The Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP was signed by the acting administrator
of US EPA on August 29, 2003.  Once posted on the EPA web site, members
of the American Foundry Society (AFS) reviewed the final rule to
ascertain the actions companies will have to take to be in compliance
with the standard.  During the course of this review, a number of
questions arose.  AFS requests that EPA review the questions posed below
and provide guidance, so that the NESHAP can be consistently applied. 
Please feel free to contact AFS to discuss these questions and the needs
for clarification.

1.  Page 113 - §63.7683(b) – Applicability Determination Date is One
Year from Publication

Under the terms of the final rule, the determination of NESHAP
applicability (i.e., major source status) is to be made one year after
the publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This occurs since
the scrap selection work practice standard becomes effective on this
date.  This allots an insufficient period of time for minor sources to
obtain enforceable state operating permit restrictions to limit their
potential to emit and, thus, achieve “area” source status.  This
abbreviated ‘one year’ schedule was not included in the proposed
rule and, therefore, the industry is not prepared for this accelerated
applicability determination.  

US EPA guidance states “the relevant date” for purposes of
determining the applicability of a NESHAP standard is “the first
substantive compliance date.”  This date is further defined as the
first date a source must comply with an emission limitation or other
substantive regulatory requirement such as a work practice measure. 
However, the US EPA policy also states that this interpretation holds
“in the absence of a rulemaking record supporting a different result
… .”   [Memorandum by John S. Seitz, May 16, 1995].

It is requested that the Agency clearly identify within the rulemaking
record that the determination of applicability of this NESHAP is to be
made three years after the publication date of the final rule.

2.  Page 114 - §63.7690 – Alternate Emission Limitations
Clarification

For a number of foundry processes, the Agency has established alternate,
equivalent, PM and ‘total metal HAP’ emissions limitations (i.e.,
melting furnaces, scrap preheaters, pouring stations, and pouring
areas).  Likewise, alternate, equivalent, limitations have been
established for TEA mold and core making lines (i.e., 99 percent control
or 1 ppmv).  AFS believes it is the intent of the regulation to allow
foundries to choose to comply, at their option, with any one of the
alternate equivalent limitations.  

In order to avoid misinterpretation, AFS requests that the Agency
clarify that: a) a foundry is not restricted in choosing the appropriate
alternate emissions limitation with which they will demonstrate
compliance; and b) a foundry is not precluded from selecting a different
alternate, equivalent, limitation at the time of a future compliance
demonstration.  This request is consistent with the premise that the
alternate emissions limitations are equivalent measures of compliance
with this NESHAP.  

 

3.  Page 114 - §63.7690 – Applicability of Emission Standards is
Unclear

The final rule, at §63.7690(a), states that a source “must meet each
emissions limit or standard in paragraphs (a)(1) through (11).”  Since
the cited paragraphs contain several alternate, equivalent, emissions
limitations, AFS is concerned that the regulation could be
misinterpreted to require compliance with both of the alternate
standards (i.e., both the PM limitation and the ‘total metal HAP’
limitation).



It is requested that the Agency clarify that, where there are alternate,
equivalent PM and total metal HAP emissions limits, that one or the
other must be met and not that both have to be met.  This is consistent
with the premise that the alternative limits were provided to give a
foundry maximum flexibility while also achieving the same level of
environmental protection.  It is requested that the Agency clarify this
by modifying §63.7690(a) to state that a source “must meet the
emissions limits or standards in paragraphs (a)(1) through (11) that
apply to you.”   

4.  Page 117 - §63.7690(a)(7) – Opacity Emissions Limitation Could be
Applied to Non-Foundry Operations

The final rule places an opacity limitation on fugitive emissions from
each building or structure housing any emissions source at the iron and
steel foundry.  It is unclear whether this requirement is applicable to
emissions sources that are not related to iron and steel foundry
operations.  Specifically, an iron and steel foundry may be co-located
with other non-foundry operations (e.g., a painting operation), or a
foundry may maintain and operate an emission source that is not directly
related to the iron and steel foundry operation (e.g., an industrial
boiler with ash handling operations or an aluminum foundry operation). 
It is improper for the requirements of the Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP
to be applied to these operations that are not part of the source
category.  

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the opacity requirement
applies only to “those emission sources regulated under this
NESHAP.”  This interpretation is consistent with the language at
§63.7682(b) which states that this regulation “covers fugitive
emissions from foundry operations.”

5.  Page121 - §63.7700 (b) and (c) – Rule Requires Choosing One Melt
Material Acquisition Option

The final rule requires that a foundry select only one of the melt
material acquisition options and “operate at all times” according to
this option.  That is, a foundry must choose to always comply with
paragraph (b) and melt only those materials that are “certified;” or
choose to always comply with paragraph (c) and melt only scrap materials
that are subject to selection and inspection requirements.  This
requirement fails to recognize that a foundry may specify differing melt
materials for different processes or products, or based on the
availability of the melt materials.

Specifically, AFS requests that a foundry be able to utilize either melt
material acquisition option provided the melt materials remain
segregated.  This is desirable since a foundry may specify
“certified” materials for electric furnace operations while, at the
same site, receive “non-certified” scrap for use in a cupola
furnace.  Likewise, a foundry may specify “certified” materials for
the production of casting demanding very specific metallurgical
properties while, at the same time, receive “non-certified” scrap
materials for the production of other castings.  Finally, a foundry may,
due to the availability of materials, be unable to acquire
“certified” materials at various times and be compelled to accept
“non-certified” scrap materials.  AFS believes that, due to these
situations, the final rule should allow a foundry to operate under
either or both of the melt material acquisition options provided that
the different melt materials remain segregated.

6.  Page 121 - §63.7700 (b) and (c) – Scrap Inspection and Selection
Clarifications

The final rule allows foundries to forego the scrap metals inspection
requirement provided “certified” sources of metals are purchased and
used.  However, the list of materials prohibited from a certified scrap
shipment includes “oil filters” [see §63.7700 (b)] without regard
to whether the oil filters have been used (i.e., post-consumer).  Since
unused oil filters present little risk of organic contamination, it is
requested that the Agency clarify that the prohibited material is
properly identified as “used oil filters.”  This requested
clarification is consistent with the language at paragraph (c) that
states “used oil filters.”

Further, in paragraph (c)(i), the rule requires that all scrap metals
“be depleted (to the extent practicable) of the presence of used oil
filters, plastic parts, organic liquids, and a program to ensure the
scrap materials are drained of free liquids.”  Similar language exists
in paragraph (c)(2), while paragraph (c)(3) requires the rejection and
return of scrap that does not meet these specifications.  It is
requested that the Agency acknowledge that this language does not
constitute a complete prohibition on these materials.

Specifically, minimal amounts of contaminants and prohibited materials
are likely to be contained in scrap materials.  Although the industry
does not seek to identify a specific threshold for these prohibited
materials, since such a threshold would be difficult to both establish
and monitor, we do seek clarification that the regulation does not
intend to absolutely prohibit these materials.  This requested
clarification is consistent with the language in the “Background
Information for Promulgated Standards” which states “EPA did not
intend for the scrap specification and inspection program to completely
alter the recycling industry.”  (See pages 22 and 23.)

7.  Pages 121 - §63.7700 (b) – The Rule Does Not Specify Who Must
“Certify” Scrap Materials

Paragraph §63.7700 (b) states “(y)ou must prepare and operate at all
times according to a written certification that the foundry purchases
and uses only certified-metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other
materials that do not include post-consumer automotive body scrap,
post-consumer engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead
components, mercury switches, plastics, or organic liquids.”  While it
is clear that a foundry must certify that it is following the
requirements of §63.7700 (b) it is unclear who actually must certify
that the scrap materials meet the specifications of this section.  The
structure of the language can be taken to mean that the supplier’s
certification is limited to “metal ingots” with the remainder of
material being “certified” by the foundry.  Alternately, the
language could be read to require that the supplier certify that all of
the scrap materials meet the requirements of §63.7700 (b) and that the
foundry is required to certify that it is only specifying for purchase
and use the types of materials allowed in §63.7700 (b).   AFS requests
that the Agency clarify this requirement.

8.  Pages 14 and 124 - §63.7700(e)(1) – Scrap Preheaters are Cited as
Mandated Equipment

The language contained in the preamble and the final rule could be
interpreted to require foundries to install a gas-fired preheater, even
when this equipment is unnecessary for production operations. 
Specifically, page 14 of the preamble states “the owner of an existing
iron and steel foundry must install” a preheater.  Likewise, at
§63.7700(e)(1) the regulation states that “you must install, operate,
and maintain” a preheater.  Obviously, it is not the intent of the
regulation to mandate the unnecessary installation of such equipment.

It is requested that the preamble clarify that “foundries that utilize
scrap preheaters” are subject to the cited requirements.  Further, it
is requested that the regulations be clarified by removing the
requirement to “install” from (e)(1) such that it reads “you must
operate and maintain” a preheater.



9.  Page 134 - §63.7732(c) – Method 29 Analysis Includes Analytes
That are Not HAP Metals  

To demonstrate compliance with a “total metal HAP” limitation for a
melting furnace, scrap preheater, pouring station, or pouring area a
foundry is required to use Method 29.  However, Method 29 analysis
includes 17 individual analytes; of which five are not HAPs (i.e.,
barium, copper, silver, thallium and zinc) and three are not metals
(i.e., arsenic, phosphorus and selenium).

It is requested that the Agency clarify that, when utilizing Method 29,
the analysis should be specifically limited to HAP metals, and any other
anayltes are not to be considered in the compliance determination.

10.  Page 134 - §63.7732(c) – Further, Method 29 Analysis Includes
HAP Metals That Were Not Considered when Establishing the Standard

In establishing the alternative “total metal HAP” emissions
limitation the Agency relied primarily on data regarding lead and
manganese emissions.  In addition, limited data for cadmium, chromium,
nickel and mercury were used to estimate the amount of the “other”
HAP metals.  These data sets were then combined (i.e., lead, manganese,
and “other”) to establish the total metal HAP emission limit.  As a
result this emissions limitation does not encompass the full spectrum of
HAP metals that will be determined using Method 29.  Specifically, three
HAP metals not considered in establishing the standard (i.e., antimony,
beryllium and cobalt) are Method 29 analytes and could influence a
compliance determination.  

The Agency acknowledged this limitation in the data in the August 27,
2003, memorandum to the docket titled “Determination of the MACT Floor
Metal HAP Emission Limits for Iron and Steel Foundries,” on page 18,
in the paragraph entitled “Determination of Alternative MACT Floor
Performance Limits:”

The available data regarding the metal HAP emissions as a percent of PM
are summarized in Table 7.  Separate statistical distributions were
generated for lead and manganese content, the two HAP that were
generally present at the highest concentrations, and a third
distribution was generated for the sum of all other metal HAP.  [Note: 
the “other” metal HAP category generally included data for cadmium,
chromium, nickel and mercury.  The “other” metal HAP category may
underestimate the total concentration of other metal HAP because several
of the tests appeared to measure only select metal HAP and did not
attempt to measure or report all the metal HAP that would be measured
using EPA Method 29.]

Therefore, it is requested that the Agency clarify that the Method 29
analysis should be limited to the six HAP metals that were used to
establish the “total metal HAP” emission limit.  It is improper to
mandate a compliance methodology that differs from the methodology
utilized to establish the emissions limitation.  

11.  Page 138 – §63.7732(d) – Initial Opacity Compliance
Demonstration ‘Overlaping’ PM Tests

The final rule requires that the initial opacity compliance
demonstration “overlap with the PM performance tests.”  However,
since some sources do not “discharge emissions through a
conveyance,” these sources will not be conducting PM performance
tests.  Likewise, other sources may conduct PM emissions tests at a
limited number of sources that are located apart from potential fugitive
emissions openings.  As such, the industry seek clarification of the
requirement to “overlap” these tests.



12.  Page 155 – §63.7734(a)(7) and Page 180 - §63.7743(a)(7) –
Opacity Compliance Demonstrations Clarification

The final rule requires that sources demonstrate “for each building or
structure housing any emissions source” that the opacity of any
fugitive emissions does not exceed the applicable limitation.  The
industry is concerned that this regulation could be interpreted to
require a documented reading of each window, vent, or other general
building ventilation or exhaust system.  It is requested that the Agency
clarify that a single opacity demonstration may encompass multiple
building openings.

13.  Page 161 - §63.7736(c) – O&M Requirements for Bag Leak Detectors


The requirements of §63.7736 cover the actions taken by a foundry that
directly effect the reduction of emissions from their operations.  A bag
leak detector does nothing to directly effect emissions, it is simply a
monitoring device for those control devices or actions that do directly
effect emissions.  Therefore, it is requested that the O&M plan
requirements for bag leak detectors be removed from this section and
included in the overall O&M plan for the foundry.

14.  Page 169 - §63.7741(b) – Bag Leak Detection Systems are Mandated
for All Collection Systems

The wording of the final rule requires bag leak detection systems be
installed, but does not limit this requirement to baghouse collection
systems.  Unlike other subparagraphs in §63.7741 which apply specific
requirements to the appropriate control device systems (e.g., “each
wet scrubber” or “each combustion device”), the requirement to
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system is not
limited.  Further, the requirement to install a bag leak detection
system should not be applied to all baghouse systems since some systems
do not exhaust through a stack and, thus, such a system would not be
possible.

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the requirement to install
a bag leak detection system is applicable only to “baghouse-type
collection systems that exhaust through a stack”.

15.  Page 199 - §63.7752(a)(4) - The Record of Annual Quantity of HAP
is Not Well Defined as Binder and Coating Materials

Section 63.7752(a)(4) requires records of the annual quantity of each
chemical binder and coating material used.  Further, this subparagraph
requires a record of “the annual quantity of HAP used at the
foundry.”  The industry is concerned that this wording could be
misinterpreted to require an annual report of all HAP materials used at
the foundry, not just those associated with the chemical binders and
coatings.

It is requested that the Agency clarify that the annual report
encompasses only chemical binders and coating materials used to make
molds and cores.  AFS recommends the following language:

“…and the annual quantity of HAP used at the foundry for chemical
binder or coating material used to make molds and cores.”

 Or 

“…and the annual quantity of these HAP used at the foundry.”



16.  The Final Rule Does Not Address Combined Emission Streams

Previously, the Agency and the industry group discussed various methods
by which compliance may be demonstrated for regulated emission streams
that are combined with other emission streams.  The industry group seeks
written assurance that these methods remain acceptable.

Specifically, it was agreed that: a) the combined emission stream can be
demonstrated to meet the emissions limitations; or b) the exhaust rate
from the regulated process can be determined prior to the control
device, and the overall efficiency of the device can be determined
(i.e., percent efficiency), and the “controlled” emission rate can
be determined by calculations; or c) a flow-weighted average can be
utilized.

NESHAP for Iron and Steel Foundries

Request for Clarification

Prepared by American Foundry Society

Submitted to EPA on October 9, 2003

Page   PAGE  6  of   NUMPAGES  6 

