June 21, 2004

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building – 1101 A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Re:	Petition for Reconsideration:  Iron and Steel Foundry MACT Standards

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAPs”)
for Iron and Steel Foundries (“Foundry MACT”) were published in the
Federal Register on April 22, 2004.  See 69 Fed. Reg. 21906.  Extensive
comments on the proposed rule (see 67 Fed. Reg. 78273, December 23,
2002) were filed by American Foundry Society (“AFS”) and many of its
members.  These comments addressed numerous facets of the proposed rule
and in some cases asked for revisions or clarifications to the
regulatory language.  Several of these issues were also raised in
subsequent communications with United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) staff.  However, in the preamble,
background documents, and the rule itself, EPA has failed to respond to
these concerns, make the necessary clarifications or corrections, or
provide the rationale for its actions or inaction.

	For these reasons, and as explained in more detail below, we believe
the final rule is flawed.  Therefore, on behalf of AFS, we hereby
petition EPA for reconsideration of the rule in accordance with section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act.  In some cases, we believe technical
amendments to the rule or implementation guidance may suffice.  In other
cases, amended regulatory language is needed.  Based upon conversations
we have had with Agency representatives and its contractors, many of
these changes appear to be non-controversial, and we have grouped these
together along with our suggestions for addressing our concerns.  In
those cases where proposal of a modified rule is necessary, EPA can, as
it has in other cases, simultaneously issue a direct final rule along
with a proposed rule that would be superceded by the direct final rule
if no adverse comments are received.

	In light of the compliance timetable faced by facilities that are
subject to the Foundry MACT – including a deadline of April 22, 2005,
to comply with specified work practice standards and April 23, 2007, to
meet applicable emissions standards – it is important that the Agency
act with expediency in responding to this petition.  In recognition of
the need for a timely decision, representatives of AFS stand ready to
meet with EPA staff to discuss these issues and answer questions or
provide clarification at your staff’s convenience.

	The comments below make the following requests:

Establish a separate subcategory and associated emission limits for
cupolas with scrubbers.

Reconsider the scope of the work practice standard and re-propose work
practices associated with mercury in automotive scrap.

Establish a separate category or subcategory of sources under the
Foundry MACT for steel foundries with separate requirements, if
justified, specific to the subcategory.

Reconsider the MACT floor for scrap preheaters and exclude scrap dryers
from any scrap preheating requirements.

Revise the basis for the total metal HAPs alternative to be consistent
with data and test methods used as a basis to develop the rule.

Issue implementation guidance or amend the rule to provide clarity and
to avoid misinterpretation for numerous provisions of the rule.

SUBCATEGORIZATION OF CUPOLAS WITH SCRUBBERS

The final Foundry MACT rule establishes a particulate matter (“PM”)
emission limit for cupola furnaces that is based solely on the
utilization of fabric filter control systems, or baghouses.  As noted in
AFS’s comments on the proposed rule, the foundry industry has many
cupolas that are equipped with wet scrubbers that operate very
efficiently but are not capable of meeting the emission limits
characteristics of baghouses.  AFS estimates that the capital
investments to replace these scrubbers with baghouses would amount to
almost $400 million and annualized costs would amount to about $45
million.  Yet according to EPA estimates, the replacements would achieve
additional HAP reductions of only 64 tons per year.  Therefore, the
incremental HAP removal costs of replacing scrubbers with baghouses
corresponds to approximately $700,000 per ton of HAPs removed, which is
excessive by any reasonable standard.

The Agency has authority under § 112(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act to
“distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory.”  AFS believes it is incumbent upon the
Agency, in light of the relatively small additional HAPs reductions, as
well as the economic burden on the foundry industry, to reconsider the
baghouse-based emission limit and establish an emission limit for that
“class” or “type” of cupolas equipped with wet scrubbers.  In
addition, EPA should reconsider the form of the emission standard and
explore alternative emission limitations (e.g., quantity of HAP
emissions per ton of iron production) to determine if the corresponding
MACT floor applicable to such an alternative would provide a more
cost-effective standard.  In performing such an analysis, the Agency
should evaluate the adverse air quality effects of replacing scrubbers
in view of their inherent ability to remove criteria pollutants such as
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as well as their potential for
greater control of certain HAPs due to lower gas stream discharge
temperatures.

WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS (SCRAP MANAGEMENT)

	The final rule establishes both numerical emission limits and work
practice standards.  Both are intended to regulate HAP emissions from
sources of PM, which serves as a surrogate for metal HAPs, and volatile
organic HAPs (“VOHAPs”), which serves as a surrogate for organic
HAPs.

In the case of work practices, the rule gives foundry operators two
options to comply with the work practice standards.  One is to operate
according to a written certification that foundry scrap purchases
exclude certain materials (post-consumer automotive body scrap and
engine blocks, oil filters, oily turnings, lead components, mercury
switches, plastics or organic liquids).  The second option is to operate
according to an EPA-approved written plan for selecting and inspecting
scrap to minimize, to the extent practicable, amounts of organics and
HAP metals in charge materials (used oil filters, plastic parts, organic
liquids, free liquids, automotive mercury switches, and accessible
automotive lead components).  The scope of this work practice standard
in the final rule significantly exceeds the scope of the management plan
in the proposal, which would have required only a plan “to minimize,
to the extent practicable, the amount of organics and HAP metals in the
charge materials used by the casting department.”  The proposed rule
identified only free liquids, grease, oils, painted parts, plastic parts
(potential sources of VOHAPs) and lead components (potential sources of
metal HAPs) as materials of concern.

The specified work practices are intended to eliminate or reduce
precursors for VOHAPs or metal HAPs, in particular, lead and mercury. 
Section 112(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to utilize
multiple means or a combination of means to achieve necessary HAP
emission reductions.  However, paragraph (D) of that section requires
that any promulgated work practice standards must comport with
§ 112(h), and § 112(h)(1) states “if it is not feasible … to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard … the Administrator may, in
lieu thereof, promulgate a … work practice, or operational standard
…”  (Emphasis added.)  Section 112(h)(4) goes on to state: 
“Numerical Standard Required. – Any standard promulgated under
paragraph (1) shall be promulgated in terms of an emission standard
whenever it is feasible to promulgate and enforce a standard in such
terms.”  Because EPA has promulgated emission standards for VOHAPs and
metal HAPs for these sources, and has raised no issue regarding
feasibility or enforcement of those emission standards, the imposition
of an additional work practice standard “in lieu thereof” an
emission limit is unlawful.

The background information document for the promulgated standards
(“Final Rule BID”) asserts that particulate control devices for
melting furnaces are ineffective for mercury control and that reduction
of mercury in scrap provides for more direct reduction of mercury
emissions, but the Agency provides no substantive technical support for
this statement.  Even if that claim has validity, however, it is no
cause for expanding scrap certification or scrap management plans beyond
efforts to minimize mercury.  With respect to lead, the Final Rule BID
cites data from two cupola systems that show “excellent control of
lead emissions” and merely speculates about possible reduced lead
removal efficiency in other situations.  Hence, any work practice
standard applicable to lead is redundant with the PM or metal HAPs
emission standards.  With respect to precursors for VOHAPs (e.g.,
plastics, oils), the Final Rule BID provides no justification at all for
a duplicative, redundant work practice standard.

Moreover, because of the introduction of language pertaining to mercury,
the work practice provisions in the final rule are significantly
different than those in the proposed rule.  AFS has been denied an
effective opportunity to comment on the expensive work practice standard
for the purpose of demonstrating, for example, infeasibility, market
disruption and other concerns.

In addition, EPA acknowledges in the Final Rule BID that the
mercury-in-scrap requirement is a beyond-the-MACT-floor alternative, in
which case the Agency is obliged to assess the cost-effectiveness of the
alternative.  While a meager attempt is made to assign cost to the
alternative, the cost estimates ($3.6 million per year for the entire
industry) are plainly inadequate and understated.  For example, the
costs do not appear to include the significant foundry operator cost
burden of inspecting 10 percent of all scrap shipments, as promulgated
in the final rule.  Furthermore, while we firmly believe the
responsibility for removing mercury switches rests with the auto
dismantlers and scrap suppliers, it is not evident in the Final Rule BID
that the costs for these activities are addressed.

For these reasons, EPA must reconsider the work practice standard in
toto and in particular must re-propose and justify any work practices
related to controlling mercury in scrap and its implications for foundry
operators.

STEEL FOUNDRY SUBCATEGORIZATION

	When EPA first listed source categories as candidates for considering
regulation under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, iron foundries and
steel foundries were listed as separate source categories.  Separation
of ferrous foundries into these two groups was and is appropriate
because of significant differences in the raw materials, processes,
operations, control technologies, and types and quantities of HAP
emissions that are characteristic of the two industry classifications. 
During the Foundry MACT rulemaking process, iron and steel foundries
were combined into a single source category, ostensibly for no other
reason than administrative and regulatory convenience and efficiency,
and that action has led to the imposition of regulatory requirements for
steel foundries that are not justified by the magnitude of HAP risks
posed by steel foundries.  Early discussions with the Agency during the
development of the rule suggested an understanding of the need for
separate categorization of steel foundries, but the rule was proposed
without consideration of the distinct differences from iron foundries.

In the background information document (“BID”) produced to respond
to comments on the proposed rule, EPA acknowledges its original intent
to develop separate standards for iron and steel foundries but justifies
its decision for setting a common standard by asserting there are
process similarities and that some foundries produce both iron and steel
castings.  Ibid.  However, neither of these arguments effectively
responds to industry comments or provides justification for the sweeping
application of iron foundry standards to steel foundries.

While there are some similarities in processes, there are far more
differences.  Following is a summary of factors to substantiate this
conclusion.

Steel foundries produce different products and serve different markets
than iron foundries.  The technical requirements of these products
dictate different processes that have different emissions and controls.

Steel foundries employ either electric induction or electric arc
furnaces to melt steel scrap to produce molten metal to make castings. 
Although iron foundries also use electric furnaces, they more typically
use cupolas to melt scrap.  The emission characteristics and air
pollution control systems on electric furnaces used in steel foundries
are much different than those of an iron foundry cupola.

Most steel foundries also have lower production capacities than iron
foundries.  In fact, the largest iron foundry has a capacity greater
than the entire output of the steel foundry industry.  Most steel
foundries do not qualify as major sources or have achieved synthetic
minor status and would not be subject to the MACT rule as a stand-alone
facility.  However, because some steel foundries are located at larger
production facilities where other HAP sources may make the larger
facility a major source, the steel foundry operations at those
facilities would be subject to Foundry MACT requirements, absent an
exclusion, even if minor of their own accord.

Steel foundries also use significantly different molding methods, binder
formulations, and pouring methods as compared to iron casting
operations.  Steel foundries using green sand molding do not use sea
coal, which has been identified as the largest source of HAPs in
casting.  Steel foundries also use different chemical binders for core
making and no-bake molds because of different requirements for set
times.  Pouring practices also vary significantly.

These fundamental differences in processes result in significant
differences in types and amounts of HAP emissions and require separate
calculation of MACT floors and emission limits.  EPA has failed
adequately to explain its decision not to regulate steel foundries as a
separate subcategory.

With respect to production of both iron and steel castings at the same
facilities, because iron castings require lower temperatures, a few
steel foundries do produce iron castings as well, but the practice is
relatively rare.  In those cases, iron foundry MACT standards would
apply to iron casting operations, but that is no justification for
applying the iron foundry requirements to all steel casting operations. 
Just as it would be inappropriate to apply Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing MACT standards to facilities that also have electric arc
furnace steelmaking capability, it is also improper to apply standards
developed for iron foundries to steel foundries.

Finally, EPA notes in the BID that because at least one steel foundry
facility has a permit-based potential to emit greater than 25 tons/year
of HAPs, the Agency is “obligated to develop MACT standards for steel
foundries.”  Section 2.1 of BID.  However, the BID also notes that
some steel foundries with the estimated potential to emit more than 25
tons/year of HAPs have opted to accept limits through a federally
enforceable State operating permit to reduce their potential to emit to
less than major source threshold limits.  The Agency thus acknowledges
that facilities with potential to emit more than 25 tons/year of HAPs
can obtain synthetic minor status and be excluded from MACT
applicability.  Accordingly, EPA should not use a single example of a
facility that has not yet sought that status as justification for
establishing MACT limits for an entire industry, especially since those
emission limits are based primarily upon data from iron foundry
processes.

Based upon these factors, AFS requests that EPA reconsider the
applicability of the Foundry MACT standard to steel foundries.  At the
very least, the Agency should consider steel foundries as a separate
subcategory and develop and re-propose requirements suited to that
subcategory.  The creation of a separate steel foundry subcategory is an
essential step to allow for consideration of a risk-based delisting that
we believe is appropriate for steel foundries.

SCRAP PREHEATER REQUIREMENTS 

	A.	MACT for Scrap Preheaters

	For scrap preheaters, EPA has promulgated alternative standards
intended to limit VOHAP emissions.  The alternatives include a work
practice standard requiring use of certified scrap, a work practice
standard requiring use of direct flame-fired scrap preheating, or a 20
parts per million by volume (“ppmv”) VOHAP emission limitation.  In
promulgating these options, EPA responded in part to comments raised by
AFS and others on the proposed rule but still has failed to justify
these limits as a MACT floor.  AFS believes that proper assessment of
the database leads to the conclusion that the MACT floor for scrap
preheating is no control for VOHAPs and requests EPA’s reconsideration
of the scrap preheater standard.

	The Foundry MACT rule initially proposed by EPA established a VOHAP
emission limit of 20 ppmv from scrap preheaters.  EPA concluded “…
we cannot use scrap preheater emissions data to directly calculate an
emissions limit for organic HAP from scrap preheaters.”  67 Fed. Reg.
78288.  However, based on EPA’s analysis concluding that afterburners
were installed on a sufficient number of facilities to qualify the
technology as MACT, and EPA’s mere assumption that scrap preheater
afterburners perform in a manner similar to thermal incinerators in
other applications, the Agency proposed the 20 ppmv VOHAP emission
limit.

Based upon comments submitted by AFS and others disputing the MACT floor
analysis and taking exception to the scrap preheater limits, EPA agreed
there were not sufficient preheater afterburner installations to qualify
the technology as MACT.  Instead, EPA elected to establish work practice
standards requiring the use of direct flame contact preheaters, which is
the technology utilized by the majority of scrap preheaters, or
afterburners, or the use of certified scrap.  However, the final
standard retains the 20 ppmv VOHAP emission limit for preheaters
equipped with afterburners or indirect flame-fired preheaters.

In promulgating the final rule, EPA still has not provided any emissions
data to justify setting a VOHAP standard for scrap preheaters.  Although
direct flame contact units are the dominant type of scrap preheater in
use, there are no data to characterize VOHAP emissions from that
technology.  Moreover, no additional data have been developed or
presented to show that other preheaters using afterburners or indirect
heating methods are capable of achieving a 20 ppmv VOHAP standard.  For
these reasons, EPA’s MACT floor analysis is still flawed, and EPA must
reconsider the scrap preheater work practice and VOHAP standards and
conclude that MACT is no control for scrap preheaters.

Distinction Between Scrap Preheaters and Scrap Dryers

	If a scrap preheating emission standard or alternative work practice
standard is retained after reconsideration, AFS believes it is important
to draw a distinction between scrap drying and scrap preheating. 
Section 63.7765 of the rule defines a scrap preheater as follows:

Scrap preheater means a vessel or other piece of equipment in which
metal scrap that is to be used as melting furnace feed is heated to a
temperature high enough to eliminate moisture and other volatile
impurities or tramp materials by direct flame heating or similar means
of heating.  [Emphasis added.]

As implied by this definition, the primary purpose of a scrap preheater
is to add sufficient heat to the charge materials to shorten the furnace
melting cycle, and sufficient energy is typically added to elevate the
temperature of the charge materials to temperatures of 900oF to 1200oF. 
A scrap dryer, on the other hand, is a vessel in which charge materials
are heated to a temperature just sufficient to remove water or moisture,
typically 400oF to 600oF.  Dried scrap is not necessarily charged to the
furnace immediately after processing as is the case of scrap preheating.
 Scrap drying is undertaken as a safety measure to remove water that can
be a potential explosion hazard if it comes into contact with molten
metal, and has far less potential for driving off volatile materials
that might contribute to VOHAPs than do scrap preheaters operating at
much higher temperatures.

EPA’s BID for the proposed rule identified 177 scrap preheaters in the
U.S.  This number (later corrected to 169 based on AFS comments) does
not include scrap dryers.  For this reason, scrap dryers were not
included in the database for assessing the scrap preheater MACT floor
and therefore should not be regulated in the same manner as scrap
preheaters.

AFS therefore recommends removing the term “moisture and other” from
the definition of scrap preheater in § 63.7765 to make clear that
practices designed for scrap drying only are not covered by this rule.

Performance Testing of Scrap Preheaters

If an emission limit for scrap preheaters is retained after
reconsideration, AFS has concerns with requirements for performance
testing of scrap preheaters.  Sections 63.7732(b)(5) and (c)(5) specify
that testing of scrap preheaters is to be performed “only when scrap
is being preheated.”  Scrap preheaters operate on a batch basis and do
not heat scrap for extended periods of time.  Typically, individual
charges are heated for several minutes, and gaps of non-heating time
between charges are part of normal operating procedure.  It is not
practical to start and stop emission tests every few minutes over the
course of time required to preheat numerous charges in order to sample
the minimum one-hour testing period to constitute an acceptable
performance test.  Such intermittent testing increases the potential for
errors and flawed stack tests.

AFS believes that proper testing of scrap preheaters should be
continuous over the period of one hour.  We believe this is consistent
with § 63.6(f)(2(iii)(A) of the NESHAP General Provisions, which
states that a performance test must be “conducted under representative
operating conditions of the source.”  We believe that periods of
preheating and gaps between preheating cycles are “representative
operating conditions” for scrap preheaters.  Accordingly, AFS requests
that EPA revise the rule to specify that procedure for scrap preheater
performance testing.

Installation of Scrap Preheaters

Language in the final rule’s preamble (69 Fed. Reg. 21908) and in
§ 63.7700(e)(1) may be interpreted to require foundries to
“install” gas-fired preheaters, even when not necessary for foundry
operations.  We believe it is obvious that it is not the intent of the
regulation to mandate installation of preheaters, but rather to
establish requirements for those existing facilities that utilize scrap
preheaters.  Accordingly, we request that language in paragraph (e)(1)
be amended to read as follows:

(1) Foundries that utilize scrap preheaters must operate and maintain a
gas-fired preheater where the flame directly contacts….

SCOPE OF HAP METALS REGULATION

	For foundry processes subject to a PM emission standard, the rule
establishes an alternative emission limitation for “total metal
HAPs.”  Companies seeking to utilize this alternative are required to
demonstrate compliance by using Method 29.  While AFS supports the
inclusion of the total metal HAPs alternative in the rule, we have
concerns reconciling the basis for those total metal HAP standards and
implementation of this aspect of the rule.  In establishing the
alternative, EPA relied primarily on lead and manganese emissions data. 
In addition, limited data for cadmium, chromium, nickel, and mercury
were used to estimate other HAP metals emissions and compute the total
metal HAP emission limit.  Because data used in developing the
alternative metal HAPs standards were collected using only a subset or
modified version of Method 29, it is inconsistent and inappropriate to
use Method 29 as a basis for assessing compliance.

	Method 29 includes three HAP metals (antimony, beryllium, and cobalt),
which were not identified with foundry processes.  In addition, Method
29 includes several analytes that are not even metals (arsenic,
phosphorous, and selenium).  It is not clear from background documents
or the preambles to the proposed or final rule whether Method 29 or some
subset of Method 29 results was used to derive the alternative numerical
metal HAPs limits.  Because data used to develop the total metal HAPs
limits were not consistent with Method 29, there is no basis for
including all Method 29 metal analytes when demonstrating compliance
with the total metal HAPs limits.

	AFS believes EPA cannot establish a limit for total metal HAPs, for
which compliance is determined by a specific test methodology, if that
method was not used as a basis for developing data to support the
alternative total metal HAPs limitations.  Accordingly, we request
reconsideration of this aspect of the rule to conform the compliance
test methodology to those performance data used to establish the
standard.

OTHER ISSUES REQUIRING IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE OR MINOR CHANGES IN
REGULATORY LANGUAGE

The issues discussed in this section represent those matters that have
been discussed with the Agency and where there is general agreement that
implementation guidance or minor, non-controversial rule changes are in
order.  Nevertheless, we are including them in our petition for
reconsideration, along with recommendations and suggestions for
remedies, to assure the concerns are adequately described and addressed.

Clarifying Changes If Work Practice Standards Are Retained

Apart from our request for reconsideration of the entire scrap
management work practice standard (see Section II of this petition),
there are several aspects of the work practice standard as promulgated
that require clarification if the standard is retained.  These issues
are discussed below.

Multiple Scrap Acquisition Plans Should Be Permitted

Section 63.7700 requires foundry operators to manage scrap inputs to the
melting process in one of two ways.  The facility must either certify
that the purchase and use of scrap materials is free of certain types of
materials, specified in § 63.7700(b), or prepare and operate in
accordance with a selection and inspection plan to minimize organics and
HAP metals in charge materials, specified in § 63.7700(c).  In both
cases, the regulation requires facilities to “operate at all times
according to” the selected option.  These requirements may be
interpreted to mean that a facility must choose only one of the two
options and fail to recognize that foundry operators may utilize both
methods depending upon products, processes, or availability of melt
materials.  For example, a foundry may have both an electric furnace and
a cupola at the same site and may utilize “certified” materials in
the electric furnace operation but utilize non-certified materials
subject to a selection and inspection plan in the cupola.  Similarly,
some castings may warrant production using “certified” raw materials
while other castings may not.  For these reasons, as well as varying
market conditions and corresponding availability of scrap types,
companies need to have the flexibility to operate under either or both
scrap acquisition options.

AFS requests revisions or clarifications to the regulatory language or
implementation guidance to make clear that foundry operators may utilize
either or both scrap acquisition options provided the materials
qualifying under each option are appropriately designated and remain
segregated.

Scrap Certification Responsibility Should Be Identified

Section 63.7700(b) offers the option of preparing and operating
according to a “written certification” that the foundry purchases
and uses scrap free of certain types of materials, presumptively those
that are potential sources of HAPs.  It is not clear in the rule who
must certify these materials – the supplier or the foundry operator
– or what form the certification should take.  However, Agency
representatives have indicated in discussions on the meaning of the rule
that it was EPA’s intention to place this responsibility with the
foundry operator.

AFS has concern with the absolute nature of the certification option
described in § 63.7700(b) as compared to the alternative scrap
selection and inspection plan described in § 63.7700(c).  Paragraph
(b) requires certification that “the foundry purchases and uses only
… materials that do not include [certain materials].”  (Emphasis
added.)  Paragraph (c), on the other hand, requires operating according
to a plan “to minimize, to the extent practicable, the amount of
organics and HAP metals in the charge materials ….”  (Emphasis
added.)  Foundry operators can issue specifications and make other
efforts to do their best to exclude problematic materials listed in
paragraph (b), but they have no absolute control over sources of scrap
materials and should not be held accountable for non-compliance with an
absolute certification requirement.  Otherwise, the foundry operator is
exposed to an unreasonable standard of certainty that presents little
room for enforcement discretion.

Accordingly, AFS recommends inserting the phrase “to the extent
practicable” after the word “uses” in § 63.7700(b).  This
addition places the certification option on an equal footing with the
requirements of the scrap selection and inspection plan articulated in
paragraph (c).

		3.	Classification of “Cleaned” Scrap Materials 

The scrap certification option described in § 63.7700(b) identifies
specific scrap materials that are prohibited, including “…
post-consumer engine blocks, oil filters, [and] oily turnings …” 
This outright prohibition does not allow for the recycling and use of
these materials if they have been processed to remove contaminants of
concern.  For example, some suppliers dismantle or crush, and then wash,
post-consumer engine blocks prior to shipment as scrap material. 
Likewise, some scrap suppliers process oily turnings or used oil filters
in a manner that makes them suitable and environmentally acceptable for
introduction into the melting process.

AFS believes that provisions should be included in the rule to allow for
the use of materials that have undergone a cleaning process prior to
melting.  We request a modification to the rule to allow for the use of
scrap materials under § 63.7700(b) if they have been processed to
remove contaminants of concern, consistent with the intent of the
certification option.  In the alternative, § 63.7700(b) should provide
for a procedure to allow foundry operators to seek approval for a
site-specific modification to the list of certified materials to include
cleaned materials.

4.	Unused Oil Filters Should Not Be Excluded from Certified Materials

The list of materials prohibited from certified scrap in § 63.7700(b)
includes “oil filters” without regard to whether the filters have
been used.  Unused oil filters pose no risk of organic HAP emissions.

AFS requests a minor modification to the regulatory language to clarify
that prohibited materials include only “used” oil filters.  We
believe this was the intent of the rule, as evidenced by the use of the
term “used oil filters” in § 63.7700(c)(1)(i), and the requested
change would be consistent with that language.

Applicability of Alternate Emission Limitations

For a number of foundry processes, the rule establishes a PM emission
standard but provides for an alternate emission standard for total metal
HAPs.  AFS requests that the Agency clarify in implementation guidance
that: (1) a demonstration to show compliance with either emission limit,
but not both, is acceptable at any time; (2) permit provisions can
provide for either method of demonstrating compliance; and (3)
demonstrating compliance by one method does not preclude a demonstration
of the alternate method at a later date.

Opacity-Related Issues

Fugitive Emissions Opacity

Section 63.7690(a)(7) establishes opacity limits for fugitive emissions
from “each building or structure housing any emission source at the
iron and steel foundry.”  This provision could be interpreted to apply
to fugitive emissions that are unrelated to regulated sources under the
Foundry MACT rule, which may be foundry-related sources for which no
requirements exist or operations in other source categories that may be
co-located in foundries.

A related concern is the potential applicability of operation and
maintenance (“O&M”) plans to unregulated operations.  Section
63.7710(b) requires a written O&M plan for each capture and collection
system and control device for each emission “source” subject to an
emission limit in § 63.7690(a).  Because the term “source” could
be misconstrued to mean the entire foundry building, and since
§ 63.7790(a)(7) establishes an emission limit (opacity) for structures
that may house both regulated and non-regulated operations, the O&M
requirement could be misinterpreted to apply to non-regulated sources
within the building, including all ventilation (i.e., capture and
collection) equipment.

AFS requests modification of language in § 63.7690(a)(7) and
§ 63.7710(b) to make clear that the fugitive emission opacity
requirement and corresponding O&M plans apply only to those emission
units and operations to which the Foundry MACT regulation applies.  To
make these requirements clear, we suggest adding the phrase “from
those units subject to this NESHAP” between the words “discharge”
and “any” in § 63.7690(a)(7).  In addition, AFS requests
modification of language in § 63.7710(b) to replace the term
“source” with “unit.”

Overlapping Opacity Observations with Emission Testing

Section 63.7732(d)(2) requires that opacity observations to demonstrate
compliance with the fugitive emission opacity standard in
§ 63.7690(a)(7) “overlap with the PM performance tests.”  AFS
understands the objective of this provision to be an assurance that
during testing of operations to demonstrate compliance with PM emission
limits, emissions are not escaping from those operations to such a
degree that building opacity limits are exceeded.  However, because
opacity demonstrations are to be conducted at six-month intervals while
PM performance tests are required only once every five years, it is not
feasible for opacity observations to “overlap” with PM performance
tests in all cases.

Accordingly, we believe the language of § 63.7732(d)(2) needs to be
revised to reflect the intended obligation to conduct concurrent
observations of building opacity for emissions related to those
operations for which PM performance tests are being conducted.  We
suggest that paragraph (d)(2) be revised as follows:

During PM performance tests of emission sources subject to this rule,
conduct each test such that the opacity observations are concurrent with
and associated with emission sources for which the PM performance tests
are being conducted.

Notifications for Periodic Opacity Performance Testing and Submittal of
Results

Section 63.7731(b) requires performance tests every six months to
demonstrate compliance with building opacity limits, and § 63.7750(d)
requires notifications of intent to conduct performance tests to be
submitted at least 60 days prior to conducting the test.  In light of
the frequency of necessary opacity performance testing and the relative
ease of performing opacity observations, AFS believes the 60-day
notification for opacity performance demonstrations is unnecessary and
burdensome and should be deleted.

In addition, § 63.7750(e)(2) specifies that results of performance
tests must be submitted within 60 days following the completion of the
performance test.  This is consistent with NESHAP General Provisions
§ 63.10(d)(2), which requires the 60-day submittal of test results
unless otherwise specified in the rule.  In light of the semi-annual
building opacity testing requirement, AFS requests a rule change that
allows results of the semi-annual opacity testing to be reported as part
of the semi-annual compliance report required under § 63.7751.  This
will reduce the need for a separately submitted report that would
otherwise add an unnecessary administrative burden.

Bag Leak Detection Issues

Requirements for Use of Bag Leak Detection Systems

Section 63.7741(b) of the rule requires the installation, operation, and
maintenance of bag leak detection systems.  While it may be intuitively
obvious that bag leak detection systems are required only for baghouses
employed to meet PM emission requirements of the rule, this is not clear
by the language of the rule and could be misconstrued to apply more
broadly.  Accordingly, paragraph (b) should be amended to begin with the
phrase, “For each baghouse subject to operating limits in
§ 63.7690(a) ...”

	In addition, the rule fails to provide for legitimate exceptions to the
requirements for bag leak detection systems.  EPA’s guidance document
pertaining to bag leak detection states that “… only fabric filters
… with exhaust stacks are covered by this guidance.”   Some foundry
baghouses are positive pressure baghouses, which typically do not
utilize exhaust stacks.  This type of baghouse typically has
compartments discharging to a common plenum that discharges to the
atmosphere through louvered openings in the plenum, making the use of
bag leak detectors impractical.  EPA has recognized this problem in
promulgating other MACT standards (e.g., see Ferroalloys Production MACT
– 40 CFR 63 Subpart XXX) by exempting the use of bag leak detection
systems for positive pressure baghouses without stacks, consistent with
the EPA guidance document.  In addition, in the description of baghouse
leak detection monitoring requirements in § 63.7740, paragraph (b)
qualifies the application of bag leak detection requirements. 
Therefore, AFS requests that § 63.7741(b) be amended to begin with the
phrase “For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack, you must install ...”

Section 63.7741(b)(3) also specifies that bag leak detection systems be
equipped with audible alarms.  Based on AFS member experience, visual
alarms can, in some cases, be more effective and should not be excluded
as an independent notification method.  We therefore suggest rewording
§ 63.7741(b)(3) as follows:

The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound or signal …
and … must be located such that it can be heard or seen by the
appropriate plant personnel.

Bag Leak Detector O&M Plans

	Section 63.7736(c)(1) states that a bag leak detection system
monitoring plan must be “submitted … for approval” to the
Administrator in accordance with requirements of § 63.7710(b). 
However, § 63.7710(b) states that O&M plans are “subject to
approval” by the Administrator.  AFS believes the bag leak detection
O&M plan can be incorporated into the overall O&M plan for the regulated
operations in the foundry and does not need a separate plan or required
approval.  Therefore, we request the language in § 63.7736(c)(1) be
amended to read as follows:

You have prepared a bag leak detection system monitoring plan subject to
approval by the Administrator according to requirements in
§ 63.7710(b);

Performance Testing Issues

1.	Single Performance Tests for Control Devices Serving Multiple Units

Section 63.7734(a)(1) through (6) states that compliance with PM
emission limits is demonstrated when determined by performance testing
for “each” process unit.  In some cases, a common emission control
system may serve two similar or identical cupolas, but only one cupola
is operated at a given time.  A performance test of the control device
while serving one cupola provides evidence of the control system’s
performance capability.  Similarly, in other cases, a common control
device may serve multiple furnaces or process units.  In these cases,
requirements for separate tests of the control device while each of the
melting furnaces or process units is operating are redundant and impose
unnecessary costs.

AFS requests the addition of regulatory language, perhaps as a separate
paragraph in § 63.7734, to make clear that a single PM performance
test of a control device serving multiple furnaces or process units is
sufficient to demonstrate compliance, provided the test is conducted
during operation of the process unit or units corresponding to the
maximum operating condition of the control system.

	2.	Performance Testing Procedures for Electric Furnaces

Sections 63.7732(b)(4) and (c)(4) specify that testing of electric arc
and electric induction furnaces is to be performed “when scrap is
being melted.”  This is an unnecessary and inappropriate restriction
on performance testing of electric melting furnaces.  Typically,
electric furnaces are charged with scrap metal and an electric current
is imparted directly or indirectly to the scrap to begin the melting
process.  However, during the heat, the “melting” process may be
temporarily suspended to allow for the addition of additional scrap
charges or alloying agents, to take samples or temperatures, or perform
other required operations, before the furnace heat is tapped.  All of
these phases occurring during the course of a heat are considered part
of typical operation.  As we have noted above in our discussion of
performance testing of scrap preheaters, it is not practical to start
and stop emission tests over the course an electric furnace heat until
the requisite sampling time is accumulated because such intermittent
testing increases the potential for errors and flawed stack tests. 
Moreover, as also noted above, we believe that testing during all phases
of operation is consistent with § 63.6(f)(2(iii)(A) of the NESHAP
General Provisions, which states that a performance test must be
“conducted under representative operating conditions of the source.”
 We believe that all activities occurring during the course of an
electric furnace heat, whether “melting” is occurring or not,
constitutes “representative operating conditions” for electric
furnaces.

It is instructive to refer to the New Source Performance Standards for
Electric Arc Furnaces (“EAF NSPS”) for considering the application
of emission limits and performance testing of electric melting furnaces
because operations of electric arc furnaces and electric induction
furnaces in iron and steel foundries are similar to operation of
electric arc furnaces in steelmaking plants,   The EAF NSPS requires
performance testing over an integral number of heats to obtain the
requisite sample and defines a heat as “… the period beginning when
the scrap is charged to an empty [electric arc furnace] and ending when
the [furnace] tap is completed.”  AFS requests that EPA reconsider the
basis for performance testing of electric arc and induction furnaces and
revise the rule to adopt performance testing requirements conceptually
consistent with the EAF NSPS.

Compliance Demonstrations Using Method 29 Metal HAPs

Section 63.7732(c) specifies the use of Method 29 when exercising the
option of demonstrating compliance with a “total metal HAP”
limitations specified in § 63.7690(a)(1) through (6).  However, as
noted above, Method 29 analysis includes 17 individual analytes,
including five that are not listed HAPs (barium, copper, silver,
thallium, and zinc) and three that are not metals (arsenic, phosphorous
and selenium).

AFS requests regulatory clarification or implementation guidance to
allow for the exclusion of Method 29 analytes that are not HAP metals
when demonstrating compliance with the optional total metal HAP
limitations in the rule.  This will allow companies to use Method 29 to
make a demonstration but will provide the option to exclude analytes
that are not metal HAPs if those substances have a bearing on the
compliance demonstration.

In addition, Method 29 analyses yield concentration levels for each
metal HAP contained in a sample, and some individual HAPs metals may be
reported as being below analytical detection limits.  AFS seeks
clarification as to how analyses of individual metal HAPs below
detection limits will be quantified with respect to demonstrating
compliance with the total metal HAPs limits.  If each metal HAP analyzed
to be below detection limits is presumed to be present and accounted for
at the detection limit, the resulting total metal HAPs concentration
could potentially and erroneously be determined to exceed the total
metal HAPs limit.  Accordingly, we request that EPA clarify in
implementation guidance that individual HAPs analyzed to be below
detection limits be considered as “zero” for purposes of determining
compliance with the total metal HAP emissions limits.

4.	TEA Testing Alternative

Section 63.7732(g)(v) of the final rule requires the use of Method 18
for demonstrating compliance with the cold box mold or core making line
triethylamine (“TEA”) standard of one (1) ppmv.  Because Method 18
has a detection limit of 1 ppmv, compliance determinations may be
problematic using the procedure described in the method.  Therefore, it
is likely that operators will elect to use the alternative included in
section 8.2.4 of Method 18, i.e., a silica gel adsorption tube sampling
technique.  Since that Method 18 alternative methodology is consistent
with NIOSH Method 2010, with which some companies may have greater
familiarity, AFS requests that EPA provide language in the rule that
also identifies the NIOSH method as an acceptable alternative.

Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems (CPMS)

1.	CPMS Data Availability 

Section 63.7741(f) describes data requirements for CPMS, and paragraph
(f)(2) states that “each CPMS must have valid hourly data for 100
percent of every averaging period.”  We interpret this to mean simply
that any data set used to compute averages must not have any missing
data for the averaging period.  However, the language could be
misinterpreted to mean that CPMS must provide valid data 100 percent of
the time.  Such an interpretation would be unreasonable and unrealistic
and fails to recognize the reality of inevitable malfunctions that may
be associated with CPMS monitoring equipment.  Accordingly, AFS requests
clarification of the language in § 63.7741(f)(2) to avoid any
misinterpretation.

	2.	Damper Position Monitoring

Section 63.7740(a)(2) requires daily visual checks of VOHAP capture
system damper positions for dampers that are manually set and intended
to remain in the same position.  AFS believes this is an unnecessary and
burdensome monitoring and inspection procedure for manually set and
fixed damper positions.  We believe it is sufficient to include
inspection of such dampers during monthly preventive maintenance
inspections and request a modification of the rule to establish this
monitoring frequency.

	3.	Baghouse Compliance Monitoring Requirements

Section 63.7740(b) contains extensive requirements for monitoring and
inspecting baghouse systems.  We believe the extent and frequency of
these requirements are unnecessary and unduly burdensome and go beyond
those requirements necessary to ensure effective operation.  These
include daily monitoring or inspections for baghouse pressure drop and
compressed air supply and pressure for pulse-jet baghouses, weekly
inspections to ensure that dust is being removed from baghouse hoppers,
monthly inspections of bag cleaning mechanisms and bag tension; and
quarterly inspections of baghouse physical integrity and fan conditions.

AFS understands the need for periodic monitoring and inspection of
baghouse system components and operating parameters, but we believe the
requirements in the rule are inflexible and too prescriptive.  Moreover,
the requirements do not necessarily comport with manufacturer
recommendations for inspection and maintenance of system components.

We request that EPA modify the rule to allow for baghouse monitoring
requirements to be incorporated into the O&M plans required in
§ 63.7710(b).  By incorporating baghouse monitoring and inspection
into O&M plans, companies can tailor their plans to the needs of the
system and incorporate manufacturer recommendations for inspection,
inspection, replacement, and repair.  Further, as noted in
§ 63.7710(b), O&M plans are “subject to approval by the
Administrator”, which provides the opportunity for adequate oversight
by the delegated authority.

G.	Operating Parameters and Corrective Action

Provisions Relating to Cupola “Blast”

Several provisions of the rule refer to cupola blast conditions.  For
example, § 63.7690(b)(3) requires that the cupola afterburner be
operated such that the combustion zone temperature does not fall below a
1,300oF average except for "periods when the cupola is off blast and for
15 minutes after going on blast."  Also, § 63.7732(b)(3) and (c)(3)
require that sampling be conducted "only during times when the cupola is
on blast."

The industry is concerned that the term "on blast" is not defined within
the rule or discussed in the preamble and could be misinterpreted to
mean any period when "blast" air is entering the cupola.  This is
problematic because blast air is often used during periods when melting
is not occurring, such as preparing the cupola for operation. 
Typically, a cupola must be properly prepared before melting can
commence.  The procedure is initiated by building a sand bed in the
bottom of the furnace.  A bed of coke is then added and ignited,
commonly utilizing blast air, and is allowed to burn for approximately
one hour.  When the coke bed is established and the cupola furnace is at
the proper temperature, the blast air is turned off while the furnace is
charged with metal, coke, and limestone.  After the cupola furnace is
fully charged, the blast air is again introduced and the melting process
begins.  It is neither necessary nor appropriate to maintain a 1,300oF
afterburner temperature during startup periods when blast air is used as
described and the gas stream lacks an adequate concentration of carbon
monoxide (CO) to sustain combustion.  Neither is it appropriate to
include these startup periods in performance tests.  Stated another way,
operating parameters and testing should apply only when blast air is
being introduced to the cupola furnace and the furnace is capable of
producing molten metal.  This interpretation is consistent with
provisions relating to electric arc and electric induction furnaces,
which specify sampling “only when metal is being melted.”  See
§ 63.7732(b)(4) and § 63.7732(c)(4).

The use of blast air in the situations described can be defined in the
facility’s startup, shutdown, and maintenance (“SSM”) plan and
thus not be subject to the rule’s emission limitations during these
periods.  However, AFS is concerned that unless these exceptions are
expressly stated, the rule may be misinterpreted or misapplied.  For
this reason, AFS requests that the phrase “except as provided for in
the startup, shutdown and maintenance plan” be added to
§ 63.7690(b)(3) and § 63.7732(b)(3) and (c)(3).

Operating Parameters As a Basis for Taking Corrective Action

	The rule requires that operating limits be established during
performance testing for each capture system and control device.  These
operating parameters may consist of pressure drop and water flow rates
for wet scrubbers, flow rates for acid scrubbers, or temperature for
combustion devices.  Foundries are required to operate within the
established operating limits at all times.  Section 63.7765 defines a
“deviation” to include “any instance in which an affected source
… fails to meet any requirement or obligation … including operating
limits.”

	AFS believes that operating parameters established during performance
testing should only be a basis for taking corrective action and should
not be considered to be deviations unless corrective action is not
taken.  As EPA has noted in its proposed Primary Aluminum MACT rule:

… a change in a control device’s operating parameter does not
directly correlate with an increase in emissions and does not provide a
reasonable assurance that the emission limitation was exceeded when the
parameter changed.   In other words, the operating parameter may be
outside the limit established during the performance test while
emissions are still below the applicable limit.  The primary value of
monitoring the control device parameters is to detect a potential
problem with the device’s operation as soon as possible and to
promptly investigate and correct the cause.

61 Fed. Reg. 50590.  Moreover, within the Foundry MACT rule itself, this
concept is embodied in the requirements for bag leak detection systems,
which are employed in lieu of operating parameters relevant to fabric
filter installations.

	In addition, exceedances of operating parameters should not be
considered deviations unless corrective action is not taken or is not
successful in correcting operating problems.  As EPA notes in the Coke
Oven MACT rule:

If the corrective action is not successful, the owner or operator must
take additional corrective actions.  If the second attempt to fix the
problem is not successful, the failure must be reported as a deviation.

68 Fed. Reg. 18009.  Such phased corrective action steps are also
consistent with those specified in the Foundry MACT rule for bag leak
detection indications.

	Finally, AFS is concerned that in the absence of clarifying language a
deviation from an operating limit or parameter could be considered a
“violation.”  To address this concern, we direct your attention to
the following language in the recently signed MACT rule for Industrial
Boilers and Process Heaters, which states,

A deviation is not always a violation.  The determination of whether a
deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the
discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the standards.

For these reasons, AFS requests that the rule be amended to clarify that
departures from control device operating parameters are not operating
“limits” but instead are operating parameters that serve as a basis
for triggering corrective action.  We also request that clarifying
statements be inserted into the rule to provide for sequenced corrective
action steps for all operating parameter exceedances consistent with the
approach for bag leak detectors.  In addition, we request the addition
of language, consistent with the Industry Boiler and Process MACT,
clarifying that deviations from control device operating limits or
parameters are not presumptively deemed violations but are instead
subject to enforcement authority discretion.

Conformance of Operating Parameters with Performance Testing Provisions

Sections 63.7690(b)(2), (4), and (5) require foundries to operate
control devices for regulated units such that the 3-hour averages of
relevant parameters (scrubber pressure drop, water or scrubbing liquid
flow rate, or temperature) do not fall below minimum levels established
during performance testing.  Section 63.7733(b), (c), and (d) also
require foundries to establish site-specific operating limits based on
3-hour averages for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions
limit is met.  Finally, § 63.7741(f)(3) requires CPMS to be capable of
recording 3-hour averages.

These requirements are inconsistent with performance testing
requirements.  Although sampling times specified in performance testing
requirements are in some cases three hours in duration, other
performance testing sampling durations are based upon sampling volumes
which do not correspond to a three-hour duration (e.g., § 63.7732(b)
and (c)) or have minimum sampling times of one hour (e.g., § 
63.7732(g)).  This discrepancy could be erroneously interpreted to
require performance testing over a period of at least three hours when
the specific performance testing requirements do not require tests of
that duration.

AFS requests that the rule be amended to remove references to 3-hour
averages for operating parameters and instead insert language that would
establish operating parameters consistent with observed parameters, and
corresponding to applicable test methodology, for any test run during a
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.

H.	Reporting of SSM Plan Inconsistencies

Section 63.7751(c) requires submittal of an immediate SSM report
whenever a source has a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event that is
not consistent with the prepared SSM plan.  However, this requirement is
not consistent with current NESHAP General Provisions at
§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii), which requires an immediate report only if the
action taken is not in conformance with the source’s SSM plan and if
“the source exceeds any applicable emission limitation in the relevant
emission standard.”  Although every effort is made to plan for
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events, it is not possible to
anticipate all exigencies.  However, some aspects of these events may
have no effect on emissions or compliance with emission standards, and
“immediate” notification is not reasonable or necessary.

AFS requests modification of the language in the rule to duplicate or
refer to the relevant NESHAP General Provisions language regarding
reporting of SSM events that are inconsistent with SSM plans.  We
believe is it sufficient to report SSM plan departures that have no
emission consequences in semi-annual compliance reports.

I.	Recordkeeping

Section 63.7752(a)(4) requires records of the annual quantity of each
chemical binder and coating material used to make molds and cores and
“the annual quantity of HAP used at the foundry.”  While the intent
of the latter phrase is to apply to HAPs contained in the chemical
binders and coating materials used in molds and cores, the language
could be misinterpreted to require recordkeeping for all HAP materials
used at the foundry.

AFS requests modification of § 63.7752(a)(4) by adding the phrase
“for these purposes” to make clear that HAPs recordkeeping applies
only to binders and coating materials used in making molds and cores.

Basis for Major Source Status

As described in § 63.7681, an iron or steel foundry is a “major
source” of HAPs “if it emits or has the potential to emit … or is
located at a facility that emits or has the potential emit…” HAPs
above the statutory threshold limits.  Section 112(a)(1) of the Clean
Air Act and § 63.2 of the NESHAP General Provisions define a major
source to encompass “any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area.”  (Emphasis added.)  Section
63.2 also defines “affected source” to encompass “the collection
of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area.” 
(Emphasis added.)  While we therefore believe the meaning of a facility
in the context of § 63.7681 is unambiguous, AFS members have
experienced interpretations by some regulatory authorities who have
deemed non-contiguous and geographically separated facilities owned by
the same company to be a single facility for purposes of “major
source” determinations.  Accordingly, we request that EPA issue
implementation guidance to make clear to delegated authorities that
non-contiguous facilities are not additive for purposes of major source
determinations.

---

	We strongly urge EPA to take the necessary administrative action to
make the changes requested.  We look forward to a timely response to
this petition, and representatives of AFS stand ready and willing to
meet with EPA staff at your convenience to clarify our comments or
elaborate on their importance.  Please have your appropriate staff
contact Gary Mosher (800-537-4237 Ext. 228 or   HYPERLINK
"mailto:gem@afsinc.org"  gem@afsinc.org ) or John Wittenborn
(202-342-8514 or jwittenborn@colliershannon.com) with questions or to
make arrangements for further discussion.

Sincerely,

John L. Wittenborn

Counsel to American Foundry Society

cc:	Steve Fruh

	Jeffrey R. Holmstead

	Gary Mosher

  See Comments of American Foundry Society, Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0034-0046, February 21, 2003.

  See “National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Iron and Steel Foundries – Background Information for Proposed
Standard,” Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034-0001, December 2002.

  See “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries – Background Information for
Promulgated Standards,” Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0034-0144, August 2003.

  See “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” EPA-454/R-98-015,
September 1997.

  See 40 C.F.R. 60, Subpart AA.

  The rule has not yet been published but is accessible on EPA’s
website.  See www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilersfinalrule.pdf.

(...continued)

(...continued)

 PAGE   

 PAGE   3 

