foundry.
Except for a cupola equipped with an afterburner, metallic scrap
charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace must be depleted
(to the extent practicable) of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids. For
scrap charged to a cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with
an afterburner, the material specifications must include requirements
for metal scrap to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of
chlorinated plastics, accessible lead-containing components, and free
liquids. In response to comments, we deleted a provision in the
proposed rule that would have exempted the routine recycling of
baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the
furnace.
    Either material specification option will achieve a similar HAP
reduction impact. Foundries may have certain scrap subject to one
option and other scrap subject to another option provided the metallic
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
2. Mercury Switch Removal
    The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention
and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from motor
vehicles either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle
scrap only from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved
program for the removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the
alternative requirements described below. The final rule clarifies that
the requirements do not apply to scrap providers who do not provide
motor vehicle scrap or to contracts and shipments that do not include
motor vehicle scrap. Foundries participating in an approved program
must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting
the scrap provider's participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program. An equivalent compliance option is for the foundry to
prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan that
includes specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches
must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable
to that of the EPA-approved mercury switch removal program (see below).
An equivalent compliance option is provided for facilities that recover
only specialty scrap that does not contain mercury switches. Provisions
are also included for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
    We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers
who participate in a program for removal of

mercury switches that has been approved by the Administrator. The
NVMSRP \4\ is an approved program under this final standard as is the
mercury switch recovery program implemented by the State of Maine.
Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a compliance option must
assume all of the responsibilities as described in the MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For details see: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In

particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foundries may also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating
in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or operator must submit
a request to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing
scrap from scrap providers that are participating in another switch
removal program and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction
that the program meets the following specified criteria: (1) There is
an outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a
percentage of switches removed is easily derivable).
    Facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers
that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal
program must prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with a
site-specific plan for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan
must include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers
that mercury switches have been removed. The plan must be submitted to
the Administrator for approval and demonstrate how the facility will
comply with specific requirements that include: (1) A means of
communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to
obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have
been removed and the need to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury
switches, (2) provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers
that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specifications, (3) provisions for periodic inspection, or other means
of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) provisions for taking corrective
actions if needed, and (5) requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider
to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from
motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and
the basis for the estimate. The Administrator may request documentation
or additional information from the owner or operator at any time. The
site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80
percent of the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercury-
containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap count towards
the 80 percent goal.
    In response to comments, we have revised the final rule to include
provisions designed to increase the effectiveness and enforceability of
the EPA-approved programs. The requirements for a site-specific plan
specify that the owner or operator must operate according to the plan
during the review process, operate according to the plan at all times
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the
Administrator or delegated authority within 60 days following
disapproval of a plan. The owner or operator may request approval to
revise the plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless
and until the revision is disapproved by the Administrator or delegated
authority. A new provision also requires the site-specific plan to
include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate
to suppliers throughout the supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end of life vehicles. The owner or
operator must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach
to suppliers at the request of the Administrator or delegated
authority. We have also clarified that the information in the
semiannual progress reports for each scrap provider can be submitted in
aggregated form and does not have to be submitted for each shipment. We
have also revised the option for approved mercury programs to require
that foundries develop and maintain onsite a written plan demonstrating
the manner through which the facility is participating in the EPA-
approved program. The plan must include facility-specific
implementation elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts
coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for each facility.
The plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff
to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need
to promote the removal or mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles.
The owner or operator also must conduct periodic inspections or provide
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
    An equivalent compliance option is provided for foundries that
recover specialty metals. The option requires the facility to certify
that the only materials they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content, such as chromium
in certain exhaust systems, and these materials are known not to
contain mercury switches. We have added to the final rule certification
requirements for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap
containing mercury switches.
    Records are required to document conformance with the material
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury
switches. Each foundry is required to submit semiannual reports that
clearly identify any deviation from the scrap management requirements.
These reports can be submitted as part of the semiannual reports
required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.
3. Binder Formulations
    For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line, new
and existing foundries must use a binder chemical formulation that does
not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the catalyst formulation.
This requirement does not apply to the resin portion of the binder
system. This final rule includes recordkeeping requirements to document
conformance with this requirement.

C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?

    This final rule requires each new and existing affected source that
is classified as a small foundry to comply with the pollution
prevention management practices for metallic scrap, mercury switches,
and binder formulations described above. The owner or operator is
required to submit an initial notification of applicability no later
than May 1, 2008 (or within 120 days after the foundry becomes subject
to the standard; see 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)). The foundry is also required
to submit an initial written notification to the Administrator that
identifies their facility as a small (or large) foundry; this
notification is due no later than January 2, 2009. Subsequent
notifications are required within 30 days for a change in

process or operations that reclassifies the status of the facility and
its compliance obligations. A small foundry is also required to submit
a notification of compliance status according to the requirements in 40
CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The
notification of compliance status must include certifications of
compliance for the pollution prevention management practices. This
final rule also requires small foundries to keep records of monthly
metal melt production and report any deviation from the pollution
prevention management practices in the semiannual report required by 40
CFR 63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions.
    We are also requiring small foundries to keep a record of the
annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder
or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records must be
copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other
documentation that provide information on binder materials. The purpose
of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use
nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.

D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?

    This final NESHAP requires new and existing affected sources that
are classified as large foundries to comply with the pollution
prevention management practices described in section III.B of this
preamble. In addition, large foundries are required to operate capture
and collection systems for metal melting furnaces and comply with
emissions standards, operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing,
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. Emissions Limitations
    New and existing affected sources that are classified as large
foundries must comply with emissions limits for metal melting furnaces.
A metal melting furnace includes cupolas, EAF, EIF, or other similar
devices (excluding holding furnaces, argon oxygen decarburization
vessels, or ladles that receive molten metal from a metal melting
furnace, to which metal ingots or other materials may be added to
adjust the metal chemistry). The final emissions limits for metal
melting furnaces are:
     0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.06 pounds
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting
furnace at an existing iron and steel foundry.
     0.1 pounds of PM per ton of metal charged or 0.008 pounds
of total metal HAP per ton of metal charged for each metal melting
furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
    The owner or operator of a new or existing affected source may
choose to comply with these emission limits utilizing emissions
averaging as specified in this rule so that the production-weighted
average emissions from all metal melting furnaces at the foundry for
any calendar month meet the applicable emissions limit.
    The proposed rule included operating parameter limits that applied
to PM control devices applied to emissions from a metal melting
furnace. We eliminated the operating limit for baghouse pressure drop
in response to comments because this operating parameter was determined
not to be an appropriate indicator of performance. We have revised the
other operating limits to apply to PM control devices at new affected
sources instead of existing affected sources to minimize costs to
existing sources associated with monitoring system retrofits. For a wet
scrubber, a foundry must maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial or subsequent performance test. For an electrostatic
precipitator, a foundry must maintain the voltage and secondary current
(or total power input) to the control device at or above the level
established during the initial or subsequent performance test. The
final rule does not include an operating limit for baghouses at
existing or new affected sources. The final NESHAP also includes a
fugitive emissions opacity limit of 20 percent for each building or
structure housing iron and steel foundry operations revised since
proposal to allow one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 30
percent. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive emissions opacity
limit include all process equipment and practices used to produce metal
castings for shipment including mold or core making and coating; scrap
handling and preheating; metal melting and inoculation; pouring,
cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding and other metal finishing
operations; and sand handling.
2. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    The owner or operator is required to prepare and operate by an O&M
plan for each control device used to comply with the standards. Any
other O&M, preventative maintenance, or similar plan which satisfies
the specified requirements may be used to comply with the requirements
for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    In response to comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring
requirements in several respects. The monitoring requirements in the
final rule apply to new and existing affected sources that are
classified as large foundries (those having an annual metal melt
production greater than 20,000 tons instead of 10,000 tons in the
proposed rule). We are requiring that large foundries at new and
existing affected sources conduct initial and periodic inspections of
PM control devices (baghouses, wet scrubbers, and electrostatic
precipitators) in lieu of the proposed monitoring requirements. As an
alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an existing
area source may use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit
instead of complying with the inspection requirements for baghouses.
    We are requiring that large iron and steel foundries at new
affected sources install and operate CPMS to measure and record
operating parameters of wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators
used to comply with PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. All CPMS
must be operated and maintained according to the O&M plan. These
foundries are also subject to control device operating limits that are
the same as the proposed operating limits for wet scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators. No operating limits apply to baghouses at
existing or new affected sources.
    Bag leak detection systems are required for positive or negative
pressure baghouses at a new area source foundry. If a bag leak
detection system is used, the owner or operator must prepare and
operate pursuant to a monitoring plan for each bag leak detection
system; specific requirements for the plan are included in this final
rule. For additional information on bag leak detection systems that
operate on the triboelectric effect, see ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015,
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number
PB98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the
performance of the capture system are also required. The owner or
operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture

system as soon as practicable but no later than 90 days and record the
results of each inspection and the date of any repair.
    If a large foundry complies with the emissions limits for furnaces
using emissions averaging, the final NESHAP requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility
must determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this final rule.
We have reduced the default emissions factor for uncontrolled induction
furnaces in an emissions averaging group from 3 pounds of PM per ton of
metal charged (lb/ton) to 1.6 lb/ton. The owner or operator must
maintain records of the monthly calculations and report any exceedance
in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
    We are requiring that each large foundry conduct a performance test
to demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP
emissions limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180
days of the applicable compliance date and submit the results in the
notification of compliance status. In lieu of conducting an initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or
total metal HAP limit for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator
of an existing foundry is allowed to submit the results of a previous
performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5
years using the methods and procedures specified in the rule and either
no process changes have been made since the test, or the test results
reliably demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limit
despite process changes. If the owner or operator does not have a
previous performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must
be conducted within 180 days of the compliance date. Special provisions
also are included for testing electric induction furnaces (EIFs) at
existing foundries. Performance tests are required for all new area
source foundries. Subsequent tests for furnaces are required every 5
years and each time an operating limit is changed or a process change
occurs that is likely to increase metal HAP emissions from the furnace.
Provisions are included in this final rule for determining compliance
with PM or total metal HAP emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal
charged format and for establishing control device operating parameter
limits. This final rule also includes requirements to perform opacity
testing by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) every 6 months. This
final rule describes the methods and requirements for these semiannual
opacity observations. In response to comments, we have revised the
proposed rule to allow an alternative to the Method 9 test. The
alternative allows the owner or operator to conduct semiannual VE
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). If visible
fugitive emissions from foundry operations occur for more than 10
percent of the Method 22 observation period (i.e., more than a
cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-hour period), the owner or operator must
conduct a Method 9 test of the fugitive emissions from foundry
operations as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the
Method 22 test to determine compliance with the opacity limit.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    The owner or operator is required to submit an initial notification
that identifies the facility as a large (or small) foundry. In
addition, the owner or operator is required to comply with certain
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),
which are identified in Table 3 of this final rule. The General
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications,
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). In
addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, all foundries are
required to maintain records to document conformance with the pollution
prevention management practice emissions standards for metallic scrap,
mercury switch removal, and binder formulations as well as to maintain
records of annual melt production and corrective action(s). Large
foundries must also prepare and operate according to the O&M plan and
record monthly compliance calculations for metal melting furnaces that
comply using emissions averaging, if applicable. The owner or operator
must submit semiannual reports that provide summary information on
excursions or exceedances (including the corrective action taken),
monitor downtime incidents, and deviations from management practices or
O&M requirements according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.10.
    We are also requiring all foundries to keep a record of the annual
quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical binder or
coating material used to make molds and cores. These records must be
copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other
documentation that provide information on binder materials. The primary
purpose of this requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate
and use nonHAP binder and coating materials wherever feasible.
6. Exemption From Title V Permitting Requirements
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
are exempting iron foundries and steel foundries area source categories
from title V permitting requirements. Although the final rule exempts
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received a total of 37 comments on the proposed area source
NESHAP from 31 companies, trade associations, and anonymous members of
the public and from 6 States and State associations during the public
comment period (September 17, 2007 to November 1, 2007). A public
hearing was held on October 2, 2007, where we received testimony from
two industry representatives. Sections IV.A through IV.G of this
preamble provide responses to the public comments received on the
proposed NESHAP, including our rationale for changes made as a result
of the comments.

A. Applicability and Compliance Dates

    Comment: Nine commenters stated that EPA should consider a higher
plant size threshold of 15,000 tons per year (tpy) of melted metal
because of the significant economic burden associated with the proposed
rule. In addition, one commenter said the industry subcategorization
threshold should be ``significantly above'' 15,000 tpy. Another
commenter stated that it would be difficult to justify the proposed
rule for foundries with a production of 30,000 tpy, and that it is not
cost-effective to require controls on foundries with a melt production
less than 15,000 tpy. One commenter recommended a threshold of 20,000
tpy and two commenters said that the threshold should be
``significantly above'' 30,000 tpy. One commenter opposed the rule as
proposed and recommended that EPA reconsider the proposed size
threshold of 10,000 tpy.

    One commenter supported the co-proposal which would implement only
the pollution prevention management practices. The commenter stated
that foundries are adequately regulated by existing Federal, State, and
local regulations and the proposed rule would impose significant burden
without significant environmental improvement.
    Response: Based on our consideration of comments, including the
combined effect of the emission and cost impacts on both the nationwide
cost-effectiveness and the economic impacts of the rule, we concluded
that the proposed rule using a 10,000 tpy threshold for new and
existing affected sources that are classified as large foundries may
not be appropriate. Based on the revised impact analysis, we determined
that the most appropriate size threshold for existing affected sources
classified as large foundries is 20,000 tpy. However, we found no basis
for increasing the size threshold for new affected sources. New
affected sources do not have the same retrofit issues as existing
affected sources. Moreover, there are existing affected sources with
metal melt production of 10,000 tpy that operate controls. Therefore,
we have retained the 10,000 tpy threshold at which a new affected
source is classified as a large foundry.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that the rule
does not apply to foundries that produce nonferrous metals where
nonferrous metal means ``any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by
percent in weight.''
    Response: We agree. The types of facilities identified by the
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.). In response to this comment, we have
added a definition of ``nonferrous metal'' to the final rule and
revised the definition of ``iron and steel foundry'' to clarify that
nonferrous metal in scrap, metal melting furnaces, and foundry
operations is not covered by the rule.
    Comment: Twelve commenters requested 3 years to comply with the
mercury switch removal program to allow for the program to develop
based on participation by the larger steel producers. Another commenter
requested 5 years to comply with the mercury switch removal program.
    Response: We agree that the typical area source foundry does not
have the financial resources and market force over its scrap providers
when compared with the much larger mini-mills. The area source
foundries purchase only a small fraction of the national supply of
scrap from end-of-life vehicles; the vast majority is used in
steelmaking. Over time, we expect many more dismantlers will join the
National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP), and even the
smaller scrap providers will find it to their advantage to participate.
We believe that an appropriate solution to the difficulties identified
by the commenters is to allow more time for these area source foundries
to comply with the mercury requirements. Consequently, we are revising
the rule to allow additional time (up to 2 years) to comply with the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury.

B. Pollution Prevention Management Practices

1. Requirements for Metallic Scrap
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the phrase ``to the extent
practicable'' makes the requirements in the scrap specifications
unenforceable. The commenters recommended that EPA either define the
term or establish concrete criteria. One of the commenters recommended
that for scrap containing free liquid, EPA should define ``to the
extent practicable'' as scrap failing the paint filter test, similar to
Sec.  63.10885(a)(1). Another of the commenters asks what ``to the
extent practicable'' means and recommends that the phrase ``according
to standard industry practice'' be used instead; this would make the
foundry and electric arc furnace (EAF) rules more consistent.
    Response: The commenters are referring to the term, ``to the extent
practicable'' as used in Sec.  63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed rule. We
used this term to demonstrate our understanding that furnace charge
materials can not be depleted of 100 percent of the organics and HAP
metals or the presence of used oiled filters, chlorinated plastic
parts, accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids. We do
not see the need to codify a definition of ``practicable'' but note
here that our intent is that something is practicable if it is capable
of being put into practice and is feasible. However, we believe that
the term ``standard industry practice'' does not have a significantly
clearer meaning, and in fact may not result in as much removal. We are
replacing the term in the final EAF rule with the term ``to the extent
practicable'' as it relates to the removal of lead-containing
components such as batteries and wheel weights. Therefore, we decided
not to revise the proposed rule for foundries to replace ``to the
extent practicable'' with ``standard industry practice.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements for metallic
scrap management in the proposed rule should be the same as for the EAF
rule in that the pollution prevention plan should have Administrator
approval and should require compliance inspections and corrective
action.
    Response: The requirements for scrap management under the proposed
foundries rule differ from the requirements for scrap management under
the proposed EAF rule because we determined that GACT for the iron
foundries and steel foundries area source categories is represented by
written material specifications. The proposed area source rule for
foundries requires that the facility operate by written specifications
for the purchase and use of specified material or of only scrap that
has been depleted of organics and HAP metals. These written
specifications must be kept onsite and be readily available;
consequently, they can be reviewed at any time by EPA or the delegated
agency for completeness and for compliance with the rule's
requirements. The owner or operator must maintain records demonstrating
compliance with these requirements and must submit a certification of
compliance to that effect. We continue to believe that these written
material specifications represent GACT for iron and steel foundries,
and the additional requirements recommended by the commenter are not
warranted and would be unnecessarily burdensome for the large
population of small area source foundries.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule must be
revised to require the facility's owner or operator to ensure the
``baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials''
that are charged in the foundry do not contain organics, HAP metals,
chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The commenter explained
that under Sec.  63.10885(a)(1), if an inspector found organics, HAP
metals, chlorinated plastics or free organic liquids in charge
materials, the inspector would need to demonstrate that these wastes do
not stem from ``internal process materials or maintenance materials.''
The commenter stated that this type of loophole will make enforcement
difficult.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the provision exempting
baghouse bags, internal process materials and maintenance materials
from scrap management requirements is not needed in this rule

and have deleted the provision from the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the limitations
for scrap managed using a scrap preheater equipped with an afterburner.
    Response: We have revised the proposed rule to clarify that the
limitations for metallic scrap are the same for all scrap preheaters
and metal melting furnaces whether or not the preheater or furnace
(except for a cupola) is equipped with an afterburner. A different set
of limitations for metallic scrap applies only to cupolas with
afterburners.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is virtually impossible to
ensure no free liquids on scrap received when it rains during the
transport of the scrap. The commenter stated that the impact of this
requirement has been underestimated.
    Response: Our intent in prohibiting free liquids was to minimize
the presence of organic liquids. We have clarified in the final rule
that the requirement for no free liquids does not apply if the owner or
operator can demonstrate that the free liquid is water that resulted
from scrap exposure to rain.
2. Requirements for Mercury Switch Removal
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA establish mercury
emission performance standards to supplement the scrap management
program. The commenter recommended that EPA adopt emissions limits
(effective in 2010) from the New Jersey standards which require a
mercury limit of 35 milligrams per ton (mg/ton) of steel produced or a
reduction of least 75 percent at the exit of the mercury control
system. The commenter stated that the rule allows facilities time to
reduce emissions by removing sources of mercury from the scrap they
process but requires additional control if the source separation
programs are not sufficient to meet the emissions limit. The commenter
said that one New Jersey foundry had already installed an activated
carbon injection system for mercury control and a baghouse for the
cupola; mercury emission test results show mercury reductions greater
than 90 percent. The commenter argued that such an emissions limit is
needed to determine the success of the source separation program and
the need for add-on controls for melters.
    Three commenters recommended that the final rule include testing
and monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the mercury switch source
reduction program. Two commenters stated that the final rule should
require facilities to test emissions within 6 months of the final rule
to establish a baseline for each facility. One of these commenters also
stated that percent reduction targets and timelines be included in the
final rule along with a sampling program. The third commenter requested
that the final rule include performance or stack testing (inlet/outlet)
and baghouse hopper dust analysis to confirm and demonstrate reduced
mercury inputs and emissions. This commenter stated that baghouse
hopper dust testing is used in some States and EPA should evaluate
State requirements to develop national minimum requirements.
    Two of the commenters stated that there are monitoring technologies
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry. The
commenters noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored
in many industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards
for many batch processes without requiring the use of continuous
monitors, including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. The commenters also said
that EPA has recently promulgated the ``sorbent tube'' method for
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75,
appendix K). The commenters explained that because this method of
monitoring mercury is capable of sampling flue gases over any period of
time (hours or even days), there appears to be little impediment to
using this method to sample ``batch'' processes like those at
foundries. There are also several statistical sampling techniques that
account for the variability of emissions.
    Response: We understand from the commenter that there is one major
source foundry with a cupola that has installed emission controls for
mercury. However, we are not aware that any of the more than 400 area
source iron and steel foundries for which we have emission control
information have installed mercury emission controls, and consequently,
we do not believe that such controls represent GACT for area sources.
On the other hand, pollution prevention practices have been used to
reduce mercury emissions at foundries and similar sources, such as EAF
steelmaking facilities, and these practices have been demonstrated to
be successful at reducing mercury emissions. We determined that the
pollution prevention requirements for mercury were economically and
technologically feasible and concluded they represent GACT for iron and
steel foundries that are area sources.
    As part of the GACT determination, we concluded that it was not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for mercury because
mercury emissions are highly variable, and we have insufficient
information to determine an emission limit that might be achieved on a
continuing basis. On the other hand, the pollution prevention approach
quantifies the reduction in mercury release to the environment by
requiring that the amount of mercury recovered from end-of-life
vehicles be reported. This type of recordkeeping and reporting is an
important monitoring component of the rule and provides assurance that
the requirements are achieving mercury reductions. The monitoring for
mercury recommended by the commenters is not appropriate because it is
not related to the rule requirements and provides no information
related to enforcing the rule. We have chosen monitoring requirements
that are applicable to the pollution prevention requirements in the
rule.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the final rule include
enforceable measures of accountability to ensure the effectiveness of
the collection programs. The commenters stated that these measures
should include written documentation and audits of the participation of
suppliers and evaluation of switch recovery rates. One commenter
recommended a provision for expectations that a certain percentage of
switches will be collected from the vehicles and another commenter
recommended quantifiable measures such as the fraction of switches
collected from the vehicles. Both commenters stated that the final rule
should include consequences if the programs do not meet their goals.
    One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved
plan should continue to be approved because the estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and
dependant on many assumptions. The commenter stated that determining
the effectiveness of site-specific mercury switch removal programs by
comparing uncertain statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80
percent) may cause effective programs to have their approval revoked.
    Response: We determined at proposal that GACT for mercury emissions
was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and shredded for
use. GACT would be implemented by foundry owners purchasing scrap only
from

scrap providers that were participating in an EPA-approved program for
switch removal, operating pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific
plan (of equal effectiveness to an EPA-approved program) that ensured
scrap providers had removed mercury switches, or by not melting scrap
from end-of-life vehicles. We determined that the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-
approved program. However, we received two comments questioning how the
effectiveness of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and
suggestions for improving aspects of the rule related to program
transparency, enforcement, and implementation. We have incorporated
several of these suggested improvements into the final rule. The
improvements include developing and maintaining a plan showing how the
facility is participating in the approved program, documentation of
communication to suppliers of the need to remove mercury switches and
corroboration to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal
procedures.
    The NVMSRP resulted from a 2-year process of collaboration and
negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to create a dedicated
nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing switches from end-of-
life vehicles. The stakeholders included EPA, automakers, steel
manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap recyclers, and
State agency representatives. These stakeholders signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) detailing their respective responsibilities and
commitments in the national switch recovery effort. This effort will
result in substantial reductions in mercury emissions from foundries by
removing the majority of mercury from metal scrap. In addition, it will
have environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from
sources other than foundries and will reduce mercury releases to media
other than air. EPA recounts this history not to show that the Agency
is blindly accepting this negotiated agreement, but that EPA has
examined the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section
112(d) and finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets
the statutory requirements. The success of the program has been
documented by direct measurements of mercury in switches removed, and
as of November 28, 2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of
mercury have been recovered.
    As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention
approach was determined to be GACT for reducing mercury emissions from
foundries. Emissions of mercury result from the melting of scrap metal
that contains mercury components. When these components are removed
prior to charging the scrap to a metal melting furnace, the mercury
emissions are prevented. Thousands of automobile recyclers have already
joined the NVMSRP, although not all members have yet sent in recycled
switches. Information on the program, including scrap suppliers who
have joined and the number of switches they have turned in to date, can
be found on the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) Web site (http://www.elvsolutions.org
).

    There are many elements in the NVMSRP that are designed to measure
success and to evaluate its effectiveness. One year following the
effective date of the MOU and each year thereafter, the parties or
their designees and EPA agreed to meet to review the effectiveness of
the program at the State level based upon recovery and capture rates.
The parties to the agreement will use the results to improve the
performance of the program and to explore implementation of a range of
options in that effort. Two and one-half years from the inception of
the program, the parties agreed to meet and review overall program
effectiveness and performance. This review will include discussion of
the number of switches that have been collected and what factors have
contributed to program effectiveness.
    We note here that the Administrator is committed to evaluating the
effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing basis and is a
party to the agreement that established the NVMSRP. The parties
(including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program's
effectiveness after 1 year. The 1-year review showed reasonable
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State. The
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for
start-up. We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the
next year as these programs begin to fully operate. If the
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer
be a compliance option, leaving foundry owners or operators obligated
to develop site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the
requirements of this rule. Under the site-specific program, it would
fall on the foundry owner or operator to provide a detailed accounting
of switches removed and vehicles processed from all of their scrap
providers to enable the Administrator or permitting authority to
evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the switch removal
requirements. The somewhat lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP
provides a strong incentive to all of the parties involved in switch
removal to make every effort to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a
continuing basis. However, if the national program were to prove
unsatisfactory and be subsequently disapproved as a compliance option,
the burden would be on the foundry owner or operator to implement a
site-specific approach. In either case (whether a national program or
site-specific program), we have codified an approach that provides
accountability and measures of effectiveness.
    A key element of measuring the success of the program is
maintaining a database of participants that has detailed contact
information; documentation showing when the participant joined the
program (or started submitting mercury switches); records of all
submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury
switches; and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury
switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated
information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress
reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State,
individual program participants, and records of State and national
totals for the number of switches and the amount of mercury removed.
The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled.
The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the
program, every 6 months in the second and third year of the program,
and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the
total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified;
the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total
number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will
include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches
recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury, number of mercury
switches, and an estimated national capture rate, with information
organized by State, compared with the expected range of mercury switch
retirement rates for each State; and the total number and identity of
dismantlers or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal

from the program. Mercury switch removal is already underway--more than
1,855 pounds of mercury from more than 843,000 switches have been
recovered to date by program participants. This represents almost 20
percent of our estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5 tons per
year once the final rule is implemented.
    The commenters make valid points that the effectiveness of the rule
could be improved by incorporating certain elements that the steel
manufacturers have already agreed to in the MOU. We have revised the
proposed rule to provide more specificity to the foundry owner or
operator responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of EPA-
approved programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP. In
addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal. The rule changes
include:
     Foundry owners or operators must develop and maintain
onsite a plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is
participating in the EPA-approved program. The plan must include
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies,
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for
each facility.
     Foundry owners or operators must provide in the plan
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request
of the permitting authority, the owner or operator must provide
examples of materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as
letters, contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap
inspection protocols.
     Foundry owners or operators must conduct periodic
inspections or provide other means of corroboration to ensure that
suppliers are aware of the need for and are implementing appropriate
steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life
vehicles.
    In regard to the commenter's question regarding estimates of the
recovery rate, the 80 percent minimum recovery rate is a goal that all
parties to the MOU agreed to work toward. We recognize that 80 percent
recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two; however, the
parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at least four
million switches in the first 3 years of the NVMSRP and agreed to
exceed this amount if possible. We believe that recovery of four
million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per
switch) in the first 3 years is a good beginning for working toward
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches. It is necessary to
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that
have recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS website at
http://www.elvsolutions.org, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon

buckets that can hold up to 450 pellets).
    Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury
switches is not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a
program. The Administrator can evaluate the success of an EPA-approved
program at any time, identify States where improvements might be
needed, recommend options for improving the program in a particular
State, and if necessary, disapprove the program as implemented in a
State from being used to demonstrate compliance with the rule based on
an assessment of this performance. The evaluation would be based on
progress reports submitted to the Administrator that provide the number
of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles
processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator
can assess the information with respect to the program's goal for
percent switch recovery and trends in recovery rates. For example, as
the NVMSRP has ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from
241,000 switches in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of
2007.
    Comment: One commenter stated that unlike the corresponding section
of the EAF rule, Sec.  63.10885(b)(2) of the proposed foundries rule
does not indicate or confirm that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved
by the EPA Administrator. The commenter states that this omission is
counter to EPA's intentions as stated in section V.8.A of the MOU and
does not provide a quick pathway for scrap providers to participate in
a mercury switch removal program. The commenter stated that the final
rule should provide pre-approval of the NVMSRP and pre-approval of
existing State programs based on section VII.2.A.1.c of the MOU (which
refers to existing State programs in its articulation of the NVMSRP's
goal). The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight existing
State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants) would
eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those programs
to obtain EPA's approval of their site-specific plans under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1).
    Response: We have revised the area source rule for iron and steel
foundries to be consistent with the rule for EAF steelmaking by adding
language confirming that the NVMSRP is a program pre-approved by the
EPA Administrator. We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery
program mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program
because they submitted documentation that the requirements are
equivalent to (or more stringent than) the approved national program.
No other States made such requests or submitted information showing
equivalency; consequently, we are not currently identifying other State
programs as EPA-approved in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter pointed to the provision in Sec.
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data. The
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and
the effective date of the revocation provides sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1) and if there was a process in place for seeking
reconsideration of the revocation.
    Response: The final rule requires the Administrator or delegated
agency to review and approve the site-specific plan. This is what the
proposed rule allowed because this authority was not among those listed
in the rule as not being delegated. We believe the 90-day period is
adequate for the approval process. The rule has no formal process for
seeking reconsideration of revocation.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(2)(iii) for the program sponsor to submit reports at least
yearly should be consistent with the corresponding requirement in the
proposed EAF rule. The commenter noted that the proposed foundries rule
required that the report contain, among other data, the number of
vehicles processed while the proposed EAF rule requires ``the estimated
number of vehicles processed.'' The commenter requested correction of
the proposed foundries rule to read ``the estimated number of vehicles
processed''.
    Three commenters requested that EPA harmonize the language and
content of the proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule. Each
of these commenters said that the proposed rule did not identify the
NVMSRP as an

approved program while the EAF proposed rule does identify the NVMSRP
as an approved program. Two commenters added that the MOU suggests that
the foundry rule should include and refer to the NVMSRP in its mercury
requirements. One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(iv) for a mercury switch removal goal of 80 percent
because this requirement does not apply the goal to each provider as
does the proposed EAF rule. The implication is that there can be
different mercury switch removal standards for different scrap
providers to foundries. This language has the potential to create
inequalities. One commenter noted several differences between the
proposed foundries rule and the proposed EAF rule including different
heading, different phrasing of the same requirements, and specific
differences in requirements and definitions.
    Response: We agree that the pollution prevention requirements for
mercury for iron and steel foundries should be consistent with those
for EAF steelmaking facilities because the technology for controlling
mercury emissions (i.e., mercury switch removal from end-of-life
vehicles) is the same for both source categories. We are making
revisions to the final rule to ensure they are consistent. Changes to
the site-specific plan for mercury switches include adding references
to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements and
corrective action, requiring an 80 percent goal for each scrap provider
and a separate semiannual report. Changes to the option for approved
mercury programs include statements that the NVMSRP and the State of
Maine program for mercury switch removal are EPA-approved programs,
requiring reporting of an estimate of the number of vehicles processed
instead of the number of vehicles processed, adding parenthetical
mention of RCRA requirements, and adding a database requirement for
progress reports. We have revised Sec.  63.10905 (Who implements and
enforces this subpart?) to remove the phrase ``in addition to EPA'' and
make the list of nontransferable authorities the same in both rules. We
have also revised Sec.  63.10906 (What definitions apply to this
subpart?) to add definitions applicable to the mercury switch removal
program.
    Comment: Fifteen commenters stated that it is technically and
economically unviable for small foundries to implement a site-specific
plan for mercury switch removal that meets the proposed rule
requirements. Also, small foundries do not have significant buying
power to push suppliers to implement an EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program, according to the commenters. While the commenters
support the mercury switch removal efforts, they believe that the
proposed rule requirements are unnecessarily onerous for foundries. One
commenter stated they would support the mercury switch removal
provisions once 80 percent of scrap dealers are registered in the
Federal program.
    Response: Only foundries that purchase shredded motor vehicle scrap
from non-program participants are required to prepare a site-specific
plan. Most of the smaller area source foundries do not use shredded
motor vehicle scrap, so they would not be required to prepare a site-
specific plan for mercury switch removal. Furthermore, as indicated
previously, we are providing area source foundries 2 years to comply
with the mercury switch removal program specifically because area
source foundries purchase much smaller quantities of scrap compared to
EAF steel mills. By providing this additional compliance time, we
believe that the NVMSRP will be sufficiently mature that area source
foundries will be able to purchase motor vehicle scrap from
participants of the program. Therefore, very few area source foundries
will need to prepare a site-specific plan for mercury switch removal as
a consequence of this final rule. Based on our analysis, we do not
expect any foundries to incur a significant adverse economic impact as
a result of the mercury switch removal requirements in this final rule.
The commenters provided no additional information on the specific
requirements they claim to be ``unnecessarily onerous.'' Consequently,
we made no direct revisions to the requirements for the site-specific
plan, if it is selected as the compliance option.
    Comment: One commenter noted that scrap supply has been very tight
and the costs have doubled over the past year. Another commenter
estimated that eliminating shredded auto scrap could cost the
commenter's foundries approximately $4 million per year.
    Response: We understand that the price of scrap has increased over
the past few years; however, the past increase and any future changes
in price will not be affected in any significant way by the rule
requirements for mercury switch removal. We expect most facilities will
comply by participating in the NVMSRP and purchasing scrap only from
scrap providers who are also participants. This program is
independently funded and administered by several stakeholders.
Consequently, there is no reason for the commenter to eliminate
shredded automobile scrap.
    Comment: One commenter stated the corrective action requirements
present significant obstacles to getting reasonable site-specific plans
approved. The commenter also said that what constitutes an acceptable
plan will vary by State and region, resulting in uneven regulatory
burden and unfair competitive advantages.
    Response: Corrective actions are an important component of the
site-specific plan to ensure that scrap providers are removing mercury
switches. Corrective actions are not unique to the area source rule in
that iron and steel foundries impose specifications on scrap related to
quality and safety, and facilities take corrective actions when scrap
shipments do not meet these specifications. The Administrator or
delegated authority is the appropriate entity for review and approval
of these plans, and the rule provides a clear description of the
requirements for the plans that can be used as criteria for approval or
disapproval.
    Comment: Sixteen commenters stated that the mercury switch removal
requirements should not apply to automotive scrap, such as brake rotors
and pump housings, that do not contain mercury switches. Two commenters
recommended that EPA clarify the type of scrap subject to the metallic
scrap requirements by describing it as ``shredded auto bodies'' or
``post-consumer automotive body scrap.'' One commenter requested
specific exemptions from the mercury switch requirements for foundries
that melt only pre-consumer scrap or that the rule be written to apply
to only those melting recycled auto bodies. One commenter requested
that the proposed rule include a fourth option that specifically
excludes scrap that does not come in contact with mercury from the
mercury switch removal provisions.
    Response: We have added a definition of the term ``motor vehicles
scrap'' to the final rule. ``Motor vehicle scrap'' means vehicle or
automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks, that have been
processed through a shredder. This definition does not include
automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous vehicle parts such as
wheels, bumpers, or other components that do not contain mercury
switches. We have also clarified the rule by adding provisions specific
to scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. The final rule
requires that for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment, the
foundry must procure all scrap that does not contain

motor vehicle scrap according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10885(b)(4) of the final rule. Section 63.10885(b)(4) requires the
owner or operator to certify in the notification of compliance status
that the scrap used at the foundry does not contain motor vehicle scrap
and to keep records to document the certification.
    Comment: Four commenters stated other products that contain mercury
beside automotive switches are included in the scrap metal used by
foundries and should be covered by the mercury requirements. Three of
the commenters said that components in household and commercial
appliances, sump and bilge pumps, heating and air conditioning units,
and industrial equipment (e.g., tilt switches, thermometers, flame
sensors, float sensors, relays, switches, barometers, manometers,
floats, and other types of sensing and control equipment) also contain
mercury and should be included in a removal program. This could be done
by expansion of the NVMSRP or through the establishment and funding by
mercury product manufacturers and the steelmaking sector and/or
collection programs targeting other products that contain mercury.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be expanded to
require the removal of all automotive switches, not just 80 percent of
convenience light switches. Another commenter stated that the rule
should expand the scope of the switch program to include any original
equipment or aftermarket mercury tilt switch installed in a vehicle and
used in convenience lighting, anti-lock braking systems (ABS) sensors,
security systems, active ride control, or other applications.
    Response: During the development of the proposed EAF rule, the EPA
considered the removal of other mercury-containing components in
automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and determined the option was not
justified as a beyond-the floor standard (72 FR 53824). Similarly, we
conclude that removal of these sources of mercury does not represent
GACT for iron and steel foundries. These sensors are considerably more
difficult and time consuming to remove than are convenience light
switches, and they contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of
the mercury in end-of-life vehicles comes from convenience light
switches). The commenters provided no data or rationale to support that
the removal of other sources of mercury from the scrap supply was
economically and technologically feasible for foundries or that their
removal should represent GACT.
    Most mercury-containing components in appliances were phased out
several years ago, and any that might remain would contribute very
little mercury to the scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles.
While some ABS contained mercury sensors, these too have been phased
out and were much less common than mercury convenience light switches.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the NVMSRP is a voluntary
program in his State and not all suppliers participate. The final rule
should require effective participation by suppliers or compliance with
the national program.
    Two commenters stated that the requirements of the mercury switch
removal program must be incorporated in air permits, and the provisions
must be clearly understood and enforceable by air agencies and their
counterparts in other media programs. If these provisions are not
explicit in the program, the pollution prevention approach will not be
effective.
    Two commenters claimed that EPA has not taken the NVMSRP into
account when developing these regulations in the development of this
rule as required by the MOU. The commenters stated that the MOU was
written as a nonbinding contract for EPA and several industries for the
voluntary removal and disposal of mercury switches while the
requirements in the rule are mandatory.
    Response: Although participation in the NVMSRP is voluntary, the
pollution prevention standard for mercury establishes clear mandatory
requirements for the removal of mercury switches to reduce mercury
emissions from iron and steel foundries. Participation in the NVMSRP is
only one option for compliance, and although we expect it to be the
preferred compliance approach, each of the compliance approaches have
common requirements to ensure switch removal and to provide an
accounting of the number of switches removed and number of vehicles
processed. The number of scrap providers participating in the NVMSRP
has increased steadily since its inception, and as the area source
rules for iron and steel foundries and EAF steelmaking are implemented,
there will be additional incentives for many more scrap providers to
participate to maintain their customer base.
    The rule requirements are explicit and should be clearly understood
and enforceable by air agencies. Although the final rule exempts
facilities that do not have a title V permit from the requirement to
obtain a permit for the purposes of this rule, sources that already
have a title V permit generally must include the requirements of this
rule through a permit reopening or at renewal according to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit program.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA must address ways to
encourage or require mercury removal from scrap destined for export.
    Response: This area source rule addresses mercury in scrap destined
for iron and steel foundries, and removal of mercury from scrap
destined for export in not within the scope of the rule. However, we
expect that the NVMSRP and State programs for mercury switch removal
will result in the reduction in mercury in scrap for all users,
including scrap that is exported.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that a sunset clause be added to
the mercury switch removal requirements as mercury switches have been
phased out of new automobiles.
    Response: Our information indicates that there is a 10-year supply
of end-of-life vehicles that may contain mercury switches.
Consequently, we do not think it is appropriate to add a sunset
provision. However, review of the mercury requirements will be
appropriate when the 8-year review of the standard is conducted.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to inspect the
scrap poses a safety risk to the personnel inspecting the scrap.
    Response: Our information indicates that many facilities already
inspect incoming scrap and have established procedures for doing so
safely.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is inappropriate to direct
that every recycling facility should be removing the same amount of
switches because there is no mechanism that can accurately gauge if
facilities are removing the maximum number of switches. The commenter
explained that a facility can be removing only 10 switches per month
and be maximizing their removal while another facility can be removing
1,000 switches per month and only removing a portion of available
switches based on the age and origin of the vehicles handled by the
facility. Attempting to determine the recovery rate necessitates having
both the number of switches recovered and the total number of vehicles
processed but the number of vehicles processed is confidential business
information (CBI). The commenter stated that the rate could vary from
facility to facility and not be indicative of the facilities level of
participation in an approved program.

    Another commenter said that the requirements in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require scrap
providers to divulge CBI or to provide sensitive information to foundry
operators to comply.
    Response: The NVMSRP does not require that facilities remove the
same number of switches. There are two key statistics in determining
the recovery rate of mercury switches: the number of switches removed
and the number of vehicles processed. This information is essential in
determining the progress towards meeting the recovery goal of 80
percent. The percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined
in the MOU) is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life
vehicles divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life
vehicles in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times
100. Furthermore, the 80 percent goal recognizes that the total mercury
switch population is dependent on the age of the vehicles processed.
This approach accounts for the differences in the capacity or
processing rate of different facilities, which is the subject of the
comment.
    It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and foundry
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information.
The requirements in the final rule include: (1) Periodic inspections or
other means of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and
dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove mercury
switches; (2) estimates of the number of switches removed; and (3)
semiannual progress reports that provide the number of switches or
weight of mercury removed, number of vehicles processed, estimate of
the percent of switches removed, and certification of proper disposal
of the switches. This information is an essential monitoring component
of the rule to measure the effectiveness of a facility's pollution
prevention program. The information on number of vehicles processed can
be aggregated for a facility if it is important not to reveal the
number of vehicles processed by a given scrap provider. We do not see
nor did the commenter identify exactly what component of the requested
information would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that the
information is not emissions data and there is CBI involved, EPA and
the permitting authorities have established procedures for managing and
safeguarding CBI and will, of course, utilize them.
    Comment: One commenter stated that in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(i) and
(ii), the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle
bodies used to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of
inaccessible switches. The commenter suggests replacing ``mercury
switches'' with ``accessible mercury switches.''
    Response: We have defined mercury switch to include only those
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism. Our
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention
program that they be removed. Consequently, we are not adding the
additional requirement that they be ``accessible,'' which would
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be
made as to what is accessible.
    Comment: One commenter stated the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(B) for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets
specifications does not seem to allow for uncertainty or error. The
commenter suggested that the language read ``Provisions for obtaining
assurance from scrap providers that to the best of their knowledge,
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specification''.
    Response: We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter
is necessary because the phrase ``to the best of their knowledge'' is
subjective and provides no improvement. The foundry owner or operator
must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the scrap meets
specifications.
    Comment: One commenter said the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C) for a means of corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap should
be replaced with appropriate steps ``to encourage the removal of
accessible mercury switches from motor vehicles to be shredded''.
    Response: We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is
necessary to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution
prevention requirements.
    Comment: One commenter asked what is meant by taking corrective
action in Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(D) since the nonconforming actions
are committed by different parties? Does a scrap provider have any
recourse when corrective actions are deemed necessary by a foundry?
    One commenter stated that any corrective action plan elements
approved by the Administrator should reference MOU sections V.3.H and
V.7.C, which defines good faith participation as ``the actual removal
of switches or the implementation of source control programs to assure
removal of switches prior to receipt''.
    Response: The procedures for taking corrective actions must be
described by the owner or operator in the site-specific plan, and these
procedures may vary depending on the type of scrap, scrap provider, and
other factors, some of which may be unique to the facility. The concept
is not a new one because foundry owners or operators have historically
taken corrective actions when scrap does not meet their specifications.
The area source rule places no direct requirements on the scrap
provider; however, we expect that the scrap provider would work with
customers (the iron and steel foundry owners or operators) to resolve
any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of end-of-
life vehicles. The commenter stated that to impose such burdensome
requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far exceeds the
Agency's regulatory authority, poses CBI concerns, and imposes
excessive paperwork and recordkeeping requirements on the scrap
provider. These comments also apply to Sec.  63.10885(b)(1)(v) because
the requirements are likely to compel scrap providers to provide
information to foundry operators to comply. Another commenter stated
that it is unreasonable to burden foundries to ensure scrap providers
and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to remove and
dispose of mercury switches. The commenter also noted that foundries
would not be able to obtain information on the number of mercury
switches or weight of mercury removed because most foundries use scrap
brokers and are a step or two removed from the dismantlers. Another
commenter stated that it is inappropriate for EPA to regulate end-users
and that EPA should directly regulate the scrap sellers and processors
with respect to mercury switch removal.
    Response: The burden imposed by the Agency is on the foundry owner
or operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a
critical

monitoring component of the rule. The owner or operator in turn must
require this information from scrap providers, and if such information
is not obtained, the owner or operator could be found in violation of
the rule. It is in the interest of the scrap provider, the owner or
operator, the public health, and the environment that such information
be obtained to ensure that mercury releases to the environment are
reduced by the removal of mercury switches.
    Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in Sec.
63.0085(b)(1)(iv) for calculating the 80 percent mercury switch removal
goal for site-specific plans. The commenter objected to the credit
because it allows counting of mercury removed from components other
than convenience lighting while the approved plan requires only the
removal of mercury switches from convenience lighting. The commenter
stated that the provision is not consistent with the MOU, which states
that only mercury switches used for convenience lighting will be
counted for purposes of measuring program performance. The commenter
argued that site-specific plans should not be held to a higher standard
than the NVMSRP.
    Response: While it is true that only switches from convenience
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS
accepts switches from anti-lock brake systems and the automobile or
scrap recyclers that remove them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00
per switch. We believe that this provides an incentive to remove
switches from anti-lock brake systems as well as for convenience
lighting. In the requirements for site-specific plans, other sources of
mercury are included in determining the 80 percent goal, such as in
anti-lock brake systems, security systems, active ride control, and
other applications. Inclusion of these other components in the site-
specific programs provides an incentive for their removal. These
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. Mercury-containing
components in anti-lock brake systems will be the components other than
convenience light switches that are most often removed. The removal of
these components requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the
anti-lock brake system. We believe that if a dismantler chooses to take
the time to remove and recover mercury components from anti-lock brake
systems or other components, they should receive some type of credit
for doing so, thus they can include them in their 80 percent minimum
recovery goal.

C. Requirements for Large Iron and Steel Foundries

1. Subcategorization of Metal Melting Furnaces
    Comment: Five commenters stated that EPA should also consider a 5
ton per hour (tph) melting capacity threshold for each EIF as the most
appropriate way to minimize impacts on small area source foundries if
the per furnace basis is used. Another commenter recommended a size
threshold 5 tph for EIF if the per furnace basis was used. In addition,
two commenters opposed the proposed rule and asked EPA to reconsider
the applicability to melting processes or allowable emissions. As
discussed in section IV.F of this preamble, several commenters stated
that control of metal melting furnaces and/or EIF was not cost-
effective.
    Response: We considered EIF-specific thresholds, but concluded that
these were not appropriate for several reasons. First, as described
previously, we increased the size threshold for large area source
foundries to 20,000 tpy. The increased size threshold more effectively
reduced burden to the smaller foundries than an EIF-specific cut-off.
Second, we could not identify a strong rationale as to why smaller
induction furnaces at foundries with production greater than 20,000 tpy
should be subcategorized. A significant portion of EIFs at foundries
greater than 20,000 tpy metal melting capacity were controlled,
regardless of the EIF size. Finally, emissions from EIF furnaces are
much better correlated with the total melt production than the size of
the furnace. Smaller furnaces can have higher emissions than larger
furnaces if they process more metal. Therefore, we determined that an
EIF-specific threshold was not appropriate and is not included in this
final rule.
2. Emission Standards
    Comment: One commenter stated that because area source standards
will not be subject to residual risk standards, it is important to
regulate emissions of particulate matter (PM) and HAP as well as
possible under this rule.
    Response: We agree. As discussed in the proposal preamble, we
evaluated more stringent emission limits, but found that these were not
cost-effective for existing sources. Although we increased the size
threshold in this final rule, we rejected higher thresholds or
additional EIF-specific thresholds specifically to regulate emissions
of PM and HAP as well as possible, while considering the costs of these
regulations.
    Comment: One commenter noted that in the proposal preamble EPA
refers to the emission limit as pounds per ton of metal melted, but the
regulatory language in Sec.  63.10895(b)(1) refers to ``per ton of
metal charged.'' The commenter requested clarification as to EPA's
intent, and recommended the use of ``per ton metal charged'' as the
charge into the furnace is more amenable to measurement.
    Response: We agree with the commenter. We intended to require
foundries to measure and record the tons of metal charged to the
furnace as indicated in the proposed regulatory language. Although we
commonly refer to this as tons of metal melted, we acknowledge that
there is a subtle difference and we have tried to consistently refer to
``tons metal charged'' as the basis of the standards in this final rule
and preamble.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PM emissions limit (0.8
pound of PM per ton of metal charged) is too low because some existing
wet scrubbers cannot achieve this emission limit and because the
alternatives to improve the emission performance of these systems would
be very costly.
    Response: The available data clearly indicate that the 0.8 lb/ton
emission limit is easily achievable with a well performing wet scrubber
or baghouse control system. The available data also indicated that a
small percentage of cupola wet scrubbers would need to be upgraded in
order to meet this emission limit. We have considered the costs of
these upgrades and determined that these upgrades are reasonable for
the large area source foundries. GACT need not be an emission limit
that all wet scrubbers can meet, regardless of their design or
performance. We selected the 0.8 lb/ton PM limit as GACT because this
level of performance represented the typical performance of the
generally available control technologies used to reduce PM and metal
HAP emissions from foundry melting furnaces at reasonable cost.
    Comment: One commenter noted that Sec.  63.10895(a) requires
``each'' melting furnace to operate a capture system, but Sec.
63.10898(e)(3) provides default emission factors for uncontrolled EIF
not equipped with a capture system for use in emissions averaging
calculation. The commenter requested clarification that capture and
collection systems are not required for ``each'' melting furnace.
    Response: We agree. We have revised the language in Sec.
63.10895(a) of the proposed rule and Sec.  63.10895(b) of the

final rule to indicate that ``You must operate a capture and collection
system for each metal melting furnace at a new or existing iron and
steel foundry unless that furnace is specifically uncontrolled as part
of an emissions averaging group.''
    Comment: One commenter requested elaboration on EPA's intent when
referencing ``accepted engineering standards published by ACGIH'' for
capture systems.
    Response: Accepted engineering standards such as design procedures
for local exhaust hoods and exhaust systems are included in each annual
edition of Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice
published by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). The purpose of the rule requirement is to require
foundries to install and operate capture systems using appropriate
design factors for the hood and furnace emissions so that the capture
systems will operate properly.
    Comment: One commenter said that he assumed the PM emissions limit
applies only to melting (SCC 30400303), but it would be impossible to
segregate these emissions from charge handling and inoculation (SCC
30400315 and 30400310), and stated that this issue requires further
evaluation.
    Response: In general, all activities that are performed in the
metal melting furnaces are subject to the emission limits. These
include, but are not limited to: Charging, melting, alloying, refining,
slagging, and tapping. We have provided more detail regarding the
operating conditions for the performance tests to clarify this issue.
Generally, inoculation is performed in the transfer ladle and transfer
ladle operations are subject only to the building opacity limit.
However, if inoculation occurs in the melting furnace, then inoculation
emissions are subject to the overall furnace emission limit.
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed opacity limit is
more restrictive than the major source rule since it does not include
an allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent
opacity. The commenters stated that the area source rule should not be
more stringent than the major source foundry rule, which was based on
MACT, and recommended that EPA include, at a minimum, an allowance for
one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity. Another
commenter stated that the opacity limit should not be based on MACT,
but on GACT, which the commenter believes would be 30 percent or 40
percent average opacity.
    Response: We agree that the proposed opacity limit should not be
more stringent than the corresponding MACT standard. We reviewed the
State and local agency opacity requirements for selected States with
significant foundry populations. There are several States that require
20 percent opacity, but nearly all of these State programs provide an
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour; allowances provided in
different State regulations include: 27, 30, 40 and 60 percent opacity
limits. Although we do not agree with the second commenter that a limit
of 30 to 40 percent opacity limit would represent GACT, we do agree
that one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity reflects
GACT for area source foundries. In response to the commenters'
concerns, we have revised the proposed opacity limit to include the
allowance for one 6-minute period per hour of up to 30 percent opacity.
3. Monitoring
    Comment: Eighteen commenters said that EPA should allow visible
emissions (VE) observations to document compliance with the fugitive
emissions limit in order to reduce burden on small foundries. One of
the commenters stated that EPA underestimated the burden associated
with Method 9 observations. The commenters recommended that if visible
emissions were observed, a Method 9 test could be conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit. Another commenter stated
that EPA should require VE observations on a weekly basis (noncertified
individual would be acceptable under certain conditions) in addition to
the semiannual Method 9 readings because weekly observations would be
more effective for compliance than a certified reading occurring twice
a year.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that allowing VE
observations by Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7), with a
subsequent test by Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) is a
reasonable alternative for determining compliance with the opacity
limit for fugitive emissions from foundry operations and may reduce
compliance costs. In response, we have revised Table 1 of the final
rule to include such an alternative. The alternative allows foundries
to conduct the semiannual performance tests using Method 22 instead of
Method 9. The results of the Method 22 test demonstrate compliance with
the opacity limit if no visible emissions occur for at least 90 percent
of the 1-hour observation period. If visible fugitive emissions from
foundry operations occur for more than 10 percent of the Method 22
observation period (i.e., more than a cumulative 6 minutes of the 1-
hour period), the owner or operator must conduct a Method 9 test as
soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the Method 22 test to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to install and
maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) is potentially
costly and unnecessary. The commenter suggested that visual checks and
manual recording of the operating parameter values once per shift as
used in existing title V permits be allowed instead of a CPMS.
    Response: This commenter objected to CPMS as too costly and
unnecessary. As discussed below, other commenters objected to the
proposed operating parameters for baghouses, wet scrubbers, and
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) that would be monitored. In response
to these comments, we have revised the proposed monitoring provisions
for PM control devices. For PM control devices at existing affected
sources, the final rule requires the owner or operator to conduct
initial and periodic inspections of each PM control device. These
inspection requirements are included in many title V permits for PM
control devices. We have deleted the proposed inspection and monitoring
requirements for fabric filters that required pressure drop monitoring
of baghouses. Bag leak detection systems are required for fabric
filters used at new affected sources. The owner or operator of an
existing affected source may choose to comply with the requirements for
bag leak detection systems or the new inspection requirements.
    We have also revised the proposed monitoring requirements for wet
scrubbers and ESP to apply to new affected sources instead of existing
affected sources. The final rule requires CPMS to measure the 3-hour
pressure drop and water flow rate for each wet scrubber. For ESP, the
owner or operator must maintain the voltage and secondary current (or
total power output) to the control device at or above the level
established during the initial or subsequent performance test. Table 2
of the final rule requires the operating limit for a wet scrubber to be
based on the average pressure drop and average scrubber water flow rate
measured during the performance test; for an ESP, the operating limit
is to be based on the minimum hourly average measurements.
    Comment: Four commenters objected to basing the baghouse pressure
drop

operating limit on the pressure drop range observed during the
performance test. The commenters stated that baghouses can operate
effectively over a range of pressure drops and a single test is too
short to encounter the full range of pressure drops that are normally
encountered. The commenters recommended using manufacturer's
recommended operating ranges or historical performance for the baghouse
pressure drop operating limits. One commenter suggested volumetric flow
rate or static pressure upstream of the baghouse may be more
appropriate operating parameters to monitor. Four commenters objected
to the baghouse pressure drop operating limit being determined across
each baghouse cell. The commenters recommended using the pressure drop
across the entire baghouse. One commenter said that baghouse pressure
drop varies with overall building ventilation and balancing air flow in
the foundry is a balancing act, and varies with the outdoor
temperature. The commenter stated that it is impossible to capture
these scenarios during a performance test.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that pressure drop is not a
good indicator of baghouse performance. The requirement for pressure
drop monitoring originated from baghouse maintenance requirements
included in title V permits. As discussed above, we have replaced these
provisions in the proposed rule with other inspection and maintenance
requirements.
    Comment: Three commenters objected to basing the wet scrubber
pressure drop operating limit on the pressure drop range observed
during the performance test for the same reasons as their comments on
baghouse pressure drop operating limits. The commenters argued that
like baghouses, scrubbers can operate effectively over a range of
pressure drops and a single test is too short to encounter the full
range of pressure drops that are normally encountered. The commenters
recommended using manufacturer's recommendations or operation history
for setting the operating limits. One commenter extended these comments
to electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. In performance tests
conducted on a cupola wet scrubber, we noted a strong (inverse)
correlation between the wet scrubber pressure drop and the PM emissions
from the control system. Relatively small changes in the pressure drop
altered the emissions by a factor of two. A foundry may always re-test
the control system at new (lower) operating limits if the operating
limits determined during the initial test are too restrictive, but the
foundry must demonstrate that they can meet the emissions limit at that
lower operating limit. That said, we recognize that many existing
foundries are not equipped with CPMS. Therefore, we have revised the
monitoring requirements for existing sources, but we retain the
requirements for CPMS for new sources.
    Comment: One commenter stated that new sources should not be
required to install bag leak detection systems, but should be allowed
to monitor their baghouses similar to existing sources. The commenter
requested further explanation on EPA's position on this issue.
    Response: New sources should be able to employ improved monitoring
technology. Wherever possible, we request that new sources use
automated systems that will measure and record operating parameters (or
emissions). Over time, we expect that this approach will improve
monitoring technology and reduce costs for existing and new sources.
4. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the
requirement to have a written operation and maintenance (O&M) plan
because writing the plan is an unnecessary burden (in the range of
$2,000 to $2,500 for a small facility, according to the commenters)
with little environmental benefit. According to the commenters,
monitoring and recording operating parameters are sufficient to
demonstrate compliance and this can be done without a written plan.
    Response: We have reduced the burden associated with preparation of
the O&M plan by revising the monitoring requirements. Several portions
of the O&M plan requirements are related to the operation and
maintenance of bag leak detection systems and CPMS. The final rule
requires these monitoring systems only for new sources. We continue to
believe that an O&M plan provides EPA and foundry representatives with
a single source of information on monitoring and maintenance
responsibilities. In the development of the proposed requirements for
the O&M plan, we included many of the industry comments and
recommendations for requirements that were reasonable for area source
facilities.
    Comment: One commenter requested that EPA expand the O&M plan to
include actions to be taken in the event of an opacity exceedance. If
after a specified time with no opacity exceedances, the facility could
be allowed to make weekly observations with a non-certified individual
instead of Method 9 readings twice a year.
    Response: If the foundry exceeds the opacity limit, then that
foundry is out of compliance with the emissions limit and could be
subject to enforcement actions. Although we considered more frequent
visible emission observations, the visible emission observations could
not be tied to the opacity limit. Therefore, if visible emissions were
observed, an opacity observation would be needed to verify that the
visible emissions did not exceed the opacity limit. This would greatly
increase the burden associated with the opacity requirements, which
many commenters suggested were already too burdensome. A foundry may
use weekly visible emission observations as means to ensure compliance
with the opacity limit if they choose, and the foundry may include such
observations and corrective actions to be taken within their O&M plan
if they choose.
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the daily check of the
compressed air supply for a pulse-jet baghouse was not necessary. The
commenters argued that static pressure exceeding allowable ranges would
be a better indicator of a problem and the need for corrective action
measures. Three commenters stated that the monthly visual bag
inspections are not necessary, and suggested that semi-annual
inspections would be sufficient. Similarly, the commenters recommended
that the quarterly inspection of baghouse physical integrity and fans
is unnecessary and that semi-annual inspections would be sufficient.
    Response: The commenters' concerns have been addressed because we
have removed the baghouse inspection and maintenance requirements from
the proposed rule. These requirements have been replaced with more
general inspection and maintenance requirements for PM control devices
(baghouses, scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators).
    Comment: One commenter requested guidance on what an acceptable
alarm set point is when using a continuous bag leak detection system.
    Response: The alarm set point will vary according to the design of
the equipment. For additional information on bag leak detection systems
that operate on the triboelectric effect, we encourage the commenter to
review ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'', Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
September 1997, EPA-

454/R-98-015, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication
PM98164676. This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161. This document also may be available on the
TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cem.html.

    Comment: One commenter stated that, while 30 days may be sufficient
time to implement minor repairs (i.e., time between inspections), some
repairs may require more time (e.g., to solicit contract bids, perform
engineering analysis, and install equipment). The commenter requested
that the rule allow additional time for foundries to complete necessary
repairs.
    Response: In response to the commenter's concern, we have added
additional time to implement repairs to capture systems. The final rule
requires that repairs be completed as soon as practicable, but no later
than 90 days.
    Comment: One commenter stated that capture system requirements
should be included in the O&M plan because PM build-up in capture
systems, particularly for batch processes such as EIFs, could
significantly reduce capture efficiency. The commenter recommended that
EPA include capture system in the inspections required for control
systems. Specifically, Sec.  63.10985(a) be revised to require ``* * *
Each capture and collection system must meet and maintain * * * '';
Sec.  63.10896(a) be revised to require an O&M plan `` * * * for each
capture and control device * * * ''; add a paragraph Sec.
63.10896(a)(6) to require ``Information on the inspection of the
capture system components, including, but not limited to, emission
intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds,
plenums, and fans, to assure there is not material build-up impeding
flow to the control device.''; and revising Sec.  63.10897(c)(8) to
``Inspect emission intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork,
dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans for wear.''
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestions. While capture
systems have been included in the O&M plans for major source rules, we
have not included requirements for capture systems in the area source
rule as one way of reducing compliance costs for area source foundries.
In addition, the suggested revisions to Sec.  63.10897(c)(8) are not
needed as inspection requirements for the capture system are already
specified in Sec.  63.10897(e).
5. Testing Requirements
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification on how 1-hour
performance tests are to be conducted on EIFs that operate in a batch
mode for 25 minutes. Additionally, the commenter inquired if there were
operating condition requirements, such as operating within 10 percent
of the stated melt capacity, for the performance test or if the
operating conditions were not relevant because the emission limit is
normalized by the melt rate. Another commenter requested guidance on
methods for measuring emissions per ton charges for line frequency
furnace shops, and noted concern on how a 1-hour emission test would
provide a representative estimate of the emissions from a series of
EIFs all cycling differently.
    Response: In this final rule, we have clarified that ``For electric
arc and electric induction metal melting furnaces, sample only during
normal production conditions, which may include, but are not limited to
the following cycles: charging, melting, alloying, refining, slagging,
and tapping.'' For the 25-minute batch time cited by the first
commenter, approximately two batches would be completed during the 1-
hour run. If multiple EIFs are all cycling differently, the 1-hour run
would capture different cycles for the different furnaces. In the
course of three 1-hour runs, data for several complete cycles will be
collected. We do not specify operation within 10 percent of the stated
melt capacity of the furnace because, as noted by the commenter,
emission limits are normalized by the tons of metal charged. However,
the melting rates are required to be indicative of normal production
conditions.
    Comment: One commenter said that when there are many furnaces and
other unregulated sources exhausting to a baghouse, the performance
test will be problematic because it will be difficult to identify
suitable test ports that are not influenced by other disturbances. The
cost of duct rework, according to the commenter, is approximately
$100,000.
    Response: First, we have included provisions for determining
compliance with the emissions limit in situations where regulated and
non-regulated emission streams are mixed. We recognize that these
provisions may not be suitable for all duct conditions. However, one
can always demonstrate compliance with the emission limit on the
combined stream. Using a baghouse control system, it is likely that the
baghouse exhaust can be used to demonstrate compliance with the PM
limit, even when other PM sources (such as sand handling) are included.
Moreover, we have also provided an alternative metal HAP emission
limit. As emission limits were not set for other PM emission sources at
the foundry precisely because these PM sources do not contain
appreciable metal HAP, we expect that the baghouse exhaust can be used
to demonstrate compliance with the metal HAP emission limit, regardless
of what other unregulated streams may also be controlled by the
furnaces' baghouse.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA eliminate the
requirement to re-test every 5 years for PM emissions provided that
initial results were less than 75 percent of the emission limit and no
process changes are made.
    Response: We considered this alternative, but concluded that
elimination of the subsequent tests (every 5 years) was not
appropriate. First, we have reduced the monitoring burden for the
control systems in this final rule compared to the proposed rule.
Therefore, the subsequent tests are necessary to assure ongoing
compliance with the emission limits. Second, the subsequent tests do
not pose an unreasonable compliance cost to large (greater than 20,000
tpy) area source foundries.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, in order to perform an
emissions test on the EIFs at his facility, the plant would have to
install a capture and blower system that costs almost $1 million just
to determine whether or not they are already in compliance.
    Response: We recognize that testing uncontrolled EIFs is difficult.
For this reason, we have added to the final rule special provisions for
testing EIFs. For EIFs equipped with emission control devices, this
final rule allows existing foundries to use the performance test
results for one EIF to demonstrate compliance for other EIFs provided
the other furnaces are similar with respect to the type of emission
control device used, composition of the scrap charged, furnace size,
and melting temperature. For uncontrolled EIFs, the final rule allows
the use of test results from another furnace to demonstrate compliance
if the test results are prior to any control device, and the furnaces