National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources, 52984-53011 [E7-17972]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52984-53011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17972]



[[Page 52983]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 52984]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359; FRL-8466-7]
RIN 2060-AM36


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants for two area source categories (iron foundries and steel 
foundries). The proposed requirements for the two area source 
categories are combined in one subpart. The proposed rule establishes 
different requirements for foundries based on size. Small iron and 
steel foundries would be required to comply with pollution prevention 
management practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury 
switches, and binder formulations. Large iron and steel foundries would 
be required to comply with the same pollution prevention management 
practices as small foundries in addition to emissions limitations for 
melting furnaces and foundry operations. EPA is also co-proposing two 
alternatives. One alternative would set a higher size threshold for 
large foundries. The second alternative proposes that all iron and 
steel foundries comply with the pollution prevention management 
practices for metallic scrap, the removal of mercury switches, and 
binder formulations. The proposed standards reflect the generally 
achievable control technology and/or management practices for each 
subcategory.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2007, unless 
a public hearing is requested by September 27, 2007. If a hearing is 
requested on this proposed rule, written comments must be received by 
November 1, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before 
October 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0359, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744.
     Mail: Area Source NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0359. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the NESHAP for Iron and Steel 
Foundries Area Sources Docket, at the EPA Docket and Information 
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule
    A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
    B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed 
NESHAP?
    C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and 
steel foundries?
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
    A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?
    B. What emissions standards are in the form of pollution 
prevention management practices?
    C. What are the requirements for small iron and steel foundries?
    D. What are the requirements for large iron and steel foundries?
IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule
    A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?
    B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal 
melting furnaces?
    C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP 
from small iron and steel foundries?
    D. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP 
from large iron and steel foundries?
    E. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for organic HAP 
from iron and steel foundries?
    F. How did EPA select the proposed compliance requirements?
V. Summary of Impacts of This Proposed Rule

[[Page 52985]]

VI. Proposed Exemption From Title V Permit Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning this proposed rule by September 27, 2007, we will hold a 
public hearing on October 2, 2007. If you are interested in attending 
the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-7966 to 
verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it 
will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

II. Background Information for This Proposed Rule

A. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are 
listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or 
has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An area source is a 
stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 air toxics that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban 
areas, and section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to regulate the area source 
categories that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 
``listed'' air toxics. We implement these requirements through the 
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). A 
primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduction in 
cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from stationary sources.
    We added iron foundries and steel foundries to the Integrated Urban 
Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 
43113). The inclusion of these two source categories to the section 
112(c)(3) area source category list is based on EPA's use of 1990 as 
the baseline year for that listing. Both of these source categories 
were listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source 
emissions for the following ``urban'' HAP: Compounds of chromium, lead, 
manganese, and nickel.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technologies or management practices by 
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' 
Additional information on the definition of generally available control 
technology (GACT) is found in the Senate report on the legislation 
(Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which indicates GACT 
means:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.


[[Page 52986]]


    Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories that may have few 
establishments and many small businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    Iron and steel foundries may emit small quantities of mercury 
compounds, dioxins, and HAP organics from furnaces that melt scrap 
containing tramp materials such as mercury switches and chlorinated 
plastics. Organic HAP emissions also result from the use of binder and 
coating formulations that contain HAP components. As a result, we are 
proposing pollution prevention management practices for the control of 
HAP (organics, metal compounds, and mercury) in the charge materials 
used by iron and steel foundries. Another pollution prevention 
management practice would require the use of non-methanol binder 
formulations in certain applications. We are also proposing that 
foundries keep a record of the annual quantity and composition of each 
HAP-containing chemical binder or coating material used to make molds 
and cores. These records may assist area source foundry owners or 
operators in their pursuit of pollution prevention opportunities.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by 
December 15, 2007 (Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 2006). Other rulemakings will include 
standards for the remaining source categories.

B. What area source categories are affected by the proposed NESHAP?

    The Iron Foundries area source category includes any facility 
engaged in the production of final shape castings from grades of iron. 
The Steel Foundries area source category includes any facility engaged 
in producing final shape steel castings by the melting, alloying, and 
molding of pig iron and steel scrap. The proposed area source NESHAP 
combines the requirements for both area source categories into one rule 
because the processes are similar and many foundries produce both iron 
and steel castings.
    The U.S. Census Bureau industry statistics indicate that there were 
1,015 ferrous foundries operating in the U.S. in 2002. In 1998, we 
conducted a detailed survey of all known iron and steel foundries and 
received responses from approximately 600 foundries. This list of 600 
foundries was updated in 2006 based on information received from the 
industry trade organization and through direct contact with foundry 
owners and operators; numerous foundries closed between 1998 and 2006. 
Based on this information, we have detailed, process-specific 
information on approximately 510 iron and steel foundries that are 
currently operating in the United States. Approximately 80 of these 
facilities are major sources subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel 
Foundries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. We have identified a total 
of 427 iron and steel foundries that are area sources and for which we 
have detailed data.
    Based on a comparison of the Census Bureaus statistics, the 
detailed industry survey responses, and the trends in the iron and 
steel foundry industry, we estimate that there may be up to 300 
additional iron and steel foundries operating in the United States for 
which we do not have information regarding their process operations. We 
expect that the vast majority of these foundries are small operations 
with melt production less than 10,000 tpy.
    Based on the updated industry database, area source iron and steel 
foundries are located in 43 of the contiguous 48 States; 27 of these 
States have at least 5 iron and steel foundries. The States that have 
the greatest number of area source iron and steel foundries include 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and California; each of these States has 
more than 30 iron and steel foundries. A few of the States have 
regulations for particulate matter (PM) that impact iron and steel 
foundry operations. The State and local regulations often have a 
sliding scale that allows small melting capacity furnaces to have much 
higher PM emission per ton of metal melted than larger furnaces.

C. What are the processes and emissions sources at iron and steel 
foundries?

    Iron and steel foundries manufacture castings by pouring molten 
iron or steel melted in a furnace into a mold of a desired shape. The 
primary processing units of interest at iron and steel foundries, 
because of their potential to generate metal HAP emissions, are metal 
melting furnaces. HAP metal compounds may also be emitted from a 
variety of ancillary sources at the foundry such as metal inoculation, 
pouring, and grinding stations. Iron and steel foundries may also 
release organic HAP from cooling and shakeout lines, mold and core 
making lines, and mold and core coating lines, depending on the type of 
molding system and chemical binders used.
    There are three primary types of furnaces used to melt scrap metal 
at iron and steel foundries--cupolas, electric arc furnaces (EAF), and 
electric induction furnaces (EIF). Cupolas are used exclusively to 
produce molten iron; EAF are used predominately to produce molten 
steel, but are used at a few iron and steel foundries to produce molten 
iron. EIF are used to produce either molten iron or molten steel. 
Cupolas and EAF typically have larger melting capacities than EIF; the 
vast majority of area source iron and steel foundries use EIF.
    Cupolas are continuous blast furnaces. Almost all emissions from a 
cupola are contained in the flow of air exiting the stack of the 
furnace, which contains PM and organic compounds in addition to carbon 
monoxide (CO). The metal HAP in PM emissions from cupolas are primarily 
compounds of lead and manganese, with other HAP such as compounds of 
cadmium, chromium, mercury, and nickel present in lesser amounts. These 
HAP originate as impurities or trace elements in the scrap metal fed to 
the furnace. Most cupolas control PM emissions by dedicated baghouses 
or wet scrubbers.
    EAF and EIF metal melting furnaces operate in batch mode; an 
operating cycle consisting of charging, melting, backcharging (in some 
cases), and tapping. PM emissions from EAF and EIF contain similar HAP 
metal compounds as cupola furnaces, but may also contain significant 
amounts of compounds of chromium or nickel if stainless steel or nickel 
alloy castings are produced. Emissions from EIF are often uncontrolled, 
but baghouses, cyclones, and wet scrubbers are used to control PM 
emissions from EIF at

[[Page 52987]]

certain iron and steel foundries. PM emissions from EAF are typically 
controlled by baghouses.
    Other potential emission sources of HAP metals at iron and steel 
foundries include inoculation, pouring, and grinding stations. The 
total quantity of metal HAP emitted from these sources is small in 
comparison with the emissions from the metal melting furnaces. Capture 
and control of inoculation and pouring emissions are difficult due to 
the need to access the molten metal during these operations. 
Consequently, inoculation and pouring emissions are typically fugitive 
emission sources within the foundry. Metal grinding typically generates 
coarse PM emissions, which are often captured and controlled to improve 
the workplace environment. This coarse PM does not pose a significant 
air emission source, as these particles do not generally transport from 
the foundry building.
    The majority of organic HAP emissions from iron and steel foundry 
operations are organic HAP contained in either chemical binder or 
coating formulations that may partially evaporate or are otherwise 
emitted during the chemical application process. Organic HAP are also 
generated by incomplete combustion of organic material in the mold and 
core sand, such as binder chemicals and seacoal, when molten metal 
comes into contact with organic materials.

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule

    This section presents a summary of the requirements of this 
proposed rule and proposed regulatory alternatives. Additional details 
and the rationale for the proposed requirements are provided in section 
IV of this preamble.

A. What are the applicability provisions and compliance dates?

    The NESHAP would apply to each new and existing iron and steel 
foundry that is an area source. The compliance dates for existing area 
source standards would depend on whether the foundry is determined to 
be small or large. We are proposing to define a ``small iron and steel 
foundry'' as an iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt 
production of 10,000 tons or less. An iron and steel foundry that has 
an annual metal melt production greater than 10,000 tons would be 
classified as a large foundry.
    Each foundry would determine its initial classification as a small 
or large foundry using production data for calendar year 2008. All 
foundries would be required to comply with the pollution prevention 
management practices for metallic scrap, removal of mercury switches, 
and binder formulations no later than 1 year after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. A large foundry 
would be required to comply with applicable emissions limitations and 
operation and maintenance requirements no later than 2 years after 
initial classification.\1\ The owner or operator of a new area source 
foundry would be required to comply with the rule requirements by the 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register or upon 
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    After the initial classification, a small foundry that exceeds the 
10,000 ton annual production threshold during the preceding calendar 
year must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable 
requirements for a large foundry within 2 years. For example, if a 
small foundry produces more than 10,000 tons of melted metal from 
January 1 through December 31, 2009, that foundry would be required to 
comply with the requirements for a large foundry by January 2012. If a 
facility is initially classified as a large foundry (or a small foundry 
becomes a large foundry), that facility must meet the applicable 
requirements for a large foundry for at least 3 years, even if its 
annual production falls below 10,000 tons of melted metal. After 3 
years, the foundry may reclassify the facility as a small foundry 
provided the annual production for the preceding calendar year was 
10,000 tons of melted metal or less. A large foundry that becomes small 
must notify the Administrator and comply with the applicable 
requirements for small foundries immediately. If a large foundry 
becomes small and then its production exceeds 10,000 for a subsequent 
calendar year, the foundry must notify the Administrator and comply 
with the applicable requirements for large foundries immediately.
    We are also co-proposing an alternative plant size threshold that 
would define a ``small iron and steel foundry'' as an iron and steel 
foundry that has an annual metal melt production of 15,000 tons or 
less. An iron and steel foundry that has an annual metal melt 
production greater than 15,000 tons would be classified as a large 
foundry. The proposed rule requirements under this alternative plant 
size threshold would not differ from the proposed rule requirements 
described above.

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

1. Metallic Scrap
    The proposed material specification requirements are based on 
pollution prevention and require removal of HAP-generating materials 
from metallic scrap before melting. All foundries would prepare and 
operate according to written material specifications for one of two 
equivalent compliance options.
    One compliance option would require foundries to prepare and 
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase 
and use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials 
that do not include metallic scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine 
blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, chlorinated 
plastics, or free liquids. The term ``free liquids'' is defined as 
material that fails the paint filter test by EPA Method 9095B 
(incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR 63.14) in EPA Publication SW-
846, ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 
Methods''.
    The second compliance option would require foundries to prepare and 
operate pursuant to written material specifications for the purchase 
and use of scrap that has been depleted (to the extent practicable) of 
organics and HAP metals in the charge materials used by the foundry. 
For scrap charged to a scrap preheater or metal melting furnace that is 
not equipped with an afterburner, the materials specifications must 
include requirements for metal scrap to be depleted (to the extent 
practicable) of used oil filters, chlorinated plastic parts, accessible 
lead-containing components, and free liquids. For scrap charged to a 
cupola metal melting furnace that is equipped with an afterburner, the 
material specifications must include requirements for metal scrap to be 
depleted (to the extent practicable) of chlorinated plastics, 
accessible lead-containing components, and free liquids.
    Either material specification option will achieve a similar HAP 
reduction impact. Foundries may have certain scrap subject to one 
option and other scrap subject to another option provided the metallic 
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
2. Mercury Switch Removal
    The proposed standards for mercury are based on pollution 
prevention and require a foundry owner or operator who melts scrap from 
motor vehicles

[[Page 52988]]

either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle scrap only 
from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved program for the 
removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the alternative requirements 
described below. Foundries participating in an approved program must 
maintain records identifying each scrap provider and documenting the 
scrap provider's participation in the EPA-approved mercury switch 
removal program. A proposed equivalent compliance option is for the 
foundry to prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA-approved site-
specific plan that includes specifications to the scrap provider that 
mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an 
efficiency comparable to that of the EPA-approved mercury switch 
removal program (see below). An equivalent compliance option is 
provided for facilities that do not use motor vehicle scrap that 
contains mercury switches.
    We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose 
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers 
who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has 
been approved by the Administrator. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch 
Recovery Program (NVMSRP) \2\ would be an approved program under this 
proposed standard. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a 
compliance option would have to assume all of the responsibilities for 
steelmakers as described in the Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For details see: https://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm. In 
particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foundries could also obtain scrap from scrap providers 
participating in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or 
operator would have to submit a request to the Administrator for 
approval to comply by purchasing scrap from scrap providers that are 
participating in another switch removal program and demonstrate to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the program meets the following 
specified criteria: (1) There is an outreach program that informs 
automobile dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and 
provides training and guidance on switch removal, (2) the program has a 
goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches, 
and (3) the program sponsor must submit annual progress reports on the 
number of switches removed and the estimated number of motor vehicle 
bodies processed (from which a percentage of switches removed is easily 
derivable).
    Facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers 
that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch removal 
program would have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in 
conformance with a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury 
switches, and the plan must include provisions for obtaining assurance 
from scrap providers that mercury switches have been removed. The plan 
would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would 
demonstrate how the facility will comply with specific requirements 
that include: (1) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and 
scrap providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from 
which mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the 
proper disposal of the mercury switches, (2) provisions for obtaining 
assurance from scrap providers that motor vehicle scrap provided to the 
facility meets the scrap specifications, (3) provisions for periodic 
inspection, site visits, or other means of corroboration to ensure that 
scrap providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to 
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) 
provisions for taking corrective actions if needed, and (5) requiring 
each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide an estimate of the number 
of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle scrap sent to the 
facility during the previous year and the basis for the estimate. The 
Administrator would be able to request documentation or additional 
information from the owner or operator at any time. The site-specific 
plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of 
the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercury-containing 
components removed from motor vehicle scrap would count towards the 80 
percent goal.
    An equivalent compliance option would be provided for foundries 
that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. The 
option would require the facility to certify that the only materials 
they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for 
their specialty alloy content, such as chromium in certain exhaust 
systems, and these materials are known not to contain mercury.
    Records would be required to document conformance with the material 
specifications for metallic scrap, restricted scrap, and mercury 
switches. Each foundry would be required to submit semiannual reports 
that clearly identify any deviation from the scrap management 
requirements. These reports can be submitted as part of the semiannual 
reports required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the general provisions.
3. Binder Formulations
    For each furfuryl alcohol warm box mold or core making line, new 
and existing foundries would be required to use a binder chemical 
formulation that does not use methanol as a specific ingredient of the 
catalyst formulation. This requirement would not apply to the resin 
portion of the binder system. This proposed rule includes recordkeeping 
requirements to document conformance with this requirement.

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

    This proposed rule requires small iron and steel foundries to 
comply with the pollution prevention management practices for metallic 
scrap, mercury switches, and binder formulations described above. The 
owner or operator would be required to submit an initial notification 
of applicability no later than 120 calendar days after the final rule 
is published in the Federal Register (or within 120 days after the 
foundry becomes subject to the standard; see 40 CFR 63.9(b)(2)). The 
foundry would also be required to submit an initial written 
notification to the Administrator that identifies their facility as a 
small (or large) foundry; this notification would be due no later than 
1 year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Subsequent notifications would be required within 30 days for 
a change in process or operations that reclassifies the status of the 
facility and its compliance obligations. A small foundry would also be 
required to submit a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). The notification of compliance status would include 
certifications of compliance for the pollution prevention management 
practices. This proposed rule also requires small foundries to keep 
records of monthly metal melt production and report any deviation from 
the pollution prevention management practices in the semiannual report 
required by 40 CFR 63.10 of the NESHAP general provisions.
    We are also proposing to require small foundries to keep a record 
of the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical 
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records 
must be copies of

[[Page 52989]]

purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or other documentation 
that provide information on binder materials. The purpose of this 
requirement is to encourage foundries to investigate and use nonHAP 
binder and coating materials wherever feasible.

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

    This proposed NESHAP requires large iron and steel foundries to 
comply with the pollution prevention management practices described in 
section III.B of this preamble. In addition, large iron and steel 
foundries would be required to operate capture and collection systems 
for metal melting furnaces and comply with emissions limitations, 
operation and maintenance, monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. We are also co-proposing an alternative under 
which we would not subcategorize between large and small foundries. 
Under this alternative, all foundries would be required to comply with 
the pollution prevention management practices described in section 
III.B of this preamble, but no foundries would be subject to the 
requirements described in section III.D of this preamble, such as the 
requirements for capture and collection systems, emissions limitations, 
and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
1. Emissions Limitations
    Large foundries would be required to comply with emissions limits 
for metal melting furnaces. A metal melting furnace includes cupolas, 
EAF, EIF, or other similar devices (excluding holding furnaces, argon 
oxygen decarburization vessels, or ladles that receive molten metal 
from a metal melting furnace, to which metal ingots or other materials 
may be added to adjust the metal chemistry). The proposed emissions 
limits for metal melting furnaces are:
     0.8 pounds of PM per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of PM) or 
0.06 pounds of total metal HAP per ton of metal melted (lb/ton of total 
metal HAP) for each metal melting furnace at an existing iron and steel 
foundry.
     0.1 lb/ton of PM or 0.008 lb/ton of total metal HAP for 
each metal melting furnace at a new iron and steel foundry.
    The owner or operator of a foundry may choose to comply with these 
emissions limits utilizing emissions averaging as specified in this 
proposed rule so that the production-weighted average emissions from 
all metal melting furnaces at the foundry for any calendar month meet 
the applicable emissions limit.
    Operating parameter limits would apply to the control device 
applied to emissions from a metal melting furnace. For a wet scrubber, 
a foundry would maintain the 3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber 
water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the 
initial or subsequent performance test. For an electrostatic 
precipitator, a foundry would maintain the voltage and secondary 
current (or total power input) to the control device at or above the 
level established during the initial or subsequent performance test. 
For a baghouse, a foundry would maintain the pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell within the range established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    The proposed NESHAP also includes a fugitive emissions opacity 
limit of 20 percent for each building or structure housing iron and 
steel foundry operations. Foundry operations covered by the fugitive 
emissions opacity limit would include all process equipment and 
practices used to produce metal castings for shipment including mold or 
core making and coating; scrap handling and preheating; metal melting 
and inoculation; pouring, cooling, and shakeout; shotblasting, grinding 
and other metal finishing operations; and sand handling.
2. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
    The owner or operator would be required to prepare and operate by 
an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for each control device used to 
comply with the standards. Any other O&M, preventative maintenance, or 
similar plan which satisfies the specified requirements could be used 
to comply with the requirements for an O&M plan.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    We are proposing that large iron and steel foundries install and 
operate continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to measure and 
record operating parameters of wet scrubbers used to comply with PM or 
total metal HAP emissions limit. For electrostatic precipitators, the 
owner or operator may measure and record the voltage and secondary 
current (or total power input) using a CPMS or manually record the 
parameter(s) at least once a shift. For baghouses, the owner or 
operator of an existing foundry would conduct periodic baghouse 
inspections and manually check and record the pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell at least once a day or measure and record the pressure 
drop using a CPMS. All CPMS would be operated and maintained according 
to the O&M plan.
    As an alternative means of compliance, the owner or operator of an 
existing area source can use a bag leak detection system to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with a PM or total metal HAP emissions limit. Bag 
leak detection systems are required for positive or negative pressure 
baghouses at a new area source foundry. If a bag leak detection system 
is used, the owner or operator must prepare and operate pursuant to a 
monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system; specific 
requirements for the plan are included in this proposed rule. For 
additional information on bag leak detection systems that operate on 
the triboelectric effect, see ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, September 1997, EPA-454/R-98-015, National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS) publication number PB98164676. 
This document is available from the NTIS, 5385 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161.
    Monthly inspections of the equipment that is important to the 
performance of the capture system are also required. The owner or 
operator must repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system 
before the next scheduled inspection and record the results of each 
inspection and the date of any repair.
    If a large foundry complies with the emissions limits for furnaces 
using emissions averaging, the proposed NESHAP requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis. The facility 
would determine the weighted average emissions from all metal melting 
furnaces at the foundry using an equation included in this proposed 
rule. The owner or operator would maintain records of the monthly 
calculations and report any exceedance in the semiannual report.
4. Performance Tests
    We propose that each large foundry conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM or total metal HAP emissions 
limit and the opacity limit for fugitive emissions within 180 days of 
promulgation and submit the results in the notification of compliance 
status. In lieu of conducting an initial performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM or total metal HAP limit 
for metal melting furnaces, the owner or operator of an existing 
foundry would be allowed to submit the results of a previous 
performance test provided the test was conducted within the last 5 
years using the methods and procedures specified

[[Page 52990]]

in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the 
test, or the test results reliably demonstrate compliance despite 
process changes. If the owner or operator does not have a previous 
performance test that meets the rule requirements, a test must be 
conducted within 180 days of the compliance date. Performance tests 
would be required for all new area source foundries. Subsequent tests 
for furnaces would be required every 5 years and each time an operating 
limit is changed or a process change occurs that is likely to increase 
metal HAP emissions from the furnace. Provisions are included in this 
proposed rule for determining compliance with PM or total metal HAP 
emissions limits in a lb/ton of metal melted format and for 
establishing control device operating parameter limits. This proposed 
rule also includes requirements to perform visual opacity testing every 
6 months. This proposed rule describes the methods and requirements for 
these semiannual opacity observations.
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    The owner or operator would be required to submit an initial 
notification that identifies the facility as a large (or small) 
foundry. In addition, the owner or operator would be required to comply 
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are identified in Table 3 of this proposed rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan/reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). In 
addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, all foundries would 
be required to maintain records to document conformance with the 
pollution prevention management practice emissions standards for 
metallic scrap, mercury switch removal, and binder formulations as well 
as to maintain records of annual melt production and corrective 
action(s). Large foundries must also prepare and operate according to 
the O&M plan and record monthly compliance calculations for metal 
melting furnaces that comply using emissions averaging, if applicable. 
The owner or operator would submit semiannual reports that provide 
summary information on excursions or exceedances (including the 
corrective action taken), monitor downtime incidents, and deviations 
from management practices or O&M requirements according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.10.
    We are also proposing to require all foundries to keep a record of 
the annual quantity and composition of each HAP-containing chemical 
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores. These records 
must be copies of purchasing records, Material Data Safety Sheets, or 
other documentation that provide information on binder materials. The 
purpose of this requirement, among other things, is to encourage 
foundries to investigate and use nonHAP binder and coating materials 
wherever feasible.

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did EPA subcategorize iron and steel foundries?

    As part of the GACT analysis, we considered whether there were 
differences in processes, sizes, or other factors affecting emissions 
and control technologies that would warrant subcategorization. Under 
section 112(d)(1) of the CAA, EPA ``may distinguish among classes, 
types, and sizes within a source category or subcategory in 
establishing such standards * * *''. In our review of the available 
data, we observed significant differences between iron and steel 
foundries based on the total melt production capacities of the foundry. 
For example, foundries with melt production quantities of 10,000 tpy or 
less represented over 70 percent of the facilities, but only 25 percent 
of the nationwide emissions. Small foundries are much more likely to 
use EIF; 77 percent of all area source EIF are at foundries with 
production of 10,000 tpy or less. On the other hand, only 37 percent of 
the cupolas and 28 percent of the EAF at area sources are at foundries 
with production of 10,000 tpy or less. Based on these differences, we 
determined that subcategorization of iron and steel foundries by size 
was justified.
    We evaluated the impacts of requiring all metal melting furnaces to 
operate with either a wet scrubber or baghouse control system. Under 
this scenario, foundries with melt capacities of 10,000 tpy or less 
incurred 74 percent of the annualized control costs and represented 
over 99 percent of the foundries with annualized costs that exceeded 3 
percent of sales; however, these foundries represented only 31 percent 
of the air emission reductions. We also evaluated the relative 
proportion of costs and emission reductions at size thresholds of 
5,000, 15,000, and 20,000 tpy melting capacity. At lower capacity 
thresholds, the control costs for foundries above the threshold 
increased significantly while the emission reductions increased only 
slightly. At higher capacity thresholds, the control costs for 
foundries above the threshold decreased but the emissions reductions 
also decreased significantly. Detailed information about the costs and 
emission reductions at these other size thresholds is available in the 
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0359). In light of the relative emissions 
reductions and costs for various thresholds, we determined that a 
10,000 tpy facility-wide melting capacity was the appropriate threshold 
for subcategorizing large and small foundries.
    Consequently, we are proposing to subcategorize the iron and steel 
foundry industry into ``small'' and ``large'' foundries. A ``small iron 
and steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that 
has an annual melt production of 10,000 tpy or less. A ``large iron and 
steel foundry'' would be defined as an iron and steel foundry that has 
an annual melt production greater than 10,000 tpy. It should be noted 
that this designation of small and large foundries is in no way related 
to the definition of ``small entity'' under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. Furthermore, the term ``large'' is relative; large area source 
foundries may be quite small compared to foundries that are subject to 
the major source rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE).
    In light of limits on our information about costs, HAP emissions 
reductions, and foundry operations, EPA is evaluating whether, and how, 
to subcategorize the source categories, and what GACT is for the source 
categories or subcategories. Therefore, EPA is co-proposing two 
alternatives along with the 10,000 tpy threshold for large foundries. 
Under the first alternative, the threshold for large foundries would be 
set at 15,000 tpy. Under the second alternative, there would be no 
subcategorization, and all sources would be required to comply with the 
pollution prevention management practices described in section III.B of 
this preamble.
    We also evaluated the different types of furnaces and are 
considering subcategorization based on furnace type. As the different 
types of melting furnaces operate differently and have their own 
emission characteristics, subcategorization by the type of furnace 
would also be justified. We subcategorized by furnace type when we 
promulgated the major source Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP (40 CFR 
part 63 subpart EEEEE). EAF and cupolas tend to be used at the larger 
foundries, whereas EIF are prevalent at the smaller foundries. 
Additionally, EAF and

[[Page 52991]]

cupolas tend to have higher melting capacities than EIF, especially at 
the larger foundries. For example, 88 percent of all cupolas and EAF at 
foundries with melt production greater than 10,000 tpy have metal 
melting capacities of 4 tons per hour (tph) or greater, whereas only 36 
percent of EIF at these large foundries have metal melting capacity of 
4 tph or greater. Based on the abundance of very small EIF melting 
furnaces, even at large foundries, we are also considering 
subcategorizing the EIF metal melting furnaces into ``low capacity 
EIF'' and ``high capacity EIF.'' High capacity EIF would be subject to 
requirements similar to the large foundry requirements in section III.D 
of this preamble, and low capacity EIF would be treated similarly to 
small foundries under this proposal. The threshold for classification 
as a high capacity EIF would be 4 or 5 tph.
    We request comment, along with supporting documentation, on these 
and other possible alternative subcategories based on plant size or 
furnace type. Supporting documentation must be provided in sufficient 
detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness 
of the data. We specifically request comment on the appropriateness of 
using a 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 tpy melting capacity as the 
plant size threshold for subcategorization. We also request comment on 
subcategorizing the melting furnaces by furnace type and size. 
Specifically, we request comment along with supporting documentation on 
subcategorizing EIF into low and high capacity furnaces using either a 
4 or 5 tph melting capacity threshold. Based on the comments received, 
we may elect to subcategorize between large and small iron and steel 
foundries, between furnaces using alternative size thresholds, a 
combination of foundry size and furnace type, or we may elect not to 
subcategorize at all.

B. What is the performance of control technologies for metal melting 
furnaces?

    Facility-specific and process-specific data were available for iron 
and steel foundries from a survey of the industry conducted in 1998. A 
total of 595 survey responses were originally received; the responses 
included the types of process units used at each foundry, the type of 
control device used for each process, and key design parameters of the 
processes and control systems. These data were updated based on 
additional data collected through direct facility contacts and through 
information provided by the industry trade organizations. After 
updating the data base, we have detailed information for 427 iron and 
steel foundries that are currently operating and that are area sources 
(i.e., that are not subject to the NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries 
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, which applies to major sources). 
Although this data base likely does not include every foundry in the 
United States, it includes a significant majority of the foundries, 
especially those foundries with melt production quantities of 5,000 tpy 
or more, and we believe it is reasonably representative of the 
industry's current practices and controls.
    In addition to the process design information, we requested 
foundries that had conducted emissions tests on their foundry processes 
and/or control systems to submit the source test results and supporting 
information. Performance data were available for over 70 furnaces. 
Although most of these data are for larger (often major source) iron 
and steel foundries, these data provide a reasonable basis for 
assessing the performance of various control approaches for metal 
melting furnaces.
    Metal HAP compounds from iron and steel foundries are emitted 
primarily from metal melting furnaces. These metal HAP compounds are 
released as filterable PM emissions, and conventional PM control 
systems can be used to significantly reduce the metal HAP emissions 
from iron and steel foundries. Fabric filters (baghouses or cartridge 
filters) and wet scrubbers are the predominant technologies used to 
control PM from metal melting furnaces. Fabric filter systems generally 
achieve higher PM emissions reductions than wet scrubbers, as applied 
in the iron and steel foundry industry. Fabric filter systems generally 
achieve 98 to 99.9 percent control efficiency. PM wet scrubbers as used 
in the iron and steel foundry industry are typically venturi-type wet 
scrubbers that achieve a PM reduction efficiency of 85 to 95 percent. 
Electrostatic precipitators and cyclone separators are also used at 
some iron and steel foundry operations to control metal melting furnace 
emissions. We have test data for only one ESP; its performance is 
comparable to the performance of wet scrubbers. Cyclone separators are 
used in limited applications, primarily for EIF; emission reduction 
efficiencies of cyclone separators are expected to be between 40 and 70 
percent.
    Our review of the emissions test data for metal melting furnaces 
showed that although the different types of melting furnaces have 
widely different uncontrolled emissions, the controlled emissions from 
the different types of metal melting furnaces were consistent between 
the different types of furnaces when expressed in terms of pounds of PM 
emitted per ton of metal charged (lb/ton). After considering the 
control technologies in use at area source foundries, we considered 
setting an emission limit at 0.8 or 0.3 lb/ton of PM (see section IV.D 
of this preamble for our analysis of these emission limit options). The 
0.8 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a well-designed 
and operated wet scrubber system at area source iron and steel 
foundries, taking into account process and control system variability. 
The 0.3 lb/ton of PM limit is based on the performance of a reasonably-
designed and operated fabric filter control system at area source iron 
and steel foundries, taking into account process and control system 
variability. For new sources, we also considered a PM emission limit of 
0.1 lb/ton based on the performance of the best fabric filter control 
systems at existing large area source iron and steel foundries, taking 
into account process and control system variability.
    In addition to these control options that are based on add-on 
control systems, we identified scrap management practices as a 
potential means of reducing HAP emissions from the metal melting 
furnaces. This is a pollution prevention measure that can either be 
applied in conjunction with add-on controls or be applied when no add-
on controls are used. By reducing the amount of tramp metals and other 
materials in the scrap feed to the furnace, emissions of both metal HAP 
compounds and organic HAP can be reduced. However, it should be noted 
that the emissions reductions achievable by implementing scrap 
management as the primary HAP reduction activity are not as great as 
when applied in conjunction with add-on controls.

C. How did EPA determine the GACT requirements for metal HAP from small 
iron and steel foundries?

    Based on the considerations of what constitutes GACT as described 
in section II.A of this preamble, we identified and evaluated three 
emissions control options for small iron and steel foundries. Option 1 
is the use of scrap management practices alone. Option 2 is the use of 
a management system that includes scrap management practices and 
developing and implementing operation and maintenance plans, and 
meeting building opacity limits. Thus, Option 2 is aimed at reducing 
emissions of ancillary sources at the iron and steel foundry in 
addition to the metal melting furnaces. Option 3 is the enhanced 
management system in conjunction with

[[Page 52992]]

a PM emissions limit of 0.8 lb/ton for the metal melting furnaces. 
Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of these candidate 
control options for iron and steel foundries having a production 
capacity of 10,000 tpy or less.

 Table 1.--National Impacts of GACT Options for Existing Iron and Steel Foundries With Annual Melt Production of
                                             10,000 tpy or Less \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness ($/ton      Number of
                                 Total        Total      Emissions               PM)                 foundries
           Option               capital       annual     reduction, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost, $     cost, $/yr   (tons PM/                                 greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)      yr)        Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              (A) Impacts in terms of metal HAP emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.19         0.75      250,000  ..............               0
2...........................  ...........         0.50         1.35      370,000         520,000               8
3...........................          135         29.3         22.6    1,300,000       1,400,000             148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cost effectiveness  ($/ton     Number of
                                 Total        Total       Emission           mental HAO)            foundaries
           Option               capital       annual    reductions, -----------------------------    impacted
                                cost,  $    cost, $/yr  (tons metal                                greater than
                               (millions)   (millions)   HAP/year)     Overall      Incremental   3% of revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 (B) Impacts in terms of PM emissions reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  ...........         0.19           16       12,000  ..............               0
2...........................  ...........         0.50           36       14,000          16,000               8
3...........................          135         29.3          480       61,000          65,000            148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs are in 2005 dollars.

    The results for Option 3, as presented in Table 1 of this preamble, 
indicate that add-on controls are not cost-effective and impose undue 
economic burden for the small iron and steel foundry subcategory. While 
the cost-effectiveness values for the two management practice options 
are similar, eight foundries (all of which are small entities) have 
cost impacts greater than 3 percent of their revenue under Option 2. 
Although not presented in Table 1 of this preamble, the management 
practices represented by Option 2 also impose compliance costs that are 
between 1 and 3 percent of sales for an additional 13 iron and steel 
foundries, whereas the scrap management practices represented by Option 
1 do not result in any impacts that exceed 1 percent of revenue. 
Furthermore, the PM emitted from the ancillary sources has lower 
content of HAP metal compounds than the PM associated with the metal 
melting furnaces. Therefore, the management practices in Option 2 are 
relatively less effective at reducing emissions