MlbWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MRI
EPORT
SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECT1MG COMPLIANCE BY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
VOLUME III
F
FINAL
Date
Contract Mo. 58-01-4139
Project Nos.
Task
1(15)
. 15
3f Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environrasntal Protection Agency
401 n Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
L.
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 6411 0 • 816753-7600
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for pub-
lication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
MRI-NORTH STAR LABORATORIES 10701 Red Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 • 612 933-7880
MRI WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-Suite 250,1750 K Street, N.W. • 202 293-3800
-------
SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING COMPLIANCE BY
FERROUS FOUNDRIES
VOLUME III - APPENDIX F
FINAL REPORT
Date Prepared: April 30, 1981
EPA Contract No. 68-01-4139, Task No. 15
MRI Project Nos. 4310-1(15)
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600
-------
PREFACE
Midwest Research Institute has carried out a study for the Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, to review
the various technical and regulatory factors that affect the compliance of
ferrous foundries.
This appendix presents the results of part of the study related to state
and local air pollution control regulations and policies as related to ferrous
foundries.
Mr. D. Wallace, Associate Environmental Scientist, Environmental Control
Systems Section, served as project leader on the study. Mr. P. Quarles and
Mr. P. Kielty of TRG performed the analysis of state and local regulations
and prepared this appendix. The assistance provided by Mr. A. Trenholm,
Head Environmental Control Systems Section, and the guidance provided by
Task Manager, Mr. Robert L. King, throughout the project are gratefully
acknowledged.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
M. P. Schrag, Director
Environmental Systems Department
April 30, 1981
111
-------
CONTENTS
Preface iii
Tables vi
Appendix F - A Summary and Analysis of Selected State Air Pol-
lution Control Regulations and Implementation
Policies Applicable to Four Ferrous Foundry
Processes 1
F.I Introduction 2
F.I.I Regulation analysis task 2
F.I. 2 Methodology 2
F.I.3 Summary and conclusions 8
F.2 Regulation survey results 17
F.2.1 General introduction 17
F.2.2 Specific TSP regulations 19
F.3 Telephone survey results 75
F.3.1 General introduction . 75
F.3.2 How the regulations are applied 76
F.3.3 Investigation strategies 89
F.3.4 Compliance status 96
F.3.5 Malfunctions 101
F.3.6 Enforcement strategies 103
F.3.7 Coordination with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) 107
F.3.8 Carcinogen regulation strategies 108
References 109
-------
TABLES
A Summary of State Air Pollution Regulations Applicable
to the Control of Emissions from Ferrous Foundry
Operations 22
F-2 State Mass Emission Limitations that Apply to All Air
Pollution Sources Including Ferrous Foundries 34
F-3 State Mass Emission Limitations that Apply to Specific
Ferrous Foundry Operations 43
F-4 State Fugitive Emission Regulations that Apply to Ferrous
Foundry Operations 51
F-5 State Visible Emission Regulations that Apply to Ferrous
Foundry Operations 62
F-6 Malfunction Regulations Applicable to Ferrous Foundry
Operations 71
-------
APPENDIX F
A SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF SELECTED STATE AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL REGULATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES
APPLICABLE TO FOUR FERROUS FOUNDRY PROCESSES
(Prepared by Pat Kielty, The Research Group and Perrin Quarles,
Perrin Quarles Associates)
-------
F.I INTRODUCTION
F.I.I Regulation Analysis Task
The purposes of this task were twofold: (1) to outline state air pol-
lution emission limitation regulations that apply to selected ferrous foundry
processes, including the cupola and electric arc furnaces, pouring and cool-
ing operations, and shakeout and sand handling operations; and (2) to ex-
plain how these regulations are actually applied in the states. Foundry
operations are considered to provide a unique area for analysis because they
provide in a microcosm a good sample of the enforcement strategy problems
experienced generally among stationary sources, and at the same time they
are a significant source category that has not received federal enforcement
priority to date.
Knowledge of the states' requirements and experience with ferrous foundry
operations should provide EPA enforcement staff with necessary background
to make essential decisions regarding the extent to which EPA enforcement
guidance and leadership will be required. This task, which involves a simple
survey of selected state regulations and a brief interview with selected
state enforcement staff, provides an initial look at the relevant state pro-
grams, and may assist in identifying important issues for further considera-
tion. At the same time, it provides, as nearly as possible within given
constraints, a definitive tabulation of the regulations selected for review.
F.I.2 Methodology
F.I.2.1 General Approach—
The regulation analysis task was designed to accomplish two general
objectives: (1) the identification of primary state and local regulations
that establish emission limitations and other control measures for ferrous
foundries, and (2) the identification of state and local implementation poli-
cies, with specific reference to enforcement problems and solutions experi-
enced by enforcement officials in applying these emission limitations.
In general, the approach taken was inductive; i.e. , a very general and
broad statement of information objectives was defined; then, as each state
and locality was considered, a more precise depiction of relevant regula-
tions and implementation policies was established, so that by the completion
of the project, a fairly complete understanding of the regulatory approach
to controlling ferrous foundries had been achieved. This approach was chosen
in lieu of a more comprehensive, deductive analytical approach, in the in-
terest of accomplishing a quick and less resource-intensive overview of the
regulations and policies involved. Although generally successful, this ap-
proach inevitably resulted in the delayed identification of certain problem
areas that could not be fully analyzed within the scope of the project.
The research and analysis method employed for the project involved two
phases: a data-gathering phase and an analytical phase. During the data-
gathering phase, two surveys were conducted: a survey of relevant state
and local regulations applicable to the control of TSP from specific ferrous
foundry processes, and a telephone survey of state and local agency staff
-------
assigned implementation responsibility for those regulations. These surveys
were conducted simultaneously, so that each state's regulations would be
reviewed immediately prior to the telephone interview for that state.
During the analytical phase, specific topical areas were chosen for
analysis; then, survey information within each topical area was tabulated
and analyzed with two objectives in mind: (1) How do state and local agency
officials actually apply their regulations to these ferrous foundry processes?
(2) What are perceived to be the primary problem areas in applying the regu-
lations, and how are these problems resolved?
F.I.2.2 Local Regulation--
One objective of the project was to review local regulations and poli-
cies in a limited number of instances to determine whether local regulations
were different from state regulations and whether local implementation prob-
lems and policies differed from those of the states. To this end, ten lo-
calities were chosen, in different parts of the country, on the basis of an
estimated significant foundry population and the prior knowledge that the
local officials involved conduct separate implementation programs. Regula-
tions were obtained for these localities and reviewed, and telephone surveys
were conducted.
The results, however, indicated only that local officials were more
knowledgeable about such matters as compliance status and the number and
nature of enforcement actions. While it is generally true that local of-
fices are primarily responsible for inspections and enforcement, informa-
tion on such matters related to us by local respondents provided no differ-
ent or more complete perspective than that provided by the state respondents.
No significant overall difference in regulatory approach or implementation
policy was noted. Further, to the extent that differences among individual
localities exist, they involve factors that relate as readily to differences
among states as they do to differences among localities. For these reasons
local regulations and implementation policies have not been singled out in
the following report.
F.I.2.3 Regulation Survey--
The regulation survey was conducted by reviewing emission limiting regu-
lations compiled in the BNA "Environment Reporter." The survey was limited
to mass emission regulations for TSP, visible emission regulations, and regu-
lations applying to fugitive emissions, nuisances, odor, and prohibitions
against air pollution in general. Malfunction regulations were also reviewed.
However, other relevant regulations governing topics discussed during the
interview portion of the project, involving, for example, administrative
procedures, enforcement authority and sanctions, permit authority, and con-
trol equipment maintenance requirements, were not surveyed.
In a limited number of instances, regulations were not included in the
BNA compilation. Generally, these regulations were obtained by request dur-
ing the telephone interviews. It was also necessary in several states, such
as California and Missouri, to choose among different regions of the state
a single jurisdiction for regulation analysis and agency interview. This
was usually done if the regulations for regions within the state were com-
piled separately and a regional agency existed for purposes of developing
-------
and implementing the regulations. Minor incongruities exist in the results.
In a few states, such as Massachusetts, the BNA compilation accounts for
separate districts in a single set of regulations, and our regulation analysis
included a survey of all districts, while interviews were limited to one or
two districts. In a few other states, such as Maryland, separate sets of
regulations for different regions were reviewed, and an interview with a
state agency official was found to be sufficient.
Only regulations currently being used by the states and localities were
surveyed. In several situations, new regulations had been prepared and upon
EPA approval would become applicable; however, there was no consideration
of such regulations, unless reported in the BNA compilation on or before
November 12, 1979. In several other situations, the state regulations have
been supplemented or preempted by federal regulations. Federal regulations
were also not considered.
F.I.2.4 Telephone Survey--
F.I.2.4.1 General comments--The telephone survey took place during
the months of May through August 1979. At the outset, it was conducted in
a lengthy interview format which was designed to encourage the respondent
to tell everything he knew about foundry emission control techniques, prob-
lems, and strategies for dealing with those problems. When, toward the
middle of the project, very little new information was being derived, a
condensed and more routine format was adopted to allow for maximum coverage
and economy of resources.
F.I.2.4.2 Interview respondents—The survey was conducted by identify-
ing a staff person within each agency who would be most familiar with the
implementation of enforcement policies with regard to ferrous foundries,
arranging for a telephone interview with that person, and then conducting
the interview. In most cases, the person identified was a staff-level
engineer within the enforcement division of the agency; and in almost every
case, the respondent was familiar with his agency's investigation and en-
forcement policies applicable to ferrous foundries. Only in one or two
isolated instances was an interview conducted with persons who seemed mar-
ginally knowledgeable about such policies.
In several cases, persons either would not be interviewed or were un-
available for interview during the interview phase of the project. These
states represented an insignificant minority, and the absence of discussion
with knowledgeable enforcement staff should not affect the quality of in-
formation obtained in the remainder of the interviews.
F.I.2.4.3 Interview introduction—The telephone survey was initiated
by introducing the project according to the following guideline:
(1) Who we are: we are a TRG legal survey team
doing a research project for the Midwest Research
Institute and ultimately the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Our job is, first, to
-------
survey all air pollution control regulations govern-
ing foundry particulate emissions from the cupola,
electric arc furnace, pouring and cooling system,
and the shakeout and sand handling operations, and
second, to contact states and several localities
to determine how the regulations are being applied.
(2) Purpose: the purpose of this survey is to
provide states and localities with a report that
will identify major problem areas in regulating
foundries and suggest ways to solve those problems
by explaining problem-solving techniques that are
presently being utilized by other states and locali-
ties. The emphasis is on solutions and not pro-
blem identification. What control techniques are
better than others? It is not important to identify
specific states or people, and we do not intend to
refer to individuals who have provided us information,
unless they request to be identified.
(3) What we know already: we know generally how
the different types of foundry operations work,
what air pollution problems may be expected, and
how they are usually solved. We have also reviewed
your state's air pollution regulations and have
listed those that we would expect to be used in
the regulation of foundries.
(4) What we do not know: we do not know how in
fact you apply your regulations, whether you find
them suitable for the control of foundries, whether
there are inherent problems in the applicability
of your regulations, due to wording, administration
or judicial interpretation, stringency, weakness,
etc.; we also do not know anything about your ex-
perience or policies in implementing the regulations
-whether certain emissions are overlooked for prac-
tical reasons, what strategies are used to overcome
weaknesses in the regulations, etc. Again, we hope
to identify workable solutions to typical problems.
Such solutions may relate to the type of control
techniques utilized by the foundry or they may re-
late to the kind of enforcement strategy pursued
by the state.
F.I.2.4.4 Question related to the regulations—Following the introduc-
tion, a series of questions was asked pertaining to the regulations already
reviewed. The regulations from the "Environment Reporter" were identified
by type and number for each of the four categories of emission points under
consideration: cupola, electric arc furnace, pouring and cooling, and shake
out and sand handling.
-------
Among the types of regulations specifically noted were: mass emission
regulations; fugitive emission regulations; visible emission regulations;
nuisance, odor, and other regulations generally probiting air pollution.
The respondent was asked whether the regulation was actually used for the
emission point involved. In addition, he was asked to verify our regula-
tion research and to identify other authority actually being used that we
might have missed. For each regulation and emission point, the respondent
was also asked to identify any problems encountered in the use of specific
regulations and how those problems have been resolved.
Three more general questions pertaining to the regulations were also
asked:
Do you have a regulation or policy that differentiates between dif-
ferent types or sizes of foundries?
Are other nonTSP emissions from foundries regulated (i.e., CO, VOC,
SOx, NOx)?
Will you change your TSP regulations as a result of EPA's PSD or non-
attainment regulations in such a way that existing foundries will be
affected?
In general, the answers to these questions were complete, and they have
enabled us to provide an accurate picture of the types of regulations used
to control emissions from foundries in each state. Two possible areas of
concern involve the paucity of information relating to problems in applying
the regulations to foundries--very few states felt that there were such prob-
lems, and there was a widespread response that new TSP regulations will not
affect foundry operations. These concerns are at least partially explained
by the fact that most state respondents also perceive their foundries to be
"in compliance."
F.I.2.4.5 Question relating to control equipment and techniques—Fol-
lowing questions relating to emission-limiting regulations, a series of ques-
tions was asked relating to the agency's experience and policies in applying
those regulations. The first question sought to identify what control equip-
ment or technique was preferred for each of the emission points under con-
sideration. Since, except for the cupola or electric arc furnace, those
emission points are internal within the overall facility enclosure, the an-
swers embraced not only the type of device preferred for the control of am-
bient emissions, but also whether emissions from internal points are captured
at all. Thus, responses to this question allow for a quick overview of which
emission points are actually controlled in e'ach state. (Most, for example,
do not control emissions from pouring and cooling operations).
A specific subset of this question related to operation techniques.
This question focused on operating the process systems in such a way as to
minimize emissions, not in operating and maintaining the control equipment.
While most respondents were able to express a preference regarding control
equipment, few were able to express a preference relating to operating tech-
niques .
-------
F.I.2.4.6 Questions relating to malfunctions--A second series of ques-
tions pertaining to agency implementation experience and policies involved
the area of control equipment malfunction. Aware at the outset that malfunc-
tioning control equipment seriously impacts continuous compliance strategies
for most source categories, we asked specific questions designed to determine
(1) whether similar problems are experienced among foundry operations, (2)
whether a specific policy for resolving malfunctions exists (with specific
reference to certain checkpoints, e.g. , when a malfunction must be reported
and whether back-up equipment is required), and (3) what each state considers
its most effective malfunction strategy to be.
The answers to these questions were not detailed, and it was our impres-
sion that many contacts were either not well-informed on the subject or that
the states attached only minor emphasis to malfunction strategies (or both).
F.I.2.4.7 Questions relating to inspections and investigation policies--
A third series of questions related to inspection and investigation policies.
The first set attempted to determine the state's policy for specific types
of inspections, including the informal drive-by, the informal or formal in-
plant inspection, and the formal stack test. In the course of the interview,
information relating to the relative frequency of each type of inspection
was obtained, along with the respondent's preference for a specific type,
and whether unannounced inspections are usually relied on. A second set of
questions asked for a description of how out-of-plant and in-plant inspec-
tions are conducted. Finally, the respondent was also asked what criteria
would be used to prioritize investigations.
In general, detailed answers were provided for all of the questions.
Very little, however, was learned regarding special inspection techniques
or inspection problems involving foundry operations. Two reasons for this
are proposed: (1) in general, respondents were not inspectors, but enforce-
ment staff; it is possible that inspectors would have provided more detailed
information on inspection techniques and problems, since that is their pri-
mary day-to-day exposure; (2) telephone interviews must, by their nature,
be limited in both scope and time; this, coupled with exploratory nature of
the interview methodology, may have worked as an indirect constraint.
F.I.2.4.8 Questions relating to compliance status—Following the ques-
tions relating to investigation policies, we asked a series of questions
relating to compliance status. First, we attempted to find out the percent-
age of foundries in the state without control equipment or with inadequate
control equipment, and then we attempted to determine the relative frequency
with which foundries are out of compliance with (or are found to be in viola-
tion of) applicable emission limitations.
The quality of response to these questions was generally not good.
Most respondents were unable to generalize about such things as compliance
status or adequacy of control equipment. Only a few were unable to gener-
alize about the number of foundries still uncontrolled. The number of states
and localities providing good answers, nevertheless, enabled us to draw con-
clusions on each question, and these are reported.
-------
F.I.2.4.9 Questions relating to enforcement strategies—An important
series of questions pertained to enforcement strategies. The first ques-
tion was designed to determine how the states and localities use their for-
mal enforcement mechanisms against foundries. A second question was designed
to determine what informal strategies are used and whether these strategies
are successful. A third question asked that the respondent describe the
most effective strategy used against foundries. Finally, a fourth question
asked for a description of chief contraints to enforcement against foundries.
The answers to the enforcement questions, although usually brief, were gen-
erally good. Only the question pertaining to constraints consistently failed
to yield a positive response.
F.I.2.4.10 Miscellaneous questions relating to coordination with OSHA
and carcinogen strategies—After completion of questions relating to imple-
mentation policies, two questions were asked that relate to specific items
of interest raised by other non-TRG project participants. The first ques-
tion attempted to identify the extent to which the state coordinates with
OSHA in imposing or enforcing emission control requirements on foundry oper-
ations. The second attempted to identify the presence, if any, of a car-
cinogen control or enforcement strategy. Responses were generally obtained
for both questions, and they are summarized and reported in Section F.3 of
this appendix.
F.I.3 Summary and Conclusions
F.I.3.1 State Regulations and Enforcement Policies Applicable to Ferrous
Foundries—
In the following narrative, information from the remainder of the report
has been selected and assembled in a summary format, it is not, however, a
summary of the report; rather, it presents a small sample of the numerous
and diverse data appearing in Sections F.2 and F.3, which are in themselves
a summary of the information collected in the two surveys that were conducted
as a part of this task.
F.I.3.1.1 General Comments--Most state contacts reported that there
are few if any significant problems encountered in the regulation of ferrous
foundries, that they are generally in compliance with applicable emission
limitations, and are rarely found in violation, and that the development of
specific investigation or enforcement strategies to deal with ferrous found-
ries has been unnecessary. Most respondents considered enforcement problems
with ferrous foundries to be a problem of the past.
The views of most respondents appear to be in conflict with feelings
voiced by some federal regulators and a ,few survey respondents that ferrous
foundries are a potential problem source category. Although the survey does
not provide a conclusive rationale for this disagreement, several possible
explanations were suggested:
0 Ferrous foundries are numerous and diverse. They provide a pro-
duct essential to industrial growth throughout the nation. His-
torically, they have been important to industrial growth, and the
economic welfare of small communities. At the same time, in recent
-------
years many foundries have become economically marginal. It was
at this stage that air pollution control became a significant
issue. The conflict over air pollution control versus the eco-
nomic welfare of small business and maintaining jobs in labor
sensitive areas was highly charged. Ultimately the states,
backed by new federal clean air legislation won the battle to
require the installation of control equipment among ferrous
foundries. While this control equipment may not adquately ad-
dress the full pollution potential of foundries, and while the
mere installation clearly does not resolve important considera-
tions of control equipment operation and maintenance, what was
perceived by the states as the most difficult task—getting con-
trol equipment installed at the outset—has generally been accom-
plished; and the other problems are thought to pale by comparison.
0 For the most part, ferrous foundries are subject to process weight
rate regulations. Often, these emission limitation requirements
are met with an ample margin of error by the control equipment
that has been installed. Several contacts pointed out that com-
pliance with regulation could be maintained even if the control
equipment were operating inefficiently.
0 Most states are primarily concerned with control of cupolas. These
are usually controlled throughout the states (although there are
questions that may be raised about the adequacy of control). Most
federal regulators expressing concern over ferrous foundries have
indicated concern over a host of other emission points, and have
shown special concern over fugitive emissions. The states have
shown very little interest in fugitive emissions, on the other
hand. Thus, it is possible that the conflict noted in our survey
between state and federal officials, relates primarily to the re-
lative importance attached to particular emission points or par-
ticular types of emissions. However, it is also possible that
one reason for the lack of state interest in fugitive emissions
relates to the difficulty of applying fugitive emission regula-
tions in many of the states.
F.I.3.1.2 Process Weight Rate Problems--Process weight rate regula-
tions were criticized by a small number of respondents because (a) it is
difficult to reach agreement on process input weight, (b) it is difficult
to account for all of the emissions associated with the agreed upon input
weight, (c) they do not require significant control measures for many of
the foundry emission points, and (d) they are difficult to apply to one of
the more serious pollution problems at foundries—fugitive emissions.
With only a minor number of exceptions, survey respondents felt either
that for melting operations (the primary focus of concern among the state
regulators) these problems do not actually exist or that they are success-
fully avoided. For the most part, states have been able to use their pro-
cess weight rates as a basis for requiring the installation of what they
feel is appropriate control equipment. Since the degree of control actually
achieved often exceeds that required by the process weight rate, disagree-
ment regarding process input need not occur.
-------
While it is true that process weight rates do not always result in the
application of preferred control technology (e.g., fabric filters), it could
not be determined as a result of our survey that less extensive controls
had any negative impact on air quality objectives in air quality control
regions where foundries are located. In addition, it was reported that more
extensive control would not result from new, nonattainment area regulations
and policies.
In contrast to melting operations, several respondents felt that process
weight rates are generally ineffectual when applied to shakeout and and sand-
handling. This is because of the exaggerated input weight. States may choose
to rely on visible emission regulations as an alternative in order to force
appropriated control equipment maintenance and operation.
F.I.3.1.3 Fugitive Emission Regulations Problems--Fugitive emission
regulations are often unpopular among the state agencies, because they re-
quire subjective judgment on such issues as whether fugitive emissions are
excessive and whether the control measures utilized are reasonable. Although
some fugitive emission regulations have numerical limitations, they often
require difficult or time consuming ambient monitoring.
Visible emission regulations sometimes provide an alternative route;
however, certified observers often feel uncomfortable about reading non-
stack emissions; benefit of the doubt and error factors are usually weighed
in favor of the source; and the regulations often allow for very substantial
emissions. The EPA test method for visible emission observations may also
constrain application of visible emission regulations.
Some states are able to use either their visible emission or fugitive
emission regulations; others are able to use general operation and mainte-
nance requirements and permit regulations to require effective control of
fugitive emissions; however, the majority either have problems in applying
their regulations to control fugitives, or or not concerned about such
emissions.
F.I.3.1.4 The Value of Operating Permits—Problems in applying vague,
subjective, or otherwise difficult to enforce regulations may be effectively
resolved through the use of an operating permit. In such a case the state
may require the appropriate measures be included within the permit to guard
against a violation of the underlying emission control regulation. Depend-
ing on the state law, any violation of a permit condition might be indepen-
dently enforceable, regardless of whether the underlying emission control
regulation would have been difficult or impossible to enforce in the same
circumstance.
The use of permit conditions to accomplish compliance objectives is a
widely promoted strategy. Permit conditions enable the state to address
problems of a source specific nature. Most typically, a source with a com-
pliance problem may have its permit revised with specific conditons to be
followed. These conditions provide a checklist for the inspector making
periodic inspections, and they are usually independently enforceable, such
10
-------
that violation of the permit condition justifies an enforcement action with-
out regard for whether there is a violation of the underlying emission limi-
tation. Permit conditions are fairly easily imposed if they do not require
as a prerequisite a finding of violation.
F.I.3.1.5 Investigation Strategies—Scarce resource investigation stra-
tegies rely primarily on random or prioritized inspections and rarely on
the leverage obtained by coordinating with other agencies conducting inves-
tigations. In a few cases states expand their surveillance capacity dramati-
cally by coordinating with the state OSHA equivalent, local health officers,
and other similar agencies and persons conducting inspections pursuant to
different laws. Some states also expand their capacity by actively encourag-
ing citizen surveillance.
Drive-by inspections are probably not an effective preliminary surveil-
lance technique for fugitive emissions problems. While it is possible to
observe gross fugitive emissions during a drive-by inspection, serious prob-
lems may not result in gross emissions, and these will not be easily detected
without conducting an in-plant inspection. In-plant inspections also allow
for effective identification of numerous potential or developing problems
that may result in increased fugitive emissions.
Malfunction recording and reporting requirements are a potentially valu-
able aid to ferrous foundry investigation and enforcement strategies. These
regulations usually apply to capture equipment as well as control equipment.
They shift the surveillance burden to those most aware of control problems
as they occur. In addition, they allow for targeted follow-up. Most states,
however, treat malfunction regulations as variance regulations.
Many states have adopted a response oriented surveillance strategy for
ferrous foundries which have installed control equipment, and they have no
active, independent effort to discover continuous compliance violations.
Investigations in these states are conducted when complaints are received,
and the annual in-plant inspections are not conducted with potential enforce-
ment in mind.
Most states deemphasize or avoid stack testing for most sources, in-
cluding foundries. Stack testing is perceived as useful in limited situa-
tions: to confirm initial compliance; if an in-plant inspection discloses
significant deterioration in control equipment; if visible emission inspec-
tions show continuous borderline compliance; if control equipment does not
allow for effective visible emission inspections (e.g. scrubbers). Other-
wise, stack tests are perceived to be too time consuming and expensive, and
the results are not considered truly representative of actual operating con-
ditions.
F.I.3.1.6 Compliance Status—At least several states freely admit that
certain foundries are not adequately controlled or are periodically in viola-
tion and that enforcement actions are either not warranted or not contem-
plated. Although the survey does not provide a definite explanation for
this response, several possibilities exist, including:
11
-------
0 Many of the foundries involved are small, jobbing foundries, who
are economically marginal, and whose contribution to overall air
pollution in the area is minor.
0 Often, periods of violation will be short-term and excusable be-
cause they are unforeseeable and unavoidable; if due to malfunc-
tioning control equipment, such periods are considered to be in-
evitable.
0 The state's enforcement strategy may be primarily informal (with
formal enforcement reserved only for major problem sources); in
such a case informal efforts to obtain compliance may be pursued.
F.I.3.1.7 Enforcement Strategies—Most states are willing to employ
both formal and informal enforcement strategies against foundries, with for-
mal strategies receiving slightly more emphasis (depending on the situation).
The overwhelming majority of the survey respondents indicated that ad-
versarial enforcement strategies are more effective than nonadversarial stra-
tegies for dealing with noncomplying sources. The four strategies cited as
most effective most often, in order, are:
0 Imposing or threatening to impose fines or penalties.
0 Litigating or threatening to litigate.
0 Use of operating permits and threatening revocation.
0 Referring or threatening to refer the case to EPA.
Despite the sentiments favoring formal enforcement and adversarial
strategies, major enforcement efforts against foundries have largely been
unnecessary. The apparent reason, according to most state contacts, is that
most foundries have complied with applicable emission limitiations volun-
tarily. Although much information was obtained suggesting that a reason
for voluntary compliance could be that the regulations are often achievable
through the purchase of less expensive control equipment, it was also learned
that many foundries closed down (again, voluntarily) because of the expense
involved.
It is known whether voluntary compliance would continue to be a major
factor in state enforcement strategies if:
0 Nonattainment area considerations were to result in the reassess-
ment of emission reduction capability at particular foundry emis-
sion points, e.g., cupolas controlled by wetcaps, or shakeout and
sandhandling controlled by control equipment operating within ac-
ceptable legal limits, but inefficiently.
0 A reevaluation of fugitive emission problems were to result in a
decision to take more aggressive steps to control fugitive emis-
sions.
12
-------
F.I.3.2 Selected Problems and Solutions Involving Ferrous Foundry Regula-
tions and Their Application by States and Localities--
F.1.3.2.1 Introduction—One objective of the regulatory analysis task
was to identify solutions to particular regulatory problems inhibiting effec-
tive enforcement against ferrous foundries. As indicated in the previous
section, there are few, if any, significant problems encountered in the regu-
lation of ferrous foundries. They are thought generally to be in compliance
with applicable emission limitations; when out of compliance they have been
willing to comply voluntarily; and the development of specific investigation
or enforcement strategies to deal with ferrous foundries has been considered
unnecessary. While most survey respondents could recall isolated instances
in which compliance problems had occurred, few were willing to state that
theoretical problems in the applicability or effectiveness of particular
types of regulations were to blame.
In contrast, a few respondents related their concern over a multiplicity
of compliance and regulatory problems involving ferrous foundries. Federal
regulators and technical experts associated with private consulting and engi-
neering firms also expressed many of the same concerns. This discrepancy
in opinion is not fully explainable. In some cases, such as the control of
fugitive emissions, it is conceivable that the majority of state regulators
do not yet recognize compliance problems that must be addressed in the fu-
ture, and therefore have not yet experienced certain regulatory and enforce-
ment strategy problems that are inevitable. In other cases, it is possible
that certain matters are not considered problematical because the problems
have already been resolved.
Whatever the case, it has been possible to identify a limited number
of regulatory and strategical problem areas of actual or potential signifi-
cance and explain how these have actually been resolved by some states. As
a general observation, problems tend to fall into the following broad cate-
gories: the unavailability of an appropriate regulation; problems involv-
ing the type of emission limitation included in the regulation; problems
involving the lack of adequate resources to implement regulations; and prob-
lems in the design of surveillance or enforcement strategies. Solutions,
also, tend to fall into broad categories: the adoption of new types of regu-
lations; changes to existing regulations; reliance on alternative regula-
tions; reinterpretation of existing regulations; and formulation of new sur-
veillance or enforcement strategies.
These problems and solutions are identified and discussed briefly in
the following text. It should be noted that certain of the problems may be
less prevalent or less substantial; and certain of the solutions may be less
desirable or even inappropriate in particular states. No attempt has been
made to analyze or evaluate either the problems or the solutions presented
in this section.
F.I.3.2.2 The Process Weight Regulation Problem—Major problems voiced
and solutions identified during the survey include:
13
-------
0 The rate was not designed for foundries and therefore results in
an inequitable burden on specific segments of the foundry industry.
Specifically, certain small or intermittently operating foundries
must meet limitations that are too restrictive; and certain large
foundries escape with a more relaxed emission limitation.
Solutions Mentioned
Adopt regulations specifically designed for ferrous foundries. These
may be process weight rates (see, for example, Pennsylvania's regulation,
Table F-3, Section F.2.2.3) or concentration limitations (see for example,
Michigan's regulations, Table F-3, Section F.2.2.3).
To prevent certain foundries from taking advantage of a more relaxed
mass emission limitation, as well as to relieve the burden of a more strin-
gent mass emission limitation, a collection efficiency regulation may be
superimposed (in the first case, to apply if more stringent; in the second,
as an alternative if less stringent). See, for example, Connecticut's and
New York's regulations, Table F-3, Section F.2.2.3.
0 General process weight rates result in grossly inefficient con-
trol of shakeout and sand handling emissions.
Solutions Mentioned
Adopt a separate regulation for shakeout and sand handling. See, for
example, Pennsylvania's regulations, Table F-3, Section F.2.2.3. Rely on
the visible emission regulation, if its application would result in more
stringent control.
Rely on the process weight regulation to obtain initial installation
of control equipment, then rely on other regulations that pertain primarily
to operation and maintenance to ensure effective, continuous control. Such
regulations may include visible emission regulations and collection effi-
ciency regulations, as well as operation and maintenance regulations, permit
regulations, malfunction regulations, and even nuisance and odor regulations.
Rely on nuisance, odor, ambient air quality, or some other authority
to obtain initial control, then on operation and maintenance regulations to
ensure continued control.
0 Process weight rates are difficult to apply because of problems
in estimating input weight and ensuring representative testing
conditions.
Solutions Mentioned
Adopt a concentration limitation.
Use the process weight rate to obtain initial control that should
achieve the emission limitation; then, rely primarily on permit regula-
tions, operation and maintenance requirements, and other similar regula-
tions to ensure that the control equipment is operating according to design
efficiency.
14
-------
0 Process weight rates are difficult to apply to the cupola because
of problems in accounting for fugitive emissions when measuring
emissions during stack testing.
Adopt either of the solutions described in the problem immediately pre-
ceeding this one.
Measure fugitive emissions from appropriate points (e.g., roof vents)
at appropriate points during the operating cycle (for example, during charg-
ing, melting and tapping) and, as a result, estimate the contribution to
such emissions from the melting operation. At least one state has also de-
rived a similar factor for pouring and cooling emissions.
F.I.3.2.3 Regulating Fugitive Emissions—Major problems voiced and
solutions identified during the survey include:
0 Existing regulations do not allow for adquate control of fugitive
emissions. Fugitive emission regulations are too vague, too sub-
jective or too complex.
Solutions Mentioned
Adopt a fugitive emission regulation that prohibits all fugitive emis-
sions unless reasonable control measures are adopted; then, define reason-
able control measures in terms specifically responsive to typical foundry
problems. The state should have the power to insist on any of the enumer-
ated control measures at any point within the foundry that contributes to
fugitive emissions, whenever fugitive emissions are observed or measured at
a point of exit from the foundry enclosure (without regard for whether they
are observable or measureable at the property line). The source has the
burden to demonstrate that the measures are, in fact, unreasonable. Re-
quire as a condition of an operating permit that measures be adopted to
prevent fugitive emissions. These measures should be specified in the
permit as conditions for issuance, and would be specifically enforceable
without regard for whether it could be demonstrated that there was an actual
violation of the underlying fugitive emission regulation.
0 Mass emission regulations do not allow for the control of fugi-
tive emissions.
Solutions Mentioned
One state estimates the contribution to fugitive emissions from certain
activities associated with melting (e.g., charging, tapping, pouring and
cooling) and accounts for these emissions during stack testing to determine
whether the melting operation is in compliance with a process weight rate.
An emissions concentration limitation may be applied at any exit point,
depending on the definition of "source" within the state regulations or air
pollution statute. If defined broadly, so that roof vents, windows, and
other openings are incorporated, the emissions concentration regulation
could be applied to require further control of in-plant processes; however,
15
-------
the effectiveness of such a regulation would depend on its relative strin-
gency compared to the actual emission experienced at individual points, and
it would depend oh the susceptibility of the exit point to emission measure-
ment techniques.
0 Visible emission regulations do not allow for effective control
of fugitive emissions, because they are not easily applied around
buildings or from non-rectangular stacks. They also do not allow
for effective accumulation of roof vent emissions.
Solutions Mentioned
There was disagreement relating to the feasibility of conducting accu-
rate opacity readings exiting from the sides of buildings. A spokesman within
EPA explained that such readings are feasible if certain precautionary mea-
sures are taken and adequate allowance for background opacity is made. It
may be necessary to revise the test method for determining compliance with
visible emission regulations, to use these regulations as part of a strategy
to respond to fugitive emission problems.
F.I.3.2.4 Post-Installation Enforcement--Major problems voiced and
solutions identified during the survey include:
0 Regulations do not provide effective authority for ensuring con-
tinued compliance after the initial compliance demonstration.
The primary problem is that to demonstrate a violation requires
time consuming and expensive stack testing which is usually non-
representative of of actual operating conditions.
Solutions Mentioned
Adopt operation and maintenance regulations which are independently
enforceable. The most effective of these regulations allows for the state
to require preventive steps without documenting an actual emissions viola-
tion. Adopt and enforce malfunction regulations which require self-surveil-
lance and reporting whenever control equipment (including capture equipment)
is down. The most effective of these regulations require immediate correc-
tive action, reporting to the state within a reasonably immediate time frame,
and subsequent preventive action according to a plan approved by the state
and enforced as an independently enforceable requirement (in the form of a
permit condition, variance or enforcement order). Malfunction reports should
be used to assist in the development of investigation and enforcement priori-
ties, and they should be constructively evaluated when determining whether
the source has made good faith attempts to comply.
Adopt and utilize operating permit requirements. The most effective
of these requirements allows for the state to impose reasonable operation
and maintenance conditions to prevent violations of all applicable regula-
tions (including fugitive emission regulations) according to a plan prepared
by the source and subject to the state's approval. Permit conditions should
16
-------
be independently enforceable without the need to demonstrate actual emis-
sions violations. The permit should be renewable on a reasonably short peri-
odic basis; and the state should have the authority to impose new conditions
prior to renewal.
0 States may not have effective investigation strategies. Proper
detection of actual and potential fugitive emission violations
require in-plant inspections. Drive-by inspections are an insuf-
ficient indicator of fugitive problems because of the difficulty
of observing significant fugitive emissions at a distance. It is
also thought that any significant potential for fugitive emissions
may be detected during an in-plant inspection and effectively pre-
vented.
States tend to rely primarily on complaints and secondarily on inspec-
tion prioritization as a basis for dealing with the lack of surveillance
resources. Effective additional strategies are:
(a) to "capture" other investigation resources by coordinating with
OSHA (or the state equivalent) and local health inspectors, and
(b) to educate the public and solicit public assistance in surveil-
lance.
States that must rely on stack tests to initiate effective enforcement
should explore the potential for an "abbreviated" version that would be con-
sidered "equivalent" within the meaning of State regulations that allow for
equivalent alternatives to specified test methods. An abbreviated version
may be sufficient to shift the burden to the source that a stack test would
show noncompliance and therefore serve as an incentive to comply voluntarily
with the State requests in issue.
States may wish to use other techniques that show probable noncompli-
ance, including
a. establishing a rough correlation between visible emissions and
particulate emissions during stack testing, and
b. inspecting control equipment (including capture equipment) for
signs of physical deterioration.
Such methods would serve as indicators of noncompliance and would there-
fore be used primarily as leverage for pre-enforcement negotiation.
F.2 REGULATION SURVEY RESULTS
F.2.1. General Introduction
A wide variety of state regulatory mechanisms and standards apply to
the control of air pollution from ferrous foundry processes. Part of this
variety stems from intrinsic differences among the states in general air
17
-------
pollution control strategies; and part stems from fundamental differences
in administrative organization, legal procedures, and other factors not di-
rectly associated with the air pollution control programs; however, many of
the differences relate directly to the control of air pollution from fer-
rous foundry operations. This report focuses on the last, and coverage of
more indirect considerations is very limited.
State regulations establishing emission limitations for ferrous found-
ries vary depending on the pollutant, location, type of foundry, size of
foundry, type of process within the foundry, and the date of initial start-up.
They also vary according to the approach preferred by the state for quantify-
ing emissions: for example, some prefer to use an emission concentration
limitation; others prefer to use a process weight limitation. A small num-
ber of states rely on ground level concentration standards as the basis for
establishing emission limits, sometimes on a source-by-source basis, some-
times on an area basis. Several states also use nuisance, odor, and general
prohibitions against air pollution to establish source specific emission
limitations in isolated circumstances.
In a number of circumstances mass emission limits are not used, but a
general emission limit is nevertheless applicable. These emission limita-
tions include control technology standards, opacity, and fugitive emission
limits. The opacity and fugitive emission limitations are particularly im-
portant for foundry operations, since many of the emissions are generated
from numerous in-plant emission points and exit from equally numerous open-
ings and vents and are not readily susceptible to the precise measurement
techniques used for regulating stack emissions.
Superimposed on the general emission limiting regulations that may be
applicable in a state, are a plethora of regulatory mechanisms that allow
for the variation of those limits in specific situations. These mechanisms
include operating permit requirements, which may allow for establishing
stricter emission control measures if the situation warrants; operation and
maintenance provisions; variance mechanisms; malfunction provisions, which
may provide, on the one hand, a temporary exemption or variance, or allow,
on the other hand, the state to impose more restrictive requirements if the
malfunction could have been avoided; and orders, consent agreements, and
similar enforcement mechanisms.
Finally, a number of other regulations relate to ancillary matters,
such as record keeping, continuous emission monitoring, and performance
tests. These may serve as an important aid to enforcement; (for example,
in documenting a violation) or they may inhibit effective enforcement (if,
for example, they are poorly worded).
In each case, the state has adopted its own mix of the regulations de-
scribed above, so that there is very little uniformity among the states,
except on a fundamental scale, or except with regard to particular issues.
The variation in regulations identified during this survey that are appli-
cable to foundry operations substantially supports this conclusion.
18
-------
In the remainder of this section only regulations specifically affect-
ing TSP emissions from ferrous foundries are identified and briefly analyzed.
These include mass emission, opacity, and fugitive emission regulations.
In addition, malfunction regulations are also discussed. Other important
regulations, such as operation and maintenance provisions, were not surveyed;
however, they were discussed during telephone interviews, and limited infor-
mation relating to these regulations is provided in Section F.3. The scope
of this project was limited to a consideration of TSP emission limitations.
F.2.2. Specific TSP Regulations
F.2.2.1 Introduction--
The three generically different types of regulations used by the states
to control TSP emissions from ferrous foundries are: mass emission limita-
tions (sometimes combined with control equipment removal efficiency regu-
lations), visible emission limitations, and fugitive emission limitations.
Since mass emissions at the point of exit from a stack are susceptible to
accurate quantification (determined by stack testing), a mass emission lim-
itation may allow for the relatively precise calculation necessary to deter-
mine the degree of control needed to achieve ambient standards for TSP.
Visible emission regulations, on the other hand, cannot be used to de-
termine precise quantities of TSP emitted into the atmosphere and are not
normally useable to demonstrate achievement of ambient air quality objec-
tives. They may used effectively, however, as an enforcement aid, since a
visible emission violation may usually be determined more easily than a mass
emission violation. This is all the more important with foundry operations,
since many emissions are fugitive by nature and are not readily susceptible
to the testing necessary to document mass emission violations.
Fugitive emission regulations are unlike mass emission and visible emis-
sion regulations in two major aspects. First, they usually involve no speci-
fic, quantitative standards; rather, in most cases they invite the discre-
tion of the responsible agency official to determine what level of fugitive
emissions and level of control to prevent such emissions are reasonable in
a given situation. As a result, fugitive emission regulations, per se, are
least appropriate for use in predicting achievement of NAAQS. A second ma-
jor difference is that fugitive emission regulations vary significantly ac-
cording to different models: some are preconditioned on the determination
that a nuisance exists; some are preconditioned on the determination that
ambient concentrations at the property line exceed an established limit;
others require that reasonable precautions be taken to prevent fugitive
emissions. Despite these differences, fugitive emission regulations are in
many cases a viable mechanism for achieving greater overall emissions reduc-
tion among ferrous foundries, since they often provide a regulatory basis
for requiring in-plant captive systems when often air pollution regulations
do not (or they may allow for more extensive capture requirements).
It should be observed that while the combination of the three types of
emission control regulations complement each other by addressing separate
needs, they nevertheless leave significant gaps in effective as well as
19
-------
practical authority for the control of TSP emissions from foundry opera-
tions. Excess emissions from control equipment will sometimes substan-
tially exceed mass emission limitations before they exceed visible emission
limitations; therefore, an enforcement strategy grounded solely on the more
easily enforced visible emission limitation may be expected to allow sub-
stantial excess emissions in some cases. At the same time, an enforcement
strategy that is restricted in application to mass emission limitations might
also result in excess emissions because of the inconvenience and difficulty
involved in conducting stack testing or because the mass emission regulation,
itself, is not well suited for the process (as is the case with many process
weight regulations).
For fugitive emission points the mass emission regulation is difficult,
if not totally impractical to apply. Therefore, a visible emission regula-
tion provides a logical substitute. In practical application, however,
visible emission regulations are not easily applied to fugitive emission
points in foundries, primarily because of the difficulty in finding good
observation sites. As a result, documentation of a visible emission viola-
tion is normally biased in favor of the foundry.
Perhaps the most significant weakness of many fugitive emission regu-
lation—in contrast to mass emission and visible emission regulations--is
that they do not establish a discernible standard; for example, many regu-
lations merely require that "reasonable precautions" be taken to prevent
fugitive emissions, and they do not define the level of fugitive emissions,
overall plant emissions, etc., that would provide a basis for determining
when certain precautions (which are usually enumerated) are reasonable or
unreasonable. In many states the practical effect of such a regulation is
that the source will not act to control fugitive emissions until the state
makes an initial determination that actual fugitive emissions justify con-
trol measures. In effect, the state has the initial burden to act. This
is not the case with mass emission and visible emission regulations, which
usually establish clearly discernible standards that apply whether or not
the state agency becomes involved.
Perhaps the most significant gap is the fact that none of the emission
regulations specifically addresses the inevitable emission control problems
that arise in specific foundry operations-control equipment breakdown, and
in-plant capture and transport system failures. These latter problems are
often but not always addressed by other types of regulations that require
or result in specific operating and maintenance procedures. Where these
regulations exist, they are usually independently enforceable. Such regu-
latory mechanisms include enforcement orders; operating permit requirements,
where the state has authority to establish specific operating and maintenance
conditions; and malfunction regulations, which typically require reporting,
but also often require corrective and preventive action, and sometimes re-
quire the submission and approval of operating and maintenance plans.
With this general overview, it is now appropriate to review the spe-
cific regulation survey results. The review begins with a summary of TSP
control authority among the states, arranged by regulation type, and then
proceeds to a more detailed presentation of each type.
20
-------
F.2.2.2. Overall Summary of State TSP Control Authority for Foundry Opera-
tions--
F.2.2.2.1 Introduction--This summary, includes Table F-l a tabulation
of emission limitation regulations surveyed and analyzed later in Tables
F-2 to F-5. (Table F-6 has not been summarized in Table F-l because it re-
lates to malfunction regulations, which do not establish emission limita-
tions). It is intended to provide at a quick glance not only those cate-
gories of regulations available for foundry emission control in each state,
but the regulations and authority actually used, according to telephone sur-
vey contacts.
Included in the summary are regulations typically used for the control
of air pollution emissions, and regulatory authority relating to the preven-
tion of nuisances, odor, and the prohibition of air pollution generally.
The latter authority was surveyed because several telephone survey respondents
reported that they rely in part on such authority in the control of foundry
emissions.
F.2.2.2.2 Summary of findings—Mass emission regulations applicable
to ferrous foundries are primarily process weight and concentration (grain
loading) limitations. Forty-three states have process weight regulations
and 23 states have concentration limitations that are or could be applied
to one or more of the ferrous foundry processes. Only 2 states (New Mexico
and Utah) have no mass emission limitation that would be applicable to ferrous'
foundries.
Of the 43 states with process weight regulations, 41 have limitations
that apply to sources in general, including foundries, but only 14 have
limitations that apply specifically to foundry operations (usually the melt-
ing process). Similarly, of the 23 states with concentration limitations,
19 have regulations that apply to sources in general, including foundries,
but only 9 have regulations that apply specifically to foundry processes.
Virtually every state has a visible emission regulation that would ap-
ply to foundry operations: and a large majority (43) have a fugitive emis-
sion regulation that could be applied. However, very few, if any, of these
regulations are specifically designed to regulate foundry emissions. Fewer
states (37) have nuisance-related authority (nuisance, odor, or a general
prohibition against air pollution) specified in their air pollution statutes
and regulations (although it is possible that additional nuisance-related
authority exists elsewhere in the state code). This authority also seems
designed to aid in the regulation of air pollution sources in general, but
not foundries specifically.
With regard to the actual use of authority, nearly all of the states
interviewed use their mass emission limitations; all states use their visi-
ble emission limitations; and a large majority use their fugitive emission
limitations to regulate one or more of the foundry processes. Only a minor-
ity of the states actively use nuisance-related authority to control foundry
pollution.
21
-------
TABLE F-l. A SUMMARY OF STATE AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CONTROL OF
EMISSIONS FROM FERROUS FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
ro
to
Region/
State
Region I
CT
MA
ME
NH**
RI
VT
Region II
NJ
NY
Region III
DE
MD
PA
VA**
WV
Region IV
AL
FL
GA**
Process
weight limitation
General
1
1
1
3
1
1
-
-
2
1
-
3
1
1
1
3
Specific
-
-
.
3
-
-
-
1
2
-
1
3
1
1
-
3
Emission concen-
tration limitation
General Specific
1
1
-
3
-
1
1
1
2
1
1 1
-
- -
-
-
-
Fugitive
emission
limitation
1
1
-
3
2
1
-
-
-
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
Visible
emission
limitation
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
Other regulations that may
be used to control emissions
General
prohibition
-
2
-
-
-
-
1
3
-
-
3
-
1
1
-
3
Odor
3
1
-
-
1
2
-
-
2
-
3
3
2
1
2
-
Nuisance
3
1
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-l. (continued)
ro
Region/
State
KY**
MS
NC
SC
TN
Region V
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
Region VI
AR
LA**
NM
OK
TX
Region VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
Process
weight limitation
General
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
-
1
-
1
1
1
1
Specific
-
1
'-
1
1
. 1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
Emission concen-
tration limitation
General
3
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
1
1
-
1
-
Specific
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
1
-
Fugitive
emission
limitation
3
1
-
1
1
1
1
-
3
1
3
1
3
-
1
1
2
2
1
1
Visible
emission
limitation
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Other regulations that may
be used to control emissions
General
prohibition
3
-
-
1
-
1
-
3
3
-
-
3
-
-
-
3
-
2
-
3
Odor
3
-
1
-
-
3
-
3
3
-
3
2
-
-
-
3
2
-
1
-
Nuisance
3
1
-
•
-
-
-
3
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
1
3
-
-
3
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-l. (concluded)
N>
Other regulations
Region/
State
Region VIII
CO**
MI
ND*
SD*
UT**
WY*
Region IX
AZ**
CA
HI
NV
Region X
AK**
ID*
OR
WA
Process
weight limitation
General Specific
3
1
3
3
-
3
3
-
1
1
-
3
1
Emission concen-
tration limitation
General Specific
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
3
-
1
1
Fugitive
emission
limitation
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
Visible
emission
limitation
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
be used to
General
prohibition
-
-
3
-
3
-
-
-
3
-
3
-
-
control
Odor
3
2
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
3
-
3
-
that may
emissions
Nuisance
-
3
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
* A telephone survey indicated that no ferrous foundries exist in this State.
** No telephone survey was conducted for this State.
Legend
1 State has such a regulation and uses it to regulate ferrous foundries.
2 State has such a regulation and does not use it to regulate ferrous foundries.
3 State has such a regulation and it was not determined whether the regulation is used to regulate ferrous foundries.
- No such regulation exists.
-------
The following profile summarizes how states utilize existing authority
to regulate foundry emissions, according to our telephone survey. The per-
centage indicates the relative number of states who do so, after an adjust-
ment is made to exclude states not interviewed and states who indicated dur-
ing the interview that they have no ferrous foundries.
Type of
Authority
States Where
Authority
Exists
Process Weight Regulations 43
Grainloading Regulations 23
Visible Emission Limitations 50
Fugitive Emission Limitations 43
Nuisance-Related Authority 38
General Prohibition 20
Odor 25
Nuisance 16
States
Not Inter-
viewed
7
3
9
9
6
4
3
1
States Inter-
viewed With
No Foundries
4
1
5
4
3
1
2
2
States
Which Use
Authority
31 (97%)
18 (95%)
36 (100%)
23 (77%)
11 (38%)
5 (33%)
5 (25%)
5 (38%)
Percentages based only on those states which were interviwed and which
have foundries.
A more detailed explanation of each of these regulations and how they
are applied to specific processes is provided in the following discussion
within this section and within the discussion relating to regulations in
Section F.3.
F.2.2.3. Mass Emission Regulations--
In our survey we identified and tabulated three general types of mass
emission limitations applicable to ferrous foundries. These include process
weight rate limitations, concentration (grain loading) limitations, and re-
moval efficiency limitations. (Potential emission rate regulations were
not considered separately from process weight rate regulations in the cur-
rent survey). Each of the three types of regulations were said to have cer-
tain strengths and weaknesses when applied to ferrous foundry operations,
and in the following discussion these are briefly discussed.
F.2.2.3.1 Process Weight Rate Regulations—The process weight rate
regulations are based on the total weight of materials charged into a pro-
cess. Depending on the pounds of material charged to a particular process
per hour, the allowable rate of emissions of particulate matter in pounds
per hour is calculated. This calculation is usually reduced to a particular
formula, which allows less TSP to be permitted per additional weight of
materials put into the process.
Some states have a general process weight rate regulation which applies
to ferrous foundry operations as well as other manufacturing and industrial
25
-------
processes. The general process weight rate regulation may apply different
formulas for determining the allowable rate of emission of TSP depending on
certain criteria: the capacity of the process in pounds per hour, the source
location, and whether the source is classified as new, existing, or modified.
Many states also have process weight regulations that apply specifically
to foundries. As with the general process weight regulations, the specific
regulations may be expected to vary depending on the process capacity, the
foundry location, and whether or not the process is existing, new, or modi-
fied. In addition, these specific regulations sometimes specify the type
of foundry (i.e., whether it is a jobbing or batch process as opposed to a
production or continuous process); and they sometimes (more often) relate
to a specific emission point, e.g., the melting operation. Most often the
specific regulations allow for more relaxed emission limitations for the
type of foundry or foundry process addressed than the general process weight
regulations allow.
The following is a summary of the number of states that vary their pro-
cess weight regulations depending on the specific factors noted above.
General Specific Either a
Process Process General or
Weight Weight Specific Pro-
Regula- Regula- cess Weight
tion tion Regulation
Total number of states 43 14 44
Process weight rate
varies on the basis of:
A specific process size cut-
off (usually 30 tons) 41 11 41
Location 51 6
Whether the foundry
is new 12 8 15
Whether it is a job-
bing or production
foundry -- 2 2
As a mass emission limitation category the process weight rate has the
following advantages: (1) it establishes a fixed quantity of pollution emis-
sions, subject only to variation in the weight of raw material input: (2)
it varies in stringency according to the size of the source, thus allowing
for a more equitable distribution within a given source category of the costs
of pollution control to those who pollute the most. Most concentration and
removal efficiency limitations do not provide these advantages.
26
-------
On the other hand, process weight rates have been criticized in a num-
ber of respects. Foremost is the application of a single rate to widely
varying processes. For many processes differences may exist in the pollu-
tion that may result from a relatively similar weight input; and the result
is an inequitable burden of pollution control among different industry cate-
gories. While this criticism has been addressed in some states by designing
specific rates for specific processes (e.g., the melting process in a ferrous
foundry), very little movement in this direction was identified. Only a
relatively small number of states have specific process weight regulations,
and those that apply only to one of the processes, the cupola, leaving the
remaining processes subject to the more general process weight rate.
A second major criticism relating to process weight rates is that the
process weight input is often subject to widely varying interpretations.
This results in legitimate disputes between agencies and sources regarding
the degree of control necessary to meet emission limitations and the com-
pliance status of sources once control equipment is installed and operating.
As such, it provides a clear incentive on the part of a state to negotiate
and compromise regarding acceptable levels of emission from certain foundry
operations. This incentive was documented in several of the states during
the telephone survey. In a few instances it was admitted that the weight
input was calculated with specific controls in mind (e.g., a wetcap). Several
respondents, on the other hand, indicated that problems in determining the
weight input had persuaded them to rely primarily on visible emission regu-
lations for nonmelting process emissions.
It should be noted that these weaknesses need not exist in every in-
stance. A regulation (or agency guideline) involving performance testing
may specify the method for calculating weight input, and a specific process
weight rate may be tailored to the process. Also, the agency may interpret
its regulation strictly to ensure maximum emission reduction. The likely
result, and one that currently exists according to our survey, is a wide
variety of emission regulations that cannot be determined precisely by re-
viewing the process weight rates that appear in the regulations.
F.2.2.3.2 Emission Concentration Limitations—The most prevalent al-
ternative to process weight rate regulations are concentration limitations.
These usually express the amount of allowable TSP emissions in terms of a
concentration of grains per standard cubic foot or pounds per 1,000 pounds
of gas emitted per hour. Like the process weight rates, concentration limi-
tations may apply generally to all industrial or manufacturing processes,
or specifically to one or more of the ferrous foundry processes. They may
also vary depending on similar criteria: age, size, type (jobbing or pro-
duction), and location. Unlike process weight rates, however, concentration
limitations are not usually rate based, and therefore do not automatically
decrease in stringency for smaller sources, or increase in stringency for
larger sources.
The following is a summary of states with concentration limitations,
broken down by variation characteristics:
27
-------
General
Concentra-
tion Limi-
tation
Specific
Concentra-
tion Limi-
tation
Either a
General or
Specific Con-
centration
Limitation
17
10
21
3
1
5
2
2
6
A
2
10
Total number of states
Allowable concentration
varies on the basis of:
A specific size cut-off
Location
Whether the foundry
is new
Whether it is a job-
bing or production
foundry -- 3 3
The advantage most often cited regarding concentration limitations is
that they rely on actual emissions as a basis for regulation, and they do
not attempt to evaluate the appropriateness of those emissions in terms of
indirect factors (such as the weight of raw material input). As a result,
weight input is not a factor, and artificial aspects of the application of
process weight rates do not arise. Two problematic impacts are thus avoided:
(1) unequal treatment of different industry categories because of differ-
ences in the processes involved; and (2) ineffective regulation of a single
category because of difficulties in determining what should be the calculated
input weight.
In addition, it should be noted that concentration limitations could
theoretically provide EPA, the state, and the source a more definite basis
for assessing allowable emissions and the degree of control required, since
the actual emission limitation is not subject to dispute and a case-by-case
definition on the part of the agency.
Two primary criticisms of concentration limitations are that they do
not vary according to a source capacity rate, and that they are susceptible
to circumvention. The failure to vary automatically according to source
size is criticized because the same degree of control is required for large
and small sources, and it is felt that this results in an inequitable allo-
cation of the cost of pollution control to smaller sources. The criticism
that circumvention may result is based on the potential among certain cate-
gories of sources to dilute the concentration of TSP emissions by increasing
the effluent gas volume (although this is usually prohibited under the regu- .
lation).
28
-------
At least the first criticism is particularly relevant in the case of
ferrous foundry operations. It is well known that by far the largest popu-
lation of ferrous foundries is small—principally in the "jobbing" category.
These small foundries are historically significant in the industrial devel-
opment of the United States and are still viewed as important to the economy
locally and nationally. Regulations that penalize the small, marginal in-
dustry have traditionally been viewed with disfavor by state and local regu-
lators, and more equitable alternatives have been sought out. With respect
to the potential for emission dilution, a number of commentators point out
that foundry emissions are particularly susceptible to dilution. A 1970
study of the gray iron foundry industry notes that a cupola may infiltrate
large quantities of air during charging and dramatically decrease the con-
centration while total emissions would remain unchanged.1
Whether these criticisms are justified is unclear from the telephone
survey. Only a minority of the states (10) have adopted concentration limi-
tations for ferrous foundry operations. Most of these apply to the cupola
and do not distinguish between cupolas of different sizes. It should be
noted, however, that several states have chosen to rely entirely on concen-
tration limitations to regulate cupola emissions and have made an allowance
for jobbing foundries, as well as for foundries in different size categories.
See, for example, specific foundry process regulations in Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, and Michigan (Table F-3, Section F.2.2.3). No state reported
actual problems in applying the concentration regulations, but no specific
question was asked concerning agency experience with the potential dilution
of emissions. Presumably performance test parameters could be established
which would overcome such a problem, but this issue was not pursued.
F.2.2.3.3 Collection Efficiency Limitations—Although most states
utilize either a process weight or a concentration emission limitation, or
both, several states utilize a collection efficiency standard concurrently
with, or in lieu of other emission limitations. These states include:
State Collection Efficiency
Connecticut 85% (Cupola)
90% (Sand handling)
Kentucky 97% (Existing)
Minnesota 99.0% (Existing)
99.7% (New)
85% (Existing, jobbing,
cupola)
New Jersey 99%
New York 80% (Existing cupola)
North Dakota 99.7% (See Table F-2, Comments
Column)
It should be noted that only three states have adopted collection ef-
ficiency regulations that apply specifically to foundry processes: Connecti-
cut, Missouri, and New York. These regulations differ markedly from the
generally applicable collection efficiency regulations, which tend to be
substantially more stringent. The less stringent regulations are apparently
29
-------
designed to accommodate less efficient control systems often used for cupola
emissions, but to rule out the use of clearly unacceptable systems. For
example, an 80% to 90% efficiency requirement range would exclude wet caps,
but could include multiple cyclones, and would normally include wet scrub-
bers and fabric filters. Collection efficiency requirements in the 97% plus
range, on the other hand, are designed to require the use of more costly
and sophisticated control technology (such as fabric filters and high energy
venture scrubbers).
It was not determined within the scope of this survey whether any states
with more stringent collection efficiency regulations actually apply them
to all or any ferrous foundry operations. However, it should be noted that
collection efficiency regulations usually work in conjunction with other
emission control requirements. In Minnesota, for example, if 99% collec-
tion efficiency for existing sources can be demonstrated, the source is
deemed to be in compliance with the applicable process weight rate or con-
centration limitations. Both the Kentucky and North Dakota regulations are
similar. The Ohio regulation, on the other hand, applies only when the
process weight cannot be ascertained; and the New Jersey regulation (99%)
applies as a minimum Imitation.
Collection efficiency limitations provide the advantage of addressing
specifically the operating parameters of control equipment. If it is a firm,
minimum requirement (and not just an upper ceiling), then there can be no
dispute over the need for specific control equipment and the operating re-
quirements for that equipment, even if there is a legitimate dispute con-
cerning the interpretation of the process weight rate. Like concentration
limitations, however, collection efficiency regulations have been criticized
because they do not vary according to source size, and because they do not
limit total emissions.
To the extent that a collection efficiency regulation results in the
specification of a type of control device, the regulation provides a mecha-
nism for allowing special consideration where, because of economic or other
interests, such consideration is desired. This special consideration may
be either restrictive or permissive, depending on the limitation and size
or type of foundry. For example, a very small, old jobbing cupola in New
York currently with a wetcap would probably have to upgrade to meet the 80%
requirement. On the other hand, a large production cupola currently with a
multiple cyclone could probably meet the collection efficiency requirement
without upgrading.
F.2.2.3.4 Specific Foundry Process Regulations—As already noted,
states often address their emission limitations to specific processes within
foundries. Primarily these regulations address the cupola, although occa-
sionally they address other melting processes and the shake out and sand
handling operations; in one case, New Hampshire, the process weight regula-
tion applies to all ferrous foundry processes, and thus would arguably be
applicable to pouring and cooling operations. The data below summarize the
number of states that address their regulations to specific foundry processes:
30
-------
Number of states with regulations
Foundry that specifically address the process
Process (17 total)
Cupola 17
Shake out and
sand handling 4
Electric Arc Furnace 4
Pouring and cooling 1 (arguable)
In most cases, specific regulations for foundry processes recognize
that small cupolas existing on or before a certain date deserve a more re-
laxed emission limitation. In several cases, whether or not the foundry is
a jobbing or production foundry is a critical distinction; and in two cases
(Massachusetts and Indiana) the source location provides an additional dis-
tinction.
North Carolina process weight regulations provide a useful example.
In that state a jobbing cupola in operation prior to January 1, 1972, is
subject to emission limitations of 3.05 Ib per hr for 1,000 Ib per hr pro-
cess weight and 25.1 Ib per hr for 20,000 Ib per hr process weight. Other
sources are limited to 2.58 Ib per hr and 19.2 Ib per hr at the same process
weight. If the cupola exceeds a charging rate of 20,000 Ib per hr, however,
the general process weight table is applicable. This results in a virtual
freeze in allowable emissions for the next 10,000 Ib of process weight,
since the general table at 30,000 Ib per hr allows emissions of only 25.2
Ib per hr (compared to 25.1 Ib per hr at 20,000 Ib process weight for the
jobbing cupola).
It should be noted that regulation variations designed to relax emis-
sion limitations for cupolas (and other foundry operations) are not entirely
related to process weight rates. Such variations exist with equal frequency
in the case of concentration limitations and removal efficiency regulations.
F.2.2.3.5 Factors Justifying Variations in Emission Limitations—The
regulation survey identified and tabulated the following factors resulting
in different emission limitations or formulas: size or capacity of the source;
whether the source is new or existing; location of the source; and (in the
case of regulations designed specifically for foundries) the type of facil-
ity-jobbing or production. In general, it was found that these factors
are in fact used to determine the relative stringency of emission control
requirements, although with varying frequency.
A summary of the occurrence of these factors has been tabulated in prior
sections relating to each type of mass emission limitation. Because pri-
mary consideration is usually given to the cupola, however, the data below
summarize the number of states which expressly recognize size, location,
and type of foundry in any of their mass emission regulations specifically
applicable to the cupola:
31
-------
Factor Justifying Number of States with Regulations
a More Relaxed that Specifically Address the
Emission Limitation Cupola (total 17)
Size 11
Age 12
Location 2
Jobbing or Production 5
Size Variations
Generally, the cupola size justifying a more relaxed emission limita-
tion is at a melting rate under 30 tons per hr. Thirty-six of the 43 states
with industry-wide process weight rates varied their formulas at 30 tons
per hr. Among the 17 states that specifically address cupola emissions,
however, 10 relax their emission limitations further at melt rates under 30
tons per hr--predominantly 25 tons and 10 tons, although Pennsylvania varies
its rate at 5 tons per hr, Minnesota at 1.5 tons per hr, and Georgia at 10
tons per day (in the last case, a set rate of 6 Ib per ton of melt is al-
lowed if the cupola furnaces operate intermittently and do not exceed 10
tons per 24 hr day).
Age Variations
Regulation variations depending on whether the source is new or not
have been treated as a special consideration given to old cupolas; however,
this may not necessarily be the case. Among the 12 states with such varia-
tions, the prevailing cut-off date is in the 1970's. While the effect is
to protect old cupolas (as well as more recent cupolas) from new, more
stringent emission limitations, no regulations were identified which speci-
fically exempt or make special concessions for very old cupolas. It is a
common regulatory practice, if the less stringent pre-existing standards
have resulted in significant investments and reliance on the part of the
affected industry, to amend regulations so that they are prospective in
application. So long as Clean Air Act objectives involving NAAQS attain-
ment are met, the states are at liberty to make this choice.
Location
Only Massachusetts and Indiana specify separate limitations depending
on foundry location. Massachusetts imposes a stricter limitation in "criti-
cal areas of concern" (these include cities and terms specified in the regu-
lations), and Indiana imposes a maximum concentration limitation in non-
attainment areas. This count does not include local areas, such as Alle-
gheny County (in Pennsylvania) or the California Districts which develop
their own regulations. Whether this profile will change because of new SIP
submissions in conformance with the 1977 Clean Air Act requirements could
not be determined at the time of this survey.
32
-------
Type of Foundry
It was anticipated that regulations would give special recognition to
jobbing foundries, because they tend to be small and operate only intermit-
tently. Only five states, however, expressly distinguish between types of
foundries. These include Massachusetts, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan,
and Missouri. Nonetheless, other states implicitly give special considera-
tion to jobbing foundries by imposing a more relaxed emissions limitation
on smaller cupolas (or cupolas operating at a lower average production rate).
Other factors, not evaluated in this survey, which could have a favorable
impact on jobbing foundries include (1) how the state aggregates production
time and nonproduction time when determining the actual melting rate, and
(2) the possibility that a single emission limitation for all cupolas is
designed in such a way to be favorable to jobbing foundries (and thus all
the more relaxed for production foundries).
F.2.2.3.6. Mass Emission Regulation Tables—Tables F-2 and F-3 provide
a detailed analysis of state TSP emission regulations that would apply to
ferrous foundry operations. Table F-2 outlines those regulations that apply
to all industrial facilities including ferrous foundries. Table F-3 out-
lines those regulations that apply specifically to ferrous foundries. Gen-
erally, it may be assumed that the regulations in Table F-3 preempt the
regulations in Table F-2 for the specific processes involved, and within
the parameters stated in Table F-3.
In both tables the type of emission limitation is noted as well as the
basis for varying the emission limitation, if one exists. In Table F-3 the
specific process addressed by the regulation is noted if it is one of the
four processes surveyed (the cupola, electric arc, pouring and cooling, and
shake out and sand handling). It should be noted, however, that no regula-
tion specifically addressed pouring and cooling operations.
F.2.2.4 Fugitive Emission Regulations—
F.2.2.4.1 Introduction--Fugitive emission regulations are a poten-
tially important regulatory tool for controlling foundry emissions. Most
significant in-plant foundry emissions are captured and transported to an
emission control device prior to final exit into the atmosphere. However,
many in-plant emissions are not captured, and according to state contacts,
it is not uncommon for the in-plant capture and transport systems to deteri-
orate and fail. As a result these emissions often exit into the atmosphere
through vents, windows, doors, and other openings as fugitive emissions.
Such emissions have proved to be particularly troublesome to air pol-
lution regulators. Because they do not exit through a single stack, they
are difficult to quantify for purposes of applying mass emission limitations,
Also, they are often too diffuse, or present site and sighting problems for
conducting opacity tests to apply visible emission regulations. Although
some states overcome these difficulties and actively apply mass emission
limitations or visible emissions limitations with some degree of effective-
ness to fugitive emissions from foundries, most states must rely on other
regulatory control mechanisms. Fugitive emission regulations, if readily
applicable, are of the most logical choices.
33
-------
TABLE F-2. STATE MASS EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO ALL AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
INCLUDING FERROUS FOUNDRIES
u>
Different
Emission limitation emission limitations depending on:
Region/ Applicable
State regulation
Process
weight1 gr/scf
Region I
CT § 19-508-18(e) E1 = 3.59P6 62
E
MA § 7.02(8) [Table 6]
II
11
" E
E
ME § 602 E
" E
NH Reg. 17(111) E
E
E
E
RI Reg. No. 3 E
" E
VT § 5-231
ti
= 17.31P0'16
*
*
= 55P°'U-40
= l/2(55Pa'"-40) -
- 3.59p6-62
= 17.31P0'16
= 4.10P0'67
= 5.05P0'67
= 55- OP0' "-40
= 66.0P°'u-48
= 4.10P0'67
= 55.0P°'ll-40
*
*
lb/
1,000 lb Size of
gas Other capacity
< 30
> 30
< 30
< 30
> 30
> 30
< 30
> 30
< 30
< 30
> 30
> 30
< 30
> 30
< 30
> 30
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
.ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
ton/hr
Location
-
_
Existing in
critical area
of concern
.
Existing in
critical area
of concern
_
' -
_
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
New or
existing
source
-
Existing
(June 1,
1972)
Existing
New
_
-
New
Existing
New
Existing
.
-
-
-
Comments
^Emission limitations for pro-
cess weights 30 tons/hr are
given in tabular form. Both
Both when process weight is
< and > 30 tons/hr, the emis-
sion limitation is the same
for the new sources and exist-
ing sources in critical areas
of concern.
Critical areas of concern are
specific cities and towns in
each APCD. They are specified
in § 7.02(7).
*A table provides maximum dis-
charge in Ib/hr for given pro-
0.06
cess weights. Above 30 tons/hr
proven weight, 40 Ib/hr is allow-
able discharge. The gr/scf limi-
tation can be applied by air
pollution officer if he deter-
mines process weight is not
applicable.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Different
Emission limitation emission limitations depending on:
Region/
State
Region II
NJ
Applicable
regulation
§ 7:27-6.2
Process
weight1
1 ,000 lh Size of
gr/scf gas Other capacity Location
* _ *
New or
exi sting
source
Comments
*Tables provide alternative
U)
Ui
NY § 212.3 - 0.15
§ 212.4 - 0.05
Region III
DE Reg. V. § 2 - 0.2
Reg. V. § 4 *
MD § 10.18.(02-07).03E - 0.03
§ 10.18.(02-03).03E *
§ 10.18.(06-07).03E E = 55.0P0-1I-40
PA § 123.13 - 0.04
" - 0.02
" - A=6000E~12
Existing
(July 1,
1973)
New
Entire state
< 30 ton/hr Nonmetropoli-
tan AQCR
> 30 ton/hr Nonmetropoli-
tan AQCR
emission rates in Ib/hr: one
based on 99% efficiency of col-
lection from sources with given
potential emission rates, and
the other based on 0.02 gr/scf
of source gas emitted. The
greater of these two emissions
rates applies.
*A process weight rate table is
provided for secondary metal op-
erations with linear interpola-
tion being used to determine
allowable emissions for process
weight rates not listed.
*For process weight:< 30 tons/
hr a table provides allowable
emissions. In more metropoli-
tan AQCR's the more stringent
limitations between the gr/scf
and process weight applies.
*Vhen effluent gas volume is:
< 150,000 dscf/min
*> 300,00 dscf/min
*When effluent gas volume is
> 150,000 and < 300,000 dscf/min
These emission limitations do
not apply to melting sand han-
dling and shake-out operations.
See Table F-3.
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Emission limitation
Region/
State
Applicable
regulation
Process
weight1
gr/scf
1,000 lb
gas Other
emission
Size of
capacity
Different
limitations depending on:
New or
existing
Location source
Comments
VA
WV
FL
GA
§ 440(a)(10)
Reg. VII, § 3
Region IV
AL § 4.4
§ 17-2.05
E = 3.59P0'62
E = 17.13P6'16
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.0P°'ll-40
E = 3.59P°'62
E = 17.31P0'16
§ 391-3-l-02(2)(e) E = 4.10P0'67
1,800,000
Ib/hr
E = 4.10P0-67
E = 55.0P°'"-40
< 30 tons/hr Class 1
counties
Class 2
counties
> 30 tons/hr Class 1
counties
Class 2
counties
< 30 tons/hr Class 2
counties
> 30 tons/hr Class 2
counties
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
Existing
(January
18, 1972)
New
Existing
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
(July 2,
1968)
New
New
*Regulation applies to second-
ary metal operations including
ferrous foundries. See Table F-3.
*For sources within a process
weight rate below 1,800,000
Ib/hr allowable emissions are
given in a table: for those
above 1,800,000 Ib/hr allowable
emissions are 176 Ib/hr. (This
applies to all metallurgical
manufacturing operations.)
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Region/
State
KY
Applicable
regulation
401 KAR 3:060 E 4
"
"
it
401 KAR 3:050 § 2
It
Emission limitation
it/
Process 1,000 Ih
weight1 gr/scf gas
E = 4.10P°-67
E = 55.0P0-I1-40
0.02
-3 -
E = pO-62
E = 17.31P0'16
Different
emission limitations depending on:
Size of
Other capacity Location
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
- -
97%
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
New or
existing
source
Existing
(April 9,
1972)
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
New
Comments
In lieu of the process weight
standard an affected facility
may substitute the gr/scf stan-
dard or demonstrate the it is
using control equipment with
97% actual efficiency.
MS § 3(6)
NC § .0515
SC Reg. No. 62.5 Stan-
dard VI
Reg. No. 62.5 Stan-
dard VI
TN § 1200-3-7-.02
1200-3-7-.03
it
1200-3-7-.04
A table provides allowable rate
of emissions based on process
weights from 100 to 6,000,000
Ib/hr
E = 4.10P°'67
E = 55.OP0'1'-40
E = 4.10P°-67
E = 55.0P°'1!-40
E = 4.10P°'67
E = 55.0P0-11-40
E = 3.59P0'62
E = 17.31P0'16
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
Existing
(April 3,
1972)
Existing
New
New
0.02
0.25
Irrespective of the maximum
allowable emissions determined
on the basis of process weight,
the concentration of particulate
process emissions shall not be
required to be less than 0.02 gr/
scf or more than 0.25 gr/scf.
Rule 203
E = 2.54P0'534
E = 24.8P6-1G
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.OP"'"-40
< 450 tons/hr
> 450 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
New
New
Existing
Existing
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
OJ
00
Region/ Applicable
State regulation
IN APC 5
"
it
APC 23
MI R 336.44
HN APC 5
"
Emission limitation
lb/
Process 1 ,000 lb
weight1 gr/scf gas
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55. OP0' "-40
0.10
0.03
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55. OP0' "-40
E = 3.59P0'62
E = 17.31P0'16
Different
emission limitations depending on:
New or
Size of existing
Other capacity Location source
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
> 200 tons/hr
Nonattainment
and certain
counties
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
Comments
If process weight exceeds 200
tons/hr the maximum allowable
emissions allowed in the pro-
cess weight table can be ex-
ceeded, provided that the
lb/1,000 lb of gas limitation
is met.
OH
§ 3745-17-11
WI
§ 154.11
*
0.30
99%
99.7%
Existing
(July 9,
1969)
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.OP0'"-40
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
*The limit of 0.30 gr/scf serves
as an overall minimum requirement.
Collection efficiency of 99%
or 99.7% for existing and new
sources respectively, is deemed
compliance.
*The process weight rate regu-
lation will be applied, unless
it cannot be ascertained.
Then, a required collection
efficiency in Ib/hr is imposed
by relating the uncontrolled
mass emission rate to the max-
imum allowable mass emission
rate as specified in a given
graph.
E = 3.59P6'62
E = 17.31P0'"
0.45
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
New (April 1,
1972)
New
Existing
(April 1,
1972>
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Region/ Applicable
State regulation
Region VI
AR §4
LA § 19.5
NM
OK Reg. 8
TX § 131.03.05
Region VII
IA § 4.3
KS § 28-19-20
Emission limitation
lb/
Process 1,000 lb
weight1 gr/scf gas
* - -
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55. OP0' "-40
E = 4.10P0-ST
E = 55. OP0' "-40
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55. OP0' "-40
0.1
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55. OP0' "-40
Different
emission limitations depending on:
New or
Size of existing
Olher capacity Location source
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
E = 4 -
0.048Q0'62
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
Comments
^'Sources are required to ob-
tain a permit and specific
emissions limitations are as-
signed at that time.
If the source has an effective
stack height less than standard
allowable emissions will be re-
duced by multiplying E x
F Effective Stack Height ~|2
[standard Effective Stack Height]
Emission limitation based on
the gr/scf standard will be ap-
plied if it is determined that
air pollution will still result
from compliance with the limita-
tion based on process weight.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Different
Emission limitation
Region/
State
Applicable
regulation
Process
weight1
lb/
1,000 lb
gr/scf gas Other
emission limitations depending on:
Size of
capacity Location
New or
existing
source
Comments
MO
10CSR 10-2.020
NE
Rule 5
Region VIII
CO Reg. No. 1, §IIC
MT 16-2.14(1)-S1430
ND R23-25-05
SD
UT
WY
§ 34.10:06.08
§ 14(g)
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.0P0-11-40
E = 4.10P6'67
E = SS.OP6'11-^
E = 3.59P6'62
E = 17.31P0'16
E = 4.10P*'67
E = 55.0P6-11-40
E = 4.10P6'67
E = 55.0P°'ll-40
E = 4.10P6'67
E = 55.OP0'"-40
E = 3.59P0'62
E = 17.31P6'16
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.0P°'ll-40
0.3
99.7%
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
New
New
Existing
Existing
*A table provides a gr/scf stan-
dard for emission limitations
which can be substituted for the
process weight standard, or the
operator can elect to demon-
strate that an operation emits
no more than 40% of the parti-
culate matter entering it. But
in no case can more than 0.3 gr/
scf be emitted.
If a collection efficienty of
99.7% is met, then the process
weight regulation will be con-
sidered met.
Emission limitations are
established on a source by
source basis and were not
available for review.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (continued)
Region/ Applicable
State regulation
Region IX
AZ R9-3-502
tl
R9-3-502
Emission limitation
lb/
Process 1,000 lb
weight1 gr/scf gas
E = 4.10P0-67
E = 55.0P0-I1-40
E = 3. SOP0'62
E = 17.31P0-16
Different
emission J imitations depending on:
Size of
Other capacity
< 30 tons/hr
- > 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
Location
Phoenix-
Tucson
AQCR
Phoenix-
Tucson
AQCR
New or
existing
source
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Comments
New sources are regulated under
federal NSPS, which have been
specifically adopted by the state
CA (South Rule 404
Coast and
District)
HI
NV
§ 13
§ 7.2
Region X
AK 18 AAC 50.050
ID Reg. II
OR 340-21-030
340-21-045
E = 4.10P0-67
40 Ib/hr
E = 4.10P0'67
E = 55.0P°'11-40
E = 4.10P0-67
E = 55.0P0-11-40
E = *
E = 55.OP6'"-40
0.196
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
0.05
0.01
0.2
0.1
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
< 30 tons/hr
> 30 tons/hr
New (July 1,
1972)
Existing
(July 1,
1972)
Existing
(June 1,
1970)
New
*Allowable emissions of parti-
culate matter is given in terns
of gr/scf depending on the volume
of gas discharged with 0.196 gr/
scf being the maximum allowable
emissions.
40 Ib/hr of particulate emis-
sions is allowed for all pro-
cess weights > 30 tons/hr
*The emission limitation based
on process weight £ tons/hr is
provided in a table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-2. (concluded)
Different
Emission limitation emission limitations depending on:
lb/ New or
Region/ Applicable Process 1,000 lb Size of existing
State regulation weight1 gr/scf gas Other capacity Location source Comments
WA WAC 173-400-060 - 0.1 - -
Notes
'E = Allowable emissions in Ib/hr.
P = Process weight in tons/hr.
2A = Allowable emissions in grains per dry standard cubic foor (gr/dscf).
E = Effluent gas volume in dscf/roin.
3This formula is probably printed in error, and probably should be E = 3.59P*'62 instead.
4E = Allowable emissions rate in Ib/hr.
Q = The stack effluent flow rate in acfm.
-------
TABLE F-3. STATE MASS EMISSION LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY TO SPECIFIC FERROUS FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
Region/
State
Region I
CT
lb/
1,000
Applicable Process lb or Cu-
regulation weight gr/scf gas Other pola
§ 19-508-18(f) - - 0.8 85% X
removal
90%
remova 1
Shake
out/
sand Elec- Existing Batch or
han- trie Size or source or jobbing
riling arc Other capacity new source Location processes Comments
- - - - More stringent standard
applies.
- - - - Foundry sand process
must be equipped with
fugitive dust control
equipment with a 90%
collection efficiency.
MA
-P-
10
ME
NH
§ 7.02(8)
(Table 4)
0.13
0.06
0.21
Existing
(June 1,
1972)
New
Production
Existing "
in critical
area of
concern
Jobbing
Reg. 14
E = 4.10P°'67
E = 5.05P°-67
E = 55.OP6'"-40
E = 66.OP0'11-™
0.022
< 30 ton/hr New
(June 15,
1974)
< 30 ton/hr Existing
> 30 ton/hr New
> 30 ton/hr Existing
Cupolas in production
(both new and existing)
foundries have a more
stringent emission limi-
tation if they are
within a critical area
of concern.
The regulation is de-
signed to control emis-
sions from all ferrous
foundry processes.
The gr/scf standard is
also applied to new and
modified sources.
RI
VT
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-3. (continued)
Region/
State
Applicable
regulation
Process
weight
gr/scf
lb/
1,000
lb or
gas
Other
Cu-
pola
Shake
out/
sand
han-
dling
Elec-
tric
arc
Other
Size or
capacity
Existing
source or
new source
Batch or
jobbing
Location processes
NY § 213
Region III
DE Reg. V, Sec. 4 *
MD
PA § 123.13
A = 0.76E0'42
0.02
VA
§ «0(a)(10)
< 50,000 Existing
Ib/hr (May 1,
1972)
< 50,000 Existing
< 5 too/hr
> 5 ton/hr
< 50,000
Ib/hr
Comments
"^Allowable emission lb/
hr are given in a pro-
cess weight rate table.
These limitations can
be exceeded if it can
be shown than under
actual working condi-
tions a collection ef-
ficiency of 80% is
achieved.
*This regulation applies
to all secondary metal
operations, including
ferrous foundries. See
Table F-2.
All melting processes,
plus shakeout and sand
handling are regulated
Each is given a specific
process factor in Ib/ton
of iron or sand. These
factors are: melting
< 5 tons/hr = 150 lb/
ton iron; melting > 5
tons/hr = 50 Ib/ton
iron; sand handling =
20 Ib/ton sand; shake-
out = 20 Ib/ton sand.
*This serves as an
overall minimum re-
quirement.
^Allowable emissions in
Ib/hr are given in a
table with 42.0 Ib/hr
allowed for all process
weight > 50,000 Ib/hr.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-3. (continued)
1,000
Region/ Applicable Process lb or Cu-
State regulation weight gr/scf gas Other pola
Shake
out/
sand
han-
dling
Elec-
tric
arc
Other
Size or
capacity
Existing
source or
new source
Batch or
jobbing
Location processes
Comments
WV
Reg. VII, Sec. 3
1,800,000 Existing
Ib/hr (Oct. 1,
1974)
*Another table, other
than that which applies
to all metallurgical
manufacturing process
operations (see Table
F-2) sets forth the al-
lowable emissions for
existing gray iron
cupolas.
.p-
t_n
Region IV
AL § 4.5
FL
GA § 391-3-1-02(2)
(0)
< 50,000
Ib/hr
< 50,000
Ib/hr
< 10 tons/day
Jobbing
^Allowable emissions
for small foundry cu-
polas are provided in
a table.
*A table sets allowable
emissions from gray iron
cupolas with a process
weight below 50,000 lb/
hr except a jobbing
foundry which melts
less than 10 tons/day.
KY
MS
NC § .0514
> 20,000 Existing
Ib/hr (Jan. 1,
1972)
Jobbing
^Allowable emissions are
provided in a table.
SC
TN
81200-3-7-08(1)
> 20,000
Ib/hr
Existing
(Aug. 9,
1973)
^Allowable emissions are
provided in a table.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-3. (continued)
ON
Region/ Applicable Process
State regulation weight
Region V
IL Rule 203 *
IN APC 6 *
APC 23
MI R 336.44 "
(Table 1)
ii _
"
"
"
UN APC 32
OH
WI § 154.11(3)(b)
" —
Shake
lb/ out/
1,000 sand Elec- Existing
lb or Cu- han- trie Size or source or
gr/scf gas Other pola dling arc Other capacity new source Location
---X---< 20,000 Prior to
Ib/hr (Apr. 15,
1967)
---X--- - Existing
(Dec. 6,
1968)
0.15--X--- - - Nonat-
tainment
and cer-
tain
counties
0.40 - X - - - < 10 ton/hr
0.25 - X - - - >10, < 20 -
ton/hr
0.15 - X - - > 20 ton/hr
0.40 - X - - -
0.10--XX-
0.3 - X - - < 1.5 ton/hr Existing
-
0.45 - X - - - - Existing
(Apr. 1,
1972)
0.1 - - - X - - Existing
(continued)
Batch or
jobbing
processes Comments
*Allowable emissions
are provided in a table.
The cupola must have
been in compliance with
this regulation as of
the effective date of
the regulation or have
been in compliance with
the terms and condi-
tions of a variance, if
regulation is to apply.
*Allowable emissions are
provided in a table.
-
Production
Production
Production
Jobbing
-
-
-
.
-
-------
TABLE F-3. (continued)
Region/
State
Applicable
regulation
Process
weight
lb/
1,000
lb or
gr/scf gas
Other
Cu-
pola
Shake
out/
sand
han-
dling
Elec-
tric
arc
Other
Size or
capacity
Existing
source or
new source
Batch or
jobbing
Location processes
Comments
Region VI
AR § 4
IA
MM
OK
TX
*Sources are required to
obtain a permit, and
specific emission limi-
tations are assigned at
that time.
Region VII
IA § 4.4(4)
< 20,000 Existing
Ib/hr
KS
MO
10CSR10-2.020(3)
0.4
85% X
remova1
Existing
Jobbing
*The emission limita-
tion for foundry cu-
polas is based on the
same table provided for
general processes.
Also, if compliance
with this limitation
results in air pollu-
tion the gr/scf stan-
dard can be applied.
Either the gr/scf or the
percent removal by
weight standard is ap-
plied depending on
which is more stringent.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-3. (concluded)
Region/
State
Applicable
regulation
Process
weight
1,000
lb or
Cu-
Shake
out/
sand Elec-
han- trie
Size or
Existing
source or
Batch or
jobbing
gr/scf gas Other pola dling arc Other capacity new source Location processes
Comments
Region VIII
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
CA
HI
NV
egio
AK
ID
OR
WA
Notes
*A = Allowable emissions in Ib/hr.
E = Emission Index = F x W Ib/hr.
F = Process factor in Ib/unit.
W = Production or changing rate in units/hr.
-------
F.2.2.4.2 Regulation survey results—General fugitive emission regula-
tions exist in 43 of the states. Although there are a variety of different
types of provisions, by far the most prevalent is a requirement that "rea-
sonable precautions" be taken to prevent fugitive emissions. Twenty-seven
state's have such a requirement. (Most of the 27 states define reasonable
precautions to include the use of "hoods, fans and fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials.") This requirement would seem well suited for ap-
plication in foundry operations. The primary constraining factor, confirmed
during the telephone survey, is that the regulatory standard is subjective:
what level of fugitive emissions deserves what level of precaution? And
who has the burden to demonstrate that the existing control measures are
reasonable or unreasonable? Undoubtedly, such a standard could be expected
to invite dispute, especially in the absence of documented visible emission,
odor, or ambient concentration problems.
Although many states have retreated from enforcement of such regulations
because of their subjectivity, many states have attempted to reduce this
subjectivity by providing more objective criteria. Fourteen states, for
example, prohibit any visible emission at the property line; four states
prohibit any fugitive emission that exceeds 20% opacity; and six states ap-
ply standards (measured as a volume concentration, or by fall out per square
meter). In addition, several states shift the burden to the source to demon-
strate that in-plant control equipment is not reasonable in view of the emis-
sions.
Several respondents during the telephone survey pointed out that if a
violation is actually discovered, the resulting enforcement action will fore-
close future dispute over the level of fugitive emission control needed.
However, violations may not be so easily determined (absent specific capture
system operating requirements in permits); opacity standards may be diffi-
cult to document because of the nature of the emission (diffuse against a
building background), and according to telephone survey respondents, ground
level concentrations may not be determined without inconvenient and resource
consuming monitoring.
Nine states include a requirement in their regulations which prohibits
fugitive emissions amounting, to a nuisance. While such a requirement would
ordinarily seem to add a more complicated dimension of subjectivity to fugi-
tive emission control, this need not always be the case; some respondents
indicated during telephone interviews that nuisance law in their states pro-
vides a clearer path to regulatory control, because of its historical devel-
opment and application.
Other respondents indicated that regardless of the difficulty involved
in determining a violation of fugitive emission regulations, they provide
an adequate basis for imposing appropriate permit conditions to prevent vio-
lations; thus, an operating permit program has been used effectively to cure
difficulties in interpreting or applying fugitive emission regulations.
It should be noted that this survey disclosed no insurmountable weak-
ness in regulatory authority for controlling fugitive emissions for most
states. Most states may establish specific policies regarding acceptable
49
-------
control measures to prevent fugitive emissions and implement these policies
according to appropriate administrative procedures under state law. The
primary constraints appear to be the procedural and administrative hurdles
which must be observed.
F.2.2.4.3 Fugitive emission regulation table—Table F-4 outlines fugi-
tive emissions regulations that were considered applicable to foundries.
The regulations are separated into three general categories; the categories
are loosely drawn, and there are perhaps other appropriate categories which
are not specifically highlighted but are included within the discussion under
a related category, or under the heading "other." These are noted below.
Under the heading "Total Prohibition," a regulation is noted if it is
phrased in prohibitory terms, even though when read closely, it may in fact
not amount to a complete prohibition. Under the heading "Reasonable Precau-
tions Must be Taken," the existence of such a regulation is indicated with
an "X" if it requires that reasonable precautions be taken to prevent fugi-
tive emissions; if the regulation goes on to define "reasonable precautions,"
relevant portions of this definition are provided in the table.
Under the heading "Property Line Standard," several types of regula-
tions are noted. The most predominant is a regulation prohibiting visible
emissions at the property line; other types include particle size limita-
tions, ambient concentration limitations, and fall-out limitations.
Under the "Other" heading are opacity requirements (at the point of
exit from the source), requirements relating to the installation of control
systems, additional ambient concentration requirements, nuisance provi-
sions, and compliance dates. Further explanation of the regulations is
provided in the column titled "Comments."
F.2.2.5 Visible Emission Regulations--
F.2.2.5.1 Introduction--Visible emission regulations have long been
considered one of the most important aids to enforcement among all emis-
sions limitations. This was overwhelmingly reconfirmed by our telephone
survey. This acknowledgement coupled with the fact that every state has and
enforces a visible emission regulation, makes an analysis of visible emis-
sions regulations in the context of foundry operation particularly important.
When visible emission regulations are preferred, it is primarily be-
cause they may be applied with ease compared to mass emission regulations.
The former usually involves planning and conducting stack tests, which are
considered to be resource consuming and are often criticized as nonrepresen-
tative. The latter involves simple visible emission observations which may
usually be performed with minimal planning and a very minor commitment of
resources; and they may be performed undetected by the violating facility.
Thus, it is not surprising that visible emission regulations are considered
to be a critical underpinning to enforcement of TSP control requirements.
50
-------
TABLE F-4. STATE FUGITIVE EMISSION REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO FERROUS .FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Region I
CT
Fugitive emission
regulation
S19-508-18(b)
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Reasonable precautions in-
Property
line standard
No visible emissions
Other
Fugitive dust may be
Comments
MA
§ 7.09
Ln
ME
NH
RI
Reg. 17(111)
Reg. 5
VT
§ 5-213(5)
elude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or
"similar operations."
beyond the property
line.
declared a nuisance.
A 20% opacity limit
applies to fugitive
dust emissions.
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
*The prohibition against "dust" is
total, if it would cause or contri-
bute to a condition of "air pollu-
tion."
Air pollution is defined to include
"nuisance," potential injury to life,
vegetation, or property, and unrea-
sonable interference with enjoyment
of life, property, or the conduct of
business.
Fugitive particulate
matter control system
requi red.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/ Fugitive emission Total Reasonable precautions Property
State regulation prohibition must be taken line standard
Other
Comments
NY
Region III
DE
MD
§§ 10.18.02.03F
S3
PA
§ 10.18.03.03F
§ 10.18.04.03F
§ 10.18.05.03F
§ 10.18.06.03F
§ 10.18.07.03F
§ 123.(1-2)
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
Same
Same
Same
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line, and a concen-
tration standard ap-
plies. See next
column and comment.
It is arguable that Reg. No. VI, Sec.
5, applicable to sandblasting could
apply since it required containment •
(within the property line) of "re-
lated abrasive operations."
10.18(04-05).03F apply in specific
metropolitan AQCR's of the state.
Average concentration
above background can-
not exceed 150 part-
icles per cubic
centimeter, past the
property line. See
comment.
The total prohibition will not apply
if, .upon application of the same op-
eration, a determination is made that
the emissions are of minor signifi-
cance with respect to causing air
pollution and they are not preventing
or interfering with the maintenance or
attainment of any ambient air quality
standard. In such a case the prop-
erty line visible emission and con-
centration limitations noted in the
two preceeding columns apply.
(continued)
-------
Region/
State
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
VA
§ 4.23
(existing sources)
WV
§ 5.13
(new sources)
Reg. VII, Sec. 4
Region IV
AL § 4.2
FL § 17-2.05(3)
GA § 391-3-l-02(2)(a)
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for handling
dusty materials, and ade-
quate containment for sand-
blasting or "similar opera-
tions." Open equipment for
conveying materials likely
to become airborne must be
covered or otherwise con-
trolled when in motion.
Same
Reasonable precautions
include hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
Reasonable precautions
include hoods, fans, and
fabrid filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
Fugitive particulate
matter control system
required. An operation
and maintenance require-
ment exists.
Fugitive dust may be If rules are violated, or a nuisance
considered a nuisance, is found to exist, specific controls
controls may be ordered.
Particulate matter emitted in accor-
dance with the process weight table,
visible emission standard or specific
source standard is excepted.
A 20% opacity limit ap-
plies to fugitive dust
emissions.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
KY
401 KAR3:060 Sec. 1Y
MS
NC
SC
Ul
Sec. 3(3)
Reg. No. 62.5, Stan-
dard I, Sec. VII.B
Unnecessary
amounts are
prohibited.
TN
§ 1200-3-8-.01
Reasonable precautions
include hoods, fans,
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
Reasonable precautions
include hoods, fans,
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
No fall out on other
property to exceed
5.25 g/mz/mo.
Fugitive dust may be If rules are violated, or a nuisance
considered a nuisance, is found to exist, specific controls
may be ordered.
Fugitive dust may be If rules are violated, or a nuisance
considered a nuisance, is found to exist, specific controls
may be ordered.
Reg. No. 62.5, Standard I, Sec. VII.B
arguably applies to fugitive dust from
foundries, since it required that suit-
able measures be taken to maintain dust
control of the premises for "all
sources." However, when read in con-
text of the entire regulation, it is
more probably applicable only to non-
enclosed sources.
No visible emissions Sources in existence
beyond the property before 4/3/72 must be
line except for 5 min/ in compliance by
hr or 20 min/day. 8/9/73; all others
However, see comment, at start-up.
Visible emissions beyond the property
line are not prohibited if the re-
sult of an excused malfunction.
Rule 203(f)
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line. Particulate
size may not be larger
than 40 pm beyond the
property line.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
IN
APC 20
MI
MN
OH
APC 6
§ 3745-17-08
Avoidable
amounts are
prohibited.
WI
§ 154.11(2)
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and air
cleaning devices if dusty
materials are handled.
The following limits
apply beyond the prop-
erty line. The maximum
allowable dust is 67%
of upwind ambient con-
centrations. If the
content is more than
50% "respirable dust,"
a limit under 67% ap-
plies. An ambient
standard of 50 ug/m3
over background con-
centrations applies
specifically to fugi-
tive dust.
Fugitive emissions
that escape from a
building may be con-
sidered a nuisance.
The regulation deals specifically with
combined contributors and allows for a
further pro rata reduction if necessary
to meet ambient concentration limits.
A variance may be allowed during ad-
verse weather conditions.
The prohibition applies in relevant
part to the handling and use of mate-
rials. The reasonable precautions
provision applies in relevant part to
the use of a building.
If rules are violated, or a nuisance
is found to exist, specific controls
may be ordered.
The language does not modify precau-
tions with the word "reasonable."
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
§ 19.3
N«
Reasonable precautions in*
elude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
Fugitive emission regulations exist
for specific source categories, but
not foundries.
OK
Reg. 9
Ul
TX
§ 131.03.04
Region VII
IA
§ 4.3(2)9
Minimum precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
Reasonable precautions
include containment or
control equipment for
handling dusty material.
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line that will injure
adjacent property or
interfere with am-
bient standards.
Specific precautions
may be required in
"air quality main-
tenance areas."
These precautions
include hoods, fans,
and fabric filters
for handling dusty
materials, and ade-
quate containment for
sandblasting or "sim-
ilar operations."
A variance procedure exists.
Applicable only to sources in TSP non-
attainment areas designated as such be
EPA.
Must take reasonable Must take reasonable
precaution to prevent precautions to prevent
visible emissions be- a nuisance.
yond the property
lind.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
KS
§ 28-19-51
MO2 S10-2.050
Ln
NE Rule 14
Region VIII
CO Reg. No. 1,111.0
Ground level concentra-
tion at property line:
2 (Jg/ra3 above background
concentrations, for more
than 20 min/hr.
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line in the ambient
air, or on the ground.
If a complaint is
filed and the size is
larger than 40 (Jm must
take reasonable pre-
cautions to prevent
visible emissions be-
yond the premises.
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
No visible emissions
over 20% opacity, ex-
cept for 3 min/hr.
The prohibition against visible emis-
sions beyond the property line applies,
in relevant part, to the handling of
materials. The reasonable precautions
requirement applies, in relevant part,
to the use of a building.
Exceptions may be granted for indi-
vidual sources. A complaint may be
filed which alleges interference with
reasonable and comfortable use of
property; the agency must investigate,
and if the allegation is true, the
agency must issue a citation, and re-
quire the submission of a fugitive
dust control plan.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Type of regulation
Region/ Fugitive emission
State regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
MT
§ 16-2.14(1)-S1440
Ui
00
ND
R23-25-05(5.400)
SD
UT
WY
§ 4.5
Sec. 14(f)
Reasonable precautions are
to be determined on a case-
by-case basis taking into
account energy, environ-
mental, economic, and other
costs.
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
Control measures to pre-
vent unnecessary fugitive
emissions to the extent
that ambient standards are
exceeded include hoods,
fans, and fabric filters for
handling dusty materials,
and adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
RACT, BACT, and LAER are defined in
the regulation.
Must be limited to
less than 20% opacity
except for the trans-
fer of molten metal,
if the system involved
was installed prior to
11/23/68. In any non-
attainment area an ex-
isting source must ap-
ply RACT. New sources
< 100 ton/yr (potential)
must apply BACT and new
sources > 100 ton/yr
(potential) must apply
LAER.
Fugitive dust may be If rules are violated, or a nuisance
considered a nuisance, is found to exist, specific controls
may be ordered.
Specific control
strategies are to be
set for individual
sources with compli-
ance to be achieved by
12/31/82.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (continued)
Region/
State
Type of regulation
Fugitive emission Total Reasonable precautions Property
regulation prohibition must be taken line standard
Other
Comments
CA3
HI
Ui
VD
NV
R9-3-406
Rule 403
Section 10
§ 7.3
See comment.
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty material, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
No visible emission
beyond the property
line.
No visible emissions
beyond the property
line.
100 ug/m3
150 pg/rn3
3 gr/m2
Reasonable precautions must be taken
to prevent fugitive emissions from
being deposited on public roadways,
however, the logical interpretation
of this rule limits it to transporta-
tion activities.
Prohibits "controllable" particulate
matter from becoming airborne.
AK 18AAC50.050(d)
ID Reg. F (Sec. 2)
OR
SS 21-050 et. seq.
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
handling dusty materials,
and adequate containment
for sandblasting or "similar
operations."
Reasonable precautions in-
clude hoods, fans, and
fabric filters for han-
dling dusty materials, and
adequate containment for
sandblasting or "similar
operations."
Fugitive emissions
may be considered a
nuisance.
If rules are violated, or a nuisance
is found to exist, specific controls
may be ordered. These rules are ap-
plicable within special control areas
or elsewhere if ordered by the Depart-
ment.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-4. (concluded)
Type of regulation
Region/
State
Fugitive emission
regulation
Total
prohibition
Reasonable precautions
must be taken
Property
line standard
Other
Comments
WA
WAC173-400-040(8)
It is arguable that an operating and
maintenance provision and a best prac-
ticable control technology requirement
applies to fugitive emission sources.
Notes
1 Emission limitations are set forth in the regulations on a source by source basis. No fugitive limitation is set for any ferrous foundry operation.
However, fugitive limitations are set for other sources (Reynolds Aluminum at Jones Mill and Gum Springs): "Fugitive emissions from pot rooms to the
open air shall not exceed 0.06 gr/scf measured in the roof monitor at the approximate midpoint of the pot line."
2 Kansas City metropolitan area.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District.
-------
Despite this advantage, two fundamental problems exist with an enforce-
ment strategy that relies primarily on visible emission regulations. First,
visible emission regulations normally allow between 20% and 40% opacity.
This may well exceed the mass emission limitations that apply to stack emis-
sions from certain foundry operations. If such is the case, enforcement of
the visible emission limitation alone would amount to a de facto variance
from the mass emission regulation. Although no firm conclusion may be
reached on the issue, contrary evidence from the telephone survey suggests
that visible emission limitations may sometimes be more restrictive than
process weight rates applicable to shakeout and sand handling emissions
(because of the exaggerated weight charged to the process). Because of the
reputed difficulty in interpreting and applying process weight rates, a
visible emission limitation might ultimately provide the only realistically
enforceable requirement for other processes, too; however, no specific in-
formation was obtained on this point.
The second difficulty experienced with visible emission limitations
and foundry operations involves the difficulty in making accurate readings
in certain circumstances. Visible emission observations must usually be
conducted according to acceptable procedures with such factors as the line
of sight, the color of the background, the time of day, and the position of
the sun assuming critical importance. Primarily, these requirements create
problems with the observation of fugitive emissions, which emerge diffuse,
often against an opaque background, and require the observer to stand be-
tween buildings. The observer must adjust for these factors, as well as
other biases introduced by the type of emission point involved (roof vent,
door, window, etc.), so that by the time a visible emission violation can
actually be documented, the emission may well be extraordinary.
It should be noted that even when visible observations do not demon-
strate an enforceable violation of the visible emissions regulation, they
may serve as an indication that other regulations are being violated and
provide a basis for informal notice and discussions. Several respondents
to the telephone survey, in fact, indicated that comparable visible emission
readings were taken during stack testing and were relied on later as a
warning mechanism to indicate whether mass emission violations may be occurr-
ing.
F.2.2.5.2 Summary of visible emission regulations—Visible emission
regulations vary to a significant degree among the states (18) according to
whether the source is new or existing, and to a minor degree (5) based on
source location. The limitations are primarily 20% or 40% opacity (or
equivalent darkness on the Ringlemann Scale); one state (Maryland) requires
0% opacity in metropolitan AQCR's; and three states have 30% limitations
(Illinois, statewide; Indiana, in nonattainment areas; and Texas, for
existing sources). Minor exceptions exist for most (but not all) states,
and are designed to accommodate brief periods of excess emissions.
The following is a summary table of visible emission regulations. A
complete description follows in Table F-5.
61
-------
TABLE F-5. STATE VISIBLE EMISSION REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO FERROUS FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
Region/
State
Region I
CT
MA
ME2
NH
c* Ri
ho
VT
Region II
NJ
NY
Region III
DE
Visible
emission
regulation
§ 19-508-18(a)
§ 7.06
§ 598
Reg. 17 (III)
Reg. No. 1
§ 5-211
§ 7:27-6. 2(d)
§ 211.3
§ 212.7
Reg. No. XIV
Instances where limi- Visible
tation differs depending emission
on whether the source is : limitation
New1 Existing1 Other1 (opacity)
20%
20%
40%
20%
20%
X - - 20%
April 30, - 20%
1970
20%
20%
See 20%
Comment
20%
Exceptions
(min/hr) Comments
40%, 5 min/1 hr
40%, 2'min/l hr On the Ringlemann Chart, the limita-
tion is No. 1 with exceptions allowed
up to No. 2, 6 min/1 hr.
5 min/1 hr and 15 min/3 hr
-
3 min/1 hr
60%, 6 min/1 hr
60%, 6 min/1 hr
3 min/1 hr
3 min/1 hr
Can be exceeded if in com- This section applies to any process
pliance with all other lim- exhaust or ventilation system.
itations is shown and BACT
is being used.
3 min/1 hr or 15 min/24 hr
MD
PA
VA
WV
§ 10.18.(02, 03,
06, 07).02
A 123.41
§ 5.12
Reg. 7, § 2
January 17, Now metro-
1972 politan
AQCRs
0%
20% 60%, 3 min/1 hr
20% 6 min/1 hr
20% 40%, 5 min/1 hr
(rontinned)
-------
TABLE F-5. (continued)
Instances where limi-
Region/
State
Region IV
AL
Visible
emission
regulation
A 4.1
tation differs depending
on whether the source is :
New1 Existing1
-
Other1
-
Visible
emission
limitation
(opacity)
20% (
Exceptions
(min/hr)
>0%, 3 min/6
0 hr
Comments
en
u>
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
§ 17-2.05(1)
§ 391-3-l-02(2)(b)
401KAR3:060
401KAR3:050
Sec. 3
§ .0521
Reg. Mo. 62.5,
Standard No. 1,
Sec. 1
§ 1200-3-5-01
July 1,
1971
February 11,
1971
20%
40%
40%
20%
40%
20%
40%
20%
40%
20%
Does not apply to emissions
complying with the process
weight rate limitation.
15 min/start-up in any 1 hr,
but not more than 3 start-ups/
24 hr
20 min/24 hr
20 min/24 hr
A new source can receive an exception
from the 20% standard; to 40%, if it
is in compliance with mass emission
standards and can demonstrate that no
violation of any national ambient air
quality standards will result.
60%, 6 min/hr or 24 min/24 hr
60%, 6 min/hr or 24 min/24 hr
5 min/1 hr and 20 min/24 hr
IN
Rule 202(b)
APC 3
Attainment
Nonattain-
ment
30%
40%
30%
60%, 8 min/1 hr and 3
times/24 hr
Any excess emission > 20%, < 60%
(for 8 min/1 hr) shall occur only
from one source located within a
1,000 ft radius of the certain point
of any other source owned or operated
by the same person.
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-5. (continued)
Visible
Region/ emission
State regulation
MI R 336.41
UN APC 5
M
OH § 3745-17-07
WI NR 154.11(6)
Region VI
AR Sec. 8(d)
"
LA § 19.5.1
NM § 401
OK § 7.1
TX § 131.03.03
"
Region VII
IA § 4.3(2)(d)
KS § 28-19-50
"
Instances where limi-
tation differs depending
on whether the source is :
New1 Existing1 Other1
-
July 19,
1969
X -
-
April 1 ,
1972
X -
January 30,
1972
X -
-
-
- -
January 31 ,
1972
X -
.
January 1 ,
1971
X
Visible
emission
limitation
(opacity)
20%
20%
20%
20%
40%
20%
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%
30%
20%
40%
40%
20%
Exceptions
(min/hr) Comments
40%, 3 min/1 hr and 3
times/24 hr
60%, 4 min/1 hr, and 40%,
4 min/(additional) 1 hr
60%, 3 min/1 hr
80%, 5 min/1 hr, and 3 For sources in operation before
times/24 hr February 1, 1975, show to be in com-
80%, 5 min/1 hr, and 3 pliance with emission limits but not
times/24 hr opacity limits, opacity limits will
be set 10% above the average read
during the stack test.
5 min/1 hr and 3 times/24 hr
-
4 min/1 hr
-
60%, 5 min/1 hr and 20 min/
24 hr
5 min/1 hr and 6 hr/10 days
5 min/1 hr and 6 hr/10 days
6 min/1 hr
-
-
MO3 10CSR 10-2.060
m Rule 13
20% 60%, 6 min/1 hr
20% - .
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-5. (continued)
Ul
Region/
State
Region VIII
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Region IX
AZ
CA"
HI
NV
Region X
AK
ID
Visible
emission
regulation
Reg. No. 1
16-2.14-S1460
II
R 23-25-03
If
§ 34:10:03
§ A.I
M
"
Sec. 14
"
R9-3-501
Rule 401
Sec. 8
it
Article 4
ISAAC 50.050
Reg. E
Instances where limi-
tation differs depending
on whether the source is :
New1 Existing1 Other1
- -
November 23,
1968
X -
X
X -
.
X Nonattain-
ment
X Attainment
X -
X
X -
X
-
X -
X
-
-
X
Visible
emission
limitation
(opacity)
20%
40%
20%
40%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
20%
40%
20%
20%
40%
20%
20%
40%
Exceptions
(min/hr) Comments
40%, 3 min/1 lir
60%, 4 min/1 hr
60%, 4 min/1 hr
60%, 4 min/1 hr
60%, 4 min/1 hr
60%, 3 min/1 hr
Short periods
ii
it
-
40%, 6 min/1 hr
-
3 min/1 hr
60%, 3 min/1 hr
60%, 3 min/1 hr
3 min/1 hr
' 3 min/1 hr
3 min/1 hr
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-5. (concluded)
Instances where limi-
Region/
State
OR
Visible tation differs
emission on whether the
regulation New1 Existing
§ 340-21-015 - June 1,
1970
X
" - June 1 ,
1970
depending
source is :
1 Other1
Outside
special
control
areas
-
Within
special
control
areas
Visible
emission
limitation
(opacity)
40%
20%
20%
Exceptions
(min/hr) Comments
3 min/1 hr
4
3 min/1 hr
3 min/1 hr
WA
WAC 173-400-040
20%
15 min/8 hr
Notes
1 Each state that has a limitation for "new" and "existing" sources will be identified. The "new" column will be marked with a "X" and, the
"existing" column will give the date (if written into the regulation) which distinguishes a "new" from an "existing" source. The "other"
column will identify instances when other criteria, such as location, may determine a different emission standard. If no column is marked,
then the limitation applies generally.
2 Maine Air Pollution Control Laws.
3 Kansas City Metropolitan Area.
4 Southcoast Air Quality Management District.
-------
Visible Emission Limitation
0%
20%
30%
40%
Number of States*
New Source
Requirements
1
42
2
6
Existing Source
Requirements
31
3
19
More than one requirement may exist in a state.
F.2.2.6 Malfunction Regulations--
F.2.2.6.1 Introduction--Malfunction regulations were not originally
planned for survey. During the telephone interviews however, it became ap-
parent that malfunction regulations would often excuse excess foundry emis-
sions, whether controlled or fugitive. At the same time, it was apparent
that malfunction regulations might be used to assist in effective supervi-
sion of continuous compliance efforts at the foundry. For these reasons, a
separate malfunction regulation survey was considered appropriate.
The objectives of the regulation survey were to determine whether states
had malfunction regulations that would apply to foundry operations, specifi-
cally the cupola and electric arc furnaces, the pouring and cooling operation,
and the shakeout and sand handling systems, to determine whether the per-
missible scope of application would extend to typical foundry compliance
problems identified during the interview phase of the project, and to out-
line in a skeletal fashion relevant procedural requirements and limitations.
The ultimate objectives were (a) to assess the potential usefulness of mal-
function regulations as an integral part of a continuous compliance strategy
for foundries, and (b) to determine what potential these regulations have
to encourage and excuse noncompliance. It should be noted that these as-
sessments must be characterized as "potential;" the interviews disclosed
wide variations in implementation policies among the states.
F.2.2.6.2 Summary of findings—Regulations applicable to malfunctions
resulting in excess emissions for existing sources are included in air pol-
lution regulations for 39 states. Eleven have no regulations covering such
occurrences.
Of the 39 states which contain malfunction provisions, all clearly cover
control equipment, and 38 clearly cover process equipment (Rhode Island is
the only state that does not). Eleven states cover human error and operating
procedures, and an argument may be made that an additional 16 do, also.
State regulations for the latter 16 are usually phrased broadly enough to
allow for such an interpretation. For example, South Dakota's regulation
applies to "the failure of air pollution control equipment or process equip-
ment or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner." A less likely
regulation, although still noted as "arguable," is North Dakota's, which
applies to a "malfunction in any installation" but does not define "malfunc-
tion" and does not define "installation." (In many cases, malfunction is
not defined, but the regulation is expressly applicable only to equipment;
e.g. , "air pollution control equipment or related operating equipment.")
67
-------
In many states the definition of malfunction specified that the break-
down or equipment failure must be "unavoidable" or "unforeseeable," if the
source is to be excused from noncompliance with the underlying emission
limitation. Sometimes, however, an avoidable breakdown is not considered
within the scope of the regulation. This means that preventable malfunc-
tions are not excused, on the one hand, and that the source need not comply
with malfunction requirements, on the other. As a result, the source is in
violation of emission limitations, but the malfunction regulation does not
require a report and therefore does not assist the state in monitoring the
status of continuous compliance.
Apart from the authority to determine that the source is in violation
of an emission limitation because the malfunction was preventable, in several
states the agency will also have the option of considering the excess emis-
sion impermissible if there is a history of poor maintenance and downtime.
It should be noted that 9 states allow a period of grace, in which the
malfunction is excused. Four allow the relatively short period of 1 hr;
one allows 3 hr; two allow 4 hr; one allows 24 hr; and one allows 72 hr.
If the malfunction terminates during this period, the state presumably con-
siders no excuse to be needed, and it is doubtful that in such a case the
agency would consider it important that the malfunction was preventable.
In 25 states the effect of the malfunction regulation is formally to
excuse the excess emission so long as the specific terms of the malfunction
regulation are satisfied. This usually means, as a precondition, that re-
porting requirements must be observed, and in 14 of the 25 states (23 over-
all), a corrective plan must be provided with the report. It also means,
in 6 states, that a formal variance must be obtained. The regulations do
not generally distinguish between types of violations; mass emission, fugi-
tive emission, and visible emission requirements are treated equally.
In the remaining 25 states excess emissions may not be excused by mal-
function regulations—this analysis, however, does not consider the effect
of other variance mechanisms, including operating permits, consent agree-
ments, and the like; nor does it consider the effect of prosecutorial dis-
cretion. Telephone interviews, in fact, indicate that in many states excess
emissions from foundry operation due to malfunctions are either unknown or
ignored by agency personnel.
Among the 39 states that regulate malfunctions, the typical procedure
involves a requirement that the appropriate state agency be notified either
immediately or within a certain time from the point that a malfunction begins,
The type of notification may be specified, and there may be other require-
ments regarding the content of the notice.
Only 15 states require that notice be immediate or within 1 hr, and
three of these require immediate notice only when it is determined that the
malfunction will last for some specified time period greater than 1 hr.
Twenty-two states, on the other hand, allow notice to be delayed from time
periods varying from 4 hr to 15 days (the majority allow a delay of 24 hr).
Although the delay is clearly designed in most cases to allow for reasonable
68
-------
convenience on the part of the source, the longer the delay, the less likely
that a malfunction will be continuing at the time of notice, and the less
likely that the agency will view the matter with any urgency. It is also
less likely that the agency, with knowledge that the malfunction has termi-
nated, will investigate to determine whether the malfunction was preventable.
Even so, the report may serve as a first signal that future follow-up may
be needed and could become a part of the compliance history used in deter-
mining the permissibility of a malfunction.
A profile of 26 states providing for a delay in the notice requirement
shows the following:
Time Period In Which No Number
Notice is Required of States
1 hr 3
4 hr 3
7 hr 1
8 hr 2
24 hr 14
48 hr 1
72 hr 2
10 days 1
No specified limit 2
Requirements relating to the content of the notice also vary signifi-
cantly from state to state. Only 12 states require that notice of the mal-
function be in writing (24 do not specify the form of notice); and only 20
states specify the information to be submitted (eight specify the informa-
tion required in comprehensive detail). Most of the states require preven-
tive action, however; and 23 require a corrective plan.
The corrective plans, designed to rectify the immediate problem, (they
are also usually "preventive" plans designed to prevent future similar occur-
rences) are in many instances a particularly useful mechanism, since they
operate in a number of states as variances, permit conditions, etc., and
their terms are separately enforceable.
F.2.2.6.3 Evaluation—Malfunction regulations clearly provide a mech-
anism to excuse periods of noncompliance and thus could conceivably provide
•all sources, including foundries, with an incentive to comply with malfunc-
tion procedures, whenever emission limitations are exceeded. Since malfunc-
tion regulations usually apply to process equipment and may apply in many
states to the operation of a process, foundry operations would seem parti-
cularly prone to the use of malfunction regulations. Apart from control
equipment breakdown, emission problems in foundries often result from in-
plant processes; the resulting fugitive emissions on any one occasion could
be associated with one of the numerous possible mishaps and reported as a
malfunction.
Whether or not foundries would actually utilize malfunction regulations
to avoid liability would depend in the first instance on the enforcement
69
-------
attitude of the state. An aggressive posture could provide an incentive to
do so--but perhaps not as much if the state utilized malfunction reports as
a basis for stricter surveillance. The state may also take a strict posi-
tion regarding whether the malfunction was preventable. If reporting mal-
functions would increase the potential for state enforcement interference,
the source might opt instead to consider the excess emission a minor viola-
tion rather than a reportable malfunction.
In a different vein, malfunction regulations offer a potentially use-
ful mechanism for a number of states to monitor and supervise continuous
compliance efforts for foundry operations. Most states are able to apply
malfunction regulations to all foundry operations, including process equip-
ment, in-plant capture systems, duct work, and control equipment. When mal-
function regulations require relatively quick notice of malfunction, without
a significant grace period, and the submission of a corrective plan for state
approval, the potential usefulness is increased. However, only a small minor-
ity fall within this category. Main drawbacks include grace periods in which
excess emissions are excused, other periods in which no notice is required,
a lack of detailed requirements governing what a source must do and report
during periods of malfunction, and an apparent lack of serious attention on
the part of many state agencies.
F.2.2.6.4 Malfunction regulation table—State regulations applicable
to malfunctions are listed in Table F-6 and analyzed according to the fol-
lowing format:
Scope of Regulation: The first column, entitled "Malfunction defined?"
indicates whether a state regulation provides a formal definition of a "mal-
function" or "breakdown," either in the malfunction regulation or in the
definition section of the regulation. States which informally "define" the
scope of the malfunction by limiting the applicability of the regulation to
malfunctions which "unpredictable" or "sudden," for example, receive a nega-
tive response in this column.
The second, third, and fourth columns indicate the actual scope of the
malfunction regulation. The regulations apply to control equipment, process
equipment, and/or operating procedures. If the regulation or definition is
very broad or vague, it has been indicated that the scope of the regulation
arguably applies to operating procedures.
The fifth column, relating to the status of the malfunction, indicates
those states which explicitly excuse the excess emission by regulation if
certain requirements are met. A state which may excuse the violation as a
matter of enforcement discretion, or other type of variance or permit mech-
anism, is not indicated in this column.
Requirements and Procedures: The first column, "Length of breakdown
before regulation applies," indicates the length of time a breakdown must
continue before it matures into a malfunction.
70
-------
Table F-6. MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO FERROUS FOUNDRY OPERATIONS
Scope of regulation
Requirements and procedures
EPA Region/ State
State regulation
RI
VT
Malfunc- Length of
tion is not breakdown How
Malfunc- Control Process Operating a violation before soon is
tion equipment equipment equipment of emission regulation report Means of
defined included included included limitation applies required report
Is formal
Contents Plan variance
of report required required
NH Reg. No. 4,
§ VI
Reg. No. 16
if < 48 hr
if > 48 hr
if > 24 hr
Comments
Region I
CT § 19-508-7 N Y
MA ...
ME § 605 N Y
Y Y
-
Y N
72 I1
-
48
U
-
W
C
-
U
Y
-
N
-
-
-
NY
Region III
DE
MD
§ 201.5(d)(2)
§ 10.18.07
72
PA
VA § 2.34
- »• • «
Y 1
Y
for 10 days
(continued)
4
24
Discretion to
allow operation
for 10 days can
be granted by a
air pollution
control officer.
i f > 6 mon
Y Longer variance
for 10 days may be granted
for major upset.
-------
TABLE F-6. (continued)
Scope of regulation
EPA Region/
State
Region IV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
Region V
IL
IN
HI
UN
OH
WI
Region VI
AR
LA
State
regulation
§ 1.10.2
§ 17-4.13
§ 391-2-1.02
401 KAR 3:010
§ 10
-
-
Reg. No. 62.5
Std. No. 1
§ II, D
§ 1200-3-10.-
.03
Rule 105
APC 11
R 336.48
APC 21(d)
§ 3745-15-06
NR 154.02 and
154.06(6)
Sec. 6
§ 17.11
Malfunc-
tion
defined
N
Y
Y
Y
-
-
N
Y
N
N
'N
N
N
N
N
N
Control
equipment
included
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
-
Y
Y ..
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Process
equipment
included
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Malfunc-
tion is not
Operating a violation
equipment of emission
included limitation
N
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
-
-
A
Y
N P
N Y
A Y
Y
A
N
A Y
A
Requirements
Length of
breakdown How
before soon is
regulation report
applies required
24
I
4 71
I
-
-
24
24, or I1
D
I
1 4
U
1 I
I
8
24
I
Means of
report
U
U
W
U
-
-
T
W
U
U
T
U
U
U
U
U
T
W
and procedures
Contents
of report
G
G
U
U
-
-
G
C
U
C
U
G
C
U
U *
C
Is formal
Plan variance
required required Comments
N
Y
N
N
-
-
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y Y
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-6. (continued)
Scope of regulation
EPA Region/
State
NM
OK
TX
Region VII
IA
KS
MO
NE
Region VIII
CO
MT
m
SD
UT
WY
Region IX
AZ
CA
HI
NV
State
regulation
§ 801
Reg. 11
§ 131.03.007
§ 5.1
§ 28-19-11
-
Rule 18
Reg. No. II,
§ E
§ 16-2.14(1)
§ 1.120
-
Part III
§ 4.7
Sec. 19
R9-3-309A.3
-
Sec. 4
§ 2.5
Malfunc-
tion
defined
N
N
Y
N
N
-
N
Y
N
N
-
" Y
N
Y
-
N
Y
Control
equipment
included
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Process
equipment
included
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Operating
equipment
included
A
A
A
A
A
-
A
N
A
A
-
Y
Y
N
-
A
Y
Requirements
Malfunc- Length of
tion is not breakdown How
a violation before soon is
of emission regulation report Means of
limitation applies required
Y - 24
I
Y - I
Y - 24
Y - 10 days
-
Y - I
Y - 24
Y 4 I1
Y - 24
-
Y 3 24
Y - 24
Y - 15 days
-
I
Y - 2lt
report
U
U
U
U
U
-
U
T
W
T
W
U
-
T
W
U
W
-
U
U
and procedures
Contents
Plan
of report required
U
C
U
U
G
-
U
C
G
G
-
G
U
G
-
C
U
N
Y
N
R
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
N
Is formal
variance
required Comments
-
-
Permission given
by Executive
Director.
-
-
-
-
-
Permission to op-
erate for 10 days
may be granted.
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
(rniii j mini |
-------
TABLE F-6. (concluded)
Scope of regulation
Requirements and procedures
Halfunc- Length of
tion is not breakdown How
Malfunc- Control Process Operating a violation before soon is Is formal
EPA Region/ State tion equipment equipment equipment of emission regulation report Means of Contents Plan variance
State regulation defined included included included limitation applies required report of report required required
Comments
Region X
AK
ID
OR
WA
---- - ------
Reg. 6 NYYN Y -24WUN-
§ 21-065 NYYY Y -1TUY-
WAC 173-400- NYY.A Y -24UUN-
120(4)
1 It is assumed that this report must be made prior to the termination of the period of grace if it is determined that the malfunction will extend beyond that
period. However, this could not be determined with certainty.
Y = Yes
N = No or none
A = Arguably
P = Operation allowed if permit applies
I = Immediately
D = If actual damage occurs
W = Written
T = Telephone
U = Unspecified
G = General information
C = Comprehensive information
R = Upon request
-------
The second column indicates how soon after the malfunction is discovered,
or is recognized to meet the requirement in column one, a report must be
made. The remaining columns indicate the method of the report, its contents,
and whether a specific plan to respond to or correct the problem must be
given to the state official as a part of the malfunction report. With re-
gard to the report content, some states do not specify any particular in-
formation; these are indicated by a "U." Others require general types of
information; these are indicated by a "G." Finally, others require compre-
hensive and detailed information; they are indicated by a "C."
Finally, Table F-6 indicates whether a formal variance is required by
the malfunction regulation, either initially or for an extended malfunc-
tion.
It should be noted that the regulations are detailed, different, and
not always susceptible to a simple summary. In contrast to the the other
regulations surveyed in this report, the malfunction regulations are of gen-
eral applicability in every state, and are not specifically designed for
foundry operations. Reference should be made to Section F.I.2, regarding
the status and choice of regulations surveyed in Table F-6.
F.3. TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS
F.3.1 General Introduction
This chapter contains the results of a telephone survey of state and
local air pollution agency officials. The survey was directed toward an
agency staff person familiar with the state's surveillance and enforcement
strategies pertaining to ferrous foundries. It was designed to unearth
problems that the states might be experiencing in the regulation of found-
ries, as well as how these problems are usually resolved.
Several topics were emphasized in the survey: How are the regulations
applied to ferrous foundries? What is the state's surveillance and investi-
gation strategy for ferrous foundries? What are the compliance problems
that are usually discovered? What is the state's most effective enforcement
strategy?
Most state contacts reported that there are few if any significant prob-
lems encountered in the regulation of ferrous foundries, that they are gen-
erally in compliance with applicable emission limitations, and are rarely
found in violation, and that the development of specific investigation or
enforcement strategies to deal with ferrous foundries has been unnecessary.
As a result of this general response, the survey results are indefinite.
In some cases, it became apparent that the general response ignored or avoided
a known problem area, and in such a case, the problem area has been scruti-
nized anyway. In other cases, however, discussion focuses on individual
responses that did raise relevant concerns.
In reporting the telephone survey results, major topics will be dis-
cussed in the following order: how the emission limitations are applied;
75
-------
investigation strategies; compliance status; malfunctions; and enforcement
strategies. The chapter closes with a brief report on findings relating to
state coordination with OSHA and to the existence of carcinogen regulation
strategies.
F.3.2 How The Regulations Are Applied
F.3.2.1 Introduction--
In the telephone survey state contacts were asked which emission limi-
tations were considered applicable to the cupola, the pouring and cooling
operations, the electric arc furnace, and shakeout and sand handling activi-
ties, and whether these regulations were (or would be) used. They were also
asked whether there were any problems in using the regulations, and, if so,
how such problems were resolved. Finally, they were asked if their regula-
tions would be changed in such a way that foundries would be affected.
The following table summarizes the responses to the first two questions:
Type of
Regulation
Number of States (out of 35 responses)
Electric Pouring and Shakeout and
Cupola Arc Furnace Cooling Sandhandling
Appli-
cable Used
Appli-
cable Used
Appli-
cable Used
Appli-
cable Used
Mass Emission 35 32 30 27 25 14 32 26
Visible 35 35 30 30 34 29 34 33
Emission
Fugitive 27 19 22 16 27 18 28 22
Emission
Nuisance 16 7 16 6 16 7 16 8
Odor 20 7 16 5 21 5 21 5
In general, it was found that almost all states have and rely on visi-
ble emission regulations to a significant extent in their regulatory pro-
grams involving foundries. Most states also have and rely on some type of
mass emission limitations, sometimes a process weight rate, sometimes a con-
centration (grain loading) limitation, sometimes a collection efficiency
regulation, and sometimes a combination of two or all three types. Approxi-
mately three-quarters of the states with fugitive emission regulations also
utilize these regulations with foundries, and only slightly over one-third
of the states utilize their nuisance related authority.
The tabulated responses are revealing in a number of aspects. The most
surprising involves pouring and cooling operations. It was thought that
most states would not consider their mass emission regulations applicable,
since pouring and cooling emissions are not usually captured in-plant. This
was not the case, however. Over two-thirds of the respondents felt their
mass emission regulations would apply, and 14 indicated that these regula-
tions would actually be used. This apparent anomaly is discussed in greater
detail in sections relating to the particular types of regulations. However,
it should be noted that the concentration limitation would be most prevalently
76
-------
applied, and in a few instances the process weight rate would also be ap-
plied. In general, contacts reported that pouring and cooling operations,
per se, are uncontrolled, and that effective control would be difficult and
perhaps unaffordable for most plants.
It was also surprising to find that several states rely on nuisance
and odor regulations. Although the reasons for this are discussed in greater
detail at a later point in this chapter, several observations were made.
First and foremost, they offer an alternative when other regulations will
not work. Second, in some cases they are preferred because they have been
favorably applied in the past, and the courts and agency understand their
application and find them best suited for achieving the regulatory objec-
tive involved.
Although there were criticisms raised regarding specific types of regu-
lations, most states were satisfied with their current emission limitation
regulations that apply to ferrous foundries. This finding undoubtedly re-
flects the fact that states have been able to use their current mix of regu-
lations to require a degree of control that they consider satisfactory. It
probably also indicates a general lack of concern for fugitive emissions
and questions involving continuous compliance among foundries, since regula-
tions in both these typical problem areas are known to be problematical.
In general, states reported that foundries would not be affected by new
regulations.
F.3.2.2 Survey Results By Type Of Regulation--
F.3.2.2.1 Process weight regulations—As expected, most states utilize
a process weight regulation for the control of furnace operations; and many
states utilize the same regulation for the control of shakeout and sandhan-
dling activities. Very few states actually control pouring and cooling opera-
tions; nevertheless, at least two states actually apply their process weight
regulations to that activity also.
The process weight rates applied to foundries were similar for the
majority of the states. For a substantial minority, the rates differed,
most often because a special regulation had been adopted for foundries.
These differences, however, do not appear to have a substantial impact on
the application and enforceability of process weight rates to foundries--
since, despite conceptual difficulties in the design and.application of
process weight rates, most states report that they have been able to apply
these regulations to foundries without significant problems.
This last result was somewhat unexpected. Conceptual problems inherent
in the design of process weight rates suggested significant potential for
ineffective application to ferrous foundries. These problems include: (1)
the difficulty of obtaining accurate, representative estimates of input weight
into the furnace; (2) the difficulty of accounting for input weight for
emissions resulting from downline processes; (3) the potential unsuitability
of many process weight rates as a means for requiring equitable emissions
reduction vis-a-vis other source categories, since in most cases the rate
was designed for application to another industry; and (4) the potential un-
suitability of most process weight rates for particular foundry operations,
77
-------
e.g. , shakeout, for which the weight input bears no reasonable relationship
to input weights on which the model process weight rate was based.
The following discussion presents a sample of comments made by the sur-
vey respondents relating to how the process weight rates are used, what their
limitations are, and in some instances how these limitations are resolved.
• Several respondents noted that the process weight rate is primarily
important as a mechanism to require installation of control equipment.
Foundry owners and operators are prepared to believe without argument
that emissions from many of their processes need to be controlled.
Therefore, when state agency officials and the foundry owners first
established a dialogue concerning the application of new regulations
requiring the installation of control equipment, the foundry owners
did not look behind the regulation to determine how or whether it might
be challenged—even if they recognized the existence of conceptual
problems in its interpretation. Instead, they concentrated their at-
tention on obtaining state acceptance of less costly control equipment,
or simply accepted the state's advice on control equipment considered
necessary. In most cases the equipment recommended would reduce emis-
sions more than adequately enough to meet the process weight rate for
any of the foundry processes. According to one contact, this would
continue to be the case even if the equipment deteriorated and did not
perform very efficiently. In these states, after installation and
testing, other types of regulations are used to ensure continuous com-
pliance.
0 With regard to the calculation of input weight for the furnace, one
contact mentioned that this is negotiated on a plant-by-plant basis.
A record may be made, and in future inspections the input will be
checked along with other process parameters, to determine whether there
are variations warranting retesting. Another contact mentioned that
the input calculation is not as significant as determining whether the
control equipment is working efficiently. However, this last position
appears to be tantamount to abandonment of the process weight rate as
anything but a convenient regulation to initiate control.
• It was noted that process weight rates are not suitable for shakeout
and sandhandling because of the exaggerated input weight. The solu-
tion to this in several states was to use the process weight rate to
require the use of particular control equipment, then to enforce pri-
marily on the basis of visible emission (or other) regulations. In
such a situation often the visible emission regulation would be more
restrictive and could therefore be used as the primary basis for re-
quiring control.
9 Another solution employed by states with misgivings or conflicts over
the application of process weight rates has been to adopt different
regulations. Three different routes were proposed (separately, or in
combination). First, a process weight rate suitable for specific pro-
cesses may be adopted. In conjunction with this, specific compliance
78
-------
test requirements may specify criteria for computing process input.
Second, concentration and collection efficiency regulations may be
adopted as supplementary, concurrently applicable regulations, so that
regardless of weight input variation, the control devices must provide
a continuous percentage reduction based on the total volume of effluent.
Finally, regulations designed to require control equipment maintenance
and to deal effectively with malfunctions or excess emissions due to
other specific problems may be adopted.
Many states have alternative regulations available for use in the con-
trol of foundry emissions. Several contacts noted, in fact, that these
alternatives are used instead of the process weight regulations if it
becomes apparent that the alternatives are equal to or more stringent
than the process weight regulations. One state with both process weight
and concentration limitations for example, rarely relies on its process
weight regulation, since it has been determined that compliance with
the state's concentration regulation always provides for compliance
with the process weight rate, regardless of the type of facility in-
volved. Another contact indicated that a correlation is made with the
visible emission regulation, because the latter is so much more easily
applied. It should be noted that many states rely primarily on the
visible emission regulation for enforcement purposes anyway, whether
or not they feel there is a correlation, because of the relative ease
in application. Further, several states establish a visible emission
correlation during stack testing, and use these readings for future
surveillance, even if the observed emissions are well within the visi-
ble emission requirements.
Most states felt that the pouring and cooling operations were not sus-
ceptible to regulation by the process weight rate because of the dif-
ficulty in calculating the input weight. One contact mentioned that
use of the concentration regulation was preferable for these emissions.
A conceptual problem with this approach is discussed in the following
section on emission concentration regulations. However, one respondent
noted that the process weight could be applied to pouring and cooling
operations by calculating potential emissions and then requiring an
equivalent amount of additional control of the furnace emissions.
One difficulty mentioned by several contacts was how to account for
all of the emissions associated with the input weight. This is the
converse of the problem already raised concerning how to calculate the
input weight for any particular foundry process. Since the rate is
based on actual input, if the actual input is given, then the allowable
emissions are easily determined. However, it is clear that not all of
the "allowed emissions" exit through the stack and are accounted for
during testing. Some exit during charging and tapping and other down-
line processes (including pouring and cooling). Therefore, a measure-
ment of emissions from the furnace stack fails to account for other
emissions that as a technical matter have been anticipated in the ap-
plication of the rate; and unless these other emissions are somehow
79
-------
factored into the testing results, there will be a testing bias favor-
ing compliance. This problem was cited by several contacts as an im-
portant reason for relying primarily on other types of emission limita-
tions (including a concentration limitation). Some states, on the other
hand, attempt to account for these additional emissions; while others
apparently ignore them.
• At least two separate contacts pointed out that application of an op-
erating permit regulation facilitates correction of some of the prob-
lems inherent in the process weight regulations. This would seem to
be an effective route only if some other regulatory standard were
available for application through the permit; e.g., a best available
control technology standard, or a requirement to operate and maintain
control equipment. Many states have such requirements; however, they
were not included in the current survey.
• Even for those states who are able to work out acceptable methods for
applying their process weight regulations, there are still constraints
that militate against their use. The cost and inconvenience of stack
testing is a significant constraint in this regard. One state noted
that it must pay 50% of the cost of stack testing and that as a result,
its process weight regulations (as well as other mass emission regula-
tions) are not often applied.
F.3.2.2.2 Emission concentration regulations—As already noted, slightly
fewer than half of the states (21) have concentration limitations that may
be applied to foundries. Nine of these have regulations that apply speci-
fically to foundry operations—usually the cupola, but electric arc furnaces
are also covered, as well as shakeout and sandhandling.
Emission concentration regulations have proven to be a preferred alterna-
tive to the process weight rates in some states since they avoid certain
conceptual difficulties inherent in process weight regulations. They do
not avoid all difficulties, however; and, they contain problems of their
own. Emission tests to monitor compliance with the concentration limita-
tion may misrepresent total, actual emissions over a given amount of time,
since the concentration depends on the amount of exhaust gas. The amount
of exhaust gas can fluctuate greatly under normal conditions and may be
subject to operator control.
This has been a concern frequently expressed by federal regulators,
despite the fact that most state regulations are designed to avoid the
problem by referring to "undiluted" stack gas. During the telephone sur-
vey, no state respondents expressed concern over the potential for mis-
represented results due to emission dilution. However, this consideration
was not fully appreciated until the completion of the survey, and it was
not pursued specifically during the interviews.
Many contacts agreed that the concentration limitation was particularly
useful when applied to emissions from the ventilation system to determine
whether additional capture was needed. At least one state has an emission
limitation that is applied to roof vents for this purpose. The only con-
ceptual problem raised concerning such an application was that it may be
80
-------
difficult to attribute the cause to any particular source within the plant.
However, it was not our impression that this should be a constraint, so long
as it is feasible to control any in-plant processes sufficiently enough to
attain compliance.
The one problem deserving specific mention in this regard is applica-
tion of a concentration limitation to pouring and cooling. A very small
number of respondents indicated that such an application would be appro-
priate; several, on the other hand, rejected this option outright. Most
respondents, however, acknowledged that emissions from pouring and cooling
operations are not captured, and that it is not economically feasible to
install capture equipment directed specifically at the pouring and cooling
operation, in cases where the pouring apparatus is mobile. Thus, two dif-
ficulties in such an application are apparent. First, it is not practicable
to measure emissions specifically from the pouring and cooling operation
for the same reason that is not practicable to capture those emissions; as
a result, emissions would be measured at a point (usually the roof vent)
that would make the contribution from pouring and cooling indistinguishable
from the contribution of other in-plant processes (e.g., charging, tapping,
sandhandling, and other emissions not adequately captured). Therefore, it
is difficult to make the determination that pouring and cooling must be con-
trolled in order to reduce the total measured emissions to meet the appli-
cable concentration regulation. Second, even if it is clear that pouring
and cooling emissions are a significant contributor to overall excessive
emissions, it is not clear what approach should be taken toward control.
As noted in the discussion relating to process weight regulations, one con-
tact indicated that his state would require offsetting reduction from other
emission points, e.g., the cupola, that are subject to control. Most states,
however, seem to ignore pouring and cooling emissions.
F.3.2.2.3 Visible emission regulations—The telephone survey indicated
clearly that visible emission regulations are the most widely utilized regu-
lation for control of foundry emissions. Virtually every state that has a
cupola or electric arc furnace uses its visible emission limitation to regu-
late emissions from those points, and all but one state uses the same regu-
lation for shakeout and sandhandling emissions. In addition, a majority of
the respondents indicated that visible emission regulations are used (or
would be used) to regulate pouring and cooling operations (although it was
not clear what controls would be required).
Primarily, visible emission limitations are used by the states to en-
sure continued compliance after the installation of control equipment. The
visible emission regulations are more easily applied than mass emission
regulations in the context of enforcement because of the relatively simple
testing requirement. (See the discussion in Section F.2 relating to visible
emission regulations.)
Several states, however, indicated that they would rely on the visible
emission regulation in addition to the process weight rate for the purpose
of requiring the installation of control equipment, if the process weight
rate were roughly comparable or less stringent. The source would be re-
minded in such a case that even if the process weight rate is achieved, the
visible emission limitation must also be met.
81
-------
One area of concern that arose after completion of the survey, involves
the difficulty of applying a visible emission regulation to fugitive emissions
from foundries. Data indicate that such emissions are often substantial.
Depending on the state's test method requirements, documentation for pur-
poses of issuing a notice of violation would usually be more difficult with
diffuse emissions in the vicinity of buildings (where an opague background
and difficulty in obtaining an observation site with a satisfactory angle
of sunlight would be constraining factors). This could be a particularly
important consideration for the control of pouring and cooling emissions
and other in-plant processes for which in-plant capture systems either do
not exist, or periodically break down.
Although it is not possible to resolve this concern on the basis of
the current survey, it should be noted that only a very few respondents
volunteered that these factors create an investigation or enforcement prob-
lem. Since the question was not specifically presented during the survey,
however, we are unable to determine the full extent to which these factors
present a constraint.
The following are some of the specific concerns raised during the
telephone survey regarding visible emission regulations and their applica-
tion to ferrous foundries:
9 Several contacts were concerned about how to read visible emissions
from roof vents. If they must be read individually, then emissions
rarely exceed a 20% opacity limitation. However, if they may be read
together by observing the roof lengthwise, then typical emissions would
exceed 20% opacity more often. Aside from numerous constraints to
conducting valid observations, e.g., finding an observation site at
the roof vent level, sun location, wind direction, etc., there are
also potential legal contraints e.g., whether the regulations permit
combining all roof vent emissions as if a single source were involved
rather than several sources. Among the contacts who raised this issue,
it had not been resolved.
9 Several contacts thought that visible emission regulations do not deal
effectively with emissions that are diluted with gases or excess air.
This would be a problem particularly for emissions from ventilation
points. Emissions that would otherwise exit in a concentrated form,
exit diluted and do not exceed the opacity requirements.
9 It is difficult to conduct valid readings from doors, windows, and most
other points not involving stacks. As a result, these emission points
are often ignored, even though it is obvious that significant emis-
sions are emerging from them.
• Observer training involves readings taken primarily from stacks. Al-
though this was disputed, several respondents felt that training was
insufficient to allow for non-stack readings.
0 One contact was concerned about potential conflicts between the visible
emission regulations and other regulations. In his state the least
82
-------
restrictive regulation would be preemptive, and that compliance with a
fugitive emission regulation would excuse visible emission violations
from the roof vents, for example.
F.3.2.2.4 Fugitive emission regulations: Fugitive emission regula-
tions are potentially very important with foundries, since many of the
emissions involved occur within an enclosure and are not captured for
transport to a collection system. These emissions exit through roof vents
and other openings. Most states, furthermore, according to our regulation
and telephone surveys, have some type of fugitive emission regulation on
the books, and a clear majority either apply or consider the regulation ap-
plicable to foundry emissions. The extent to which these regulations are
applied varies significantly among the states, however. This variation is
based in part on variation among the types of fugitive emission regulations,
but it is also based on other factors, such as the adequacy of other regu-
lations to achieve the desired results, and the relative priority given to
fugitive emissions versus stack emissions in the overall control strategy.
For the purposes of the present discussion, the different types of
fugitive emission regulations (See Table F-4 and the accompanying discus-
sion in Section F.2) may be separated first into two broad categories:
regulations with primarily subjective standards and regulations with ob-
jective standards. In the first category, regulations may prohibit
"unnecessary" fugitive emissions, or they may require that "reasonable
precautions" be taken to prevent fugitive emissions, or they may prohibit
fugitive emissions amounting to a nuisance—there are many other variations.
Many state contacts indicated that the subjectivity of the applicable stan-
dard prevented them from applying the regulation except in clearly inexcusable
circumstances. This was not always the case, however; there were other con-
tacts, with apparent judicial (or political) backing, who felt confident in
applying their own subjective standards to fugitive emissions from foundries.
In the second category, regulations may prohibit fugitive emissions
that are visible at the property line, or that exceed a certain opacity,
(e.g. , 20%) at the property line, or that have a certain fallout rate, or
that have a certain ambient concentration. The visible emission regulation,
in such a case, is more frequently utilized, however. The other quantita-
tive limitations are not often used, according to some contacts, because
they are time and resource consuming. In addition, contacts complained about
the difficulty of accounting for background pollution levels, which must
usually be subtracted out when determining whether a source is in compliance.
If the state has the ability to use its fugitive emission regulation,
we found very few instances where the state was constrained in its use.
Usually, the state could require the installation of new capture systems,
or require that steps be taken to ensure proper capture efficiency, all in-
cident to its authority to require that reasonable measures be taken to pre-
vent fugitive emissions. In one instance, however, the state disclaimed
authority to require that any specific in-plant remedial measures be taken
(presumably, the state was limited to requiring that the violation be reme-
died, and how this was to be accomplished was up to the source to determine).
83
-------
In a number of instances, we found that states were simply unconcerned
about fugitive emissions. These states felt that primary emission problems
at foundries were related to stack emissions from the melting operation—and
most contacts felt that these emissions were adequately controlled. Fugi-
tive emissions were perceived to be minor by comparison. Other contacts
indicated that fugitive regulations would be applied, but only to the large
foundries. While this prioritization primarily reflected the state's strat-
egy to require more control in situations where the overall pollution po-
tential was greater, it was also apparent that cost was a consideration in
a few instances -- the larger, wealthier foundries could more easily afford
expensive hoods, ducts, fans, and related energy consumption involved in
capturing fugitive emissions at the source in-plant.
Perhaps the most interesting solution to a regulatory constraint dis-
covered during this survey was cited in connection with fugitive emission
regulations. In this case, the state contact noted that the fugitive regu-
lation contained a subjective standard which made the regulation difficult
or impossible to enforce. An operating permit regulation, on the other hand,
required that foundries in the state apply for and obtain a permit to operate,
and allowed each permit to contain reasonable conditions to enable each source
to comply with other regulations. This enabled the state to insert in each
permit a series of conditions requiring foundries to avoid fugitive emissions.
Any violation of a permit condition would be independently enforceable,
regardless of whether the underlying fugitive emission regulation would have
been difficult or impossible to enforce in the same circumstance.
The following discussion provides a selection of other comments relat-
ing to the use of fugitive emission regulations in the states:
9 One state has a fugitive emission regulation that specifically requires
that any manufacturing process generating fugitive particulates be
equipped with a particulate control system and that this system be oper-
ated and maintained to minimize fugitive emissions. While the state
considers this regulation appropriate for assuring that in-plant emis-
sions be captured and vented to a collection system, the contact readily
admitted that in-plant emissions are de-emphasized by his state. On
the subject of capture efficiency, his response was (a) that calcula-
tions demonstrating the relative degree of inefficiency would be a
burdensome undertaking, and (b) that capture inefficiency would merely
result in in-plant problems, not ambient problems. Thus, a strong
fugitive regulation is probably not fully implemented in this state
because of a preconceived attitude regarding the relative unimportance
of in-plant emissions.
• In another state the fugitive emission regulation requires that a foundry
owner or operator limit "unnecessary" amounts of TSP from becoming air-
borne and causing the ambient standards to be exceeded. Although the
wording is vague and invites subjective application, these factors are
considered unimportant by the state. The regulation is rarely used,
however, because it requires ambient monitoring, a time and resource
consuming task.
84
-------
In one state the fugitive emission regulation may not be used to require
installation of control equipment for existing sources until a violation
has actually been documented. Documentation requires ambient monitoring.
Once documented, there is no significant constraint on what may be re-
quired regarding in-plant remedial action. For new sources, however,
operating permits are required, and the state is able to impose require-
ments to prevent fugitive emissions through permit conditions. Further-
more, since the new source standard is predicated on technology and
not ambient concentrations, there is no need to prove an ambient viola-
tion in order to take enforcement action. As a note, this state is
unable to revise existing permits to include fugitive prevention con-
trol techniques unless a violation is documented. This would not be
the case if existing permits were subject to periodic renewal. The
state considers this to be a serious tactical weakness in the operat-
ing permit program.
One contact noted that in his state each roof vent is considered to be
a an air pollution "point source" and therefore subject, under the terms
of the state's regulations, to a mass emission regulation, and not a
fugitive emission regulation. Although this issue was not pursued in
other interviews, it was apparent that many states have the option of
regulating these emissions under either type of regulation, and, in
addition, under the visible emission regulations.
One state that has rejected the use of its fugitive emission regulation
cited as the primary reason the difficulty in accounting for background
TSP levels when establishing the ambient violation required under the
regulation. Costly, extensive testing would be required to establish
typical background data according to the season and time of day. This
would be necessary primarily because the background levels fluctuate
according to the use of numerous unpaved roads, and according to the
operating cycles of other industry sources contributing to the pollu-
tion levels.
Another state which uses its fugitive regulation extensively pointed
out that the regulation fills an important gap in authority. Visible
emission and mass emission regulations allow for some emissions. The
fugitive regulation, on the other hand, prohibits all fugitive emis-
sions unless reasonable steps are taken to prevent such emissions.
This authorizes state action whenever any fugitive emissions are ob-
served. In this state, the burden is on the source to demonstrate that
it did in fact take steps to prevent the fugitive emissions, and that
these steps were reasonable under the circumstances.
One state contact indicated that his state applies its fugitive emis-
sion regulation only in non-attainment areas.
Another state indicated that its fugitive emission regulation may be
applied to stack emissions, as well as emissions that pass through
control equipment, if they start out as in-plant fugitive emissions.
This allows the state to require that remedial action be taken with
regard to control equipment, if violation of the fugitive regulation
85
-------
is documented. In this case, documentation of a fugitive regulation
would be easier than a documentation of a mass emission violation, and
the requirement is generally more stringent than the visible emission
regulation.
• Another contact explained how his state gets logjammed when attempting
to apply a subjective standard under its fugitive regulation. This
state has a typical fugitive regulation requiring the industry to take
"reasonable precautions" to prevent fugitive emissions. The state must
exercise good engineering judgment in determining whether the action
taken by the source amounted to a reasonable precaution. In addition,
the economics must be weighed, along with the range of controls avail-
able, and the practice of the industry in general. Especially in view
of this last requirement, the state is presently conducting studies of
possible fugitive control techniques that may be required in a new,
revised fugitive regulation.
• Another state that has shifted the burden to the source to demonstrate
that his steps were indeed reasonable, allows the source to petition
the state to make a "determination" that existing levels are acceptable.
Upon such a determination the foundry is permitted to continue operat-
ing with the same level of fugitive emissions.
F.3.2.2.5 Nuisance-related regulations--The common law of nuisance,
trespass, battery, and similar torts provide one historical basis for the
abatement of air pollution. Prior to the enactment of local ordinances and
eventually state and federal law, common law provided the primary legal basis
for air pollution control. Increasingly, however, this country has turned
toward regulation of air pollution sources by the enactment of laws requir-
ing air pollution control and laws authorizing public agencies to supervise
such control. The end result is that it has not often been necessary or
even appropriate for citizens to turn to the common law for assistance
(unless seeking damages).
In a parallel development, however, principles of common law that have
received historical recognition and clear definition through years of judi-
cial precedent have often been woven into the statutory authority provided
the state and local agencies who have been delegated the task of supervising
air pollution control. Thus, one finds that a state agency has not only
the authority to establish and enforce emission limitations for specific
air pollution sources, a task that is based on principles of scientific
precision and objectivity, but often the agency will also have the author-
ity to find that a public nuisance exists and require that it be abated, or
go to court to do so. In the latter case, whether or not the air pollution
amounts to a nuisance may depend on very subjective factors, and it may de-
mand that the state prove the existence of a nuisance --and depending on
the state law, this last burden may involve proof of actual damage to per-
sons or property.
It is not surprising that most states contacted in our telephone sur-
vey do not use such authority to control foundries, but rather rely on stan-
dard air pollution control regulations. On the other hand, it must be noted
86
-------
that over one-third of the states do use this type of authority—most, not
often; but some, extensively.
In our regulation survey we have noted four types of nuisance-related
regulations. There is sometimes a general proscription against air pollu-
tion, and air pollution is defined in such a way that for all practical pur-
poses it works like a nuisance regulation; for example, it may be defined
as a condition that results in harm to persons or property. A second type,
closely related to the first, is a proscription against nuisances, and nui-
sance is defined to be a condition of air pollution. A third type, is the
fugitive emission regulation which proscribes fugitive emissions amounting
to a nuisance. Finally, there may be a regulation which proscribes air pol-
lution causing odors. (There may be other similar types, e.g., regulations
designed to protect visibility; however, only the four noted above were sur-
veyed .)
The telephone survey produced three basic reasons for the use of nui-
sance law, rather than use of the standard air pollution control regulations.
First, existing authority may be deficient, or documentation of the viola-
tion under the standard regulations may be weak or flawed; and the state
turns to nuisance-related authority as a last resort. Second, due to liberal
judicial acceptance of a nuisance theory, the use of that authority is more
effective and there is more significant precedent supporting the state's
case. Finally, there are some situations when the case arises through cit-
izen complaints, and the existence of those complaints under a nuisance
theory provides an independent basis for court action.
Odor regulations, on the other hand, are more rarely relied on. They
usually require sampling other citizens who may have been affected by the
odors or the convening of an odor panel to smell and contrast samples taken
from the site with clean samples. Most states indicated that they would
only investigate an odor problem if a specific complaint were received.
The following are other specific comments relating to the use of nui-
sance-related authority.
• In one state nuisance regulations actually disrupt the state's inves-
tigation and surveillance strategy. Under this state's regulations,
any time a "verified complaint" is submitted, it must be fully inves-
tigated.
e One state reported the use of its nuisance regulation to get around
the argument by a source that its excess emissions were exempt under
the state's malfunction regulation. Based on verified citizens com-
plaints, the state prosecuted the source under the nuisance regulation.
When faced with the actual court case, the source settled by consenting
to an order that it upgrade its control equipment, change its operating
procedures, and conform to an operation and maintenance plan.
• In another state that relies periodically on its nuisance authority,
the contact noted that this is done only when the other emission regu-
lations may not be used. In this case, the agency has the authority
87
-------
to determine whether a nuisance exists, and upon such determination to
order abatement and other reasonable measures, including adherence to
an operation and maintenance plan that must be approved by the agency.
In order to determine whether a nuisance exists, the agency may base
its decision on evidence of property damage, or entirely on the basis
of the number of complaints received.
Another state which relies on nuisance authority usually as a last re-
sort pointed out that its authority is used most often to deal with
malfunctions. Agency requirements imposed on the source usually in-
volve operation and maintenance procedures; they never involve control
equipment upgrading, since specific quantitative regulations have been
adopted for that purpose. In this state, a hearing officer is appointed
by the agency to make the determination of whether a nuisance exists;
the decision is basically a discretionary one, made after hearing the
testimony of one or more complainants.
Another state's general prohibition against air pollution defines dis-
repair of air pollution control equipment to be a condition of air
pollution; this state prefers to rely primarily on the statutory pro-
hibition (which has been favorably interpreted in the state supreme
court) and not necessarily on emission limitations or their equivalent
statutory authority, when dealing with excess emission problems.
Without being able to cite a specific example of its application, one
contact said that the odor regulation could be used to regulate emis-
sions from foundries. An "odor panel" of seven to ten people (non-
smokers, without colds or allergies) are put into a sealed room. The
substance is introduced into the room at a known level of dillution;
the level of dillution is increased until 50% of the panel can detect
it; at this point it.can be determined if an odor problem exists. This
level of dillution would be compared to an actual sample taken from
the site, and if the actual sample exceeded the tested sample, then
remedial measures could be ordered.
Another contact indicated that his state treated odor violations with
equal significance to mass emission violations, and that both types of
regulations are given equal weight in an enforcement proceeding. In
order to trigger state action, however, at least one citizen's com-
plaint must be received. A standard expressed in odor units is applied,
and a violation is established by use of a scentometer. If a viola-
tion exists, the state may require the installation of control equip-
ment as well as require that existing control equipment be operated
and maintained according to specific terms established by the state.
Another contact mentioned that his state had not applied its odor
regulation to a foundry operation yet, but that such application was
possible. In his state, although a violation may be determined by a
panel, the state prefers to proceed on the basis of a petition; if the
number of names is significant, then action would be justified without
convening an odor panel. If it is insignificant, the contact felt that
convening the panel would probably not be justified. In this state
88
-------
the source may demonstrate compliance by applying or showing that it
has applied state-of-the-art control technology. An operation and main-
tenance plan would usually be required as a permit condition.
• Several states indicated that use of odor regulations is avoided, if
possible, because of the inconvenience involved in applying them, or
because of the subjectivity of the standard involved.
F.3.3 Investigation Strategies
During the telephone interviews questions were asked to determine what
the states' investigation strategies were for ferrous foundries. Contacts
were asked how often they conducted out-of-plant visual inspections, in-plant
inspections, and stack tests. They were asked whether these inspections
were announced or unannounced and which type of inspection was most central
to their investigation strategy for foundries. They were also asked what
constituted an out-of-plant inspection and an in-plant inspection; and they
were asked whether these inspections were prioritized.
F.3.3.1 Prioritization—
Although assigning an investigation priority to a particular source,
including a ferrous foundry, is not always done in a formal manner, it is
nevertheless given some consideration by virtually all states and localities.
The following factors were noted by survey respondents as important consid-
erations for determining investigation priority:
Number of Responses
Priority Consideration (Out of 35)
Source Size (Major v. Minor) 26
Prior Record 26
Citizen's Complaint 22
Non-attainment Area 14
High Population Density 3
Type of Control Device 2
Major Alteration or Repairs to Facility 1
EPA Is Stressing Enforcement Against the 1
Source Category
Monitoring Data in Vicinity of Source 1
Operating Permit Up for Renewal 1
It was generally conceded that these factors are not applied mechani-
cally but are tempered and interpreted by the experienced judgment of the
field investigators and the engineering staff of the state and local agen-
cies. In no case was it found that the ferrous foundry source category is
given higher priority than other major source categories; and in only a few
states did the interview respondents indicate that there are ferrous found-
ries that are given a high inspection priority. It should be noted that
during these interviews no basis for prioritization was suggested, and it
is quite possible that the results would have been different had a series
of factors been proposed for ranking by the respondent.
89
-------
F.3.3.2 Visible Emission Inspections—
A majority of states and localities surveyed rely on the observation
of visible emissions as the day-to-day method of ensuring compliance. In
most cases, these visible observations take the form of a drive-by inspec-
tion, where the field investigator in his travels throughout the district
he covers generally observes the sources in that area to see if there are
any apparent problems. In most states and localities, these drive-by in-
spections are conducted on a random basis. This results in most sources,
including ferrous foundries, receiving periodic visible checks, ranging
from once a week to once every 6 months. If a foundry is the subject of
complaints or if a determination is made that it is a problem source, it
would be subject to more frequent drive-by inspections (in one state up to
four times per week).
A number of state and local contacts indicated that they have no set
schedule for visibility checks, but these checks are always made if a citi-
zen complaint is received. In one state where there is no visible emission
regulation actually applied to foundries, visibility checks are still relied
on to point to possible violations of other regulations (mass emission and
fugitive emission regulations). This, in fact, is a strategy pursued by
most states, even when a visible emission regulation is applicable, since
even minor visible emissions may be an indication that other violations are
occurring or may soon occur, although there may be no violation of the
visible emission regulation.
In addition to drive-by visible emission inspections, formal readings
by inspectors who are trained smoke readers are also taken. These formal
readings are done at the time of the periodic (usually annual) in-plant in-
spections and when drive-by inspections or repeated citizen complaints in-
dicate that emission problems exist at a particular foundry.
In order to leverage scarce resources, it should be noted that some
states and localities request that air quality monitoring personnel or other
state or local officials, e.g., health officers, report any air pollution
problems that are observed. Some states and localities also encourate cit-
izens' complaints. Only a very few respondents, however, mentioned that they
would try to capture other resources to meet their own resource constraints.
Most respondents spoke, instead, of random hits and prioritization as the
chief mechanisms for resolving problems relating to scarce resources.
F.3.3.3 In-Plant Inspections--
In contrast to the random drive-by inspections, in-plant inspections
are almost always either schedule or in response to a known or suspected
emissions problem. Almost every state conducts periodic in-plant inspec-
tions of ferrous foundries, regardless of size. If they are classified as
major sources, they will receive an in-plant inspection at least annually
(many contacts indicated that two or more times per year is common for all
major sources, foundries included). Although a majority of the states make
a clear distinction between major and minor foundries, a significant minority
inspect minor foundries according to the same periodic schedule. However,
only one contact indicated that minor foundries receive a routine inspection
more than once a year.
90
-------
According to the interview responses, it appears that the periodic
in-plant insection is conducted in a fairly uniform manner. The inspector
reviews the source's equipment list and checks for any deterioration, modi-
fication, or replacement of equipment. All processes are observed, and the
inspector notes which emissions are directed to specific stacks. (It may
be that this check is done on a counter-current basis, starting with the
stack and proceeding backward.) Primary focus is given to the melting
processes. The operating schedule, the production rate, and emission data
for each process are checked. If possible, an attempt is made to verify
process weighlt rates. A check is made to see that all permit conditions
are being observed. Control devices are inspected, and maintenance logs
and continuous monitoring reports are reviewed. In addition, the general
housekeeping of the source is reviewed, and checks are made for fugitive
leaks. The inspector may also try to determine how long it takes control
devices to become fully operative after start-up. Finally, he may also
look to see how collected particulate is disposed.
Although the melting processes receive the major focus, many respon-
dents indicated that an inspection is made of the entire foundry operation.
A general walk-through occurs in which the inspector looks for fugitive
leaks, although depending on the skill of the inspector, it may also amount
to a general inspection of the condition of process equipment and in-plant
capture systems. It was not clear as a result of the survey how seriously
the inspection for fugitive emissions is pursued, what levels are tolerated,
and what action is taken when fugitive emissions are considered excessive.
However, it was pointed out by one respondent that an in-plant inspection
is the only truly effective way for apprehending excessive fugitive emis-
sions. During the drive-by inspection, excessive emissions may not be ap-
parent; or, what appears to be an excessive emission may be the result of
some temporary, nonrecurring problem. The in-plant inspection, on the other
hand, should disclose to the wary inspector any innate problem that would
inevitably lead to excessive fugitive emissions.
Several respondents noted the importance in an in-plant inspection of
discussing technical problems with plant personnel, especially the operators
of the equipment involved, and not just the plant managers. These persons
strongly supported the need for such inspections and usually indicated that
they were essential to an effective investigation strategy. Among the tech-
niques emphasized by these respondents was the importance of discussing
continuous emission monitoring reports and maintenance and malfunction logs
with plant personnel. This is viewed as particularly important, since the
issue is no longer one of initial control, they think, but whether the con-
trol is fully operative.
Two respondents who value highly the in-plant inspection also tend to
value highly the requirement that malfunctions be recorded and reported.
It was stated that such a requirement is a useful investigatory tool because
the source operator knows that a failure to report will constitute a sepa-
rately enforceable violation. Thus, the burden of detecting compliance prob-
lems is shifted in part to the person who can detect them best—the source
operator.
91
-------
Aside from the periodic, scheduled in-plant inspection, in-plant in-
spections occur as the result of citizens' complaints, and as the result of
emissions problems that are known or suspected because of the filing of re-
quired reports indicating a problem, because of a drive-by inspection, or
because of a prior history of noncompliance. Many states, in fact, rely on
the response oriented investigation strategy as the preferred method for
dealing with noncompliance problems in sources that have installed accept-
able control equipment. The attitude seems to be that if a significant
emissions problem exists, it will be discovered effectively enough by one
of these nonscheduled investigatory techniques, and that to supplement this
surveillance system with additional inspections that are undertaken without
reasonable suspicion of an emissions problem is a waste of time and resources,
Most state contacts, however, indicated that the scheduled inspection
is as important as the response oriented inspection. Although the visiblity
check is frequently relied on as the initial inspection tool, in-plant in-
spections are relied on to provide additional, more detailed information.
It is more important if drive-by inspections are infrequent or it is sus-
pected that excess emissions occur more frequently at night. It is also
considered useful as a preventive measure: problems are nipped in the bud,
but just as important, the continued presence of state enforcement is made
known.
F.3.3.4 Announcing Inspections--
Regarding the announcement of inspections, the interviews disclosed
that most states do not announce drive-by inspections (although there were
two exceptions to this), and the states are almost evenly split between
those who announce in-plant inspections and those who do not. Those favor-
ing the unannounced inspections obviously value the importance of surprise
in being able to ascertain an accurate picture of individual source compli-
ance problems. Those favoring announced inspections usually cited the im-
portance of ensuring that the proper plant personnel are on hand, and that
the records required are readily available. Although the survey did not
clearly document the justification for a distinction, it seems plausible
that the motive of the inspection would be of a paramount importance. A
state with a relatively nonaggressive enforcement posture may treat the
scheduled inspection as an informal compliance review and not wish to risk
the waste of time and resources involved if important personnel are not
present. On the other hand, a state conducting a formal inspection in re-
sponse to a complaint or a drive-by, may wish to gain the enforcement le-
verage obtained by apprehending the source in the act of violating emission
limitations or other legal requirements.
F.3.3.5 Stack Tests--
Among the various investigaton strategies, the most seriously criti-
cized strategy was the stack test. Only 20 of the 36 respondents in states
with foundries indicated that stack tests are a necessary element of their
enforcement investigation strategies, and nine respondents rejected stack
testing outright. These nine rely entirely on other regulatory mechanisms
to ensure continued compliance after the initial compliance test (e.g.,
visible emission regulations, malfunction regulations, operating permits,
operation and maintenance regulations, etc.).
92
-------
Only two of the nine, and very few states overall, mentioned that con-
ceptual difficulties in applying mass emission regulations were primary rea-
sons for not conducting stack tests. Most respondents objected primarily
to the time and resource commitment and complained in addition that the tests
are not representative of actual operating conditions.
Even for the 20 states that consider stack testing an important compo-
nent of their overall investigation strategy, most respondents admitted that
it is rarely used. Generally, a stack test which conforms to EPA's refer-
ence test methods (or some variant acceptable to the state) is performed
after initial installation of control equipment; then, it is not required
again in most states unless special circumstances warrant it. The follow-
ing is a sample of comments of respondents indicating a variety of circum-
stances when stack testing will be required.
• In one state stack tests are considered appropriate if the in-plant
inspection discloses significant deterioration in control equip-
ment (regardless of whether excess emissions are suspected).
• Another states resorts to stack testing in less than 10% of the
cases where an excess emission problem is suspected—normally in
circumstances where formal enforcement will be necessary, or when
the source and state are in disagreement over whether new, expen-
sive control equipment is necessary to ensure compliance with mass
emission limitations.
• Several states indicated that a stack test will be requested if
visible emission inspections show continuous borderline opacity
compliance.
• Wet caps and scrubbers are subject to stack testing more often in
one state because wet caps usually allow for only marginal com-
pliance, and because the water vapor from scrubbers interferes
with effective visible emission readings.
• Stack testing is conducted only when a source is beginning opera-
tion or using a new process and an operating permit is being sought.
One respondent noted that his state has been able to alleviate some of
the difficulty in stack testing by adopting a preliminary, simplified ver-
sion as a screening technique. This test is referred to as a "surveillance
evaluation" test and is conducted every 2 years. This test apparently ap-
proximates a complete stack test. If a problem is found, and the source
refuses to accept the results of the tests, then the source is required to
conduct a complete stack test at its own expense.
Two other respondents, mentioned that their states use a different type
of screening mechanism that combines visible emission observations with the
initial stack testing. These observations are used later as a guide to
determine whether there is potential noncompliance with the mass emission
limitation. If the equivalent opacity is exceeded, a closer investigation
ensues, and there may be a request for stack testing.
93
-------
It should be noted that whether or not stack testing is used as an im-
portant element of states' investigation strategies, for many states it may
be a pivotal consideration formulating an overall enforcement strategy. Al-
though our regulation survey did not cover the issue, it is well known that
many states are limited to standard testing methods as a basis for determin-
ing compliance status with emission limitations. This may mean that episodic
violations are not subject to formal enforcement, unless alternative require-
ments are applicable. For states with weak visible emission regulations,
weak fugitive regulations, and inadequate authority to impose nonemission re-
quirements (e.g., through operating permits), some strategic approach to
stack testing is a necessary precondition to maintaining a formal enforce-
ment posture.
It cannot be determined as a result of our surveys how significant a
constraint is posed by the availability or absence of alternative legal op-
tions for the evaluation of compliance status among foundries. When asked
during another portion of the survey whether there were constraints that
prevented effective enforcement against foundries, the most popular com-
plaint concerned legal red tape in proceeding with formal enforcement; no
respondent pointed to compliance testing requirements specifically; and, in
fact, only a minority of the states felt that there were any constraints
having an impact on foundries—most foundries are perceived to be in com-
pliance within parameters acceptable to the states.
One further area of concern involving stack testing is who has the bur-
den to conduct the test. One respondent complained that his state does not
have the authority to required a source to conduct the test; and another
complained that the state must pay for all or a part of all tests after the
initial compliance test. It is not known how prevalent a potential constraint
this may be. The subject was not specifically addressed in either of the
surveys.
F.3.3.6 Citizen Complaints--
Reliance on public assistance was a very popular investigation strategy.
Depending on the state, however, two very different motives were involved.
In one type of state, citizen complaints were considered the primary barom-
eter of the need for enforcement—if no complaints were received, no serious
enforcement effort would ensue (unless pressure to do so arrived from other
quarters, e.g., EPA). In the other type of state citizen participation was
actively encouraged as an adjunct to the existing investigation strategy,
primarily to increase the state's surveillance capability—such assistance
was not necessarily a critical underpinning of the state's enforcement strat-
egy. Some of the benefits cited by survey respondents include:
Citizen complaints are useful to direct the state or locality to
sources whose violations would otherwise not be detected, e.g.,
when the source is operating at night.
Citizen participation in enforcement provides an independent incen-
tive for industry to comply. Most industry is concerned with its
public image, and the fact that a public complaint has resulted
in the enforcement action provides an added incentive for the in-
dustry to correct the problem.
94
-------
• Active citizen participation expands the state's surveillance capa-
bility. In one state, citizens are encouraged to contact the source
directly, and it has been found that the source will usually take
corrective action without involvement by the state.
Three problems were raised regarding an investigation strategy relying
on citizen participation. First, one respondent pointed out that it is
sometimes difficult to observe the source under the same conditions as the
citizen and respond effectively to a complaint. Second, another contact
mentioned that when a region depends on a source for employment, citizens
will not complain. Perhaps the most significant concern, however, is the
fact that as a political matter (and often as a legal matter, too) the
state must follow up on citizen complaints; this can upset existing inves-
tigation prioritization strategies.
Among the states that value highly public participation in the state's
surveillance program, several techniques are adopted:
• The state checks out all complaints quickly and keeps the complaint
informed of the results and follow-up.
• The state uses public information sources to kept the public in-
formed about the existence of regulations, and particularly the
existence of compliance problems.
• The state may have an active educational program, which includes
plain English guidelines available to the public, public meetings
and hearings, and courses available through the public school sys-
tem.
• Grants may be made available to public interest groups or special
consideration will be given to communication with such groups,
especially if they have newsletters or other forms of statewide
communication on environmental issues.
• At least one state mentioned the availability of a toll-free com-
plaint line.
F.3.3.7 Miscellaneous Comments--
There were numerous comments made by the telephone interview respondents
regarding their own special problems or techniques involving inspections.
Most were relevant for air pollution sources in general and not specifically
directed toward foundries, and much of the prior discussion reflects what
are considered to be the most important of these comments. The following
two comments were also considered important but did not fall easily within
the other major subject headings.
• Several respondents mentioned that inspections involving foundries
are complicated by the variety of processes and projects involved
in foundry operations. The typical foundry is unpredictable in
layout, the production equipment involved, capture and ventilation
systems, and other factors--in essence, the typical foundry is
95
-------
atypical. This places a premium demand on the skill and experi-
ence of the inspector, and does not allow for the development of
routine inspection procedures applicable to foundries in general.
One contact mentioned that it would be helpful to receive from
EPA detailed inspection manuals that address the differences among
foundries.
• Another respondent spoke about the importance of investigation
records, noting that they are particularly important for foundry
operations because so many different kinds of processes and sys-
tems contribute to the overall pollution potential of foundries.
A very thorough write-up of the inspection, regardless of the fact
that no violation may have been found, is important primarily to
provide a complete compliance history for the source. In addi-
tion to compliance problems, such records preserve a picture of
what the foundry is capable of achieving in terms of maintenance,
operating procedures, and the like. If there is a change in man-
agement, it is important to know what the foundry was able to ac-
complish previously; and, if there is turnover or reassignment of
inspectors at the state agency, such records allow for continu-
ity.
F.3.4 Compliance Status
Several questions were asked during the telephone interview regarding
the compliance status of ferrous foundries. In general, these questions
were designed to determine how many foundries have inadequate or no control
equipment, and how many foundries are found in violation of emission limita-
tions. Additional questions were asked regarding the incidence of malfunc-
tions, the existence of malfunction policies, and the experience with and
preference for specific types of control equipment. Most responses to these
questions were imprecise and reflected the general impression of the respond-
ent; many interviewees, in fact, could not respond at all.
The following tables provide a summary of results to questions involv-
ing the two basic issues—do the states consider their ferrous foundries to
be adequately controlled, and how often are they found to be in violation
of emission limitations?
Number of Ferrous Foundries with Percentage of Definite
Inadequate or No Control Equipment Responses (Total: 26)
"A large number"; "the majority"; "most"; „„
"many"; "all"; "almost all" J
"Few"; "very few"; "a small number"; "less ~
than 10%"; "less than 5%"; "only one or two"
None 35
96
-------
Number of Ferrous Foundries Found to Percentage of Definite
Be in Violation (Yearly or Longer) Responses (Total: 25)
Many 8
Few or very few 60
None 32
These survey results demonstrate an obvious anomaly: states which consider
their ferrous foundries to be inadequately controlled are nevertheless not
finding them to be in violation of emission limitations very often. Further,
there is a wide variation in attitude concerning the adequacy of control
equipment. Nevertheless, two consistencies may be noted: (a) most respon-
dents feel that the majority of their foundries are adequately controlled;
and (b) almost all of the respondents rarely find their foundries to be in
violation of emission limitations.
Within the scope of this task it has been impossible to provide a sat-
isfactory rationale for the variations in response. It has also been dif-
ficult to explain fully the apparent consistencies, in view of possible
conflicts that were not identified until the end of the telephone survey.
However, explanations are suggested in the following discussion.
F.3.4.1 Are Ferrous Foundries in Compliance—
Most respondents reported that ferrous foundries were "in compliance"
with mass emission limitations. Of the four emission processes that were
the subject of our survey (the cupola, the electric arc furnace, pouring
and cooling operations, and shakeout and sandhandling operations), this
means at a minimum that the processes subject to permanent control have been
tested and most were in compliance with the applicable limitation. It does
not, however, mean controlled processes are in compliance 100% of the time—
almost three-quarters of the respondents indicated that most foundries ex-
perience control equipment malfunctions, and that these malfunctions are
considered to be "a problem." Nevertheless, the fact that a malfunction
occurs does not necessarily mean that the foundry is in violation; most
states excuse malfunctions if a reasonable explanation is provided, and the
malfunction is relatively short in duration—it was a common feeling that
malfunctions are inevitable and must be tolerated.
If states reported their controlled foundry processes to be in compli-
ance with mass emission limitations, this normally also meant that the same
processes were considered to be in compliance with visible emission limita-
tions; periods of noncompliance with visible emission limitations, like
periods of noncompliance with mass emission limitations, could usually be
attributable to an acceptable excuse.
For processes without permanent controls (in our survey, this almost
always meant pouring and cooling operations, it occasionally meant shakeout
and sandhandling operations, and it sometimes, but rarely, meant jobbing
cupolas) whether a sources was "in compliance" was not susceptible to a
simple answer. If the emissions are not captured and transported outside,
97
-------
compliance status for most states would depend on the application of vis-
ible emission or fugitive emission regulations to the resulting fugitive
emissions. The survey made it clear that this type of emission is not con-
sidered to be much of a problem by most states (although there was a strong
contradiction by a small number of respondents); and most respondents felt
that fugitive emission requirements could be met without controlling pouring
and cooling. No respondents argued that uncontrolled emissions from the
cupola or from the shakeout and sandhandling processes were "in compliance";
although several indicated that their states had relegated the very small
foundries, especially if located in attainment areas, to a very low inves-
tigation and enforcement priority.
In asking questions regarding compliance status, we did not pursue
questions relating to compliance with permits, variances, order, operation
and maintenance plans, malfunction requirements, and the like. Thus, it is
not possible from our survey to conclude that the state respondents consider
ferrous foundries to be in compliance with all applicable requirements.
However, it is clear from the summary of responses relating to the frequency
with which they are found to be in violation, that states consider these
noncompliance problems, if they exist, to be infrequent or unimportant over-
all.
F.3.4.2 Compliance Problems in Ferrous Foundries--
Although the majority of respondents did not feel that foundries are
out of compliance to any significant degree, several repondents firmly dis-
agreed. Moreover, even among the respondents who did not consider foundries
to be much of an overall problem, a number of specific problems were noted.
The following is a summary of specific compliance problems noted during the
telephone survey.
Poor combustion practices. Primary complaints were made concern-
ing the type and size of coke, the feed rate, and the air supply.
Preconditioning scrap. Many contacts felt that substantial emis-
sions could be avoided by cleaning and degreasing scrap before
feeding it to the furnace. This is supported by test data in Ap-
pendix B.
Inadequate control. Many contacts agreed that wetcaps do not
adequately control emissions from the cupola. These usually
exist on the smaller, older foundries. One state explained that
its policy was to proceed slowly to correct this problem because
these foundries often exist in the more economically depressed
areas, and continued employment is a primary consideration.
Control equipment manufacturing defects. One state indicated that
these occur more often in scrubbers.
Improper control equipment maintenance. Most states indicated
that poor maintenance practices exist. Primary problems noted
were: torn filters, worn out ducts, and fan motor breakdown.
98
-------
Capture efficiency problems. There was an even split among the
contacts who addressed the issue, as to whether concern over cap-
ture efficiency was important—many states are unconcerned over
fugitive emissions. One contact, however, expressed his concern
in terms of overall collection efficiency. If fewer emissions
from a process are directed to control equipment and more of those
emissions escape as uncontrolled fugitive emissions, then the con-
trol equipment is actually operating inefficiently in its collec-
tion of emissions from the total process. In such a case the cap-
ture system is considered to be a part of the total control system
for emission measurement purposes. Most of the contacts who ex-
pressed concern over capture efficiency problems mentioned mechani-
cal failure due to poor maintenance as the primary problem.
Reinstatement of the cupola. One contact mentioned that companies
are beginning to switch back to a cupola. This causes problems
with maintenance of the control equipment, because the electric
arc does not require the same degree of maintenance, and mainte-
nance practices do not automatically change when the switchback
occurs.
Most problems involve the cupola. Complaints usually centered
upon problems involving the cupola. These problems ranged from
design considerations—usually the size of the charging door, or
its placement, and the placement of hoods and fans to collect
emissions during charging—to maintenance of the control equip-
ment; when a cupola is involved, the impact on control equipment
is much more severe than with other melting processes.
Most problems also involve small operations and jobbing operations.
Many contacts pointed out that there is less economic incentive
to maintain control equipment at a foundry that operates only in-
termittently. The size of the foundry was also mentioned as an
economic factor.
99
-------
F.3.4.3 Preferred Control Equipment--
The following is a tabulation of the survey results on this question:
STATE AGENCY RESPONDENT'S PREFERENCE FOR CONTROL
EQUIPMENT PER EMISSIONS SOURCE AT
FERROUS FOUNDRIES3
Type of Number of Respondents Indicating a Preference
control Electric Pouring and Shakeout and
equipment Cupola arc cooling sandhandling
Fabric filter 27 16 8 25
Electrostatic 2-1
precipitator
Wet scrubber 12-5 8
Mechanical - - - 2
collector
a Many respondents stated more than one preference.
b Generally, answers under this column reflect what respondents would
prefer if control were required. Many respondents merely stated
that no control is required and did not offer an opinion regarding
preference.
The overwhelming preference expressed during the telephone survey was
for the use of fabric filters, regardless of the source of emissions. How-
ever, almost every respondent indicating a preference for the use of fabric
filters also felt that there are inevitable problems in maintenance and op-
eration resulting in significant downtime.
When asked how long fabric filters would go down and how long was rea-
sonable, respondents were vague and cited a number of factors, including
both factors relating to the mechanical cause of the breakdown (e.g., it
may take longer to obtain certain replacement equipment), as well as factors
relating to the experience and expertise of persons operating the equipment
and the prior record of the facility (e.g., an ignorance or inexperience
factor would justify a longer downtime, but a record of continuing break-
downs would not). In general, more than 2 days downtime was considered
significant enough to warrant some specific action on the part of the state
agency.
While proper maintenance was cited as an important concern by most state
contacts it was generally felt that proper maintenance reduces the occurrence
of breakdowns but does not prevent them altogether. Breakdowns are considered
to be inevitable.
100
-------
F.3.5 Malfunctions
Several questions were asked to determine whether states were experi-
encing malfunction problems with foundry control equipment- and what strate-
gies are being employed to deal with this problem. Out of 36 respondents,
25 (almost 70%) indicated that there were problems, while 9 indicated that
there were no problems (the remaining 2 were unsure).
Whether a malfunction is. "typical" an4 whether it is "permissible,"
however, are two different issues. While minority of the states consider
most typical malfunctions to warrant a presumption of permissibility, a
larger number of states are willing to address the issue of permissibility
head-on—although in our surve there were few indications that this is ever
done aggressively.
Among the 25 states indicating some concern over malfunction problems,
the strategy for dealing with malfunctions varied considerably. Only 9 of
the 25 emphasized the importance of an automatic reporting requirement.
Thirteen were either unsure that foundries are required to report or that
if required, they are in fact reporting malfunctions.
Several of the respondents, however, indicated that the reporting re-
quirement was the most effective requirement allowing for an effective re-
sponse by the state to deal with malfunctions. The reporting requirement,
especially if immediate, enables the state to take legal action and impose
requirements on the source, both to correct the current problem, as well as
to prevent future similar problems. It also allows for independent docu-
mentation of the emissions violation involved for use in later enforcement,
if necessary. Of course, reporting may also serve as a deterrent.
Many states were willing to consider formal enforpement in the context
of malfunctions; however, only three indicated that enforcement had even
been actually initiated because of malfunction problems. Most often, the
states use nonenforcement mechanisms to deal with malfunctions at a given
source, when they become an apparent problem. Such mechanisms include var-
iance or operating permit conditions. Sometimes these actions are taken
under the authority of the malfunction regulation, but on other occasions
there is an independent operating permit regulation or an independent regu-
lation pertaining to the operation and maintenance of control equipment.
The operating permit and variance conditions are considered to be a
valuable strategy for dealing with malfunction problems because they allow
for imposing source-specific control requirements that are obviously relevant
and needed since they are in response to a demonstrated problem. These re-
quirements are often enforceable without the need for demonstrating noncora-
pliance with the emission limitation.
Thirty-one (86%) of the states indicated that they either do now or
would deal with malfunction problems with an operation and maintenance strat-
egy. Seventeen would require the adoption of an operation and maintenance
plan as a part of the operating permit or variance; nine, would require the
101
-------
adoption of an operation and maintenance plan as a part of an enforcement
order; the remaining four were unclear about the use of any particular
mechanism, but would give the primary burden to the state and not require
the source to adopt any particular plan.
Twenty-nine of the respondents indicated that preventive action would
be required in addition to corrective action, whatever the mechanism used
to impose the requirement. However, only 5 indicated that back-up equip-
ment would be required, and 15 stated that back-up equipment definitely
would not be required. (It is possible that the answers would have been
different if the question had been phrased in terms of "spare parts or
back-up equipment.")
Discussion involving malfunctions posed one of the most conceptually
difficult topics of the interview. Many of the respondents could not state
with clarity what their malfunction policies were, and it was clear that
there are difficult, unresolved questions involving when equipment break-
down may be classified as permissible. For those states that precondition
their definition of malfunction on the existence of an emissions violation,
there must be documentation of a violation before the state is entitled to
use the malfunction regulations to impose new individual source oriented
requirements. One would expect in such a case for there to be no incentive
for the foundry operator to report short term or marginal equipment failures,
unless it is clear that emission limitations are being exceeded.
Most states also adopt either formally or informally some standard of
fault when determining the applicability of their malfunction regulations.
Typically, the source may be held accountable only if the malfunction was
foreseeable or avoidable or if there was negligence on the part of the source
operator. These present complicated issues of fact and could create a po-
tentially difficult burden of proof for the state when proceeding with judi-
cial enforcement. Although these problems were not discussed by most contacts,
they were discussed by some, and it is expected that they present at least
an important constraining factor to the use of formal enforcement.
Several states noted that sources had hidden behind malfunction regula-
tions when the state was proceeding with enforcement. Interestingly, one
state was able to prosecute successfully despite this defense, by relying
on a nuisance theory; the malfunction regulations were construed not to ex-
cuse any source from creating a public nuisance, even if they excused non-
compliance with emission limitations.
One unusual approach taken by a state is to exempt all malfunctions
until the total malfunction downtime amounts to 5% or more of the total
operating time of the source. This is applied to all sources and all con-
trol equipment, and is done on a monthly basis. Once the 5% threshold is
reached, the source may still be eligible for a determination that the mal-
function is permissible.
Finally, during the telephone survey, two additional questions were
asked in response to a specific request under the task assignment. First,
respondents were asked whether their definition of malfunction included
102
-------
control equipment operating at less than design efficiency. Although there
was some interest in adopting such a concept, no respondent reported that
his state had already done so. Second, respondents were asked if third-party
maintenance was employed in their states. In 5 states, the answer was yes.
In most states the answer was either no, or doubtful. Respondents generally
did not express an opinion regarding whether such a service was needed.
F.3.6 Enforcement Strategies
Most state contacts felt that formal enforcement was not often necessary
with ferrous foundries. For the most part, however, states have proceeded
with some phase of enforcement against foundries. The following table re-
flects the results of our survey on this point:
Type of
Enforcement
Mechanism
Notice of Violation
Unilateral Enforcement Order
Consent Order
Civil Penalty
Criminal Penalty
Litigation
Number of States that
Rely on this Mechanism for
Enforcement against Foundries
33
20
24
20
11
8
Percentage
of States
(out of 35)
92%
61%
73%
54%
30%
25%
Of the 33 states who have conducted or would be willing to conduct for-
mal enforcement against foundries, 17 prefer formal enforcement as the pri-
mary mechanism for dealing with noncompliance problems. Of these 17, how-
ever, 7 prefer to rely on notices of violation, while 10 prefer other types
of mechanisms including unilateral enforcement orders (3 states), consent
orders (4 states), and civil penalties (3 states). None of the 11 who men-
tioned criminal penalties preferred that mechanism.
Most states also rely on informal enforcement as an important element
of their enforcement strategies. The following table contrasts the survey
results on formal versus informal strategies:
Type of Enforcement
Strategy State Emphasizes State Deemphasizes
Formal Enforcement 92% 8%
(out of 39)
Informal Enforcement 74% 26%
(out of 38)
The following are the preferred informal techniques utilized with non-
complying foundries:
103
-------
Preferred Enforcement Strategies Number of Responses
for Noncomplying Foundries (Out of 28 states)
Informal conference either at the source 9
site or at the agency
Warning letters and calls, including threats 9
of formal enforcement and sanctions
Advice and cooperation 5
Repeated inspections 4
Threat of stack test 1
Bad publicity 1
During the telephone survey respondents were asked which enforcement
techniques (formal or informal) they found to be most effective against a
source known to be in noncompliance. Of the 34 responses to this question,
31 may be characterized as "adversarial," and 5 may be characterized as
"nonadversarial" (2 states indicated both adversarial and nonadversarial
strategies). These strategies, and the number of responses involved are
noted in greater detail below.
Most Effective Enforcement Strategy Number of Respondents
Adversarial
Imposing or threatening to impose fines or 13
penalties
Litigating or threatening to litigate 9
Use of operating permits and threatening 8
revocation
Referring or threatening to refer the case to EPA 5
Bad publicity 4
Repeated inspections 4
Requesting or threatening to request a stack test 3
Using administrative enforcement mechanisms without 2
stressing the use of sanctions (e.g., notice of
violation or consent order)
Nonadversarial
Informal meetings, letters, calls and similar 5
efforts stressing advice and cooperation
Defining a strategy as adversarial or nonadversarial was generally
simply a matter of determining whether the technique was intended to be
coercive or intended to be cooperative. Most of the strategies mentioned
were clearly one or the other. However, it is arguable that 4 of the 8 re-
spondents mentioning the use of a permit system were merely observing that
the administrative systems involved accomplished effective compliance efforts
without the need to engage in an adversarial enforcement technique. Of the
104
-------
31 respondents preferring adversarial techniques, 21 or 68% included threats
of or actual formal enforcement.
F.3.6.1 A Sample of Comments Involving State Compliance Strategies and Fer-
rous Foundries--
0 Just getting the regulation on the books has brought the largest number
of foundries into adequate initial compliance, according to a number
of respondents. Although there was considerable opposition in the
regulation development stage, once that stage was passed, foundries
tended to accept their fate and install appropriate control equipment.
A significant number of respondents also indicated that many foundries
shut down after new restrictive regulations were passed. It is not
clear that voluntary compliance would continue to occur, if these regu-
lations were used to require significant upgrading.
, Several states made the case for proceeding immediately to the issuance
of a notice of violation. Many contacts indicated that they go to this
right away to ensure accurate documentation of the violation (if the
source has a valid objection to the notice, he will usually do so at a
conference following issuance of the notice) and to convince the source
that the agency intends to approach the matter seriously. This appears
to be more effective in some states, and less in others. The effective-
ness may depend on the state's reputation for following through, the
availability of realistic sanctions (including the sanction of calling
in EPA to enforce under Section 113 or Section 120 of the Clean Air
Act), and whether or not the violation is an excusable malfunction.
• The use of permit conditions was widely promoted among the states that
have operating permit authority. Permit conditions enable the state
to address problems of a source specific nature. Most typically, a
source with a compliance problem may have its permit revised with speci-
fic conditions to be followed. These conditions provide a checklist
for the inspector making periodic inspections, and they are usually
independently enforceable, such that violation of the permit condition
justifies an enforcement action without regard for whether there is a
violation of the underlying emission limitation. Permit conditions
may be easily imposed, if they do not require as a prerequisite a find-
ing of violation.
» Some states made a strong case for the use of aggravation techniques--
repeated inspections, threatening letters, follow-up phone calls, and
the like. States fell into two groups in the use of this strategy.
One group used these techniques in a nonadversarial manner; generally,
this group deemphasized the significance of the emissions involved or
did not stress formal enforcement in general. The other group usually
did not rule out formal enforcement, but tried to avoid it because of
the red tape or strain on resources involved. In several cases, respon-
dents favoring aggravation as the most effective strategy also com-
plained about inadequate legal authority (most often the absence of
civil penalty authority) or other types of constraints.
105
-------
• Other states made a strong case for conflict avoidance and stressed
cooperation and advice. The conflict avoidance approach was usually
based on the theory that adversarial situations create an entrenchment
of opposing positions and a general recalcitrance on the part of the
industry; the ultimate result in such a situation is further delay in
achieving appropriate emission reduction.
• Diametrically opposed to the conflict avoidance strategy was a tech-
nique adopted by several states and described by one as the "Japanese
Riot Control" technique. This strategy is based on the theory that
several hard nosed exemplary enforcement cases will bring other similar
sources into compliance more quickly out of fear that they will be next.
• Threatening to impose fines or penalties was the most popular of the
strategies cited during the telephone survey. A review of the penalty
authority for these states, however, disclosed that very few have the
extensive authority that EPA has under the Clean Air Act. Our survey
did not pursue this issue, and it is not known why this limited author-
ity is considered to provide a more effective incentive to comply. A
number of possibilities exist, including the possibility that (1) the
penalty represents a stigma that the industry wants to avoid, regard-
less of the amount; (2) the relatively small amounts involved do in
fact have a significant economic impact; (3) it is not actually the
threat of penalty that has the impact, but the threat of state action,
or the threat of judicial action; or (4) it is EPA's penalty policy
and not the state's that has the impact (since EPA may impose a supple-
mentary penalty if, according to EPA's penalty policy, the state's
penalty is insufficient). It should be noted that of the twenty states
having a civil penalty strategy, two-thirds cite it as the most or one
of the most effective enforcement threats against all air pollution
sources in the state.
F.3.6.2 Enforcement Constraints--
Twenty-five states responded with a definite answer to the ques-
tions: what are the most serious constraints to your enforcement program,
and do these constraints prevent effective enforcement against foundries?
Nineteen of the 25 stated that there were serious constraints to effec-
tive enforcement in their states, while 6 felt that there were no serious
constraints, and that they were able to conduct effective enforcement. An
additional 7 (of the 19) felt that the constraints did not affect enforcement
against foundries. However, most of the 7 felt that foundries were normally
in compliance and did not require enforcement anyway. Thus, of the 25,
roughly half indicated that constraints actually affected the state's ability
to enforce against foundries.
The following is a tabulation of constraints mentioned by the state
respondents.
106
-------
Number of States But No Impact
Enforcement Constraints Complaining On Foundries
Legal redtape 8 4
Manpower and budget 6 1
Political posture of the state 3 2
or agency
No civil penalty authority 2
No permit authority 1
Inspections are difficult because 1
of the distance between sources
State does not have adequate stack 1 1
testing capability
State does not have an effective 1
fugitive emission regulation
Visible emission inspections 1
are difficult
Of greatest interest, was the fact that only one state complained about
the inadequacy or inappropriateness of an underlying emission limitation.
The explanation for this appears to be that most states have been able to
work out a permanent control system for foundries that is acceptable to both
parties. The serious question that must still be addressed (but which is
beyond the scope of this survey and analysis) is whether what is acceptable
to the state satisfies Clean Air Act objectives.
F.3.7 Coordination with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)
Because significant foundry emissions occur within a workplace enclo-
sure before escape to the atmosphere, OSHA maintains regulatory jurisdiction
over some of the same emission processes as EPA. OSHA's mission in such a
case is limited to ensuring that adequate measures are taken to protect the
safety and health of the workers exposed to those emissions. Usually, this
means that in-plant emissions must be captured and transported out of the
work place, if they meet levels determined by OSHA to be harmful. Where
these requirements exist, they also facilitate more effective ambient air
pollution control by preventing fugitive emissions and by allowing for more
effective collection of the resulting pollutants by stack control devices.
In the foundry operations considered in this survey, the one most often
regulated by OSHA is the shakeout process, although other operations may
also be regulated—including, more frequently, the furnace charging process,
and, rarely, the pouring and cooling process. In theory, therefore, the
regulatory efforts of EPA and OSHA (or their state equivalents) involving
foundries could be coordinated, and a question was asked to this effect in
the telephone survey.
Possible areas of coordination were considered to include the following:
(1) the OSHA agency has decided to require installation of a capture system
for one of the foundry processes and notifies the EPA agency of this decision;
(2) the EPA agency has decided to require installation of a capture system
(or upgrading of the present capture system) to prevent excessive fugitive
107
-------
emissions and ensures that its requirements are consistent with OSHA stan-
dards; (3) during OSHA or EPA inspection, potential violations of the other
agency's requirements are noted, and the other agency is informed; (4) the
OSHA and EPA agencies combine functions—including inspections, recordkeep-
ing, reporting, and enforcement. One particular area of concern involved
the question of capture efficiency—state air pollution agencies without
effective authority to control fugitive emissions by regulating the in-plant
capture process, might turn to the OSHA agencies for assistance.
The telephone survey on this issue indicated that very little coordina-
tion with OSHA exists. Nineteen of the 37 respondents to this portion of
the survey indicated that no contact had ever been made with OSHA or the
state equivalent. Of the 18 who had had contact, most responded that con-
tact was limited to redirecting a complaint erroneously filed with the wrong
agency. Only a few respondents indicated that,information obtained during
inspections was shared; and no respondents indicated that there were efforts
to work out combined investigation or control strategies for specific sources
or that enforcement efforts were ever coordinated.
Although it was not the intent of the survey to determine what reasons
exist for the failure to coordinate with OSHA, two matters in that regard
have been noted. First, it was generally true that foundries were allocated
a lower enforcement priority-most respondents did not consider foundries
to be a problem category; most felt that significant foundry emissions were
adequately controlled. Second, it was also generally true that respondents
were unconcerned about fugitive emissions from foundries; such emissions
were recognized to be a potential problem but not a current problem in most
foundries.
F.3.8 Carcinogen Regulation Strategies
It is recognized that ferrous foundry melting operations (and other
operations to a lesser extent) produce numerous chemical and chemical com-
pound emissions that are known or potential carcinogens. In order to deter-
mine whether states have specific carcinogen regulation policies applicable
to such emissions, a question to that effect was asked as a part of the
telephone survey.
Out of 36 definite responses, there were 6 indicating the existence of
a carcinogen regulation strategy. In every case, however, the strategy was
not well defined and depended on discretionary application by the state.
No contact could recall an example of application in the case of a ferrous
foundry.
108
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F
National Air Pollution Control Administration, "Economic Impact of Air
Pollution Controls on Gray Iron Foundry Industry," National Air Pollu-
tion Control Administration Publication No. AP-74 (November 1970) pp.
22-24.
109
------- |