National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production

Transcription

1 This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/18/2015 and available online at and on FDsys.gov P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA HQ OAR ; FRL OAR] RIN 2060-AQ40 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR), and the rule review, we conducted for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In this action, we are finalizing several amendments to the NESHAP based on the rule review. These final amendments include a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); provisions allowing owners and operators to change furnace classifications; requirements to account for unmeasured emissions during compliance testing for group 1 furnaces that do not have add-on control devices; alternative compliance options for the operating and monitoring

2 Page 2 of 306 requirements for sweat furnaces; compliance provisions for hydrogen fluoride; provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and other corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring and performance testing requirements. These amendments will improve the monitoring, compliance and implementation of the rule. DATES: Effective date: This final action is effective on [insert date of publication in the federal register]. Compliance dates: The compliance date for the final amendments listed in 40 CFR (b) for existing secondary aluminum production affected sources is [insert date 180 days after publication in the federal register]. The compliance date for the final amendments listed in 40 CFR (c) for existing affected sources is September 18, The owner or operator of a new affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after February 14, 2012, must comply with all of the requirements listed in 40 CFR (b) and (c) by [insert date of publication in the federal register] or upon startup, whichever is later. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert date of publication in the federal register].

3 Page 3 of 306 ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR All documents in the docket are listed on the Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) , and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Rochelle Boyd, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) ; fax number: (919) ; and address: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the

4 Page 4 of 306 risk modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) ; fax number: (919) ; and address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Scott Throwe, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) ; and address: throwe.scott@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: ACGIH AEGL AERMOD APCD AMOS ATSDR BACT CAA CalEPA CBI American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists acute exposure guideline levels air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model air pollution control device ample margin of safety Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry best available control technology Clean Air Act California Environmental Protection Agency confidential business information

5 Page 5 of 306 CDX Central Data Exchange CFR Code of Federal Regulations D/F dioxins and furans Dscf dry standard cubic feet Dscm dry standard cubic meters EJ environmental justice EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines ERT Electronic Reporting Tool g grams gr grains HAP hazardous air pollutants HCl hydrogen chloride HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 HF hydrogen fluoride HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient ICR information collection request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer lb pounds lbs/yr pounds per year LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level MACT maximum achievable control technology MIR maximum individual risk NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAS National Academy of Sciences NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEI National Emissions Inventory NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOAEL no observed adverse effects level NRC National Research Council NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act O&M operation and maintenance OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance OMB Office of Management and Budget OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

6 Page 6 of 306 PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment PEL probable effect levels PM particulate matter POM polycyclic organic matter REL reference exposure level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RfC reference concentration RfD reference dose RTR Risk and Technology Review SAB Science Advisory Board SAPU secondary aluminum processing unit SBA Small Business Administration SOP standard operating procedures SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TEQ toxicity equivalents THC total hydrocarbons TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index tpy tons per year TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology Fate, Transport and Ecological Exposure model TTN Technology Transfer Network UBC used beverage containers UF uncertainty factor µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper prediction limit URE unit risk estimate Background Information. On February 14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, the EPA proposed decisions based on the RTR and proposed revisions to the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP based on review of the rule. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions to the rule. We summarize major comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide responses in this preamble. A summary of all other

7 Page 7 of 306 public comments on the proposal and the EPA s responses to those comments is available in the document, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Aluminum Production. Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule (77 FR 8576, February 14, 2012) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 72874, December 8, 2014), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR A track changes version of the regulatory language that shows the regulatory changes in this action is also available in the docket for the convenience of the reader. Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category in our February 14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, proposals? III. What is included in this final rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category? C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

8 Page 8 of 306 F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? G. What materials are being incorporated by reference? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category? A. Residual Risk Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category B. Technology Review for the Secondary Aluminum Production Source Category C. Testing of Group 1 Furnaces that do not have Add-on Pollution Control Devices D. Changing Furnace Classification E. Flow Rate Measurements and Annual Inspections of Capture/Collection Systems F. Compliance Dates V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected sources? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children s environmental health did we conduct? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 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 Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

9 Page 9 of 306 K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. Table 1. Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final Action Source Category Primary Aluminum Production Facilities Secondary Aluminum Production Facilities Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing Facilities Aluminum Extruded Product Manufacturing Facilities Other Aluminum Rolling and Drawing Facilities Aluminum Die Casting Facilities Aluminum Foundry Facilities a North American Industry Classification System. NAICS code a Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the secondary aluminum production source category. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

10 Page 10 of 306 B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will be available on the Internet through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version at this same Web site. Additional information is available on the (RTR) Web site at This information includes an overview of the RTR program, and links to project Web sites for the RTR source categories. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the federal register]. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may

11 Page 11 of 306 not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that [o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule [i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC

12 Page 12 of 306 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. Major sources are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment,

13 Page 13 of 306 work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based

14 Page 14 of 306 standards and revise them as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies) no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 77 FR 8576 and 79 FR The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A). NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ( If EPA determines that the existing technologybased standards provide an ample margin of safety, then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking. ).

15 Page 15 of 306 B. What is the Secondary Aluminum Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA initially promulgated the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15690). The rule was amended on December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79808), September 3, 2004 (69 FR 53980), October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57513), and December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75320). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, Subpart RRR. The existing Subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are major sources of HAP and that operate aluminum scrap shredders, thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, group 2 furnaces, sweat furnaces, dross only furnaces, rotary dross coolers, and secondary aluminum processing units (SAPUs). The SAPUs include group 1 furnaces and in-line fluxers. The Subpart RRR NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from secondary aluminum production facilities that are area sources of HAP only with respect to emissions of dioxins/furans (D/F) from thermal chip dryers, scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns, group 1 furnaces, sweat furnaces, and SAPUs. The secondary aluminum industry consists of approximately 161 secondary aluminum production facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 to be major sources of HAP. Several of the secondary aluminum facilities are co-located with primary

16 Page 16 of 306 aluminum, coil coating, and possibly other source category facilities. Natural gas boilers or process heaters may also be co-located at a few secondary aluminum facilities. The standards promulgated in 2000 established emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metal HAP, total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F, D/F expressed as toxicity equivalents (TEQ), and hydrogen chloride (HCl) as a surrogate for acid gases including hydrogen fluoride (HF), chlorine, and fluorine. HAP are emitted from the following affected sources: aluminum scrap shredders (subject to PM standards), thermal chip dryers (subject to standards for THC and D/F), scrap dryers/delacquering kilns/decoating kilns (subject to standards for PM, D/F, HCl, and THC), sweat furnaces (subject to D/F standards), dross-only furnaces (subject to PM standards), rotary dross coolers (subject to PM standards), group 1 furnaces (subject to standards for PM, HCl, and D/F), and in-line fluxers (subject to standards for PM and HCl). Group 2 furnaces and certain in-line fluxers are subject to work practice standards. For a more detailed description of the industry, processes, and the key requirements of the MACT rule, see the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 72879, December 8, 2014).

17 Page 17 of 306 C. What changes did we propose for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category in our February 14, 2012, and December 8, 2014, proposals? On February 14, 2012, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 8576) for the Secondary Aluminum Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, Subpart RRR, that took into consideration the RTR analyses and other reviews of the MACT rule. We proposed that no amendments to Subpart RRR were necessary as a result of the RTR analyses. However, we proposed several amendments to correct and clarify existing requirements based on other reviews of the rule, including: Proposed criteria and procedures for changing furnace classification (i.e., operating mode) and a limit on frequency of switching furnace classification of once per 6-month period, with an exception for control device maintenance requiring shutdown; Proposed amendments to clarify that performance tests under multiple scenarios may be required in order to reflect the emissions ranges for each regulated pollutant; Proposed compliance alternatives for testing of furnaces that do not have add-on air pollution control devices (also referred to as uncontrolled furnaces ), i.e., either temporary installation of American Conference of

18 Page 18 of 306 Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) hooding or, for existing uncontrolled furnaces, use of an assumption of 67- percent capture efficiency for furnace exhaust. If the source fails to demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent capture efficiency assumption, the source would have to retest within 90 days using hooding that meets ACGIH guidelines or submit a petition that such hoods are impractical and propose alternative testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured fugitive emissions; With regard to annual inspections of capture/collection systems, proposed codification of our existing interpretation that annual hood inspections include flow rate measurements using EPA Reference Methods 1 and 2; Proposed removal of exemptions from the requirement to comply with 40 CFR part 63, Subpart RRR emission standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), clarification of related provisions, and an alternative method for demonstrating compliance with certain emission limits during startup and shutdown; Proposed requirement for electronic submission of test results to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility; and

19 Page 19 of 306 Proposed compliance date for existing affected sources to comply with the proposed amendments within 90 days after publication of the final rule. In the 2012 proposal, we also proposed several other corrections and clarifications of the rule on the following topics based on recommendations and suggestions from individual representatives from state regulatory agencies and industry, as well as based on EPA experience, to correct errors in the rule and to help clarify the intent and implementation of the rule: ACGIH Guidelines; Testing worst-case scenarios; Lime injection rate; Flux monitoring; Cover flux; Capture and collection system definition; Bale breakers; Bag Leak Detection Systems (BLDS); Sidewell furnaces; Testing representative units; Initial performance tests; Scrap dryer/delacquering/decoating kiln and scrap shredder definitions; Group 2 furnace definition;

20 Page 20 of 306 HF emissions compliance; SAPU definition; Clean charge definition; Residence time definition; SAPU feed/charge rate; Dross-only versus dross/scrap furnaces; Applicability of rule to area sources; Altering parameters during testing with new scrap streams; Controlled furnaces that are temporarily idled for 24 hours or longer; and Annual compliance certification for area sources. In the December 8, 2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 72874), we presented a revised risk review and a revised technology review. Similar to the 2012 proposal, we found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and we identified no cost-effective controls under the updated AMOS analysis or the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. We proposed no revisions to the emission standards based on the revised risk and technology review. However, in the 2014 supplemental proposal, we supplemented and modified several of the proposed technical corrections and rule clarifications from the 2012 proposal, including the following:

21 Page 21 of 306 Revised proposed limit on the total number of furnace operating mode changes (i.e., frequency) of four times in any 6-month period, with the ability of sources to apply to the appropriate authority for additional furnace operating mode changes; Revised wording in proposed 40 CFR (b)(1) related to worst-case scenario testing clarifying under what conditions the performance tests are to be conducted; Revised proposed compliance requirements for performance testing of uncontrolled furnaces, such that if a source: (1) chooses to use an assumption of 67-percent 2 capture/collection efficiency, instead of installing temporary hooding according to ACGIH guidelines, and (2) fails to demonstrate compliance using the 67-percent efficiency assumption, then the source must either retest using ACGIH hooding within 180 days (rather than the 90 days specified in the 2012 proposal) or petition the appropriate authority within 180 days that installing ACGIH hooding is impractical and propose alternative testing procedures that will minimize unmeasured emissions; Revised proposed requirement that emission sources comply with the emissions limits at all times, including periods 2 The capture efficiency of percent was rounded to 67 percent.

22 Page 22 of 306 of SSM. Proposed definitions of startup and shutdown as well as an additional alternative method for demonstrating compliance with certain emission limits during startup and shutdown; Revised proposed requirements for annual inspection of capture/collection systems to allow additional compliance options; Revised proposed compliance dates of 180 days for certain requirements and 2 years for other requirements; and Revised operating and monitoring requirements for sweat furnaces to allow an additional compliance option. In addition, we withdrew our 2012 proposal to include provisions establishing an affirmative defense in light of a recent court decision vacating an affirmative defense in one of the EPA s CAA section 112(d) regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating affirmative defense provisions in CAA section 112(d) rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). III. What is included in this final rule? This action finalizes the EPA s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category. This action also finalizes changes

23 Page 23 of 306 to the NESHAP, including technical corrections and rule clarifications as well as alternative compliance options. A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category? There are no rule amendments based on the risk review for this source category. B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Secondary Aluminum Production source category? There are no rule amendments based on the technology review for this source category. C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.