Federal Register: February 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 25)
DOCID: fr09fe09-10 FR Doc E9-2400
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AO93
EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0236; FRL-8766-6]
NOTICE: Part III
DOCID: fr09fe09-10
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous Foundries
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 11, 2009 unless a public hearing is requested by February 19, 2009. If a hearing is requested on the proposed rule, written comments must be received by March 26, 2009. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before March 11, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
EPA is revising the area source category list by changing the name of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' category to ``Aluminum Foundries'' and the ``Nonferrous Foundries, not elsewhere classified (nec)'' category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries.'' At the same time, EPA is proposing national emission standards for the Aluminum Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories. These proposed emission standards for new and existing sources reflect EPA's proposed determination regarding the generally available control technology or management practices for each area source category.
SUMMARY:
Environmental Protection Agency
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Revision to the Source Category List
III. Background Information for the Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the proposed standards?
B. What source categories are affected by the proposed standards?
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available controls?
IV. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. Do these proposed standards apply to my facility?
B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
C. What are the proposed standards?
D. What are the compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
[[Page 6511]]
V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source categories?
B. How did we select the affected source?
C. How are the aluminum foundry HAP, the copper foundry HAP, and the other nonferrous foundry HAP addressed by this proposed rule?
D. How did we determine GACT?
E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
F. How did we decide to propose to exempt these area source categories from title V permit requirements?
VI. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Standards
VII. 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 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 LowIncome Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed standards include:
NAICS
Category code \1\ Examples of regulated entities Industry:
Aluminum Foundries....... 331524 Area source facilities that pour molten aluminum into molds to manufacture aluminum castings (excluding die casting).
Copper Foundries......... 331525 Area source facilities that pour molten copper and copper based alloys (e.g., brass, bronze) into molds to manufacture copper and copper based alloy castings (excluding die casting).
Other Nonferrous 331528 Area source facilities that Foundries. pour molten nonferrous metals (except aluminum and copper) into molds to manufacture nonferrous castings (excluding die casting). Establishments in this industry purchase nonferrous metals, such as nickel, zinc, and magnesium that are made in other establishments. \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
63.11544 of subpart ZZZZZZ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other
Nonferrous Foundries). 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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C40402), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention: Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20080236. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI contained in a disk or CDROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CDROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. D. When would a public hearing occur?
If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning the proposed rule by February 19, 2009, we will hold a public hearing on February 24, 2009. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Christine Adams at (919) 5415590 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at EPA's campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.
II. Revision to the Source Category List
This notice announces a revision to the area source category list
developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant to
section 112(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision changes the
name of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' source category to
``Aluminum Foundries''. The revision also changes the name of the
``Nonferrous Foundries, nec'' source category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries.'' \1\
\1\ This is a change in name only and in no way affects the
scope or coverage of the source category. Nonferrous foundries not
elsewhere classified (nec) are simply those foundries melting
nonferrous metals other than copper and aluminum. Copper and
aluminum foundries were assigned their own unique SIC and NAICS codes.
We are proposing to change the name of the ``Secondary Aluminum
Production'' source category because we incorrectly named the category
in the notice adding ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' to our list of
area source categories (66 FR 8220, January 20, 2001). Upon identifying
the error, we prepared a memorandum explaining the error.\2\ The memorandum stated that the
[[Page 6512]]
listing of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' category was not based
on secondary aluminum facilities, but rather on the emissions from a
different source category``Aluminum Foundries.'' In addition,
background documentation for the 1990 emissions inventory, from which
the source category listed in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy
was derived, states that the contribution of aluminum foundries to the
CAA section 112(k) inventory of urban hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
was based on the 1990 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for facilities
reporting under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3365
(``aluminum foundries except die casting'') and the obsolete SIC code
3361 (``aluminum foundriescastings'').\3\ We are therefore changing
the name of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' source category to
``Aluminum Foundries'', which is consistent with the inventory and the record supporting our original listing decision.
\2\ Memorandum from Barbara Driscoll to Docket Number OAR2002
0036 (Docket for Final Revision of Area Source Category List Under
Sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(iii) of the Clean Air Act).
``Basis for Determination of New Area Source Categories Listed for
Future Regulatory Development on November 22, 2002.'' Docket Item IVB11.
\3\ Note that most secondary aluminum facilities are major
sources and are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR. These
facilities recycle aluminum scrap and do not produce foundry castings.
We also are revising the name of the ``Nonferrous Foundries, nec''
category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'' to clarify that the source
category includes all nonferrous foundries except aluminum foundries
and copper foundries. This change has no impact on the type of sources included in the category or on the scope of the category.
III. Background Information for the Proposed Area Source Standards
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for the proposed standards?
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 30 HAP that, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). In the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban areas; these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban HAP.'' 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. We implemented these requirements through the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technology or management practices (GACT)
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate Report Number 101228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important when developing regulations for source categories, like these, that have a majority of firms classified as small businesses according to the Small Business Administration standards in 13 CFR 121.201. Small businesses for the three foundry source categories that are the subject of this proposed rule are those with fewer than 500 employees.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. However, we did not identify any major sources in these three source categories.
Under appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category.
We are proposing these three foundry national emission standards in
response to a courtordered deadline that requires EPA to issue
standards for source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3)
and (k) by June 15, 2009 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 011537, D.D.C., March 2006).
B. What source categories are affected by the proposed standards? 1. Overview of the Three Source Categories
Aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries all produce castings of nonferrous metals that are used in products that require specific mechanical properties, machinability, and/or corrosion resistance. Aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries account for approximately 16 percent by weight of all foundry castings (iron and steel foundries account for the other 84 percent). Aluminum and aluminum alloy castings account for 11 percent compared to 2 percent for copper and copper alloy castings and 3 percent for other nonferrous castings. Usually, these nonferrous metals are cast in combinations with each other or with some of about 40 other elements to make many different nonferrous alloys. A few of the more common nonferrous alloys are brass, bronze, magnesium, nickelcopper alloys (Monel); nickel chromiumiron alloys; aluminumcopper alloys; aluminumsilicon alloys; aluminummagnesium alloys; and titanium alloys. Aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are much smaller emitters of particulate matter (PM) and metal HAP than iron and steel foundries, which typically melt much larger quantities of metal on a per facility basis.
Most of the aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries in the
United States are small businesses according to the Small Business
Administration size classifications (less than 500 employees), and
about 70 percent of the facilities employ fewer than 50 people.
Conversely, only 11 foundries (1 percent of the total) employ 500 or
more people, and all of these are aluminum foundries. Although most
foundries manufacture castings for sale to other companies, an
important exception is the relatively few ``captive'' foundries
operated by large original equipment manufacturers, such as automobile manufacturers.
[[Page 6513]]
2. Aluminum Foundries
The area source category ``Aluminum Foundries'' is comprised of
facilities that pour molten aluminum into molds to manufacture aluminum
castings. The relevant North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code is 331524 and is identified as ``aluminum foundries except
die casting.'' \4\ This source category was improperly listed under the
name ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' (66 FR 8220, January 20, 2001).
As discussed in section II of this preamble, we are revising the area
source category list to correct the name of the category. The category
is properly labeled ``Aluminum Foundries,'' and as the 2001 listing
decision reflects, the category was listed due to emissions of the
urban HAP beryllium, cadmium, lead compounds, manganese, and nickel (the ``aluminum foundry HAP'').
\4\ Aluminum die casters are included under the SIC code 3363
and NAICS 331521 and are defined as establishments primarily engaged
in introducing molten aluminum, under high pressure, into molds or dies to make aluminum die castings.
Information on aluminum foundries that classify themselves as primarily in NAICS 331524 is available from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose most recent census survey (2002) identified 542 aluminum foundries. The industry is characterized by many small businesses, with 154 plants (28 percent) having only one to four employees, and 531 plants (98 percent) having fewer than 500 employees.
3. Copper Foundries
The area source category ``Copper Foundries'' is comprised of facilities that pour molten copper and copperbased alloys into molds to manufacture copper and copperbased alloy castings (excluding die casting). Copper foundries in the 2002 census survey produce a wide variety of castings, including copper and copperbased alloys, brass, engineered copper alloy (i.e., manganese bronze, silicon brass and bronze, aluminum bronze, and copper nickel), tin bronze, and red and semired brass. EPA listed the Copper Foundries area source category in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002) due to emissions of the urban HAP lead compounds, manganese, and nickel (the ``copper foundry HAP'').
The NAICS code for copper foundries is 331525 (``copper foundries except die casting''). Information on copper foundries that classify themselves as primarily in NAICS 331525 is also available from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose most recent census survey (2002) identified 281 copper foundries. The copper foundry industry consists of small businesses, with 80 plants (28 percent) having only one to four employees, and all of the plants having fewer than 250 employees. 4. Nonferrous Foundries
The area source category ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'' is comprised of facilities that pour molten nonferrous metals (excluding aluminum, copper, and copperbased alloys) into molds to manufacture nonferrous metal castings (excluding die casting). Nonferrous foundries in the 2002 census survey produce a variety of nonferrous metal castings, including nickel and nickelbased alloys, zinc and zincbased alloys, and magnesium and magnesiumbased alloys. EPA listed ``Nonferrous Foundries, nec'' in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002) due to emissions of the urban HAP chromium, lead compounds, and nickel (the ``other nonferrous foundry HAP''). As explained in section II of this preamble, we are changing the name of the ``Nonferrous Foundries, nec'' area source category to ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'' to clarify that the source category includes all nonferrous foundries except aluminum and copper foundries.
The NAICS code for nonferrous foundries is 331528 (``other
nonferrous foundries except die casting''). Information on nonferrous
foundries that classify themselves as primarily in NAICS 331528 is also
available from the U.S. Census Bureau, whose most recent census survey
(2002) identified 143 nonferrous foundries. The nonferrous foundry
industry is also characterized by many small businesses, with 51 plants
(36 percent) having only one to four employees and all of the plants having fewer than 500 employees.
C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available controls?
1. Production Operations
The processes used at aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are similar; the primary difference is the type of metal that is melted and cast. Foundries produce complex metal shapes by melting the metal in a furnace and pouring the molten metal into a mold to solidify into the desired shape. Foundry processes include: (1) Melting metal ingot, alloyed ingot, scrap, or a combination in a melting furnace; (2) alloying the molten metal (if necessary); (3) pouring the molten metal into a mold where it forms the desired shape, cools, and solidifies (this process is also referred to as casting); (4) removing the cast from the mold; (5) cleaning (e.g., shot blasting, grinding); and (6) finishing the casting surface. Foundries using sand casting may also have facilities that prepare sand molds and cores onsite.
The metal HAP emissions that were used as the basis for the 1990 inventory are emitted from the melting furnaces, where solid metal (e.g., ingot, scrap, alloys) is heated to high temperatures to produce molten metal. The most common types of melting furnaces used at aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are reverberatory (more common for aluminum foundries), crucible, and induction furnaces. Gasfired (and sometimes oilfired) reverberatory furnaces heat the metal to melting temperatures with directfired, wallmounted burners. These furnaces are bricklined and constructed with a curved roof. The term ``reverberatory'' is used because heat rising from ignited fuel is reflected (reverberated) back down from the curved furnace roof and into the melted charge. A typical reverberatory furnace has an enclosed melt area where the flame heat source operates directly above the molten metal. Reverberatory furnaces have capacities ranging from 1 to 150 tons of molten metal. The advantages of reverberatory melters are the highvolume processing rate and low operating and maintenance costs. The disadvantages are the high metal oxidation rates, low efficiencies, and large floor space requirements.
Gasfired crucible furnaces are smallcapacity indirect melters and holders typically used for small melting applications or exclusively as a holding furnace. The metal is placed or poured into a ceramic crucible, which is contained in a circular furnace and is fired by a gas burner. The energy is applied indirectly to the metal by heating the crucible. The advantages of crucible furnaces are their ability to change alloys quickly, their low oxidation losses, and their low maintenance costs. Disadvantages include low efficiency and size limitations.
There are two general types of induction furnaces: Channel and
coreless. Channel furnaces use an electromagnetic field to heat the
metal between two coils and induce a flowing pattern of the molten
metal, which serves to maintain uniform temperatures without mechanical
stirring. Coreless furnaces heat the metal via an external primary coil
and are slightly less efficient than channel furnaces, but their melt
capacity per unit floor area is much higher. Channel furnaces are used [[Page 6514]]
almost exclusively as holding furnaces, while coreless furnaces are
used mainly for melting finely shredded scrap, where they are most cost
competitive with gasfired furnaces. The advantages of induction
furnaces include high melting efficiency, low emissions, low metal
oxidation losses, and high alloy uniformity due to increased mixing.
Their disadvantages relate primarily to their high capital and
operating costs. Induction furnaces range in size from very small to 7.5 tons per melt.
Tower furnaces are less common than the furnaces discussed above. In tower furnaces, metal ingot and scrap are loaded from the top of a vertical tower, and burners at the bottom of the tower melt the metal. The advantages of the tower furnaces are high efficiency and low oxidation losses. The disadvantages of tower furnaces are their high capital costs and the furnace size, which is restricted by height limitations.
2. Emission Sources and Available Controls
Melting furnaces at aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are the emission sources of the HAP for which these area source categories were listed. Emissions of HAP metals from aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries are directly related to the quantity of trace HAP metals that enter with the scrap and ingot that is charged to the melting furnaces. We collected industry survey data, reviewed operating permits, and held discussions with industry and trade association representatives to identify potential control technologies and management practices for these source categories. We identified two primary methods to control metal HAP emissions from foundries: (1) Management practices (i.e., specifications that limit the amount of metal HAP in charge materials, and suppression techniques, such as covers) and (2) addon pollution control devices, such as baghouses. Our review indicated that most foundries already use management practices, often as part of their standard operating procedures, to reduce emissions of PM and metal HAP. Typical management practices include using covers or enclosures on melting furnaces when they are melting; using clean scrap; defining specifications for charge materials (e.g., specified range for lead, certified ingot); and monitoring melting and pouring temperature.
The vast majority \5\ of melting furnaces at aluminum foundries are not equipped with emission control devices for PM, which may be attributed to differences in certain physical properties and characteristics of melting aluminum compared to melting copper and other nonferrous metals. For example, melting aluminum may result in lower emissions compared to the other nonferrous metals for several reasons. Higher melting temperatures result in higher emissions of PM and greater volatilization of HAP metals. Aluminum melts at approximately 1,200 [deg]F, whereas copper melts at about 2,000 [deg]F, nickel melts at 2,650 [deg]F, and iron and steel melt at 2,300 to 2,800 [deg]F. In addition, most aluminum foundries melt aluminum ingot, alloyed ingot, and internal scrap that is recycled, all of which typically have very low concentrations of HAP metals. From our survey of aluminum foundries, we found that the materials charged to the melting furnaces contained, on average, only 0.4 percent of the urban HAP for which the source category was listed. In contrast, some copper based alloys, such as leaded brass, contain up to 3.5 percent lead. \5\ As discussed in more detail later in this preamble, none of the 111 aluminum melting furnaces identified in our survey of nine companies had PM control devices, and our review of operating permits for 36 aluminum foundries with 297 melting furnaces showed that only two foundries with 12 of the 297 melting furnaces (4 percent) had PM control devices.
Melting furnaces for copper, copperbased alloys (primarily brass
and bronze), and other nonferrous metals also use management practices
to control emissions. In addition, many of the melting furnaces at
copper and other nonferrous foundries, especially at the larger
foundries, are equipped with baghouses or cartridge filters to control emissions of PM and metal HAP.
IV. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. Do these proposed standards apply to my facility?
The proposed standards would apply to all existing or new melting operations (the affected source), including all of the various types of melting furnaces, at an aluminum, copper, or other nonferrous foundry that meets certain applicability criteria. A melting operation is an existing affected source if construction or reconstruction of the melting operation commenced on or before February 9, 2009. A melting operation is a new affected source if construction or reconstruction of the melting operation commences after February 9, 2009.
The proposed standards apply to each aluminum foundry, copper foundry, or other nonferrous foundry that: (1) Is an area source; (2) uses material that contains or has the potential to emit HAP for which the source category was listed (i.e., ``aluminum foundry HAP'', ``copper foundry HAP'', and ``other nonferrous foundry HAP''; and (3) melts 600 tpy or greater of metal. Any material that contains beryllium, cadmium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal), would be considered a ``material containing aluminum foundry HAP''. Any material that contains lead or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal), or contains manganese in amounts greater than or equal to 1.0 percent by weight (as the metal) would be considered to be a ``material containing copper foundry HAP.'' Any material that contains chromium, lead, or nickel in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight (as the metal) would be considered to be a ``material containing other nonferrous foundry HAP.'' As explained in more detail in section V.A of this preamble, we are using elemental lead in the charge materials as a surrogate for lead compounds because the elemental lead is emitted from the melting furnace as lead compounds. Facilities could determine whether material contains the target HAP by using formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such as the material safety data sheet. The proposed definitions of these terms are consistent with the definitions used in standards developed for other area source categories such as Plating and Polishing (73 FR 37728, July 1, 2008), Metal Fabrication and Finishing (73 FR 42978, July 23, 2008) and as defined by OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.1200 (i.e., a concentration of 0.1 percent or more for carcinogens and 1.0 percent or more for noncarcinogens).
The proposed standards would not apply to research and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA, because these facilities were not part of the 1990 inventory.
B. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
The owner or operator of an existing source would be required to comply with the rule no later than 2 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or operator of a new source would be required to Federal Register or startup of the facility, whichever is later.
C. What are the proposed standards?
We are proposing that the following management practices are GACT for new and existing sources at aluminum,
[[Page 6515]]
copper, and other nonferrous foundries: (1) Cover or enclose melting
furnaces that are equipped with covers or enclosures during the melting
process, to the extent practicable (e.g., except when access is needed,
such as for charging, alloy addition, tapping); and (2) purchase and
use only scrap material that has been depleted (to the extent
practicable) of ``aluminum foundry HAP,'' ``copper foundry HAP'', or
``other nonferrous foundry HAP'' (as applicable) in the materials
charged to the melting furnace, excluding HAP metals that are required
to be added for the production of alloyed castings. We are further
proposing that facilities develop and retain and operate by a written
management practices plan for minimizing emissions from melting
operations that documents how the required management practices (and
any other management practices in use) are to be implemented.
The owner or operator of a new or existing source at a copper
foundry or other nonferrous foundry that melts at least 6,000 tpy of
metal would be required to comply with emission limits as described
below. In setting the proposed emission limits, we are using PM as a
surrogate for the metal HAP emissions. We are proposing that GACT for
existing affected sources is achieving a PM control efficiency of at
least 95.0 percent or an outlet PM concentration of at most 0.015
grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). We are proposing that
GACT for new affected sources is achieving a PM control efficiency of
at least 99.0 percent or an outlet PM concentration of at most of 0.010 gr/dscf.
D. What are the compliance requirements?
1. Performance Test
The owner or operator of any existing or new source subject to a PM emissions limit would be required to conduct a onetime initial performance test. The owner or operator would be required to test PM emissions from melting operations using EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A3) or EPA Method 17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A6).
A performance test is not required for an existing affected source if a prior performance test has been conducted within the past 5 years using the methods required by this proposed rule, which are the methods required in Sec. 63.11151 of proposed subpart ZZZZZZ, and either no process changes had been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes.
2. Monitoring Requirements
The owner or operator of new or existing source would be required to record information to document conformance with the management practices plan. The proposed recordkeeping requirements are described in section IV.E of this preamble.
For existing sources where emissions are controlled by a fabric filter, the owner or operator would be required to conduct and record the results of daily observations of visible emissions (VE) from the monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s) during melting operations. Should any of the daily observations reveal any VE, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the VE within 1 hour and alleviate the cause of the emissions within 3 hours of the observations by taking whatever corrective actions are necessary.
The foundry would have the option to decrease the frequency of observations from daily to weekly if the foundry collects at least 90 consecutive operating days of observations with no VE. If, after the foundry converts to a weekly schedule, any VE is observed, the foundry would be required to revert to a daily schedule until another consecutive 90 operating days of data are obtained that demonstrate there was no VE during the period observed. Then, the foundry may convert to a weekly observation schedule. We are requesting comment on whether the requirement for an initial period of 90 consecutive days of VE observations is appropriate and whether some other period of time would be adequate to establish consistent performance of the baghouse before reducing to weekly observations. As an alternative to the VE observations, an owner or operator of an existing source may elect to operate and maintain a bag leak detection system as described below for new sources.
The owner or operator of new source equipped with a fabric filter would be required to operate and maintain a bag leak detection system and prepare a sitespecific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of existing sources would have the option of complying with the bag leak detection system requirements as an alternative to the daily (or weekly) visual inspections.
Our study of the industry indicates that fabric filters are used as
the control device for melting furnaces; however, it is conceivable
that there is an existing foundry that does or could use some other
type of control device to meet the PM emission standard. If a copper or
other nonferrous foundry uses a control device other than a fabric
filter for existing sources subject to the PM emissions limit, the
owner or operator must prepare and submit a monitoring plan to the
permitting authority for approval. The information requirements for the
plan would include: (1) A description of the device, (2) test results
collected according to the rule requirements that verify the
performance of the device for reducing PM emissions, (3) an operation
and maintenance plan for the control device, (4) a list of operating
parameters to be monitored, and (5) operating limits for control device
operating parameters based on monitoring data collected during the performance test.
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
The owner or operator of existing or new sources would be required to comply with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. We are proposing that the owner or operator of an affected foundry submit an Initial Notification according to the requirements Sec. 63.9(a) through (d) and a Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h) of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
All aluminum, copper and other nonferrous foundries would be required to keep records to document compliance with the required management practices. For melting furnaces equipped with a cover or enclosure, these records would include the identity of each melting furnace equipped with a cover or enclosure, the date and time of each melting operation, and confirmation that the procedures in the management practices plan were followed. These records may be in the form of a checklist. The proposed rule also would require records of the purchase and use of only metal scrap that has been depleted of HAP metals prior to charging in a melting furnace.
Owners or operators of existing sources equipped with a fabric
filter would be required to maintain records of all VE monitoring data including:
[[Page 6516]]
Recordkeeping requirements also would apply to facilities that use bag leak detection systems. We are also proposing to require that copper foundries and other nonferrous foundries that are not subject to the PM emission limits keep records to demonstrate the total annual amount (i.e., tpy) of metal melted at the facility is less than 6,000 tpy.
If a deviation from the rule requirements occurs, an affected
foundry would be required to submit a compliance report for that
reporting period. The proposed rule specifies the information requirements for such compliance reports.
V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
A. How did we select the source categories?
As discussed in section II of this preamble, the inclusion of the ``Secondary Aluminum Production'' (renamed ``Aluminum Foundries'') area source category on the area source category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, which represents 1990 urban air information. The ``Aluminum Foundries'' area source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source emissions for the following urban HAP: Beryllium, cadmium, lead compounds, manganese, and nickel.
The ``Copper Foundries'' and ``Nonferrous Foundries nec'' (renamed ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'') source categories were listed under CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70427). The ``Copper Foundries'' area source category was listed based on emissions of lead compounds, manganese, and nickel. The ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'' area source category was listed based on emissions of chromium, lead compounds, and nickel.
For the Aluminum Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories, we solicited information on the production operations, emission sources, and available controls using written facility surveys, reviews of published literature, and reviews of operating permits. We also held discussions with industry representatives and trade associations. This research confirmed that the aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundry sources emit the urban HAP for which the source categories were listed, although we found that current emissions of such HAP are lower than the amounts estimated for 1990 in the section 112(k) inventory. The lower emissions can be attributed to the lower worker exposure standard for lead developed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1996, State permitting requirements, and actions taken to improve efficiency or reduce costs.
We are proposing that the rule apply only to those foundries that emit the metal HAP for which the source category was listed. The Aluminum Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other Nonferrous Foundries source categories would include only those facilities that use materials that contain or have the potential to emit aluminum foundry HAP, copper foundry HAP, or other nonferrous foundry HAP from melting furnaces.
We are proposing to use elemental lead as a surrogate for lead compounds when determining the HAP metal content of materials charged to the furnace because elemental lead is a precursor to the formation of lead oxide (and other lead compounds), and lead compounds are a listed HAP for all three of the source categories that are the subject of this proposal. When elemental lead is used in furnace charge materials (e.g., as an alloy), some lead volatilizes at the high temperatures of the melting furnace and reacts with oxygen in the air, forming lead compounds. The presence of elemental lead in materials charged to the melting furnaces is an indication of potential HAP emissions of lead compounds. As with the listed examples, we believe that emissions below the OSHA thresholds were not part of the 1990 inventory that established the basis for the listing. However, foundries melting copperbased alloys (such as alloys that contain elemental lead to make certain types of brass) emit lead compounds and were part of the 1990 inventory that established the basis for the listing.
We also queried the 1990 TRI to develop the list of plants and their emissions used to develop the CAA section 112(k) emissions inventory for the three source categories. This query was performed in the same manner (by standard industrial classification code for the source categories reporting for 1990) that was used to develop the 1990 inventory. Our review of the basis for the listing of the three source categories indicated that the 1990 inventory was based on a small number of the largest foundries that met the TRI reporting thresholds. None of the very small foundries that are common in these source categories were included in the 1990 TRI or used as the basis for the CAA section 112(k) listing. From our analysis of the 1990 TRI reporting data, we concluded that emissions from foundries melting less than 600 tpy of metal were not included in the 1990 baseline inventory because they were not significant contributors to emissions of the listed metal HAP. Consequently, consistent with the listing, we are clarifying that the source category includes only those aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries that melt 600 tpy or more of metal because only these foundries were the basis for the listing of the area source categories. We estimate that 318 of 966 aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries would be subject to the proposed rule. These 318 facilities account for 90 percent of the production in the source categories and approximately 90 percent of the urban HAP emissions. Based on our experience with previous regulations involving foundry operations, there is a good correlation between the total amount of metal melted (production level) and resulting PM/metal HAP emissions. B. How did we select the affected source?
Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. In
selecting the affected source for this proposed rule, we identified
foundry melting operations as the source of metal HAP emissions that
was used for the 1990 inventory. In the melting operations, the melting
furnaces (e.g., induction, reverberatory, crucible, tower) are heated
to high temperatures, primarily by natural gas or electricity, to melt
solid ingot and scrap. Emissions from the molten metal include the
primary metal being melted and its oxides, and to a lesser extent,
trace quantities of HAP metals if they are present in the materials
melted in the furnace. We concluded that designating foundry melting
operations (including all of the various types of melting furnaces at
an affected foundry) as the affected source was the most appropriate approach.
C. How are the aluminum foundry HAP, the copper foundry HAP, and the
other nonferrous foundry HAP addressed by this proposed rule?
For this proposed rule, we decided that it was not practical to
establish individual standards for each specific type of aluminum, copper, and other
[[Page 6517]]
nonferrous foundry metal HAP that could be present in the various
processes. A sufficient correlation exists between PM and these metal
HAP to rely on PM as a surrogate for both the presence of the HAP and
for their control.\6\ When released, each of the metal HAP compounds
behaves as PM. The control technologies used for the control of PM
emissions achieve comparable levels of performance on the individual
aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundry metal HAP emissions.
Therefore, standards requiring good control of PM also achieve good
control of aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundry metal HAP
emissions. Furthermore, establishing separate standards for each
individual metal HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex
compliance and monitoring requirements and achieve little, if any, HAP
emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the surrogate
pollutant approach based on total PM. Based on these considerations, we
are proposing standards for aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous
foundries based on control of total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the
individual aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundry metal HAP.
\6\ National Lime Association v. EPA. 233 F.3d 625, 639640
(D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
D. How did we determine GACT?
As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards representing GACT for the ``Aluminum Foundries'', ``Copper Foundries'', and ``Other Nonferrous Foundries'' area source categories. As noted in section III.A of this preamble, EPA has the discretion to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to section 112(c) based on GACT. See CAA section 112(d)(5). The statute does not set any condition precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
Our data indicate that none of the facilities in the aluminum or other nonferrous foundries source categories are major sources. Consequently, we could not examine major sources in the same industrial sector to identify control technologies and management practices that may be transferable and generally available to area sources. However, we did consider technologies and practices at other major and area sources in similar categories. For example, we reviewed the management practices required by the area source standards for iron and steel foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ).
All of the facilities in the three source categories at issue here for which we have obtained data have good operational controls in place. We evaluated the control technologies and management practices that are generally available for these foundry area source categories. We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for determining GACT for the Aluminum Foundries, Copper Foundries, and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories because, given their relatively low level of HAP emissions, requiring additional controls would result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in control. We explain our proposed GACT determinations in detail below. 1. Aluminum Foundries
We gathered background information on aluminum foundries from
discussions with industry trade associations, an industry survey of
area sources (no major sources were identified), and from a review of
operating permits to identify the emission controls and management
practices that are currently used to control PM and metal HAP
emissions. We sent surveys to 9 companies with 10 aluminum foundries,
and we received information from these 9 companies for 111 aluminum
melting furnaces. EPA sent the survey to foundries ranging in size from
200 tpy of total metal processed and 11 to 12 employees per plant to
20,000 tpy and 350 to 650 employees per plant (including three large
foundries operated by automobile manufacturing companies). We also
obtained and reviewed operating permits for 36 foundries that operate
297 furnaces for melting aluminum. The survey results indicate that
none of the 111 melting furnaces at the 10 plants have PM emission
control devices on their melting furnaces. Ninetysix percent of the
melting furnaces included in the permit information do not have PM
emission control devices.\7\ The lack of PM controls for aluminum
melting furnaces is not surprising because of their lower operating
(melt) temperatures and corresponding low emission potential compared to furnaces melting other metals.
\7\ 285 of the 297 melting furnaces (96 percent) at 34 of the 36 plants.
We also requested information in our survey on management practices to control emissions, and we reviewed the operating permits for management practices that might be used. The most common management practice reported in the survey responses was the use of ``clean charge'' materials (primary ingot, internal recycled scrap), which was mentioned specifically by six plants. Four plants reported using covers on some of their furnaces to suppress emissions. In our review of management practices employed by similar area source categories, we found that a similar management practice has been applied and is required in other area source rules (i.e., requiring that furnace charge materials be depleted of HAP metals to the extent practicable). (See 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE and subpart YYYYY.)
Based on our review of the techniques used at aluminum foundries
and other types of foundries, we are proposing that the management
practices discussed above are GACT for both existing and new sources.
These techniques are generally available and have been implemented by
many of the aluminum foundries. To the best of our knowledge and based
on the information we have available, the management practices are not
costly to implement and would not result in any significant adverse
economic impact on any foundry (i.e., the cost would be much less than
0.1 percent of sales). Specifically, we are proposing as GACT that each
aluminum foundry owner or operator would (1) cover or enclose melting
furnaces, which are equipped with covers or enclosures during the
melting process, to the extent practicable (e.g., except when access is
needed, such as for charging, alloy addition, tapping); and (2)
purchase and use only aluminum scrap that has been depleted (to the
extent practicable) of HAP metals in the materials charged to the
melting furnace, excluding HAP metals that are required to be added for
the production of alloyed castings. In addition, we are proposing that
each aluminum foundry owner or operator prepare and operate pursuant to
a written management practices plan that includes, but is not limited
to, the requirements described above. The plan would also include all
other procedures that are implemented at the facility to minimize
emissions from melting furnaces. The exception for alloyed castings is
appropriate because some foundries, especially those producing alloys
in which lead is an essential component, purchase certain types of
scrap specifically for their lead content. An owner or operator who uses this exception would be required to
[[Page 6518]]
maintain records to document that the HAP metal is included in the material specification for the cast metal product.
We also examined the feasibility of defining GACT to include an addon control device (such as a fabric filter) to control metal HAP emissions from aluminum foundries. We had sufficient data on emissions and stack gas flow rates from an operating permit and an emissions inventory to perform an analysis for a mediumsized aluminum foundry (4,700 tpy of production) that had 51 crucible melting furnaces with melting rates that ranged from 9 to 68 tons per hour. The furnaces were in seven groups that exhausted through 16 different stacks. We estimated the total installed capital cost for a baghouse on each of the seven groups of furnaces as $4.7 million, with a total annualized cost of $1.0 million per year. The reduction in PM emissions was estimated as 6 tpy, with a reduction of 0.02 tpy of metal HAP emissions. The cost effectiveness was estimated as $200,000 per ton for control of PM and $50 million per ton for control of metal HAP. We are therefore proposing that addon controls, such as a baghouse, should not represent GACT for aluminum foundries because of the high cost and low cost effectiveness for only a marginal reduction in HAP emissions. 2. Copper and Other Nonferrous Foundries
In identifying GACT for sources in the Copper Foundries and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories, we gathered background information from industry surveys and operating permits to identify the emission controls and management practices that are currently used to control PM and metal HAP emissions from these sources. We sent surveys to nine companies operating copper foundries and two companies operating nonferrous foundries. We found that many facilities have both copper and other nonferrous foundries colocated at the same site. Because of the significant overlap between foundry operations and the similarity in melting processes, we evaluated GACT for copper and other nonferrous foundries collectively. In addition to similar metal products being cast at many of the same facilities in the two source categories, we found that copper and other nonferrous foundries use the same types and sizes of furnaces to melt certified ingot and/or scrap metal. The survey sent to the nine companies included foundries ranging in size from 50 tpy of total metal processed and less than 5 employees per plant to 16,000 tpy and 350 to 500 employees per plant. We also received information from industry trade associations and from operating permits for 15 additional copper and other nonferrous foundries. As part of the industry survey, we requested information on management practices to control emissions, and we reviewed the operating permits for management practices that might be used. We also reviewed the management practices used in similar source categories, such as Aluminum Foundries and Iron and Steel Foundries.
Based on our review of the techniques used at foundries, we are proposing the management practices discussed previously for aluminum foundries as GACT for both existing and new sources at copper and other nonferrous foundries. These techniques are generally available and have been widely implemented by many copper and other nonferrous foundries. In addition, these management practices are not costly to implement and would not result in any significant adverse economic impact on any foundry (i.e., the cost would be much less than 0.1 percent of sales). The owner or operator of a copper and other nonferrous foundry subject to the area source standards would be required to (1) cover or enclose melting furnaces, which are equipped with covers or enclosures during the melting process, to the extent practicable (e.g., except when access is needed, such as for charging, alloy addition, tapping); and (2) purchase and use only scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of HAP metals in the materials charged to the melting furnace, excluding HAP metals that are required to be added for the production of alloyed castings. In addition, we are proposing that each copper and other nonferrous foundry owner or operator prepare and operate by a written management practices plan that includes, but is not limited to, the requirements described above. The plan would also include all other procedures that are implemented at the facility to minimize emissions from melting furnaces. As discussed above, the exception for alloyed castings is appropriate because some foundries, especially those producing alloys in which lead is an essential component, purchase certain types of scrap specifically for their lead content. For example, certain grades of brass castings (a copperbased alloy) are required to have percent levels of lead in their product specification. As for aluminum foundries, an owner or operator who uses this exception would maintain records to document that the HAP metal is included in the material specification for the cast metal product.
As part of the GACT analysis, we also considered whether other
control techniques or addon controls (in addition to management
practices) should be considered generally available for this industry
and whether there are differences in processes, sizes, or other factors
affecting emissions that would warrant subcategorization.\8\ In our
review of the production and emissions data for all of the copper and
other nonferrous foundries in the project database, we found
significant differences among foundries based on their total melt
rates. Smaller foundries were found to have smaller melting furnaces
and lower emissions, and smaller foundries are more likely to have
smaller scale (e.g., crucible) furnaces and other low capacity
furnaces. These differences in process equipment affect the feasibility
and cost effectiveness of addon controls such as baghouses to reduce
metal HAP emissions. Based on these differences, we determined that
subcategorization of copper and other nonferrous foundries by size was justified to evaluate the feasibility of addon controls.
\8\ Under section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in establishing such standards * * *''.
We evaluated the impacts of requiring all melting furnaces to
operate with a baghouse control system. As part of that evaluation, we
examined the feasibility of defining GACT for those facilities melting
less than 6,000 tpy of total metal to include an addon control device
for PM and HAP metals (such as a baghouse) to control metal HAP
emissions. For those facilities with annual melting rates less than
6,000 tpy of total metal, we had information showing that fewer than
half (4 out of 10) of the foundries currently use addon controls and
that all of the facilities that responded to the survey use some type
of management practice(s) to minimize PM and metal HAP emissions. Based
on our analysis of costs for a typical facility melting less than 6,000
tpy, we estimated the cost effectiveness for applying a baghouse to the
melting furnaces as $50,000 per ton of PM and $1 million per ton of
metal HAP. We therefore concluded that addon controls, such as a
baghouse, should not represent GACT for copper and other nonferrous
foundries with melting rates less than 6,000 tpy of total metal
processed because of the high equipment and installation cost (compared
to process equipment) and low cost effectiveness. For facilities melting less than 6,000 tpy, we
[[Page 6519]]
concluded that GACT is the management practices discussed above.
We also examined the feasibility of addon controls for metal HAP
for melting furnaces melting 6,000 tpy or more. Our evaluation of the
data and survey results showed that at least nine of the 10 foundries
we identified with melting rates greater than or equal to 6,000 tpy use
addon controls for PM and HAP metals on their melting operations. Discussions with industry trade associations and foundry
representatives indicated that all copper and other nonferrous
foundries melting more than 6,000 tpy used addon controls for
emissions of PM and metal HAP. Consequently, to the best of our
knowledge and based on the available information, there would be no
significant costs or adverse economic impacts in determining that GACT
for foundries melting 6,000 tpy or more of total metal should include
(in addition to the management practices discussed above) an emission
standard based on the level of control achieved by an addon control
device. If commenters can identify foundries not in our database that
would be required to install addon control devices as a result of this
proposed rule, please provide supporting data (at a minimum, the name
and location of the foundry and its melting capacity) in your comments.
In their survey responses, facilities that melted 6,000 tpy or more of total metal reported using fabric filters (i.e., baghouses or cartridge filters) on furnace melting operations and that such fabric filters performed at a PM collection efficiency of at least 95 percent. Based on the same types of controls used on similar sources, an equivalent outlet PM concentration limit is 0.034 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (i.e., 0.015 grains per dry standard cubic foot [gr/dscf]).
Based on the data we have collected, we are proposing the management practices discussed above and a PM standard as GACT for existing copper and other nonferrous foundries that melt 6,000 tpy or more of metal that would require achieving a reduction in the PM emissions from melting operations of at least 95 percent or an outlet concentration of no more than 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf), which is equivalent to a reduction of at least 95 percent. The proposed PM standard would be based on the performance that has been demonstrated for fabric filters applied to existing sources' melting operations in the Copper Foundries and Other Nonferrous Foundries source categories. For example, an equivalent outlet concentration limit of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) was determined to be GACT for melting furnaces at secondary nonferrous metal processing area sources, and the melting furnaces, emissions, and level of control that can be achieved are similar to those at copper and other nonferrous foundries. An outlet concentration limit is necessary (in addition to a percent reduction standard) because the inlet flow rate and concentration (both needed to determine control efficiency) for some emission control systems cannot be accurately measured due to the configuration of duct work. In addition, some furnaces have an inlet mass rate that is so low that control efficiency is not a practical measure of performance. We determined that the GACT level of control is achievable by technology (i.e., baghouse or cartridge filters) that is generally available and widely used, and the technology is effective for controlling emissions of PM, copper foundry HAP, and other nonferrous foundry HAP.
In identifying GACT for new affected sources in the Copper Foundries and Other Nonferrous Foundries area source categories, we considered the available data on the existing facilities and the levels of control achieved by the best performing sources, which is a level of control that can be designed into and achieved by new sources. The best performing facilities reported that each fabric filter used at their facilities performed at a PM collection efficiency of at least 99 percent.
We contacted baghouse manufacturers to gather information on design parameters and performance for new baghouse installations in the foundries industry. Furthermore, we also considered the performance of baghouses at similar sources (e.g., melting furnaces used in other industries). Based on the available data fr
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
For questions about the proposed standards for aluminum foundries, contact Mr. David Cole, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Outreach and Information Division, Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group (C40405), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; Telephone Number: (919) 5415565; Fax Number: (919) 5410242; Email address: Cole.David@epa.gov. For questions about the proposed standards for copper foundries and other nonferrous foundries, contact Mr. Gary Blais, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Outreach and Information Division, Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group (C40405), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; Telephone Number: (919) 5413223; Fax Number: (919) 5410242; E mail address: Blais.Gary@epa.gov.