Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AG68

OAR ID: [OAR-2002-0088, FRL-7462-6]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refractory Products Manufacturing

EFFECTIVE DATES: April 16, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing refractory products manufacturing facilities and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The final rule will protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of several of the HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA, including ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl), methanol, phenol, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the liver, kidneys, and skeleton. The EPA has classified the HAP formaldehyde and POM as probable human carcinogens. The final rule will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities by an estimated 124 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (137 tons per year (tpy)).

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the following table: Examples of regulated Category NAICS entities Industrial....................... 327124 Clay refractories manufacturing plants. Industrial....................... 327125 Nonclay refractories manufacturing plants.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.9782 of today's final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronic Docket (EDocket). The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR20020088. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP Docket at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 5661744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 5661742.

Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search'' and key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which are not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's document also will be available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the 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 June 16, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the 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 the final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background and Public Participation

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

C. How Was the Rule Developed?

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Category Is Affected by the Final Rule?

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

C. What Are the Emission Limits?

D. What Are the Operating Limits?

E. What Are the Work Practice Standards?

F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

[[Page 18731]]

G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

J. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

K. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards

B. Compliance Testing

C. Control Device Monitoring and Operation

D. Definitions
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. MACT Floors

B. Emission Limits

C. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

D. Economic and Environmental Impacts

E. Definitions
V. Summary of Impacts

A. What Are the Health Impacts?

B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

C. What Are the Cost Impacts?

D. What Are the Economic Impacts?

E. What Are the NonAir Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background and Public Participation
A. What is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The category of major sources covered by the final rule was listed as Chromium Refractories Production on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

Section 112(c) of the CAA allows EPA to revise the source category list at any time. After obtaining information from chromium refractories manufacturing plants that indicated that some facilities were major sources due to HAP emissions from the manufacturing of nonchromium refractories, we decided to expand the scope of the source category to include most manufacturers of refractory products. On November 18, 1999, we revised the source category name from Chromium Refractories Production to Refractories Manufacturing (64 FR 63025) to reflect the broadened scope of the source category. At proposal (67 FR 42108, June 20, 2002), we changed the source category name from Refractories Manufacturing to Refractory Products Manufacturing to further clarify the source category.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the bettercontrolled and loweremitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. How Was the Rule Developed?

We proposed the standards for refractory products manufacturing on June 20, 2002 (67 FR 42108). The public comment period lasted from June 20, 2002 to August 19, 2002. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the general public were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and to provide additional information during the public comment period. We offered at proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule at a public hearing. One organization requested a public hearing, but it later withdrew the request, and a hearing was not held.

We received a total of eight public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by three industry trade associations, two refractory products manufacturing companies, and two other companies. One trade association submitted two sets of comments. The final rule reflects our full consideration of all of the comments received. Major public comments on the proposed rule, along with our responses to those comments, are summarized in this preamble.
II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Category Is Affected by the Final Rule?

Today's final rule applies to the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category. This source category includes, but is not limited to, any facility that manufactures refractory bricks and shapes that are produced using an organic HAP compound, pitchimpregnated refractory products, fired chromium refractory products, and fired clay refractory products. Fired refractory products are those that have undergone thermal processing in a kiln.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

Today's final rule establishes emission limitations (emission limits and operating limits) and work practice standards for several types of refractory products manufacturing sources. Table 1 of this preamble lists the affected sources that will be subject to today's final rule.
Table 1.Affected Sources for the Refractory Products Manufacturing Rule
Refractory product type Affected sources Sources subject to emission limits:
Resinbonded........................... Existing and new curing ovens and kilns.
Pitchbonded........................... Existing and new curing ovens and kilns.
[[Page 18732]]
Pitchimpregnated...................... Existing and new defumers and coking ovens, and new shape preheaters.
Other formed products that use organic Existing and new shape dryers additives. and kilns used to process refractory shapes that are made using an organic HAP compound.
Clay................................... New kilns.
Sources subject to work practice standards:
Pitchimpregnated...................... Existing shape preheaters and existing and new pitch working tanks.
Chromium............................... Existing and new kilns. Clay................................... Existing kilns.

C. What Are the Emission Limits?

Today's final rule specifies separate emission limits for existing and new thermal process sources that emit organic HAP and new clay refractory products kilns. Facilities that operate thermal process sources that emit organic HAP have the option of meeting a total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 18 percent oxygen, or reducing THC mass emissions by at least 95 percent. The sources that will be subject to these organic HAP emission limits include new and existing shape dryers, curing ovens, kilns, coking ovens, and defumers. In addition, new shape preheaters will be subject to these same emission limits. For continuous process sources of organic HAP, the format of the emission limits is a 3hour block average. For batch process sources, the format of the standard is the average of the 3hour peak THC emissions periods for two test runs.

For affected new clay refractory products kilns, the final rule includes separate emission limits for HF and HCl. For affected continuous kilns, you will have to meet an HF emission limit of 0.019 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.038 pounds per ton (lb/ton)) of uncalcined clay processed or reduce HF mass emissions by at least 90 percent. You will also be required to meet an HCl emission limit of 0.091 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 30 percent. If you own or operate a new affected periodic (batch process) clay refractory products kiln, you will be required to reduce HF emissions by at least 90 percent and HCl emissions by at least 30 percent.

D. What Are the Operating Limits?

Operating limits are limits on operating parameters of process equipment or control devices. Today's final rule specifies process and control device operating limits for thermal process sources that emit organic HAP and for clay refractory kilns. For each of these operating limits, you will be required to measure the appropriate operating parameters during the performance test and establish limits on the operating parameters based on those measurements. Following the performance test, you will be required to monitor those parameters and ensure that the established limits are not exceeded.

For affected thermal process sources that emit organic HAP, we are requiring operating limits on the organic HAP processing rate and the operating temperatures of your control devices. The operating limit on the organic HAP processing rate requires you to maintain the rate at which organic HAP are processed in an affected process unit at or below the rate measured during the most recent performance test. For sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you will be required to establish the operating limit for the combustion chamber temperature. For affected sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer, you will be required to establish the operating limit for the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed. Also, you must check the activity level of the catalyst at least every 12 months.

If you have a new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), you will be required to monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA and check the limestone feed hopper and feeder setting at least daily to ensure that the limestone is free flowing. You will also be required to document the source of the limestone used during the most recent performance test and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed.

If you own or operate a new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with dry lime injection fabric filters (DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/fabric filters (DLS/FF), you will be required to install a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm, and complete corrective actions according to your operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. You will also be required to verify at least once every 8 hours that lime is free flowing and record the lime feeder setting daily to confirm that the feeder setting is at or above the level established during the most recent performance test. If you use a wet scrubber, you will be required to establish operating limits for the pressure drop across the scrubber, liquid pH, liquid flow rate, and chemical feed rate (if applicable).

If you use a control device or technique listed in today's final rule, you may establish operating limits for alternative operating parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator on a casebycase basis. You will be required to submit the application for approval of alternative operating parameters no later than the notification of the performance test. You will have to install, operate, and maintain the alternative parameter monitoring systems in accordance with the application approved by the Administrator. E. What Are the Work Practice Standards?

Today's final rule establishes work practice standards for existing shape preheaters that are used to produce pitchimpregnated refractory products, existing and new pitch working tanks that are used to produce pitchimpregnated refractory products, existing and new chromium refractory products kilns, and existing clay refractory products kilns.

If you operate an affected existing shape preheater, you will be required to control emissions of POM from the shape preheater by cleaning the residual pitch from the surfaces of the baskets or containers that are used for holding refractory shapes in a shape preheater and autoclave at least every ten impregnation cycles, or by ducting the exhaust from the shape preheater to a control device that meets the applicable emission limits for thermal process sources of organic HAP. If you choose to clean the basket surfaces, you may remove residual pitch by abrasive blasting or subject the baskets to a thermal process cycle that matches or exceeds the temperature and cycle time of the affected shape preheater and is ducted to a thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is comparable to the control device for your defumer or coking oven. If you choose to duct shape preheater emissions to a control device, you may duct the emissions to the coking oven control device, defumer control device, or to another thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is comparable to the coking oven or defumer controls and meets the applicable emission limits for thermal process sources of organic HAP.

[[Page 18733]]

If you have an affected existing or new pitch working tank, you must duct the exhaust from the tank to either the coking oven control device, the defumer control device, or an equivalent thermal or catalytic oxidizer.

If you have an affected existing or new chromium refractory products kiln or an affected existing clay refractory products kiln, you must use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

Under today's final rule, you must conduct an initial performance test on each affected source to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2), you are required to conduct the test within 180 days after the compliance date using specified test methods.

If you have an affected existing or new shape dryer, curing oven, kiln, coking oven, or defumer, or a new shape preheater, and you choose to comply with the THC concentration limit of 20 ppmvd corrected to 18 percent oxygen, you must measure emissions of THC in stack gases exhausted to the atmosphere using EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer. You must also measure the oxygen concentration of the stack gas using EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure). If you decide to comply with the 95 percent THC reduction limit, you must measure THC mass emissions at the inlet and outlet of the control device using EPA Method 25A.

For continuous process sources, you must conduct a minimum of three 1hour test runs. For batch process sources, you must conduct at least two test runs. Each batch process test run must be conducted over a separate batch cycle, unless you manufacture the product associated with the maximum organic HAP processing rate infrequently and it will disrupt production to perform the compliance test over multiple process cycles. In such cases, you may conduct both runs of the performance test simultaneously over a single batch process cycle using paired sampling trains.

Today's final rule requires affected batch process sources to be tested throughout two complete batch cycles unless you develop an emissions profile or meet certain conditions for terminating a performance test run before the completion of the batch cycle. If you choose to develop an emissions profile, you must sample THC emissions throughout a complete batch cycle, determine the average THC mass emissions rate for each hour of the batch cycle, and identify the 3 hour period of peak THC emissions. During any subsequent test runs, you are not required to sample emissions outside that 3hour period of peak THC emissions. During subsequent performance tests, you will have to complete at least two test runs, but you will only have to test during the 3hour peak emissions period for each run.

If you choose not to develop an emissions profile, you may terminate testing before the completion of a batch cycle if you meet certain conditions. For each of two test runs, you will have to begin testing at the start of the batch cycle and continue testing for at least 3 hours beyond the precise time when the process reaches peak operating temperature. You may stop the test run at that time if you can show that the following conditions are met: (1) THC concentrations are not increasing over the 3hour period since the process peak temperature was reached; (2) at least 1 hour has passed since any reduction in the operating temperature of the control device (thermal or catalytic oxidizer); and (3) either the average THC concentration at the inlet to the control device for the previous hour has not exceeded 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, or your source met the applicable emission limit at the control device outlet during each of the previous 3 hours after the process reached peak temperature.

For both continuous process and batch process performance tests, you must conduct performance tests on affected thermal process sources under the conditions that will result in the highest levels of organic HAP emissions expected to occur for that affected source. You determine these ``worstcase'' conditions by taking into account the organic HAP processing rate, the process operating temperatures, and the processing times. The organic HAP processing rate is the rate at which the mass of organic HAP materials contained in refractory shapes are processed in an affected thermal process source.

If you decide to start production of a refractory product that is likely to have an organic HAP processing rate that is more than 10 percent greater than the rate established during the most recent performance test, you will be required to conduct a new performance test for that product and establish a new operating limit for the organic HAP processing rate. You will also have to conduct a new performance test on an affected uncontrolled kiln following any process changes that are likely to increase kiln emissions of organic HAP.

If the source is a batch process source and is controlled with a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you may reduce the operating temperature of the control device or shut the control device off if you satisfy all of the following conditions: (1) You do not use an emissions profile and limit testing to the 3hour peak emissions period; (2) at least 3 hours have passed since the process unit reached its maximum temperature; (3) the applicable emission limit (THC concentration or THC percentage reduction) has been met during each of the three 1hour periods since the process reached peak temperature; (4) mass emissions of THC have not increased during the 3hour period since maximum process temperature was reached; and (5) either the average THC concentration at the inlet to the oxidizer has not exceeded 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for at least 1 hour, or the applicable emission limit has been met during each of the four 15minute periods immediately following the oxidizer temperature reduction. If you elect to shut off or reduce the temperature of a thermal or catalytic oxidizer by satisfying these conditions, you may use the results from the performance test to establish the time at which the oxidizer for that specific source can be shut off (or temperature reduced) during the production of other refractory products that use organic HAP. For any such product, you must operate the oxidizer at a temperature at least as high as that established during the performance test, minus 16[deg]C (25[deg]F), from the start of the batch cycle until 3 hours have passed since the process reached its peak temperature. You will have to maintain that oxidizer temperature for the same length of time beyond the process peak temperature as during the performance test.

For each new kiln that manufactures clay refractory products, you must measure emissions of HF and HCl using one of three methods: (1) EPA Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary SourcesIsokinetic Method; (2) EPA Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary SourcesNon isokinetic Method; or (3)
[[Page 18734]]
EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transfer Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy. You can use Method 26 only if the gas stream does not contain HF or HCl in the solid phase (e.g., HF as PM or HCl as PM). You must conduct the tests for HF and HCl while the affected kiln is operating at the maximum production level likely to occur. Each test run must last at least 1 hour in duration.

If you have an affected continuous clay refractory products kiln, you must determine initial compliance with the productionbased mass emission limits for HF and HCl by calculating the mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using the mass emission rates of HF and HCl and the rate at which uncalcined clay is processed (on a firedproduct basis), as measured during your performance test. To determine initial compliance with any of the percentage reduction emission limits, you must measure mass emissions of the specific HAP (HF or HCl) at the inlet and outlet of the control device for each test run.

If you have an affected batch process clay refractory kiln, you must comply with the percentage reduction limit. You will be required to test throughout two complete batch cycles unless you develop an emissions profile. If you choose to develop an emissions profile, you must sample HF and HCl emissions throughout one complete batch cycle. For both continuous and batch process kilns, you must measure and record the average uncalcined clay processing rate for each test run.

If you own or operate an affected new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with a DLA, and you decide to change the source of limestone, you must repeat the performance test on the kiln within 60 days of the date when you begin using limestone from the new limestone source.

In addition to the procedures previously described, you will be required to follow the procedures specified in EPA Methods 1 to 4 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, where applicable. You must perform EPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, (or Method 1A) to select the locations of sampling points and the number of traverse points. You must perform EPA Method 2, Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S Pitot Tube), (or Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G) to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. You must perform EPA Method 3, Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight, (or Method 3A or 3B) to determine the exhaust gas molecular weight. You must perform EPA Method 4, Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases, to measure the moisture content of the exhaust gas.

Prior to the initial performance test, you must install any continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) that are required for demonstrating continuous compliance. During the performance test, you must use those CPMS to establish the applicable operating limits (e.g., minimum thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature).
G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

If you own or operate an affected existing shape preheater, an existing pitch working tank, or a new pitch working tank, you must select a method for complying with the applicable work practice standard and provide a description of that method as part of your initial notification, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2). For affected shape preheaters, if you choose to comply with the work practice standard by cleaning pitch from basket or container surfaces, you must describe in your initial notification the cleaning method. If you choose to comply by capturing and ducting emissions from the shape preheater to a control device, you must describe the design (e.g., thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature and residence time) and operation of that control device.

For affected existing or new pitch working tanks, you must describe, in your initial notification, the design and operation of the control device to which the emissions from the working tank are exhausted. You also must verify that the performance of the control device is the same as, or is equivalent to, the control device that is used to control organic HAP emissions from an affected defumer or coking oven.

For affected new or existing chromium refractory products kilns and for existing clay refractory products kilns, you must indicate, in your initial notification, the type of fuel used in those kilns. H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

Today's final rule requires owners and operators of affected sources to demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation. You must follow the requirements in your OM&M plan and in your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) and document conformance with both plans. For each affected source equipped with an addon air pollution control device (APCD), you must inspect each system at least once each calendar year and record the results of each inspection. You must install, operate, and maintain each required CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during your initial performance test. You must collect all data while the process is operational. You will have to operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. You must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations, and validation checks. You must repeat any required performance tests at least every 5 years.

For each affected source, you must monitor and maintain the organic HAP processing rate below the level established during the most recent performance test. You must also record the process operating temperature hourly. For batch process sources, you must record the cycle time for each batch cycle. If you decide to start production of a refractory product that is likely to have an organic HAP processing rate that is more than 10 percent greater than the maximum organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test, you will have to conduct a new performance test for that product and establish a new operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate.

For affected continuous sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you must maintain the 3hour block average combustion chamber temperature at or above the combustion chamber temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For affected continuous sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer, you must maintain the 3hour block average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the corresponding temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For affected batch process sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you must maintain the average hourly combustion chamber temperature at or above the combustion chamber temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test.

To document compliance with these operating limits for thermal or catalytic oxidizers, you must measure and record the specified average hourly temperatures. You must also report any average hourly control device operating temperature below the operating limit
[[Page 18735]]

established during the most recent performance test.

If you control emissions from an affected source using process modifications or an addon control device other than a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by operating a THC continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) in accordance with Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.

For new clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DLA, you must monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA. You also must check the limestone feed hopper and limestone feeder setting daily to ensure that there is limestone in the hopper, the limestone is free flowing, and the feed rate has not changed. In addition, you must continue using the same source of limestone as was used during the most recent performance test and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed.

For new clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DIFF or DLS/FF, you must maintain freeflowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times. You also must maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the most recent performance test and record the feeder setting once each day. You must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan.

For kilns that are controlled with a wet scrubber, you must continuously maintain the 3hour block average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate, and chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the corresponding operating limits established during the most recent performance test. Finally, you must record the uncalcined clay processing rate for all affected kilns.

If you operate an affected continuous kiln, you may bypass the control device and continue operating the kiln during periods of scheduled maintenance on the kiln control device, upon approval of the permitting authority. However, you must request prior approval from the permitting authority before taking the control device offline. You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the control device is offline. You must also minimize the time period when the control device is offline. Unlike scheduled maintenance, a malfunction of a control device must be addressed in your SSMP. As specified in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), emission standards do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

If you have an affected existing shape preheater, an existing pitch working tank, or a new pitch working tank, you must perform the appropriate work practice, and you must document in your Notification of Compliance Status that you have complied with the work practice standard, as required by 40 CFR 63.9.

For affected new or existing chromium refractory products kilns and for existing clay refractory products kilns, you must use natural gas, or its equivalent, as the kiln fuel, and document the type of fuel used. During periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is unavailable, you are allowed to use an alternative fuel. However, you must meet the notification requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.9812(f) and the reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.9814(g). You must also incorporate procedures for using alternative fuels in your OM&M Plan.
J. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

If you have an affected refractory products manufacturing source, you must submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the final rule, which may vary depending on whether the affected source is new or existing. In addition to the information specified in 40 CFR 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must also include the following in your Notification of Compliance Status: (1) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source and a description of the procedures used to establish the values; (2) design information and analysis demonstrating conformance with requirements for capture and collection systems; (3) your OM&M plan, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9794; (4) your SSMP; and (5) descriptions of the methods you use to comply with any applicable work practice standards. You must submit semiannual compliance reports containing statements and information concerning emission limitation deviations, out of control CPMS, and periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when actions consistent with the approved SSMP were taken in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).

If you operate an affected clay or chromium refractory products kiln and you must use an alternative fuel due to a natural gas curtailment or other interruption of natural gas supply, you must submit a notification of alternative fuel use that includes the information specified in 40 CFR 63.9812(f). You must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information specified in 40 CFR 63.9814(g).

If you operate a continuous kiln that is an affected thermal process source of organic HAP or is a new clay refractory products kiln, and you must take the control device offline for scheduled maintenance, you must request prior approval from the permitting authority, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9792(e). In addition, you must maintain records of all maintenance activities and the time intervals when the control device is offline. Finally, you must incorporate into your OM&M plan the procedures for minimizing HAP emissions when the control device is out of service.

For all affected sources, you must maintain records for at least 5 years from the date on which the data are recorded. You must keep the records onsite for at least the first 2 years, but you can store the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

K. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

Existing sources must comply within 3 years of the date of publication of today's final rule. New or reconstructed sources must comply at startup or upon the date of publication of today's final rule, depending on their startup date.
III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

A. Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards

For thermal process sources of organic HAP, we replaced the proposed combustion efficiency limit with a 95 percent THC reduction limit. We believe that the 95 percent THC reduction limit will result in organic HAP emissions reductions that are comparable to the reductions that would have been achieved through the proposed 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit. Furthermore, percentage reduction provides a better measure of the performance of a control device in reducing organic emissions than does combustion efficiency, because percentage reduction is a direct measure of reductions in THC emissions across the control device. In addition, the combination of the proposed THC concentration and the percentage reduction limits allows considerable flexibility in how owners and operators
[[Page 18736]]

choose to comply with today's final rule.

The available emission data for the refractory products manufacturing industry indicate that sources that are controlled to levels above the MACT floor (i.e., more stringent than the MACT floor control level) achieve THC emissions reductions of at least 95 percent, and sources that are controlled to levels below the MACT floor achieve THC emissions reductions that are less than 95 percent. Based on our analysis of the data, we concluded that a 95 percent THC reduction represents the level of emissions control that is achieved by a thermal process source of organic HAP that is controlled to the MACT floor level. Additional information on our analysis of the available THC emission reduction data is provided in Docket No. OAR20020088.

We did not propose a percentage THC reduction because we believed that testing the inlets of the control devices used on thermal process sources of organic HAP was not feasible for most sources. However, based on the public comments received on the proposed rule, we believe that refractory products manufacturers can measure THC at the inlets and outlets of most affected sources. Furthermore, those facilities that cannot obtain inlet and outlet measurements still have the option of complying with the 20 ppmvd THC emission limit.

For the proposed rule, we developed HF and HCl emission limits based on the emission levels that could be achieved by the best controlled kiln in the brick and structural clay products industry. Since proposal, we have obtained additional information on the types of emission controls used in the brick and structural clay products industry to reduce emissions of HF and HCl from kilns. Based on that information, we have concluded that the bestcontrolled similar source for clay refractory products kilns is a small brick kiln that is controlled with a DLA. A small brick kiln is a kiln with a production capacity of less than 9.1 Mg per hour (Mg/hr) (10 tons per hour (tons/ hr)). The data indicate that a DLA can achieve HF emissions reductions of 90 percent and HCl emissions reductions of 30 percent. We used those emissions reductions to develop the HF and HCl emission limits specified in the final rule. The revised emission limits for HF are a 90 percent reduction or 0.019 kg/Mg (0.038 lb/ton) of uncalcined clay processed. For HCl, the revised emission limits are a 30 percent reduction or 0.091 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of uncalcined clay processed.

For proposal, we based the HF and HCl emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns on emission data for a brick kiln that was controlled with a DLS/FF. When we developed those proposed emission limits, we made no distinction between kiln size and control options. However, a review of the emission data for controlled brick kilns indicates that kiln size must be considered when determining feasible control options for reducing emissions of HF and HCl. For brick kilns with production capacities of 9.1 Mg/hr (10 tons/hr) or greater (i.e., large kilns), several control devices have been demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing HF and HCl emissions. Those controls include DLS/FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers. However, for brick kilns that are designed with production capacities below 9.1 Mg/hr (10 tons/hr), only the DLA has been demonstrated to be a feasible control option for HF and HCl. With DLS/FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers, it is necessary to maintain minimum exhaust gas flow rates for effective HF and HCl removal, and those minimum exhaust flow rates are significantly greater than the flow rates characteristic of small brick kilns. On the other hand, the performance of the DLA is unaffected by exhaust gas flow rates through the system, and DLA have been used on small brick kilns. Consequently, we have concluded that the bestcontrolled small brick kiln is equipped with a DLA. We have also concluded that clay refractory products kilns are similar to small brick kilns because 90 percent of the clay refractory products tunnel kilns currently in use were designed to operate at 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tons/hr) or less, and there are no clay refractory products kilns that operate with production rates greater than 8.2 Mg/hr (9 tons/hr).

For existing clay and chromium refractory products kilns, we are still requiring limits on the types of fuels that can be used in affected kilns. However, we have also included a provision for the affected facilities to use alternative fuels during specified times of natural gas curtailment and during other times when natural gas is unavailable. To comply with this provision, owners or operators of affected kilns must notify the permitting authority within 48 hours following the declaration of such an emergency or the interruption of the natural gas supply. In addition, within 10 working days after the facility terminates the use of the alternative fuel, the final rule requires submittal of a report that details the dates of alternative fuel usage and the amount of alternative fuel used.

B. Compliance Testing

For batch process sources, we have reduced the minimum number of compliance test runs from three to two. We believe that two test runs are adequate for characterizing emissions from batch process sources. Although we are still requiring a minimum of three 1hour test runs for continuous sources, we believe that it is unnecessary to test batch process sources for three runs. Under the final rule, each test run on a batch process source will last at least 3 hours, and in most cases a test run will last considerably longer (i.e., in excess of 10 hours). Thus, even with the reduced number of test runs, an emission test on a batch process source will still require a much longer test period than a test on a continuous process source. Because of the extensive duration of each test run, we believe that a second test run is adequate for corroborating the results of the initial test run, and a third test run is unnecessary. Many batch process refractory products are specialty items that are produced infrequently. Because we are requiring each test run to be conducted over a separate batch process cycle, it may not be practical, and it may disrupt production of other products, to require testing over separate cycles. In some cases, conducting the compliance test over multiple process cycles could require a testing period of weeks or months, thereby preventing the use of the batch process source for manufacturing other refractory products. For this same reason, we have included in today's final rule a provision for allowing owners and operators to conduct both test runs simultaneously over a single batch process cycle using paired sampling trains, under certain conditions. Rather than basing compliance on a rolling 3hour average, today's final rule requires compliance for batch process sources to be based on emissions over the 3hour peak emissions period.

For situations in which a facility begins production of a new product that constitutes a slight increase in the maximum organic HAP processing rate, we are no longer requiring a repeat performance test. Specifically, if the organic HAP processing rate for the new product is no more than 10 percent greater than the organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent compliance test, a repeat performance test is not required. We believe this change is appropriate for several reasons. The HAP content of some raw materials used in refractory products manufacturing can vary slightly from shipment to shipment, and those
[[Page 18737]]
variations may be beyond the control of the user. The net increase in controlled emissions from a source that uses a material with a slightly higher HAP content would most likely be within the measurement error of the test method. On the other hand, if the organic HAP processing rate for the new product is more than 10 percent greater than the operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate, a new compliance test must be performed.

C. Control Device Monitoring and Operation

In the final rule, we have added the requirement that owners or operators of affected sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer must have the catalyst activity level checked at least every 12 months and take any necessary corrective action, such as replacing the catalyst, to ensure that the catalyst is performing as designed. We continue to require catalyst bed inlet temperature monitoring. However, we believe this additional requirement is needed because, unlike thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizer performance cannot be ensured simply by monitoring the operating temperature. Catalyst beds can become poisoned and rendered ineffective without any apparent change in operation. Requiring an annual check of catalyst activity will help to identify catalyst poisoning and other potential performance problems before they become serious. An activity level check can consist of passing an organic compound of known concentration through a sample of the catalyst, measuring the percentage reduction of the compound across the catalyst sample, and comparing that percentage reduction to the percentage reduction for a fresh sample of the same type of catalyst.

We have made several changes to the monitoring requirements for new clay refractory products kilns. We have added monitoring requirements for kilns controlled with a DLA. Specifically, owners or operators of affected kilns are required to monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA, check the limestone feed hopper daily to ensure that limestone is free flowing, check the limestone feeder setting daily, use the same source of limestone as was used during the most recent performance test, and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed. We have eliminated the requirement to monitor the fabric filter inlet temperature for affected clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DIFF or a DLS/FF. Finally, we have eliminated the requirement to monitor the water injection rate for kilns that are controlled with a DLS/FF.

We have also included in the final rule a provision to allow owners and operators of affected continuous process kilns to bypass the control device and continue operating the kilns during periods when the control device is offline for scheduled maintenance. However, the owner or operator must request approval from the permitting authority before taking the control device out of service. The owner or operator must minimize the time periods during which the control device is offline and must also minimize HAP emissions from the affected sources during these periods. The owner or operator must also maintain records of all maintenance activities and the time when the control device was offline. In addition, procedures for minimizing HAP emissions during periods when the control device is offline must be incorporated into the OM&M plan for the kiln.

D. Definitions

We have modified the definitions of refractory product and research and development process unit, and have added definitions for dry limestone adsorber, period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, resinbonded refractory products, pitchbonded refractory products, and redundant sensor. We also deleted the incorporation by reference of the publication ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.''
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. MACT Floors

Comment: One commenter pointed out that more than 30 refractory products manufacturing plants have closed permanently over the past 3 years. The commenter stated that the MACT floors used to develop the proposed rule are based on data that no longer reflect the current status of the industry. The commenter believes that it is improper for us to use the old data while the industry is in the process of realignment. In response to a request by us, the same commenter provided a list of 35 plants that have closed recently.

Response: We have reviewed the list of 35 recently closed plants provided by the commenter and among those plants, we considered only one, the North American Refractories plant in Womelsdorf, PA, to be a major or synthetic area source of organic HAP. However, we were aware of the impending closure of that particular facility before we determined the MACT floors for the proposed rule, and we did not include affected sources at that plant in our MACT floor analyses. Because we based our determination of the MACT floors for sources of organic HAP emissions only on major and synthetic area sources and none of those plants has closed, the closing of the 35 plants has no impact on the MACT floor analyses used to develop the proposed or final NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed combustion efficiency limit has no relationship to the MACT floors for thermal process sources of organic HAP. He believes that the proposed combustion efficiency limit is an arbitrary limit based on theoretical calculations and is not supported by the data. The commenter also stated that we cannot identify any plants that have met a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency. He believes that the proposed combustion efficiency limit cannot be met by existing sources; consequently, the stringency of the 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit will force all affected facilities to meet the alternative proposed limit on THC. The same commenter stated that he has been informed by control device vendors that sources would have to operate well above the MACT floor level of control to meet a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit. Another commenter agreed that the combustion efficiency limit will force the industry to meet the alternative THC limit. Both commenters also stated that most of the thermal oxidizers currently used in the refractory products manufacturing industry would not be able to meet the outlet exhaust gas limitation of 3 percent carbon dioxide that is a prerequisite for choosing the combustion efficiency limit compliance option. One commenter added that sources controlled with catalytic oxidizers would be unable to meet the 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit.

The same two commenters also commented on the appropriateness of a combustion efficiency limit. One of the commenters stated that he contacted thermal oxidizer vendors and a trade association that represents control device manufacturers and vendors, all of whom stated that they were unfamiliar with combustion efficiency. They indicated that thermal oxidizer performance guarantees invariably are written in terms of destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). The other commenter concurred that vendors offer performance guarantees in terms of DRE and not in terms of combustion
[[Page 18738]]
efficiency. The commenter stated that he believes that there is no known correlation between combustion efficiency and DRE, and he noted that we also have made that point on several occasions. Finally, the same commenter stated that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources informed him that they do not incorporate emission limits for combustion efficiency in their operating permits.

Response: After reviewing these comments, we have decided not to include the combustion efficiency limit in the final rule. Although we still maintain that the proposed combustion efficiency limit could be achieved by refractory products manufacturing sources that are controlled to the MACT floor level, we acknowledge that refractory products manufacturing industry personnel, vendors, emission testing contractors, and permitting agency personnel may not be familiar with the concept of using combustion efficiency as a measure of the control of organic pollutants. In addition, combustion efficiency is essentially an indicator of control device performance rather than a direct measure of emissions reductions or control. There are alternatives to a combustion efficiency limit that provide reliable measures of control device performance and emissions reductions, and we have included one such alternative, a percentage THC reduction, in the final rule. We believe that a THC percentage reduction is a more appropriate format for an emission limit than is combustion efficiency because percentage reduction is a measure of emissions reductions and can be related directly to the MACT floor for thermal process sources of organic HAP.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that we consider a limit on DRE instead of a combustion efficiency limit. One of the commenters stated that control device vendors typically offer performance guarantees in terms of a DRE limit, coupled with an outlet concentration limit for lowemitting sources. The other commenter stated that an alternative limit of 95 percent DRE for THC would be appropriate for the refractory products manufacturing industry. One of the commenters evaluated two catalytic oxidizers used at his facility. He concluded that the oxidizers would be unable to meet a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit or the proposed THC limit of 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen. However, he believes that both of the catalytic oxidizers he evaluated could achieve a DRE of approximately 95 percent. The same commenter also disagreed with our statement that a DRE limit would be problematic due to the lack of access to control device inlets for emission testing on most affected sources. He stated that facilities can retrofit existing sources to allow for control device inlet testing.

Response: We agree with the commenters that a DRE limit, which generally is referred to as a percentage reduction limit in NESHAP, would be appropriate for the refractory products manufacturing industry. Consequently, we have decided to incorporate an emission limit of 95 percent THC reduction in today's final rule as an alternative to the THC emission concentration limit. We believe that percentage reduction provides the best measure of the performance of a control device in reducing organic emissions. Because percentage reduction is a direct measure of emissions reductions, we also believe it is more consistent with the MACT floor concept than is the proposed combustion efficiency limit. Unlike combustion efficiency, we have THC percentage reduction data for several refractory products manufacturing sources. By comparing those data to the MACT floor levels established by today's rule (see Docket No. OAR20020088), we were able to conclude that the 95 percent THC reduction limit that we have incorporated into the final rule is representative of the emissions reductions that sources controlled to the MACT floor level should be able to achieve on a consistent basis.

Comment: One commenter commented on the fact that the same combustion efficiency limit was proposed for several different types of thermal process sources, such as periodic kilns, tunnel kilns, dryers, and coking ovens. He believes that differences in the operation of these various types of sources warrant different emission limits.

Response: We considered establishing separate emission limits for each type of thermal process source of organic HAP. However, the MACT floors for both existing and new sources are based on thermal oxidizer control, and the MACT floor level thermal oxidizer operating temperatures and residence times are similar for the various types of thermal process sources. These thermal oxidizers represent relatively high levels of control, and based on their design and operating parameters, we would not expect there to be significant differences in performance levels among them. Furthermore, when the theoretical performance levels of these thermal oxidizers are compared, the Arrhenius equation predicts that all of them would achieve essentially complete control of organic emissions. The available valid emission test data on organic emissions from controlled thermal process sources of organic HAP also do not support making such distinctions in emission limits. Consequently, we decided to establish the same emission limits for all types of thermal process sources of organic HAP subject to today's final rule.

Comment: Two commenters stated that the available emission data do not support the proposed THC limit of 20 ppmvd. The commenters believe that the data support an emission limit of 30 ppmvd THC, based on the average THC emission concentration for the available test data on controlled kilns.

Response: To determine the MACT floors and the corresponding emission limits for existing sources, we first must consider the number of sources in operation at major and synthetic area source facilities. In the case of kilns that are used to fire refractory products that contain organic HAP, there are fewer than 30 kilns that can be considered in establishing the MACT floor. Under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA, we must select the average or median of the bestperforming five sources. In this case, the MACT floor for kilns corresponds to the thirdbest performing kiln.

To rank kilns in terms of their performance in controlling organic HAP emissions, we needed emissions data for each of the bestperforming kilns. However, we did not have data on emissions of organic HAP (or THC as a surrogate for organic HAP) for any of the bestcontrolled kilns. The specific kilns referenced by the commenters are not among the bestperforming kilns in operation at major or synthetic area source facilities, so it would be contrary to the requirements of the CAA to average emission data for those kilns, as the commenters suggest, because such an average would include data from sources that are clearly not among the top five bestperforming kilns located at major or synthetic area source facilities.

An alternative approach to determining MACT floors by ranking sources according to demonstrated emissions reductions is to rank the sources based on the likely performance level of the control devices in place. We used this alternative approach to determine the MACT floors for organic HAP emissions from thermal process sources. Using the Arrhenius equation, we ranked all of the controlled kilns located at major or synthetic area source facilities and selected the thirdbest kiln as the MACT floor. However, to develop the 20 ppmvd THC emission limit, we did consider all of the available data,
[[Page 18739]]
including the kiln emission data referenced by the commenters. After considering the design of the control devices for those kilns and the likely variations in emission data, we concluded that the available data support a 20 ppmvd THC emission limit.

Comment: One commenter stated that Congress intended MACT standards to be industryspecific, and he objected to the use of data for the brick and stru

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ms. Susan Fairchild, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, (C50405), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 5415167, electronic mail address fairchild.susan@epa.gov.