National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants
Related Material
[Federal Register: June 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 119)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33202-33223]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn99-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-6344-5]
RIN 2060-AE41
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid process steel
pickling facilities and hydrochloric acid regeneration plants pursuant
to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). Major source facilities
subject to the rule emit hydrochloric acid (HCl), a hazardous air
pollutant (HAP). Chronic exposure to HCl has been reported to cause
gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and photosensitization.
Acute inhalation exposure to HCl may cause hoarseness, inflammation and
ulceration of the respiratory tract, chest pain, and pulmonary edema.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants also emit chlorine
(Cl<INF>2</INF>), which is also a HAP. Acute exposure to high levels of
Cl<INF>2</INF> results in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis,
pulmonary edema, and death. At lower levels, Cl<INF>2</INF> is a potent
irritant to the eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and lungs. The final
rule provides public health protection by requiring new or existing
pickling lines that use hydrochloric acid as the primary pickling
solution, hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, and acid storage tanks
to meet emission standards reflecting application of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). Implementation of the rule is
expected to reduce HAP emissions by more than 2,200 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (2,500 tons per year (tpy) from current levels.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 22, 1999. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section concerning judicial review.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket A-95-43, containing the information
considered by the EPA in development of the final rule, is available
for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Maysilles, Metals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-3265, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address,
``maysilles.jim@epa.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities.
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that emit
or have the potential to emit HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act.
Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. HCl steel pickling plants
and acid regeneration
plants (SIC 3312, 3315, and
3317).
Federal government........................ Not affected.
State/local/tribal government............. Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
if your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in section III.A of this document
and in Sec. 63.1155 of the final rule. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Judicial Review
The NESHAP for Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process was proposed
on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 49051); this action announces EPA's final
decisions on this rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements established by today's
final rule may not be challenged later in any civil or criminal
proceeding brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Technology Transfer Network
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's document, which includes the regulatory text, is available
through the TTN at the UATW. Following promulgation, a copy of the rule
will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed
or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The
TTN facilitates the exchange of information in various areas of air
pollution control, such as technology. If more information on the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Background Information Document
A background information document (BID) for the promulgated
standards containing a summary of all the public
[[Page 33203]]
comments made on the proposed rule and the EPA's response to those
comments is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The BID also
is available from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants--
Background Information for Promulgated Standards,'' (EPA-453/R-98-
010b). The BID is posted on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at
the Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/
7__10yrstds.html).
Outline
The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble
to the final rule:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
III. Summary
A. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
1. Applicability
2. Definitions
3. Emission Standards
4. Operational and Equipment Standards
5. Compliance Dates
6. Maintenance Requirements
7. Performance Testing and Test Methods
8. Monitoring Requirements
9. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
10. Delegation of Authority
11. Display of OMB Control Numbers
B. Summary of Impacts
IV. Summary of Major Public Comments and Responses
A. Applicability
B. Definitions
C. Emission Standards
1. Pickling Lines
2. Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
3. Acid Storage Vessels
4. Assessment of HCl as a Threshold Pollutant Under Section
112(d)(4)
D. Compliance Dates and Maintenance Requirements
E. Performance Testing and Test Methods
F. Monitoring Requirements
G. Recordkeeping Requirements
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review
C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnerships
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Pollution Prevention Act
K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rule is provided by sections 101,
112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C.,
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.
II. Background
Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to list each category of
major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in section 112(b) of the Act. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576),
the EPA published a list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are
to be promulgated, followed by a schedule for promulgation of those
standards (58 FR 63941, December 3, 1993). ``Steel Pickling--HCl
Process'' is included on the list of major sources for which EPA must
establish national emission standards. The term ``major source'' means
a source emitting 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of
any combination of HAP.
The EPA proposed national emission standards for this source
category on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 49052). The proposed rule, BID,
and other materials containing information used in developing the
proposed rule were made available for review and comment. A 60-day
comment period from September 18, 1997 to November 17, 1997, was
provided to accept written comments from the public. The opportunity
for a public hearing was provided to allow interested people to present
oral comments on the rulemaking. However, the EPA did not receive a
request for a public hearing, so a public hearing was not held.
The EPA received a total of 15 comments on the proposed standards
from industry, trade associations, States and representative
associations, vendors, and engineering firms. A copy of each comment
letter is available for public inspection in Docket No. A-95-43. The
EPA held followup discussions with various commenters to clarify
specific issues raised in their written comments that were submitted to
the Agency during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and
other information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during
the post-comment period are available for inspection in the docket.
All of the comments received were reviewed and carefully considered
by the EPA. Changes to the rule were made based on public comments
where EPA determined it to be appropriate. The final rule and changes
made since proposal are summarized in section III of this document; a
summary of responses to major comments is included in section IV.
Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is
presented in the BID for the final rule.
III. Summary
A. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
1. Applicability
Several changes were made to the applicability provisions of the
proposed rule to clarify the regulated source category and affected
sources. As proposed, the regulated source category includes steel
pickling facilities and acid regeneration plants. Thus, the regulated
source category may consist of a stand-alone steel pickling facility or
acid regeneration plant that is a major source of HAP or a steel
pickling facility and/or acid regeneration plant that is part of a
major source of HAP. The title of the final rule has been changed to
include acid regeneration plants as part of the source category. This
change is made to clarify that the regulation applies to hydrochloric
acid regeneration plants, which is not apparent in the original title.
A steel pickling facility is a facility with a collection of
equipment and tanks configured for the pickling process, including
immersion, drain, and rinse tanks. A steel pickling facility may have
one or more pickling lines. Conditions that distinguish pickling from
other operations such as cleaning or surface activation are now defined
such that each new or existing pickling line (batch or continuous
process) using an acid solution in any tank in which hydrochloric acid
is at a concentration of 6 percent by weight or greater and has a
temperature of 100 deg. F or greater is subject to the rule. For the
purposes of the rule, steel pickling is limited to hydrochloric acid
pickling of carbon steels, which contain approximately 2 percent or
less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6 percent or less
silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.
An acid regeneration plant includes the collection of equipment and
processes configured to reconstitute fresh hydrochloric acid pickling
solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal treatment process. A
new or existing plant that regenerates only pickling solution other
than HCl is not subject to the rule.
[[Page 33204]]
The rule is not applicable to facilities that pickle only specialty
steels. Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels. Specialty steels are
pickled by a process that may include the use of hydrochloric acid but
also includes the use of other acids, which may be mixed with
hydrochloric acid in the same pickling bath or used in separate baths
as part of a multiacid/multibath pickling sequence. The EPA will
determine at a later date if the specialty steel pickling process
should or should not be subject to the requirements of a rule that
limits HCl emissions.
2. Definitions
The title acid regeneration plant is changed to hydrochloric acid
regeneration plant to clarify the applicability of the rule.
The title acid storage tank is changed to hydrochloric acid storage
vessel to clarify the applicability of the rule. The definition is
changed to apply only to a stationary vessel, not a temporary or mobile
vessel, that is used for the bulk containment of virgin or regenerated
hydrochloric acid.
The term ``vessel'' rather than ``tank'' is used for containers
used to store hydrochloric acid, in order to be consistent with
terminology used in other subparts of this part to define containers
that are used for chemical storage. Similarly, the term ``tank'' is
used for containers that are integral parts of processes, such as acid
baths used in pickling lines.
A definition of carbon steel is added to identify processes to
which the rule applies.
The definition of closed-vent system is modified to state that
emissions may be transported into any device that is capable of
reducing or collecting emissions, not necessarily a control device.
The definition hydrochloric acid regeneration plant production mode
is added to assist in clarifying that the operating and monitoring
requirements for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants apply only while
the plant is operating in a manner to produce usable regenerated acid
or iron oxide.
The definition of responsible maintenance official is added to
identify a person who is designated to have signature authority for
records and reports required under this rule.
The definition of specialty steel is added to identify similar
processes to which the rule does not apply.
The final rule defines steel pickling to mean ``the chemical
removal of iron oxide mill scale that is formed on steel surfaces
during hot rolling or hot forming of semi-finished steel products
through contact with an aqueous solution of acid where such contact
occurs prior to shaping or coating of the finished steel product. This
definition does not include removal of light rust or scale from
finished steel products or activation of the metal surface prior to
plating or coating.''
The definition of steel pickling facility is changed to refer only
to facilities that conduct pickling.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants are discussed separately and
also specifically identified in the title of the final rule as distinct
entities.
3. Emission Standards
No changes were made regarding the technologies serving as the
basis of the proposed standards. The emission control technology
identified as achieving the MACT floor control level (wet scrubbing) is
discussed in section VII.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (62 FR
49052, September 18, 1997).
The emission standards in Secs. 63.1157 and 63.1158 of the proposed
rule have been revised. Sections 63.1157 and 63.1158 of the proposed
rule included HCl emission standards for existing and new HCl pickling
lines based on two options: An HCl emission rate corresponding to a
minimum collection efficiency of the air pollution control device, or a
maximum concentration of HCl in the exit gases. Based on public
comment, EPA revised the level of the standards from that proposed for
pickling lines and acid regeneration plants. The final standards are
shown in Table 1.
The final standards retain the alternative to the Cl<INF>2</INF>
concentration standard for existing acid regeneration plants that
allows the owner or operator to request approval for a source-specific
standard based on the maximum design temperature and minimum excess air
that allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality. The owner
or operator must establish the source-specific Cl<INF>2</INF> standard
using procedures specified in the final rule.
The provision in the proposed rule that owners or operators of new
or reconstructed hydrochloric acid regeneration plants to request
approval for a source specific Cl<INF>2</INF> concentration standard is
removed. Upon reconsideration, this provision is not consistent with
the statutory requirement that all new sources are to achieve the new
source MACT numerical limit. The expectation is that owners and
operators are to design and construct new sources capable of meeting
the standard.
For pickling lines, the concentration option has been placed ahead
of the collection efficiency option to reflect the expectation that the
concentration option will be the one most likely exercised. The intent
to make either option equally acceptable has not changed.
Table 1.--Emission Standards for Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source Emission standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pickling line:
Existing HCl concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than 18 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) or
Air pollution control device minimum
HCl collection efficiency of 97%.
New HCl concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than 6 ppmv for
continuous lines and 18 ppmv for
batch lines or
Air pollution control device minimum
HCl collection efficiency of 99%
for continuous lines and 97% for
batch lines.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration
plant:
Existing HCl concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than 25 ppmv and
Cl<INF>2</INF> concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than either 6 ppmv or a
source-specific maximum
concentration limit.
New HCl concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than 12 ppmv and
Cl<INF>2</INF> concentration in air pollution
control device or process exhaust
gas no more than 6 ppmv.
[[Page 33205]]
Hydrochloric acid storage vessel:
Existing and new Cover and seal all openings and
route emissions to air pollution
control device or alternative
control system and
Use enclosed line or local fume
capture system vented to air
pollution control device or
alternative control system at each
point where acid is exposed to
atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One change was made to the requirements for new or existing acid
storage vessels to clarify that a forced ventilation add-on air
pollution control device is not the only method allowed for emissions
control. The final rule requires that the owner or operator cover and
seal all openings on each vessel and route emissions through a closed-
vent system to an air pollution control device or alternative device
that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions. Acid loading and
unloading must still be performed either through enclosed lines or with
a local fume capture system, ventilated through an air pollution
control device or alternative control device, at each point where the
acid is exposed to the atmosphere.
4. Operational and Equipment Standards
A new section on operational and equipment standards has been
added. The requirement to operate hydrochloric acid regeneration plants
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices is
highlighted in this new section to define those practices and emphasize
their importance. The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant
must operate each affected source at all times while in production mode
in a manner that minimizes that proportion of excess air fed to the
process and maximizes the process offgas temperature consistent with
producing usable regenerated acid or iron oxide.
The standards for hydrochloric acid storage vessels have been moved
to this new section to reflect the fact that these standards are
equipment standards, not numerical emission limits.
5. Compliance Dates
No changes to the proposed compliance dates have been made in the
final rule. Under Sec. 63.1160 of the final rule, compliance for
existing sources must be achieved no later than June 22, 2001. The
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed source that commences
construction or reconstruction after September 18, 1997, must achieve
compliance by June 22, 1999, or upon startup, whichever is later. As
provided under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, the owner or operator
may request that the Administrator or applicable permitting authority
in a State with an approved permit program grant an extension for 1
additional year if necessary to install controls.
6. Maintenance Requirements
The owner or operator must develop and implement a written
operation and maintenance plan for each emission control device that is
consistent with good maintenance practices. For a wet scrubber emission
control device, the written plan must, at a minimum, include the
actions described in Sec. 63.1160(b)(2)(i) through
Sec. 63.1160(b)(2)(iv)(E) of the final rule. The plan is no longer
required to be submitted to the applicable permitting authority, but it
is required to be incorporated by reference into the source's title V
permit.
An additional maintenance requirement is to monitor and record the
pressure drop across the scrubber once per shift to identify changes
that may indicate a need for maintenance.
If corrective action is required, the owner or operator is allowed
1 working day in which to initiate procedures to correct the problem.
Initiation of procedures is defined to be completion of the first
applicable step or item in the maintenance plan. Required repairs must
be completed as soon as practicable.
Under the proposed rule, a record of each maintenance inspection
was required to be signed by a responsible plant official. Under the
final rule, the signature authority is assigned to a responsible
maintenance official, defined as a person designated by the owner or
operator as having authority to sign records and reports required under
this rule.
Maintenance rules regarding initiation of corrective action within
1 working day, timely repair, and signing of maintenance records by a
responsible maintenance official also apply to hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants.
7. Performance Testing and Test Methods
Changes made to the performance test requirements include adding
provisions for new wet scrubber operating parameters and deleting the
requirement to establish compliant values for pressure drop and
scrubber effluent acidity.
Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or
operator must conduct an initial performance test for each process or
control device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission
standard. If the owner operator chooses to comply with the collection
efficiency standard for a new or existing pickling line, the
performance test must measure the mass flows of HCl at the inlet and
outlet of the air pollution control device. Inlet and outlet
measurements must be performed simultaneously. If the owner or operator
chooses to comply with the HCl concentration standard for a new or
existing pickling line or is demonstrating compliance with the HCl and
Cl<INF>2</INF> concentration standards for a new or existing acid
regeneration plant, the performance test must measure the concentration
of HCl and, for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants, Cl<INF>2</INF>
in the gases exiting the process or the air pollution control device.
Compliance with the applicable standards is determined by either the
average of three consecutive sampling runs or the average of any three
of four consecutive runs. Each run must be conducted under conditions
representative of normal process operations. Sampling point locations
must be determined according to EPA Method 1, and stack gas conditions
must be determined, as appropriate, according to EPA Methods 2, 3, and
4 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. An exception to Method 1 is made in
that no traverse point shall be within one inch of the stack or duct
wall. The final rule requires EPA Method 26A to determine compliance
with the HCl and total chloride emission limits. As allowed by
Sec. 63.7(f) of the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, the owner or operator may use equivalent alternative test
methods
[[Page 33206]]
subject to approval by the Administrator. The EPA does not delegate
authority for this determination.
If a wet scrubber is the air pollution control device, the owner or
operator must monitor the makeup water flow rate and, for scrubbers
that operate with recirculation, the recirculation water flow rate
during each run to establish site-specific operating parameter values
for the minimum makeup water flow rate and the minimum recirculation
water flow rate. For an acid regeneration plant, the owner or operator
must also monitor the process offgas temperature and a suite of
parameters necessary to determine the proportion of excess air fed to
the process to establish site-specific operating parameter values for
the minimum process offgas temperature and the maximum proportion of
excess air. The proportion of excess air is determined by a combination
of total air flow rate, fuel flow rate, spent pickle liquor addition
rate, and amount of iron in the spent pickle liquor or by any other
combination of parameters approved by the Administrator. Compliant
operating parameter values are determined as the averages of the values
recorded during any of the runs for which results are used to establish
the emission concentration or collection efficiency. Alternative
compliant operating parameter values may be established based on
multiple performance tests. The final rule clarifies that the owner or
operator may reestablish operating parameter values for wet scrubbers
and acid regeneration plants as part of any performance test (or tests)
conducted after the initial performance test.
8. Monitoring Requirements
The proposed monitoring requirements for wet scrubbers were revised
to require monitoring of the makeup water flow rate and recirculation
water flow rate. Alternative monitoring requirements may be developed
subject to approval by the Administrator. Requirements for monitoring
the scrubber pressure drop (as a monitoring parameter) and effluent
acidity are eliminated. The requirement for installation and operation
of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) if excursions of the
control device operating parameters occur more frequently than six
times during any 6-month reporting period is deleted. Commenters on the
proposed rule pointed out that the use of CEMS for this application has
not been demonstrated; manufacturers have cautioned that using such
devices in acidic conditions with water droplets present would
interfere with the test methodology and be corrosive to the testing
apparatus.
The requirement for periodic performance tests also is revised. The
final rule requires that the owner or operator conduct performance
tests for each air pollution control device either annually or on an
alternative schedule that is approved by the permitting authority, but
no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or twice per title V permit
term.
If a wet scrubber is used as the control device for a pickling line
or acid regeneration plant, the owner or operator must install,
operate, and maintain devices to measure continuously and record at
least once per shift the makeup water flow rate and the recirculation
water flow rate while the scrubber is operating. The final rule
requires operation of the scrubber such that neither the makeup water
flow rate nor the recirculation water flow rate are less than values
established during the performance test (or tests). If an excursion
occurs (i.e., either operating parameter is less than the allowed
value), the owner or operator must initiate procedures to correct the
problem within 1 working day of detection of the excursion.
The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant also must
install, operate, and maintain a device to measure continuously and
record at least once per shift the process offgas temperature and
devices to measure the parameters from which proportion of excess air
is determined. The final rule requires that excess air must be
determined and recorded at least once per shift instead of at least
once every 8 hours while the plant is in production mode, which is in
accordance with the original intent of the rule.
The proposed rule inadvertently stated that exceedances of scrubber
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. The
intention was to state that exceedances of acid regeneration plant
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. This
requirement has been changed so that exceedances of scrubber operating
parameters only require initiation of corrective action according to
the maintenance plan, and exceedances of acid regeneration plant
operating parameters are not violations of the emission limit but
instead are violations of the operational standard.
Each monitoring device for scrubbers and acid regeneration plants
must be certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within
<plus-minus>5 percent and be calibrated in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions, but not less frequently than once per
year.
Monitoring requirements for acid storage vessels are revised. The
definition of closed-vent system now includes provisions to transport
emissions back into any device that is capable of reducing or
collecting the emissions. Under the final rule, the owner or operator
must make semiannual instead of monthly inspections of each vessel to
ensure proper operation of the closed-vent system and either the air
pollution control device or enclosed loading and unloading line,
whichever is applicable. Commenters to the proposed rule pointed out
that semiannual inspections would be more consistent with other rules
that have similar monitoring requirements.
9. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
Only minor changes needed to clarify and accommodate changes in the
final rule were made to the proposed notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. Requirements pertaining to CEMS were
deleted in the final rule because these monitoring systems are no
longer required.
The final notification requirements include, under Sec. 63.9 (b)
through (h) of subpart A, one-time notifications of applicability,
intent to construct or reconstruct (including anticipated startup date
and actual startup date), date of performance test, compliance
extension requests, special compliance obligations, and compliance
status. The final rule requires that the notification of compliance
status include identification of the selected emission limits and the
full test report documenting the results of initial performance tests
(including all data and calculations used to establish operating
parameter values or ranges).
Recordkeeping requirements are established in Sec. 63.10(b) of the
general provisions. In addition to these requirements, the standard
requires plants to maintain records of information needed to determine
compliance. All records must be retained for at least 5 years following
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record. The records for the most recent 2 years must
be retained onsite; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained
offsite but still must be readily available for review. The files may
be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, or on computer
or magnetic disks.
[[Page 33207]]
The final rule incorporates the general recordkeeping requirements
in Sec. 63.10(b) of the NESHAP general provisions in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A and requirements for subpart CCC records. The final rule
requires records of scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation
water flow rate, acid regeneration plant process offgas temperature and
parameters from which proportion of excess air is determined,
manufacturer certification that monitoring devices are accurate to
within <plus-minus>5 percent, and monitoring device calibrations. The
owner or operator also must maintain a current copy of the operation
and maintenance plan (with any revisions) and records of each
maintenance inspection, repair, replacement, or other corrective action
(whether for maintenance or an excursion).
Minor revisions in wording were made to retain consistency with the
wording of the general provisions to part 63 (subpart A). Referring to
the section numbers that apply to the final rule, the following
paragraphs were amended: Sec. 63.1164(c), Sec. 63.1164(c)(1),
Sec. 63.1165(a)(1), and Sec. 63.1165(a)(2). These revisions do not
change the substance or the intent of the rule.
10. Delegation of Authority
The proposed rule specified that authority for approval of an
alternative test method and alternative nonopacity emission standards
would be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State.
Authority for approval of monitoring parameters for hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants and alternative monitoring requirements for wet
scrubbers is also retained by the Administrator because these
parameters are fundamental to effective monitoring and cannot be
delegated. The Administrator will also retain authority to waive
recordkeeping requirements. Authority to approve an alternative
performance testing schedule is delegated to the States.
11. Display of OMB Control Numbers
The EPA also is amending the table of currently approved
information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for various regulations. This
separate amendment updates the table to accurately display those
information requirements contained in the NESHAP. This display of the
OMB control number and its subsequent codification in the Code of
Federal Regulations satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds there is ``good cause'' under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be
unnecessary.
B. Summary of Impacts
The final standards will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from
steel pickling facilities using the HCl process by 2,200 Mg/yr (2,500
tpy), a 76 percent reduction from current levels. The EPA estimates
that 70 steel pickling facilities will be subject to the rule. This
estimate excludes any major source speciality steel pickling facilities
pending the outcome of a new rulemaking to determine the applicability
of the rule to this pickling process.
No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts
are anticipated. The amount of water discharged from wet scrubbers
would increase by approximately 300,000 cubic meters per year over
current levels. The volume of sludge generated by additional control
may increase by up to 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy). Energy use for
additional emission control systems is expected to increase by about
6.5 million kilowatt hours per year over current levels.
Nationwide capital costs of the final standards are estimated at
$20 million, with annual costs for testing and monitoring of about $1.9
million. The economic impacts are all well below one percent of the
cost of production of the steel product and result in no significant
adverse impacts on the industry or small entities. No plant closures,
regional impacts, or significant employment losses are expected. The
economic impact of the rule on the industry as a whole is minor.
Additional information on the impacts of the rule is included in the
BID.
IV. Summary of Major Public Comments and Responses
The EPA received 15 comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for
Steel Pickling Facilities--HCl Process. A copy of each comment letter
is available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking
(Docket No. A-95-43; see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had followup
discussions with commenters regarding specific issues initially raised
in their written comments. Copies of correspondence and other
information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the
post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket
for the rulemaking.
The EPA reviewed and carefully considered all comments received.
The EPA made changes to the rule where appropriate. A summary of
responses to major comments received on the proposed rule is presented
below. Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments
is presented in the BID.
A. Applicability
Comment: Four commenters requested clarification to show that the
rule applies only to facilities that are major sources for HAP, not to
facilities that are major sources for criteria pollutants or area
sources for HAP.
Response: A revision to Sec. 63.1155 has been made to show the
indicated applicability.
Comment: Four commenters requested clarification of the 50-percent
HCl criterion proposed as the concentration above which pickling lines
were to be subject to the rule. One of the commenters also requested
that a de minimis HCl concentration be established that excludes rinse
tanks.
Response: The EPA has decided to clarify the applicability of the
rule by establishing de minimis temperature and acid concentration
values and is using information cited in the ``Metals Handbook, Ninth
Edition, Volume 5: Surface Cleaning, Finishing, and Coating,''
published by the American Society for Metals, which gives temperature
and acid concentration ranges for batch and continuous pickling
operations using hydrochloric acid (page 69). The lowest hydrochloric
acid concentration cited is 6 percent, the lowest temperature is 100
deg.F. The EPA believes that these values are reasonable de minimis
values and their establishment constitutes a realistic option to the
proposed 50-percent HCl criterion. Most, if not all, rinse tanks would
have conditions below these values and would therefore be excluded from
the rule.
Comment: Two commenters requested the EPA to address the use of
different types of acids in pickling processes. Both noted that the EPA
possesses no information on HCl control requirements for processes that
use HCl in combination with other acids and cannot verify that data on
HCl only operations apply to these processes.
Response: The intent of the rule was to address carbon steel
pickling by hydrochloric acid. After the comment period, the EPA
received information from operators of two specialty steel
[[Page 33208]]
pickling facilities indicating that technology that is effective in
collecting emissions from hydrochloric acid pickling of carbon steel
may not be as effective in collecting emissions from operations in
which specialty steel, such as stainless or electrical steel, is
pickled, typically using other acids such as sulfuric acid in
combination with hydrochloric acid. The EPA has consequently decided
that the standards developed for carbon steel pickling cannot be
applied to specialty steel pickling and therefore has clarified the
rule to limit its applicability to carbon steel pickling. Definitions
for carbon steel and specialty steel have been added to Sec. 63.1156 as
part of this clarification. These definitions are taken from the
publication ``Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Steel--A
Glossary of Terms and Concepts,'' edited by M. G. Applebaum, Salomon
Brothers Inc., Chicago, 1997. The facility description in Sec. 63.1155
has been changed to ``* * * facilities that pickle carbon steel using
hydrochloric acid solution that contains 6 percent or more by weight
HCl and is at a temperature of 100 deg.F or higher.''
The EPA will determine at a later date if the specialty steel
industry should be regulated under this part of the CFR and, if so,
whether it will be regulated by amending subpart CCC or under a
separate subpart.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that small mobile vessels,
which would be expected to produce minimal emissions, not be subject to
the rule.
Response: The EPA agrees that small mobile vessels should be
excluded from the rule. The definition of acid storage vessel is
modified to read ``* * * a stationary vessel used for the bulk
containment of virgin or regenerated hydrochloric acid.''
Comment: One commenter believes that the proposed rule will require
reconstruction of existing scrubber systems, forcing the process to
become subject to new source rules. The definition of reconstructed
source should be eliminated.
Response: Changes or additions to air pollution control devices do
not constitute reconstruction of the source and are not included in the
changes that would make a facility or process subject to reconstruction
and modification requirements.
B. Definitions
Comment: As discussed under applicability, changes were recommended
that required definitions for carbon steel and specialty steel.
Response: The following definition of carbon steel is added to the
rule: ``Carbon steel means steel that contains approximately 2 percent
or less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6 percent or less
silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.''
The following definition of specialty steel is also added to the
rule: ``Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels.''
Comment: Two commenters requested to clarify the definition of
control devices for acid storage vessels to avoid the possible
interpretation that emissions would have to be routed to a control
device of the type used to control pickling or acid regeneration
emissions.
Response: The intent of the proposed rule was to allow any device
that reduces HCl emissions to the atmosphere. For clarification, the
definition of closed-vent systems was changed to include ``* * * any
device that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that reports required by this
rule should only require certification by an inspector who has intimate
knowledge of the system and not necessarily by a ``responsible
official'' as defined in subpart A, Sec. 63.2.
Response: The EPA agrees and is allowing facilities to designate a
``responsible maintenance official'' to have signature authority. This
official is defined as ``* * * a person designated by the owner or
operator as having authority to sign records and reports required under
this rule.''
Comment: Five commenters believe that the proposed definition of
steel pickling is too broad and have requested the EPA to clearly
distinguish between pickling and other operations, and have offered
suggestions for modifying the definition of pickling.
Response: The EPA agrees that the definition of steel pickling
should be crafted to avoid misinterpretation. The commenters'
suggestions are incorporated to the extent considered appropriate. The
definition of steel pickling, with changes underlined, is modified to
mean ``* * * the chemical removal of iron oxide mill scale that is
formed on steel surfaces during hot rolling or hot forming of semi-
finished steel products through contact with an aqueous solution of
acid where such contact occurs prior to shaping or coating of the
finished steel product. This definition does not include removal of
light rust or scale from finished steel products or activation of the
metal surface prior to plating or coating.''
Comment: One commenter believes that rinse tanks should be excluded
from the definitions of batch and continuous pickling lines. The rule
implies that an air pollution control device would be required for
these tanks.
Response: The rule is meant to include all ventilated tanks that
are part of a steel pickling process to which the rule applies, which
may include some rinse tanks. The rule does not require installation of
ventilation systems not previously installed.
C. Emission Standards
1. Pickling Lines
Comment: Five commenters stated that the EPA did not base the
standards on the best performing 12 percent of sources. The language in
the Act directs the EPA to derive numerical limits for new sources from
the best performing scrubbers for a given option, but EPA used this
approach in deriving existing source standards. The EPA only considered
10 of the 152 existing continuous pickling lines (7 percent), then used
only four of the ten available data sets and determined the
concentration limit from only two data sets. The EPA has not justified
not using all data sets. The averages of all ten tests, 29.3 ppmv and
97.3 percent, are more representative of the actual variation in the
test data which could be expected for properly controlled sources and
should be the basis for the limits.
Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
EPA based the MACT floor on technology. In determining MACT, the EPA
considered alternative approaches for establishing the MACT floor;
these include (1) information on State regulations and/or permit
conditions, (2) source test data that characterize actual emissions
discharged by sources, and (3) use of a technology floor and an
accompanying demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts for
process and air pollution control device variability. No Federal air
emission standards currently apply to steel pickling or acid
regeneration sources, and existing State standards cannot be directly
related to the requirements of this rule. Applicable test data are only
available from 10 of 152 continuous pickling lines. These data points
are too few to establish 12 percent MACT floors based on actual
releases. By comparison with the limited utility of State regulations
and source test data, a substantial body of information is available on
the types, configurations, and operating conditions
[[Page 33209]]
of air pollution control devices applied across the industry. The EPA
therefore used the technology floor approach to establishing MACT for
pickling lines. Details of this approach are discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule.
The characteristics of the scrubbers constituting the existing
source and new source levels of control were determined by evaluating
the results of emission tests conducted on units currently employed in
the industry. Data from pickling lines controlled by devices of these
descriptions were used to represent the capabilities of MACT for this
application. The EPA determined the standards from these data, as
discussed in the comments and responses below.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the standards are unnecessarily
stringent in that they do not reflect what long term performance is
achievable on a continuous basis considering natural process and
control device variations. One commenter submitted data showing a wide
variation in HCl emissions over a 3-year period from one facility using
the same control technology where no known malfunctions occurred to
cause the variation. Data from this facility consisted of nine tests,
with average measured HCl concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 178 ppmv.
This commenter also stated that data presented in the EPA BID also
illustrate a wide variation in HCl emissions between and within
facilities. Using a statistical argument based on standard deviations
in data, the standard should be at least 15 ppmv for new sources and
35.8 ppmv for existing sources, according to this commenter. One
commenter believes that inaccuracies of the sampling methods do not
permit setting an emission standard as low as that proposed.
Response: The EPA is not required to use a specific statistical
procedure in arriving at values for emission standards. The commenter's
facility's nine tests are comprised of seven tests for which all data
points, including individual sampling runs, are within a 13 ppmv
concentration limit. The remaining two tests have averages that are
about 19 and 37 times the average of the other seven tests. The EPA
believes these two tests cannot be the result of normal air pollution
control device operation during normal process operation.
Regarding accuracy of sampling, this issue is discussed in section
E below. The EPA believes that the test method is sufficiently accurate
for the proposed emission standards for new and existing facilities.
Relative to the broad issues of stringency and achievability of the
proposed standards, the EPA agrees with the commenters in that the data
used to determine the numerical limits are sparse and that variations
in operations and in test results should be considered. The numerical
limit determination was therefore reexamined. The EPA conducted a
thorough review of the scrubber design and source test data base used
to develop the pickling standard. Details of this review are given in
the BID. Data from all tests, including those with only one or two
sampling runs, were examined primarily in regard to variability in
individual test run results. The data were considered separately for
new and existing source MACT.
Performance of the scrubbers used as the basis for new source MACT
was considered on the basis of long term performance and variability in
individual sampling runs. All three scrubbers served continuous
pickling lines. The average outlet HCl concentrations were 1.6, 2.1,
and 7.7 ppmv, with corresponding average HCl collection efficiencies of
99.5, 99.96, and 99.0 percent, respectively. Thus, on the basis of
average performance, all three scrubbers meet the proposed new source
standard for collection efficiency of 99 percent, and two meet the
proposed new source standard for outlet concentration of 3 ppmv. The
worst results of individual sampling runs for these scrubbers were HCl
outlet concentrations of 5.9, 3.5, and 7.7 ppmv, with worst results for
HCl collection efficiencies of 97.6, 99.94, and 99.0 percent,
respectively. On this basis, two scrubbers meet the proposed collection
efficiency standard but no scrubber meets the proposed concentration
standard. To accommodate the uncertainty in sampling, particularly in
determining outlet concentration at these low levels, the EPA decided
to consider a new source standard for outlet concentration that could
be met by the new source MACT scrubbers that did not meet the
collection efficiency standard. This concentration is 6 ppmv HCl, which
is 5.9 rounded up to the nearest whole number. Based on the worst
individual sampling run results, all three scrubbers meet at least one
of the two alternative standards; one scrubber meets both the
concentration standard of 6 ppmv and the collection efficiency standard
of 99 percent, one meets the concentration standard, and one meets the
collection efficiency standard. New source standards of 6 ppmv maximum
outlet concentration and 99 percent minimum collection efficiency are
therefore promulgated for continuous pickling lines.
Performance of the scrubbers used for the basis of existing source
MACT for continuous pickling lines was also considered on the basis of
individual sampling runs. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule, the concentration and collection efficiency standards were
derived from the scrubbers that were the better performers in each
respect. Three units produced outlet HCl concentrations of 1.7, 8.0,
and 13 on the averages, 2.7, 15, and 18 ppmv for the worst runs; all
the others produced HCl outlet concentrations of 42 ppmv or higher on
the averages, 70 ppmv or higher for the worst runs. The concentration
standard was therefore determined to be 18 ppmv HCl from the
performance of these three scrubbers. On the basis of HCl collection
efficiency, the seven scrubbers used as the basis for existing source
MACT performed with average efficiencies of 98.1, 97.8, 97.5, 97.0,
96.8, 94.7, and 92.7 percent. Worst run efficiencies were 97.5, 96.8,
96.7, 96.6, 95.9, 94.1, and 92.1 percent. With efficiencies rounded off
to the nearest percent, four of the seven scrubbers would meet a
standard of 97 percent. Of the remaining three scrubbers, one is a
marginal performer and two poor performers by comparison with the first
four. The HCl collection efficiency standard of 97 percent was
determined from the performance of the best four scrubbers. Five of the
seven scrubbers meet at least one of the alternative standards.
Comment: Two commenters questioned the rationale of using data from
the best performing scrubbers to establish separate collection
efficiency and concentration limits because each owner or operator
would have two options. The logic ignores the statistical ability of
scrubbers to comply with the proposed standard continuously and the
very basis for proposing alternative standards in the first instance.
The EPA ``proposed alternative standards out of the recognition that
facilities with high HCl inlet concentrations could not meet the low
HCl outlet concentration standard, and vice versa. Deriving the MACT
standards from the best scrubbers for each option disregards the fact
that the MACT floor is supposed to represent the average of the best 12
percent and those facilities that have HCl inlet concentrations too low
to comply with the proposed collection efficiency impossible and too
high to comply with the proposed 10 ppmv standard.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The commenter's
logic
[[Page 33210]]
expressed above is itself not clear. The fact that the standard is not
based on a statistical average has been discussed previously. The
assumption of the final standards is that at least some devices will
not be able to meet both options but all would be able to meet one or
the other. Therefore the numerical limits for each option were
developed separately.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA has not sufficiently
justified its MACT determination for batch pickling lines. The
rulemaking record contains no data specific to batch pickling. Batch
pickling lines are significantly different from continuous lines in
terms of design, operation, air capture rates, inlet concentrations,
hood design, product handling, and volume throughput rates. In light of
these differences, the absence of test data from batch lines, and
limited data from continuous lines, it may not be appropriate for EPA
to simply borrow and apply its MACT determination for continuous lines
to batch operations.
If EPA promulgates this rule prior to supporting its MACT
determination, batch picklers will be in the position of not knowing if
they can meet the standards until they have spent the money to install
or upgrade their pollution control equipment. The EPA would be prudent
to delay implementation of the proposed rule until it can demonstrate,
based on batch pickling-specific data, that the proposed standards do
in fact constitute MACT.
Response: The commenters state that there are significant
differences between batch and continuous pickling lines but do not give
details nor any indication of how air pollution control requirements
are different. The commenters do not express any technical
considerations that have not already been addressed. Differences in
fume capture systems between batch and continuous operations, for
example, are discussed in detail in chapter 4 of the proposal BID.
However, the effectiveness of the air pollution control system is based
on the characteristics of the gas stream, not the capture system.
According to scrubber manufacturers and designers, scrubber design
considerations are the same for both types of operations. The major
difference between batch and continuous operations is that the HCl
concentration in batch line offgases varies during different phases of
the operating cycle. For example, the concentration can increase when
steel is raised out of the tank and allowed to drain before it is
rinsed. Scrubbers can be designed on the basis of the maximum
concentration experienced.
Regarding the ability of batch operations to meet the same
standards as continuous operations, the EPA notes the view expressed by
two commenters, one with extensive relevant experience, that the
proposed standards are reasonable and can be attained with available
control equipment. These comments are presented in the BID.
After the comment period, the EPA received emission data from a
batch pickling operation in which the outlet gas was sampled in three
runs of 1 hour each; HCl concentrations were 5.1, 4.2, and 3.6 ppmv.
The only other information available for batch operations is from a
test at another facility in which only one sampling run, of 1 hour
duration, was conducted on the scrubber outlet. A concentration of 6.3
ppmv HCl was measured. Results of these two tests give some indication
that HCl emission control for these processes at levels achieved for
continuous pickling lines is possible.
Based on these considerations, the EPA believes that control of
batch pickling lines at the level of existing source standards is
achievable. However, the EPA agrees with the commenters to the extent
that control of batch lines at the new source standard level is less
certain. Because no clear limitation for new batch pickling lines could
be determined from the available information, particularly in
considering the variation in operating conditions and ventilation
system design, the rule is revised to make the new source standard for
batch pickling the same as the existing source standard.
2. Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
Comment: One commenter disagreed that sufficient source test data
were available to provide a basis for the MACT floor. The EPA evaluated
five measured scrubber outlet concentration values, then noted that one
value was far out of line with the others and did not consider this
value in establishing the floor. No attempt to review the next
appropriate value was made by EPA. Constructing a fifth data point in
lieu of actual data has no technical or regulatory basis under section
112 of the Act. The EPA should have used another facility's actual test
data or conducted additional tests to establish a fifth point.
A second commenter observed that the MACT floor on which EPA bases
its standard is not representative of single stage water scrubbing.
Caustic scrubbing technology, contrary to EPA's belief, has been shown
to be more effective in reducing HCl emissions than scrubbing with
unneutralized water. The EPA notes in the proposed rule that no single
stage scrubber has demonstrated the capability of meeting the proposed
existing source standard of 8 ppmv HCl. The EPA should consider the
cost impacts to the industry for waste water treatment and sludge
disposal if the standard is to be based on caustic scrubbing.
A third commenter provided additional data from the two acid plants
that use two stage scrubbing. Details are presented in the BID. The
data include outlet concentration data for the first stage water
scrubbers. These data are from tests conducted on both plants in April
1994, March 1996, and November 1996. All tests except for two consisted
of three sampling runs of 3 hours each using EPA Method 26A; the
remaining two tests consisted of two sampling runs. Average HCl
concentrations in the first stage water scrubber outlet gas for one
plant vary between 5.6 and 20 ppmv, with the highest concentration
measured for an individual run of 25 ppmv; average HCl concentrations
for the other plant vary between 11.2 and 23 ppmv, with the highest
concentration measured for an individual run of 31 ppmv.
Response: The EPA agrees with the first commenter in that the
method used to determine the proposed floor was not appropriate,
specifically, the manufacturing of a fifth data point in lieu of having
actual data followed by averaging. Furthermore, the EPA agrees with the
suggestion of the second commenter that the proposed existing source
standard of 8 ppmv HCl is not demonstrated to be achievable with single
stage water scrubbing, the predominant control technology used in the
industry.
The floor has therefore been reexamined on the basis of the median
of the best five controlled sources on a technology basis. The best two
controlled sources employ either two stage acid recovery or two stage
scrubbing, with neutralized water used in the last scrubbing stages in
both cases. The third best controlled source employs single stage
scrubbing with unneutralized water; this technology is also used by all
of the remaining sources in this subcategory. The final standard for
existing sources is therefore developed based on the performance of
single stage water scrubbing, which addresses the main concern of the
second commenter.
With the inclusion of the above information, long term data from
two acid regeneration plants are now available. Data from the plant for
which the measured HCl concentration was 16 ppmv were still restricted
to the one test, which consisted of two sampling
[[Page 33211]]
runs with measured HCl concentrations of 15.6 and 15.8 ppmv. The final
data point available was 137 ppmv HCl, which is so far out of line with
the other data that the plant tested could not be considered well
controlled; data from this plant could therefore not be used to
establish an emission standard.
In order to determine a numerical concentration standard from all
of the available information, process and control system variability
over time were taken into account by considering HCl concentration
averages and also values for individual sampling runs. On the basis of
average outlet concentrations, it seems clear that the first three
plants meet a limit of 25 ppmv HCl. Considering all 19 individual runs
from the three plants, except for one run of 31 ppmv, all others are 25
ppmv or less. A maximum outlet concentration of 25 ppmv HCl therefore
seems reasonable for a standard based on single stage water scrubbing.
Regarding the new source standard for HCl, the additional data
discussed above include outlet concentration data from second stage
scrubbers that use neutralized water. Data are from four tests
conducted between March 1993 and March 1996. In all tests, three
sampling runs of 2 or 3 hours were made using Method 26A. Results of
the first tests average 49 and 19.6 ppmv HCl; these results are much
higher than those from the more recent three tests and apparently do
not reflect current operations. Results of the last three tests are
average HCl concentrations ranging from 0.9 to 11.1 ppmv, with results
of individual runs ranging up to 11.9 ppmv.
The only other HCl concentration data that have not already been
discussed are from the plant that employs two-stage acid recovery plus
a venturi scrubber that uses neutralized water. Results from only one
test are available; the average HCl outlet concentration was 1.0 ppmv.
Considering the capability of a scrubber to meet a long-term
standard, results from the first two plants seem more meaningful. These
plants clearly meet an outlet concentration HCl standard of 12 ppmv
over the most recent three tests based on individual runs. A new source
maximum outlet concentration standard of 12 ppmv HCl therefore has been
reasonably demonstrated. Consequently, the final standard is a maximum
outlet HCl concentration of 25 ppmv for existing sources, 12 ppmv for
new sources.
Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA did not demonstrate that
its standards for existing and new sources are based on a sustainable
level of performance. One commenter stated that there is a wide
variation in HCl emissions at different times using the same control
technology. This commenter provided additional data at EPA's request to
support the statement. Average emissions range from 31 to 470 ppmv and
results of individual tests range from 26 to 542 ppmv HCl, with,
according to the commenter, no obvious anomalies in the acid
regeneration data. The EPA's data illustrate that there is a wide
variation between and within facilities. The standard deviation for all
data from which EPA determined its standard is 7.2 ppmv, which is far
out of range of the proposed limit.
Response: By comparison with data from other facilities, the plant
from which the data provided by the above commenter were taken cannot
be well controlled in EPA's opinion, particularly considering the
extreme range in values between the lowest and highest measurements.
Data from this facility are not relevant in determining a standard
based on the best performing plants. The issue of sustainable
performance is addressed in the previous comment and response.
Comment: Two commenters state that the Cl<INF>2</INF> limit should
be based on five sources instead of three. The small sample size
probably does not reflect variability at each source. The 4 ppmv limit
has not been shown to be continuously achievable. One commenter states
that the existing source emission limits should be determined from the
average of five facilities plus two standard deviations; the standard
should be at least 74.3 ppmv. For new sources, the standard should be
60 ppmv based on two standard deviations from the mean of EPA's data.
The other commenter did not recommend specific standards but provided
additional data at EPA's request.
Response: As discussed under the HCl numerical standard, the
standards for hydrochloric acid regeneration plants are being revised.
The existing source standard is based on technology, which is single
stage water scrubbing. As in the case of the HCl standard, the
Cl<INF>2</INF> numerical standard was reconsidered based on the body of
data available for this technology.
The data provided by the second commenter included results of the
three tests discussed above, conducted between April 1994 and November
1996, of outlet Cl<INF>2</INF> concentrations from first stage water
scrubbers. Average Cl<INF>2</INF> concentrations are between 0.4 and
5.1 ppmv with the exception of a measurement of 9.9 ppmv from one test
conducted in 1994. Results of the more recent tests on this plant were
0.4 ppmv in each case. Excluding this one test, which is assumed to be
not representative of current operations, average Cl<INF>2</INF>
concentrations range from 0.4 to 5.1 ppmv. Results of all 13 individual
runs, except for one value of 7.3 ppmv, range from 0.3 to 5.6 ppmv.
In addition to the data discussed above, Cl<INF>2</INF> outlet
concentration data from other facilities are 3.3 and 60 ppmv, each
based on one test. The 60 ppmv value is so far out of line with the
others that it cannot be considered representative of effective
operation and therefore cannot be used in determining the standard.
Considering all of the data, it appears that a limit of 6 ppmv
Cl<INF>2</INF> can be met by these operations, considering the
variability in measurements (except for the one nonrepresentative
value); only one sampling run gives a higher result (7.3 ppmv). The
concentration standard for Cl<INF>2</INF> is therefore revised to 6
ppmv for existing sources.
Regarding the standard for new sources, the EPA is required to set
the standard according to the capabilities of the best controlled
facility. The additional data discussed above included results of the
four tests conducted between March 1993 and March 1996 on the outlets
of second stage scrubbers that use neutralized water. Results are
similar to those for the first stage water scrubbers. Average
Cl<INF>2</INF> concentrations range from 0.4 to 5.3 ppmv, with results
of individual runs ranging from 0.1 to 7.1 ppmv. An individual plant
cannot be identified that provides better performance than existing
source MACT. The new source standard for Cl<INF>2</INF> is therefore
the same as the existing source standard, 6 ppmv.
Comment: One commenter supported the optional Cl<INF>2</INF>
standard to be established for each source.
Response: The optional standard is retained for existing sources
but removed for new sources, as discussed above.
3. Acid Storage Vessels
Comment: Two commenters believe EPA should clarify that ``control
devices'' for storage vessels are not a specific control technology,
and that facilities can use any method that is demonstrated to minimize
emissions to the atmosphere (e.g., bubbling through a drum or small
vessel of caustic solution or water).
Response: The EPA agrees with this commenter. No specific control
device is required for storage vessels. The definition of closed-vent
system is reworded to make the EPA's intention
[[Page 33212]]
clear. Examples of devices that might be used include systems that
bubble emissions through a small tank of water or caustic without the
aid of a fan. However, larger facilities may find it advantageous to
route emissions from storage vessels or an acid regeneration plant to a
pickling line scrubber or to build a separate scrubber system for
control.
4. Assessment of HCl as a Threshold Pollutant Under Section 112(d)(4)
Comment: After the close of the comment period on the proposal, EPA
received a letter from a trade association requesting that the Agency
assess HCl emissions from steel pickling under section 112(d)(4) of the
Act, to determine whether Federal controls on these emissions were
necessary, based upon relevant exposure and ecological assessments and
a determination in an earlier EPA Federal Register notice that HCl was
a ``health threshold pollutant.''
Response: As requested by the commenter, EPA is currently
conducting an assessment of HCl emissions from steel pickling
operations to determine first whether the Agency would be justified in
invoking its section 112(d)(4) authority for steel pickling, and second
whether EPA believes it is appropriate to do so, if justified. The EPA
does not have adequate information at this time to support development
of a standard for the steel pickling source category that may be less
stringent than the ``floor''-based standard in today's final rule.
Possessing insufficient information at this time to make a decision
for the steel pickling source category pursuant to section 112(d)(4)
authority, and recognizing that the authority bestowed by Congress is
fully discretionary, EPA believes that it is reasonable to finalize
today's standard while continuing to conduct an assessment of HCl
emissions from steel pickling operations under section 112(d)(4).
Absent such information, EPA believes that there is ample reason to
regulate HCl emissions from steel pickling operations at the levels of
today's standard, as discussed more fully in the remainder of this
preamble.
D. Compliance Dates and Maintenance Requirements
Comment: One commenter stated that the required maintenance
activities should be guidelines and not requirements. They do not
further the rule (beyond required monitoring) to limit emissions and
assure compliance with the limits.
Response: Operational and maintenance requirements are necessary to
help ensure that emission control equipment continues to operate at a
level consistent with its operation at the time of compliance testing
and are enforceable independently of emissions limitations. The EPA's
statement of these requirements is in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii), Operation
and Maintenance Requirements.
Comment: Three commenters stated the following. The EPA's
maintenance plan should not establish specific elements of the required
maintenance plan, i.e., following manufacturer's recommended
maintenance, cleaning scrubber internals and mist eliminators at
intervals sufficient to prevent fouling, having set intervals for
inspecting system components to identify, repair, or replace as needed.
Two of the commenters recommend that EPA amend proposed Sec. 63.1159 by
eliminating the requirement that maintenance plans must include the
elements set forth at Sec. 63.1159(b)(2)(i)-(iv); these elements should
be included only as potential elements that may be included in the
plan. Another commenter believes that the operation and maintenance
plan should not require strict adherence to the manufacturer's
operating manual. Many manufacturer's manuals contain steps that are
determined not be necessary and/or that only the manufacturer's
proprietary products should be used. The EPA should change the wording
to, for example, ``substantially include'' the elements set forth in
the manufacturer's operating manual.
Response: The EPA has reviewed the proposed maintenance plan
requirements and decided that revisions are appropriate. Manufacturer's
instructions for older equipment may require materials no longer
available. Manufacturers may no longer be in business so that required
parts or materials cannot be purchased except by substitution from a
source other than the original manufacturer. Therefore, the EPA has
revised the rule so that it no longer requires adherence to the
manufacturer's manual. The facility must write an operation and
maintenance plan that is consistent with good maintenance practices and
includes, at a minimum, the list of items described in the rule. The
EPA believes that inclusion of these items is reasonable. Additionally,
pressure drop must be monitored once per shift as a means of
discovering scrubber operational anomalies that may require
maintenance. No specific pressure drop deviation limit is required, but
the monitoring records are required to be kept along with the recycle
and makeup water flow rates.
Comment: Three commenters stated that the operation and maintenance
plan should not be part of the source's title V operating permit. Plan
approval places a substantial burden on permitting authorities. The
details of these plans are frequently changed as operational problems
are addressed. Such a requirement could cause administrative nightmares
if a source is required to go through the title V permit modification
process every time it modifies a plan, especially during the early
stages of the rule. Approval of plans by informal action would
encourage timely revision.
Response: The rule requires the plan to be incorporated into the
permit only by reference and no longer requires it to be submitted to
the permitting authority.
Comment: One commenter believes the requirement that the
``responsible plant official'' sign records of inspections is overly
burdensome. The requirement is acceptable if ``responsible plant
official'' means that an employee delegated the responsibility by the
``responsible official'' must sign.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has added the
definition ``responsible maintenance official,'' who is a person having
signature authority for signing reports required under the rule.
Comment: One commenter states that the requirement to initiate
repairs within 1 day is excessive and unworkable. It is unclear what
``initiate corrective action'' means. In some cases, corrective action
may require engineering analysis to determine the source of the problem
and effective corrective action. If this provision is retained, the
commenter recommends that it be written as a requirement that repairs
begin promptly and provide a ``safe harbor'' that repairs commenced
within 1 day are considered to be prompt.
Two commenters state that the proposed requirement that maintenance
plans be implemented within 1 working day is too stringent. There may
be situations when initiating the plan within 24 hours would be
impractical or impossible. In some cases, a facility may have to rely
on an outside contractor to conduct necessary action. Instead of
establishing a time-specific deadline, the EPA should provide that
``facilities must initiate corrective action as soon as practically
possible, but no later than 3 working days.''
One commenter states that the requirement for corrective action
within 1 day of detection of an operating problem with a control device
is neither
[[Page 33213]]
reasonable or in keeping with the notification and repair requirements
of other NESHAP rules. The commenter recommends that the requirement be
changed to include a first attempt at repair within 5 working days of
detection.
Response: The EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect
operators to initiate procedures toward corrective action within 1 day
and complete repairs or maintenance as soon as practicable. Initiation
of procedures may consist of notification of a contractor or service
group that corrective action is necessary. The rule is revised to
clarify that the procedures to be initiated are the actions that are
specified in the maintenance plan.
E. Performance Testing and Test Methods
Comment: One commenter stated that establishment of site specific
scrubber operating parameters as a measure of compliance without first
establishing the relationship between the parameters and the emissions
in question is not appropriate. The EPA has made no attempt to
establish any relationship between the proposed mandated parameters and
actual emissions. This information was not evaluated during the MACT
development; therefore, site specific parameters should not become
mandated compliance parameters.
Response: Without implementation of continuous emissions monitoring
systems, monitoring of relevant operating parameters in combination
with routine and preventative maintenance is essential to enhanced
compliance assurance. The requirement for operating parameter
monitoring is retained in the rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that in setting parameter operating
limits, the full range of values observed during a compliance test
should be used, not the average. Because an average is being
established, at least one of the tests must necessarily be above the
average if all three tests are not identical. Another commenter
believes that owners and operators should be able to establish
compliant operating parameters using individual runs from compliance
tests and not be restricted to multiple tests. Using multiple runs
during a test will greatly diminish costs and repetitive sampling
without substantially diminishing the assurance of compliance.
Response: The EPA agrees that some flexibility in establishing
operating parameter compliant values is appropriate. The rule is
revised to allow an average parameter value measured during any of the
runs used to demonstrate compliance to be used as the compliant value
rather than the average value measured over the entire testing period.
Comment: Two commenters believe operators should have the option of
conducting compliance demonstration tests as needed to show appropriate
ranges of scrubber parameters. Establishment of parameters should not
be limited to the initial performance test.
Response: The rule allows facilities to conduct multiple
performance tests to establish alternative compliant operating
parameter values and to reestablish compliant values during any
performance test conducted after the initial performance test.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that actions such as
installing a more effective capture system or adding a mist eliminator
would result in increased pressure drop and hence a violation of the
standard.
Response: This issue is no longer a concern because the monitoring
parameters have been changed. Pressure drop is now monitored only to
detect potential problems with the scrubber.
Comment: Two commenters had the following statement. Method 26A is
not validated for steel pickling, only for municipal waste incinerators
(MWI). The MWI have higher temperatures, less moisture (and no liquid
droplets), and no ferric chloride content, which could interfere with
test results. The EPA's tests also show variations of as much as 700
percent for the same pickling line. Test bias may have resulted in an
improperly low standard. Inexplicable negative biases are reported in
an EPA municipal waste incinerator validation report for Method 26A.
These biases are such that validation for pickling sources is required.
The practical level of quantification (PLQ) for Method 26A has not
been established for pickling sources, and should be developed using
Method 301. Also, ferric chloride might cause a positive bias for the
HCl measurements. One facility believes that conditions encountered
with HCl pickling tests include high humidity in the gas stream,
extremely high solubility of HCl gas in water, condensation in the gas
stream, refluxing in the stack, and the use of stack tip entrainment
eliminators. These conditions lead to several measurement problems, all
of which tend to bias results toward improperly high HCl concentration
because of enriched droplet capture in the sampling probe or
maldistribution of HCl with regard to sampling probe location. Sampling
data show six cases in which the range of measured maximum
concentrations varies from 1.3 to 9.3 times the minimum concentration
for heated pickling lines or acid regeneration plants. They recommend
that the testing protocol include provisions for testing control
devices (including stack-tip mist eliminators) and allow for discard of
test results more than 50 percent above the average.
Response: The comments do not bring up any technical concerns
regarding measurements at pickling or acid regeneration sites. A well
designed and conscientiously run field validation of Method 26A
specifically at these source categories would not likely uncover any
evidence that there is a problem in this application. The EPA knows
from its studies that the method is capable of measuring to fractional
ppmv levels. Review of data from a 1997 study at a light-weight
aggregate kiln burning hazardous waste provides a minimum detection
limit estimate of about 0.04 ppmv. The EPA estimated the method
precision (reported as the standard deviation of individual runs) to be
0.42 ppmv at 3 ppmv. This value would lead to the precision estimate of
the mean of a 3 run test of 0.24 ppmv. If water droplets are routinely
present, then the method has to be followed carefully to avoid
gathering poor quality data. The EPA has not knowingly field validated
the method in the presence of water droplets, but isokinetic sampling
is the accepted way to address this problem.
The commenters contended that EPA provides no justification to the
preamble statement ``EPA considers the method is equally valid for
measuring emissions for pickling and acid regeneration sources.'' They
go on to say that HCl pickling emissions are generally 100 to 200
deg.F and contain water droplets. The presence of water droplets
increases the potential for negative bias.
The EPA responds that the method is validated at a municipal waste
combustor (MWC) where the sample matrix is a more severe test of the
method in terms of potential chemical interferents, and the stack is at
a higher temperature. The higher stack temperature at MWCs is a more
severe test of the method in that the probe and filter temperatures are
less than the stack temperature, which, in theory, could lead to
condensation of HCl in the probe. An effective control system would be
expected to include a mist eliminator, thus minimizing the potential
for excessive water droplet effect. In addition, the test method has
provisions to overcome the potential negative bias encountered if water
droplets are present.
One commenter also commented on the MWC validation being done with
[[Page 33214]]
midget impingers rather than the large impingers. The EPA report No.
600/3-89/064 concludes that there is an inexplicable negative bias
compared to those using midget impinges. The most likely cause of the
low bias at low (3 to 4 ppmv) concentrations is absorption of HCl on
alkaline particulate matter collected on the filter. This condition is
not expected at steel pickling plants and, hence, field validation
would not be of value.
The commenter also stated that proper field validation of Method
26A would provide the true PLQ that would take into account the normal
variations resulting solely from the test procedures. Determining the
actual PLQ of Method 26A on HCl pickling emissions is essential to
ensure that the final NESHAP limitations are not set lower than the
level that can be consistently quantified by the required testing. The
recommendation already discussed in this comment should also apply to
HCl regeneration plants since the limit of 3 ppmv HCl is at the lower
limit of the range tested.
The EPA notes that the commenter provided the Method 301 definition
of PLQ. There is general agreement that the intent of the Method 301
calculation procedure of 10 times the standard deviation should use the
standard deviation at or near the limit of detection. (The actual
Method 301 language adds ``* * * at the blank level.'') The EPA
believes the commenter cites an erroneous conclusion from a Rigo and
Rigo Associates, Incorporated, document, that a recent quad-train study
at an MWC had a PLQ of at least 125 ppmv at 7 percent oxygen for Method
26A. The study was done in a concentration range of 105 to 636 ppmv at
7 percent oxygen, instead of near the acceptable blank limit of the
method. These conditions lead to an inflated standard deviation
estimate and a subsequent over estimate of the PLQ. Draft results from
a 1997 EPA study using a quad-train arrangement at a light-weight
aggregate kiln where the actual (uncorrected for dilution) stack
concentration of HCl ranged from 0.22 to 1.29 ppmv (more closely
approaching the theoretical lower limit of the method) results in an
estimated method standard deviation of 0.12 ppmv at zero. The EPA used
these data to extrapolate an estimated method standard deviation of
0.42 ppmv at 3 ppmv as described above. This value compares favorably
with the original MWC validation report's estimate of standard
deviations of 0.24 ppmv and 0.49 ppmv at concentration of 3.9 ppmv and
15.3 ppmv, respectively.
Regarding positive bias caused by ferric chloride, it would have to
have a significant vapor pressure at the filter temperature to pass
through the Teflon matte filter in the test equipment. This is not the
case.
The EPA believes the test method is appropriate for steel pickling
and acid regeneration operations and will continue to require its use
(or an approved substitute) for the standard. However, in order to
reduce the possibility of collecting water droplets from the stack
walls that may be present because of refluxing in the stack or high
humidity, the EPA believes that Reference Method 1 should be modified
for this application to specify that no sampling point be closer to the
stack wall than one inch.
Comment: One commenter states that ammonia is commonly used as a
precipitating agent in waste HCl, resulting in ammonium chloride
formation. The commenter believes that some ammonium chloride will be
decomposed in the acid regeneration plant roaster, but significant
amounts may exit in the waste gas and will be recovered along with HCl
in gas cleaning. The commenter is currently investigating the
possibility of direct measurement of ammonium chloride in the acid
plant scrubbers but does not at present have data to offer. The
commenter understands that ammonium chloride can interfere in the
measurement of HCl at low levels.
Response: Ammonium chloride is identified as a possible interferent
in EPA Reference Method 26A that would be expected to appear as
chloride ion and thus be measured as HCl. If an acid regeneration plant
cannot meet the standard for HCl, it would have the option of
demonstrating that ammonium chloride is present in the waste pickle
liquor fed to the plant and seeking relief in the HCl emission limit on
that basis. However, the need for relief seems unlikely. Ammonium
chloride would not be expected to pass the filter that is required for
this method at the filter temperature. Ammonium chloride decomposes
from the solid state at 339 deg.C, which is far above the temperature
of 248 deg.F (120 deg.C) used for sampling acid regeneration plant
emissions.
F. Monitoring Requirements
Comment: Four commenters stated that excessive excursions of
operating parameters should not trigger implementation of CEMS. In
addition, seven commenters stated that the use of CEMS should not be
required. No systems have been demonstrated to have the capability to
accurately measure and record compliance for this application.
Commercially available systems for monitoring at the proposed levels
are expensive, difficult to calibrate and maintain, and not reliable to
the level of operation required. Manufacturers have cautioned that
using such devices in an acidic application containing water droplets
would interfere with the test methodology and be corrosive to the
testing apparatus. Conditions of high humidity and acidity make it
unlikely that an in situ sensor will ever work.
Response: After reviewing the comments, the EPA agrees that
reliable operation of currently available CEMS cannot be assured for
this application. At best, inordinately burdensome maintenance and
operating procedures would be required. The CEMS requirement is
therefore deleted.
Comment: Five commenters stated that pressure drop and acidity are
not appropriate monitoring parameters. A relationship between these
parameters and scrubber efficiency has not been demonstrated. Given the
lack of variation of scrubbing efficiency between caustic solution and
clear water, monitoring acidity is questionable. Also, the requirement
to measure acidity is vague. Three commenters suggested that parameters
other than pressure drop and acidity would be better indicators of
scrubber performance. Scrubber water flow rate is a more valid
indicator of efficient scrubbing. For packed bed scrubbers, betters
parameters are pressure drop, air flow rate, and water flow rate to the
top of the packing. For plate scrubbers, pressure drop and visual
observation provide assurance of correct operation. Other parameters
suggested were fan amps and liquid conductivity.
Response: In considering all of these comments, the EPA concludes
that scrubber makeup water and recycle water flow rates are better
indicators of scrubber performance than pressure drop and acidity, on
the basis that the mechanism for HCl collection is absorption in water,
which can be done effectively even with slightly acidic water. The rule
is revised, eliminating the requirements for monitoring scrubber
pressure drop and scrubbing effluent acidity and replacing them with
the requirements to monitor scrubber makeup water flow rate and, for
scrubbers that operate with recirculation, recirculation water flow
rate. Monitoring of pressure drop is moved from operational
requirements to maintenance requirements. Pressure drop must be
monitored as a means of discovering scrubber operational anomalies that
may require maintenance. No specific pressure drop deviation limit is
required, but the
[[Page 33215]]
monitoring records are required to be kept in addition to the recycle
and makeup water flow rates. Flow rate increases large enough to cause
flooding would be considered malfunctions.
Comment: Four commenters stated that facilities should be allowed
to develop their own monitoring protocols. The EPA should set forth
minimum monitoring requirements and allow facilities to develop site
specific protocols that they can justify.
Response: Alternative monitoring options can be approved under
Sec. 63.8(b) of the general provisions to this part. This provision is
clarified in the final rule.
Comment: Six commenters believe that monitoring of scrubbers should
not be required during nonoperating periods such as stoppages for
maintenance and repairs.
Response: Periods of stoppage for maintenance and repairs would be
covered under the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP). The
rule is revised to clarify that monitoring scrubber parameters is
required only while the scrubber is operating. The rule is also revised
to clarify that monitoring acid plant operations is required only while
the plant is operating in production mode. Discussions with plant
operators after proposal have revealed that plants often operate in
modes that are designed, for example, to maintain temperature while
acid and iron oxide production are temporarily suspended. These
operations are conducted under conditions that are not predicted to
produce byproduct chlorine.
Comment: Two commenters stated that storage vessel inspections
should be changed from monthly to semiannually to be consistent with
the requirement under other subpart L NESHAP rules. Inspection of
control devices on storage vessels should be conducted at the same
frequency as compliance testing on the scrubber.
Response: The reference is to subpart L of part 61, National
Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from Coke Byproduct Recovery
Plants. The requirement in subpart L is to monitor connections and
seals on each control system that recovers or destroys emissions from
process vessels, tar storage tanks, and tar-intercepting sumps. The EPA
believes that the requirements for this subpart should not be more
stringent than those for rules with similar monitoring requirements and
has revised the rule to require semiannual rather than monthly
inspections.
Comment: Three commenters stated that annual stack testing is
excessive when coupled with parametric monitoring. One commenter
recommended that stack testing only be required if the control device
is out of range. The other commenters recommended testing no more
frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or every 5 years.
Response: In lieu of continuous emissions monitoring or other means
for determining continuous compliance, enhanced compliance assurance is
established in this rule by monitoring of relevant operating parameters
in combination with routine and preventive maintenance plus periodic
performance testing. Annual testing is typically required in such
situations. The EPA believes, however, that some flexibility can be
allowed in view of the requirement to also monitor parameters. The rule
is revised to allow facilities to conduct performance testing on an
alternative schedule that is approved by the applicable permitting
authority but no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or twice per
title V permit term.
Comment: Four commenters stated that excursions of control device
or acid plant operating parameters should not be considered violations.
Out of range measurements should be treated as indicators of potential
problems requiring further investigation or corrective action. A strong
enough relationship between variations in pressure drop or acidity and
HCl emissions has not been demonstrated.
Response: The proposed rule inadvertently stated that exceedances
of scrubber operating parameters were violations of the emission limit.
The intention was to state that exceedances of acid regeneration plant
operating parameters were violations of the emission limit. The rule is
revised to state that excursions of scrubber monitoring parameters only
require corrective action as specified by the maintenance requirements
and are not violations of the emission limit.
Regarding acid plant monitoring parameters, the EPA's policy is
that linking excursions of operating parameters to violations of the
emissions limit is preferred but is only defensible where a strong
correlation between the parameters values and emissions can be
demonstrated. The EPA reexamined the appropriateness of the linkage of
acid regeneration plant operating parameters with emissions and agrees
with the commenters that a strong enough correlation has not been
demonstrated. The rule is revised so that excursions of acid
regeneration plant operating parameters are a violation of the
operational standard and not the emission limit.
H. Recordkeeping Requirements
Comment: One commenter believes that the requirement for
maintaining startup and shutdown records is ambiguous, burdensome, and
of no environmental benefit. No guidance is provided on what
constitutes a startup or shutdown. If required, startup and shutdown
should be defined to exclude the normal stopping and starting of the
pickling line during its daily operation.
Response: The EPA disagrees that no environmental benefit is gained
from keeping startup and shutdown records. These records can be used as
an enforcement tool to ensure continued compliance with environmental
rules or to show periods of inactivity when, for example, emissions
would not be expected to occur.
The EPA agrees that maintaining records of normal daily
interruptions in line operations is onerous if not routinely practiced.
This is not the intent of the recordkeeping requirement. Each facility
writes its own SSMP and therefore can provide specific definitions of
normal startup and shutdown versus intermittent stops and starts
characteristic of daily operation. However, as part of the SSMP, these
definitions are subject to approval by the facility's permitting
authority.
Comment: One commenter suggests that for the air pollution control
device recordkeeping, startup and shutdown should be defined to include
only ``abnormal'' cases, perhaps periods of a day or more.
Response: As described in the previous response, each facility
writes its own SSMP and can define normal startup and shutdown.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized file of information considered by the
EPA in the development of a rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file
because information is added throughout the rulemaking development
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The official rulemaking
record, including all public comments received on the proposed rule, is
located at the address in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this document.
[[Page 33216]]
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine if a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
C. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns the environmental
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonable
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or the EPA consults with those governments. If the EPA
complies by consulting, EPA must provide the Office of Management and
Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA involved State
regulatory experts in the development of the rule. State and local
governments and tribal governments are not directly affected by the
rule, i.e., they are not required to purchase control systems to meet
the requirements of the rule. However, State and local governments will
be required to implement the rule; i.e., incorporate the rule into
permits and enforce the rule. They will collect permit fees that will
be used to offset the resource burden of implementing the rule.
Comments were solicited from States and have been considered in the
development of the final rule. No comments were received from any
tribal government.
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in developing EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The EPA has determined that the total
annualized nationwide cost of the final standard is approximately $7.9
million per year, which is well under the $100 million per year
threshold. The only costs to State and local governments are those
associated with implementing this standard through the permitting
process, and those costs are recouped through permit fees. In addition,
the EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it does not impose any enforceable duties on small
governments; such governments own or operate no sources subject to
these rules and therefore would not be required to purchase control
systems to meet the requirements of the rule. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
[[Page 33217]]
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions whose jurisdictions are less than 50,000 people. This
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it does not impact small entities whose
jurisdictions cover less than 50,000 people. Only three of
approximately 80 affected facilities in this industry meet the criteria
for small businesses. Of these three, one company is expected to meet
the standard and one company is projected to be a nonmajor source based
on calculations using an emissions estimating model along with
information supplied by the firm. It is not anticipated that these two
facilities will be adversely impacted by the regulation. The remaining
small company employs a scrubber that may meet the emission limitation.
If this facility incurs emission control costs, the costs would likely
relate to upgrading existing equipment or improved maintenance
practices. Any regulatory impacts for this company are not expected to
be significant.
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a report, which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective June 22, 1999.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No.1821.02 ) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC 20460, by email at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information collection requirements include mandatory
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information collection
requirements are needed to confirm the compliance status of major
sources, to identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards
and any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to
confirm that emission control devices are being properly operated and
maintained, and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based
on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which plants,
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA for
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according
to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251,
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collecting
this information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the rule) is estimated to total 23,190 hours based on a total
of 70 likely respondents over that period (23.3 per year) at 995 hours
per respondent per year. The total annualized cost is estimated to be
$1,850,000 per year, with a capital and startup cost of $8,200 per year
and an operation and maintenance cost of $7,500 per year (excluding
labor hours included in the previous total).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with
explanations when an agency decides not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve the proposal of any new technical
standards. It does, however, incorporate by reference existing
technical standards. Incorporated are EPA Reference test methods 1
through 4 and 26A, as codified under 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Consequently, the EPA searched for voluntary consensus standards that
might be applicable. The search was conducted through the National
Standards System Network (NSSN), an automated service provided by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for identifying available
national and international standards. The search identified no
applicable equivalent standards. Therefore, the final rule relies
solely on use of the government-unique technical standards cited above
for determining compliance.
[[Page 33218]]
As part of a larger effort, the EPA is undertaking a project to
cross-reference existing voluntary consensus standards on testing,
sampling, and analysis with current and future EPA test methods. When
completed, this project will assist the EPA in identifying potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards that can then be evaluated for
equivalency and applicability in determining compliance with future
regulations.
J. Pollution Prevention Act
``Pollution prevention'' means source reduction as defined under
the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (e.g., equipment or technology
modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or
redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements
in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control), and
other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants
through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy,
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by
conservation.
The steel pickling industry employs pollution prevention techniques
through regeneration of spent pickle liquor. The 10 acid regeneration
plants operating in 1991 recovered about 40 percent of the pickling
acid requirements for the industry in that year. Without the savings
provided by the use of regenerated acid, additional costs would be
incurred for treatment or disposal of waste pickle liquor (K062) that
are otherwise avoided. The final rule encourages use of acid
regeneration by providing simplified and cost effective compliance
requirements.
The final rule also encourages pollution prevention through
improved maintenance of air pollution control devices. Proper operation
maintenance of control systems results in more effective emissions
control.
K. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance cost incurred by the tribal governments or the EPA consults
with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, the EPA must
provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No steel pickling facilities
are owned or operated by Indian by tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel pickling.
Dated: May 12, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCC to read as follows:
Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
Sec.
63.1155 Applicability.
63.1156 Definitions.
63.1157 Emission standards for existing sources.
63.1158 Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.
63.1159 Operational and equipment requirements for existing, new,
or reconstructed sources.
63.1160 Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.
63.1161 Performance testing and test methods.
63.1162 Monitoring requirements.
63.1163 Notification requirements.
63.1164 Reporting requirements.
63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.1166 Delegation of authority.
63.1167-63.1174 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart CCC--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) to subpart CCC
Subpart CCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
Sec. 63.1155 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following
facilities and plants that are major sources for hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) or are parts of facilities that are major sources for
HAP:
(1) All new and existing steel pickling facilities that pickle
carbon steel using hydrochloric acid solution that contains 6 percent
or more by weight HCl and is at a temperature of 100 deg.F or higher;
and
(2) All new and existing hydrochloric acid regeneration plants.
(3) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to facilities that
pickle carbon steel without using hydrochloric acid, to facilities that
pickle only specialty steel, or to acid regeneration plants that
regenerate only acids other than hydrochloric acid.
(b) For the purposes of implementing this subpart, the affected
sources at a facility or plant subject to this subpart are as follows:
Continuous and batch pickling lines, hydrochloric acid regeneration
plants, and hydrochloric acid storage vessels.
(c) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of this part
63, subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of steel pickling facilities and hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants subject to this subpart.
Sec. 63.1156 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
Batch pickling line means the collection of equipment and tanks
configured for pickling metal in any form but usually in discrete
shapes where the material is lowered in batches into a bath of acid
solution, allowed to remain until the scale is dissolved, then removed
from the solution, drained, and rinsed by spraying or immersion in one
or more rinse tanks to remove residual acid.
Carbon steel means steel that contains approximately 2 percent or
less carbon, 1.65 percent or less manganese, 0.6
[[Page 33219]]
percent or less silicon, and 0.6 percent or less copper.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and that is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and,
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport emissions from a
process unit or piece of equipment (e.g., pumps, pressure relief
devices, sampling connections, open-ended valves or lines, connectors,
and instrumentation systems) back into a closed system or into any
device that is capable of reducing or collecting emissions.
Continuous pickling line means the collection of equipment and
tanks configured for pickling metal strip, rod, wire, tube, or pipe
that is passed through an acid solution in a continuous or nearly
continuous manner and rinsed in another tank or series of tanks to
remove residual acid. This definition includes continuous spray towers.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant means the collection of
equipment and processes configured to reconstitute fresh hydrochloric
acid pickling solution from spent pickle liquor using a thermal
treatment process.
Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant production mode means
operation under conditions that result in production of usable
regenerated acid or iron oxide.
Hydrochloric acid storage vessel means a stationary vessel used for
the bulk containment of virgin or regenerated hydrochloric acid.
Responsible maintenance official means a person designated by the
owner or operator as having the knowledge and the authority to sign
records and reports required under this rule.
Specialty steel means a category of steel that includes silicon
electrical, alloy, tool, and stainless steels.
Spray tower means an enclosed vertical tower in which acid pickling
solution is sprayed onto moving steel strip in multiple vertical
passes.
Steel pickling means the chemical removal of iron oxide mill scale
that is formed on steel surfaces during hot rolling or hot forming of
semi-finished steel products through contact with an aqueous solution
of acid where such contact occurs prior to shaping or coating of the
finished steel product. This definition does not include removal of
light rust or scale from finished steel products or activation of the
metal surface prior to plating or coating.
Steel pickling facility means any facility that operates one or
more batch or continuous steel pickling lines.
Sec. 63.1157 Emission standards for existing sources.
(a) Pickling lines. No owner or operator of an existing affected
continuous or batch pickling line at a steel pickling facility shall
cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected
pickling line:
(1) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 18
parts per million by volume (ppmv); or
(2) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection
efficiency of less than 97 percent.
(b) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. (1) No owner or operator
of an existing affected plant shall cause or allow to be discharged
into the atmosphere from the affected plant any gases that contain HCl
in a concentration greater than 25 ppmv.
(2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, no owner or operator of an existing affected plant shall cause
or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected plant
any gases that contain chlorine (Cl<INF>2</INF>) in a concentration in
excess of either 6 ppmv or an alternative source-specific maximum
concentration. The source-specific maximum concentration standard shall
be established according to Sec. 63.1161(c)(2) of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1158 Emission standards for new or reconstructed sources.
(a) Pickling lines.--(1) Continuous pickling lines. No owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed affected continuous pickling line at
a steel pickling facility shall cause or allow to be discharged into
the atmosphere from the affected pickling line:
(i) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 6
ppmv; or
(ii) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection
efficiency of less than 99 percent.
(2) Batch pickling lines. No owner or operator of a new or
reconstructed affected batch pickling line at a steel pickling facility
shall cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the
affected pickling line:
(i) Any gases that contain HCl in a concentration in excess of 18
ppmv; or
(ii) HCl at a mass emission rate that corresponds to a collection
efficiency of less than 97 percent.
(b) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plants. (1) No owner or operator
of a new or reconstructed affected plant shall cause or allow to be
discharged into the atmosphere from the affected plant any gases that
contain HCl in a concentration greater than 12 ppmv.
(2) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, no owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected plant
shall cause or allow to be discharged into the atmosphere from the
affected plant any gases that contain Cl<INF>2</INF> in a concentration
in excess of 6 ppmv.
Sec. 63.1159 Operational and equipment standards for existing, new, or
reconstructed sources.
(a) Hydrochloric acid regeneration plant. The owner or operator of
an affected plant must operate the affected plant at all times while in
production mode in a manner that minimizes the proportion of excess air
fed to the process and maximizes the process offgas temperature
consistent with producing usable regenerated acid or iron oxide.
(b) Hydrochloric acid storage vessels. The owner or operator of an
affected vessel shall provide and operate, except during loading and
unloading of acid, a closed-vent system for each vessel. Loading and
unloading shall be conducted either through enclosed lines or each
point where the acid is exposed to the atmosphere shall be equipped
with a local fume capture system, ventilated through an air pollution
control device.
Sec. 63.1160 Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.
(a) Compliance dates. (1) The owner or operator of an affected
existing steel pickling facility and/or hydrochloric acid regeneration
plant subject to this subpart shall achieve initial compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later than June 22, 2001.
(2) The owner or operator of a new or reconstructed steel pickling
facility and/or hydrochloric acid regeneration plant subject to this
subpart that commences construction or reconstruction after September
18, 1997, shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this
subpart immediately upon startup of operations or by June 22, 1999,
whichever is later.
(b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The owner or operator of an
affected source shall comply with the operation and maintenance
requirements prescribed under Sec. 63.6(e) of subpart A of this part.
(2) In addition to the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, the owner or operator shall prepare an operation and
maintenance plan for each emission control device to be implemented no
later than the compliance date. The plan shall be incorporated by
reference into the source's title V permit. All such plans must be
consistent with good maintenance practices and, for a scrubber emission
control device, must at a minimum:
[[Page 33220]]
(i) Require monitoring and recording the pressure drop across the
scrubber once per shift while the scrubber is operating in order to
identify changes that may indicate a need for maintenance;
(ii) Require the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps,
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, in addition to exhaust system
and scrubber fans and motors associated with those pumps and fans;
(iii) Require cleaning of the scrubber internals and mist
eliminators at intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or
other fouling;
(iv) Require an inspection of each scrubber at intervals of no less
than 3 months with:
(A) Cleaning or replacement of any plugged spray nozzles or other
liquid delivery devices;
(B) Repair or replacement of missing, misaligned, or damaged
baffles, trays, or other internal components;
(C) Repair or replacement of droplet eliminator elements as needed;
(D) Repair or replacement of heat exchanger elements used to
control the temperature of fluids entering or leaving the scrubber; and
(E) Adjustment of damper settings for consistency with the required
air flow.
(v) If the scrubber is not equipped with a viewport or access hatch
allowing visual inspection, alternate means of inspection approved by
the Administrator may be used.
(vi) The owner or operator shall initiate procedures for corrective
action within 1 working day of detection of an operating problem and
complete all corrective actions as soon as practicable. Procedures to
be initiated are the applicable actions that are specified in the
maintenance plan. Failure to initiate or provide appropriate repair,
replacement, or other corrective action is a violation of the
maintenance requirement of this subpart.
(vii) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of each
inspection, including each item identified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of
this section, that is signed by the responsible maintenance official
and that shows the date of each inspection, the problem identified, a
description of the repair, replacement, or other corrective action
taken, and the date of the repair, replacement, or other corrective
action taken.
(3) The owner or operator of each hydrochloric acid regeneration
plant shall develop and implement a written maintenance program. The
program shall require:
(i) Performance of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at
the recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
(ii) Initiation of procedures for appropriate and timely repair,
replacement, or other corrective action within 1 working day of
detection; and
(iii) Maintenance of a daily record, signed by a responsible
maintenance official, showing the date of each inspection for each
requirement, the problems found, a description of the repair,
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or
replacement.
Sec. 63.1161 Performance testing and test methods.
(a) Demonstration of compliance. The owner or operator shall
conduct an initial performance test for each process or emission
control device to determine and demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of this part and in this section.
(1) Following approval of the site-specific test plan, the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance test for each process or control
device to either measure simultaneously the mass flows of HCl at the
inlet and the outlet of the control device (to determine compliance
with the applicable collection efficiency standard) or measure the
concentration of HCl (and Cl<INF>2</INF> for hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants) in gases exiting the process or the emission
control device (to determine compliance with the applicable emission
concentration standard).
(2) Compliance with the applicable concentration standard or
collection efficiency standard shall be determined by the average of
three consecutive runs or by the average of any three of four
consecutive runs. Each run shall be conducted under conditions
representative of normal process operations.
(3) Compliance is achieved if either the average collection
efficiency as determined by the HCl mass flows at the control device
inlet and outlet is greater than or equal to the applicable collection
efficiency standard, or the average measured concentration of HCl or
Cl<INF>2</INF> exiting the process or the emission control device is
less than or equal to the applicable emission concentration standard.
(b) Establishment of scrubber operating parameters. During the
performance test for each emission control device, the owner or
operator using a wet scrubber to achieve compliance shall establish
site-specific operating parameter values for the minimum scrubber
makeup water flow rate and, for scrubbers that operate with
recirculation, the minimum recirculation water flow rate. During the
emission test, each operating parameter must be monitored continuously
and recorded with sufficient frequency to establish a representative
average value for that parameter, but no less frequently than once
every 15 minutes. The owner or operator shall determine the operating
parameter monitoring values as the averages of the values recorded
during any of the runs for which results are used to establish the
emission concentration or collection efficiency per paragraph (a)(2) of
this section. An owner or operator may conduct multiple performance
tests to establish alternative compliant operating parameter values.
Also, an owner or operator may reestablish compliant operating
parameter values as part of any performance test that is conducted
subsequent to the initial test or tests.
(c) Establishment of hydrochloric acid regeneration plant operating
parameters. (1) During the performance test for hydrochloric acid
regeneration plants, the owner or operator shall establish site-
specific operating parameter values for the minimum process offgas
temperature and the maximum proportion of excess air fed to the process
as described in Sec. 63.1162(b)(1) of this subpart. During the emission
test, each operating parameter must be monitored and recorded with
sufficient frequency to establish a representative average value for
that parameter, but no less frequently than once every 15 minutes for
parameters that are monitored continuously. Amount of iron in the spent
pickle liquor shall be determined for each run by sampling the liquor
every 15 minutes and analyzing a composite of the samples. The owner or
operator shall determine the compliant monitoring values as the
averages of the values recorded during any of the runs for which
results are used to establish the emission concentration per paragraph
(a)(2) of this section. An owner or operator may conduct multiple
performance tests to establish alternative compliant operating
parameter values. Also, an owner or operator may reestablish compliant
operating parameter values as part of any performance test that is
conducted subsequent to the initial test or tests.
(2) During this performance test, the owner or operator of an
existing affected plant may establish an alternative concentration
standard if the owner or operator can demonstrate to the
[[Page 33221]]
Administrator's satisfaction that the plant cannot meet a concentration
limitation for Cl<INF>2</INF> of 6 ppmv when operated within its design
parameters. The alternative concentration standard shall be established
through performance testing while the plant is operated at maximum
design temperature and with the minimum proportion of excess air that
allows production of iron oxide of acceptable quality while measuring
the Cl<INF>2</INF> concentration in the process exhaust gas. The
measured concentration shall be the concentration standard for that
plant.
(d) Test methods. (1) The following test methods in appendix A of
40 CFR part 60 shall be used to determine compliance under
Sec. 63.1157(a), Sec. 63.1157(b), Sec. 63.1158(a), and Sec. 63.1158(b)
of this subpart:
(i) Method 1, to determine the number and location of sampling
points, with the exception that no traverse point shall be within one
inch of the stack or duct wall;
(ii) Method 2, to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate;
(iii) Method 3, to determine the molecular weight of the stack gas;
(iv) Method 4, to determine the moisture content of the stack gas;
and
(v) Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen
Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method,'' to determine
the HCl mass flows at the inlet and outlet of a control device or the
concentration of HCl discharged to the atmosphere, and also to
determine the concentration of Cl<INF>2</INF> discharged to the
atmosphere from acid regeneration plants. If compliance with a
collection efficiency standard is being demonstrated, inlet and outlet
measurements shall be performed simultaneously. The minimum sampling
time for each run shall be 60 minutes and the minimum sample volume
0.85 dry standard cubic meters (30 dry standard cubic feet). The
concentrations of HCl and Cl<INF>2</INF> shall be calculated for each
run as follows:
C<INF>HCl</INF>(ppmv) = 0.659 C<INF>HCl</INF>(mg/dscm),
and C<INF>Cl</INF><INF>2</INF>(ppmv) = 0.339
C<INF>Cl</INF><INF>2</INF>(mg/dscm),
where C(ppmv) is concentration in ppmv and C(mg/dscm) is concentration
in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter as calculated by the
procedure given in Method 26A.
(2) The owner or operator may use equivalent alternative
measurement methods approved by the Administrator.
Sec. 63.1162 Monitoring requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, or existing
steel pickling facility or acid regeneration plant subject to this
subpart shall:
(1) Conduct performance tests to measure the HCl mass flows at the
control device inlet and outlet or the concentration of HCl exiting the
control device according to the procedures described in Sec. 63.1161 of
this subpart. Performance tests shall be conducted either annually or
according to an alternative schedule that is approved by the applicable
permitting authority, but no less frequently than every 2\1/2\ years or
twice per title V permit term. If any performance test shows that the
HCl emission limitation is being exceeded, then the owner or operator
is in violation of the emission limit.
(2) In addition to conducting performance tests, if a wet scrubber
is used as the emission control device, install, operate, and maintain
systems for the measurement and recording of the scrubber makeup water
flow rate and, if required, recirculation water flow rate. These flow
rates must be monitored continuously and recorded at least once per
shift while the scrubber is operating. Operation of the wet scrubber
with excursions of scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation
water flow rate less than the minimum values established during the
performance test or tests will require initiation of corrective action
as specified by the maintenance requirements in Sec. 63.1160(b)(2) of
this subpart.
(3) If an emission control device other than a wet scrubber is
used, install, operate, and maintain systems for the measurement and
recording of the appropriate operating parameters.
(4) Failure to record each of the operating parameters listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section is a violation of the monitoring
requirements of this subpart.
(5) Each monitoring device shall be certified by the manufacturer
to be accurate to within 5 percent and shall be calibrated in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions but not less frequently
than once per year.
(6) The owner or operator may develop and implement alternative
monitoring requirements subject to approval by the Administrator.
(b) The owner or operator of a new, reconstructed, or existing acid
regeneration plant subject to this subpart shall also install, operate,
and maintain systems for the measurement and recording of the:
(1) Process offgas temperature, which shall be monitored
continuously and recorded at least once every shift while the facility
is operating in production mode; and
(2) Parameters from which proportion of excess air is determined.
Proportion of excess air shall be determined by a combination of total
air flow rate, fuel flow rate, spent pickle liquor addition rate, and
amount of iron in the spent pickle liquor, or by any other combination
of parameters approved by the Administrator in accordance with
Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of this part. Proportion of excess air shall
be determined and recorded at least once every shift while the plant is
operating in production mode.
(3) Each monitoring device must be certified by the manufacturer to
be accurate to within 5 percent and must be calibrated in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions but not less frequently than once
per year.
(4) Operation of the plant with the process offgas temperature
lower than the value established during performance testing or with the
proportion of excess air greater than the value established during
performance testing is a violation of the operational standard
specified in Sec. 63.1159(a) of this subpart.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected hydrochloric acid storage
vessel shall inspect each vessel semiannually to determine that the
closed-vent system and either the air pollution control device or the
enclosed loading and unloading line, whichever is applicable, are
installed and operating when required.
Sec. 63.1163 Notification requirements.
(a) Initial notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A
of this part, the owner or operator shall submit the following written
notifications to the Administrator:
(1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A of this part.
(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part, the
owner or operator of an affected source that has an initial startup
before June 22, 1999, shall notify the Administrator that the source is
subject to the requirements of the standard. The notification shall be
submitted not later than October 20, 1999 (or within 120 calendar days
after the source becomes subject to this standard), and shall contain
the information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v)
of subpart A of this part.
(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of subpart A of this part, the
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed
[[Page 33222]]
affected source, or a source that has been reconstructed such that it
is an affected source, that has an initial startup after the effective
date and for which an application for approval of construction or
reconstruction is not required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this
part, shall notify the Administrator in writing that the source is
subject to the standards no later than 120 days after initial startup.
The notification shall contain the information specified in
Secs. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 63.9(b)(2)(v) of subpart A of this part,
delivered or postmarked with the notification required in
Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part.
(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of subpart A of this part, the
owner or operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that
has an initial startup after June 22, 1999, and for which an
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required
under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A of this part shall provide the
information specified in Secs. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through 63.9(b)(4)(v) of
subpart A of this part.
(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A of this part, the
owner or operator who, after June 22, 1999, intends to construct a new
affected source or reconstruct an affected source subject to this
standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes an affected
source subject to this standard, shall notify the Administrator, in
writing, of the intended construction or reconstruction.
(b) Request for extension of compliance. As required by
Sec. 63.9(c) of subpart A of this part, if the owner or operator of an
affected source cannot comply with this standard by the applicable
compliance date for that source, or if the owner or operator has
installed BACT or technology to meet LAER consistent with
Sec. 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A of this part, he/she may submit to the
Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) a request
for an extension of compliance as specified in Secs. 63.6(i)(4) through
63.6(i)(6) of subpart A of this part.
(c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of subpart A of this part, an
owner or operator of a new source that is subject to special compliance
requirements as specified in Secs. 63.6(b)(3) and 63.6(b)(4) of subpart
A of this part shall notify the Administrator of his/her compliance
obligations not later than the notification dates established in
Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A of this part for new sources that are not
subject to the special provisions.
(d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e)
of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected source
shall notify the Administrator in writing of his or her intention to
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin, to allow the Administrator to
review and approve the site-specific test plan required under
Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A of this part and, if requested by the
Administrator, to have an observer present during the test.
(e) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A of this part when the source
becomes subject to this standard.
Sec. 63.1164 Reporting requirements.
(a) Reporting results of performance tests. As required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected source shall report the results of any performance test as
part of the notification of compliance status required in Sec. 63.1163
of this subpart.
(b) Progress reports. The owner or operator of an affected source
who is required to submit progress reports under Sec. 63.6(i) of
subpart A of this part shall submit such reports to the Administrator
(or the State with an approved permit program) by the dates specified
in the written extension of compliance.
(c) Periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Section
63.6(e) of subpart A of this part requires the owner or operator of an
affected source to operate and maintain each affected emission source,
including associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions at least to the level required by the standard at all times,
including during any period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable after their
occurrence in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
(1) Plan. As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A of this part,
the owner or operator shall develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan that describes, in detail, procedures
for operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, and a program of corrective action for
malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with the relevant standard.
(2) Reports. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of
this part, if actions taken by an owner or operator during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken
to correct a malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator
shall state such information in a semiannual report. The report, to be
certified by the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall
be submitted semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day
following the end of each calendar half; and
(3) Immediate Reports. Any time an action taken by an owner or
operator during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions
taken to correct a malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures
in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator
shall comply with all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A
of this part.
Sec. 63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) General recordkeeping requirements. As required by
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator shall
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:
(1) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment);
(2) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the air
pollution control equipment;
(3) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control
equipment;
(4) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction and the dates of such actions (including corrective actions
to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment
to its normal or usual manner of operation) when these actions are
different from the procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan;
(5) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective
actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control
equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation) are consistent
with the procedures specified in such plan. This information can be
recorded in a checklist or similar form (see Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v) of
subpart A of this part);
[[Page 33223]]
(6) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with
the standard and to support data that the source is required to report,
including, but not limited to, performance test measurements (including
initial and any subsequent performance tests) and measurements as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of the initial test or
subsequent tests;
(7) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;
(8) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f) of subpart
A of this part, any information demonstrating whether a source is
meeting the requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting
requirements;
(9) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the
initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h) of subpart A of this part,
a copy of the full request and the Administrator's approval or
disapproval;
(10) All documentation supporting initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9 of subpart A
of this part; and
(11) Records of any applicability determination, including
supporting analyses.
(b) Subpart CCC records. (1) In addition to the general records
required by paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator shall
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of:
(i) Scrubber makeup water flow rate and recirculation water flow
rate if a wet scrubber is used;
(ii) Calibration and manufacturer certification that monitoring
devices are accurate to within 5 percent; and
(iii) Each maintenance inspection and repair, replacement, or other
corrective action.
(2) The owner or operator of an acid regeneration plant shall also
maintain records for 5 years from the date of each record of process
offgas temperature and parameters that determine proportion of excess
air.
(3) The owner or operator shall keep the written operation and
maintenance plan on record after it is developed to be made available
for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the
affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the
provisions of this subpart. In addition, if the operation and
maintenance plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous
(i.e., superseded) versions of the plan on record to be made available
for inspection by the Administrator for a period of 5 years after each
revision to the plan.
(c) Recent records. General records and subpart CCC records for the
most recent 2 years of operation must be maintained on site. Records
for the previous 3 years may be maintained off site.
Sec. 63.1166 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the following authorities shall
be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a State:
(1) Approval of alternative emission standards for existing, new,
and reconstructed pickling lines, hydrochloric acid regeneration
plants, and hydrochloric acid storage vessels to those standards
specified in Secs. 63.1157 and 63.1158 of this subpart;
(2) Approval of alternative measurement methods for HCl and
Cl<INF>2</INF> to those specified in Sec. 63.1161(d)(1) of this
subpart;
(3) Approval of alternative monitoring requirements to those
specified in Secs. 63.1162(a)(2) through 63.1162(a)(5) and
63.1162(b)(1) through 63.1162(b)(3) of this subpart; and
(4) Waiver of recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.1165
of this subpart.
(b) The following authorities shall be delegated to a State: All
other authorities, including approval of an alternative schedule for
conducting performance tests to the requirement specified in
Sec. 63.1162(a)(1) of this subpart.
Secs. 63.1167--63.1174 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart CCC.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart CCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference Subpart CCC Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1-63.5..................... Yes.
63.6 (a)-(g).................. Yes.
63.6 (h)...................... No............... Subpart CCC does not
contain an opacity
or visible emission
standard.
63.6 (i)-(j).................. Yes.
63.7-63.9..................... Yes.
63.10 (a)-(c)................. Yes.
63.10 (d) (1)-(2)............. Yes.
63.10 (d)(3).................. No............... Subpart CCC does not
contain an opacity
or visible emission
standard.
63.10 (d) (4)-(5)............. Yes.
63.10 (e)-(f)................. Yes.
63.11......................... No............... Subpart CCC does not
require the use of
flares.
63.12-63.15................... Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-12939 Filed 6-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}