[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42704-42752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17349]
[[Page 42703]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 159
August 16, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology
Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 42704]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-9998-20-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT03
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and
Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities. This proposal presents the results of the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) conducted as required under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Based on the results of the EPA risk review, the Agency is
proposing that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable from
this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the technology review,
we are proposing there are no developments in practices, processes or
control technologies that necessitate revision of the standards.
Pursuant to granting a request to reconsider setting mercury standards
in 2005, we are proposing an emissions standard for mercury based on
limiting the amount of mercury in the metal scrap used by these
facilities. We also are proposing: the removal of exemptions for
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with a
2008 court decision, and clarifying that the emissions standards apply
at all times; the addition of electronic reporting of performance test
results and compliance reports; and minor corrections and
clarifications for a few other rule provisions. Finally, we are
soliciting comment on unmeasured fugitive and intermittent emissions
that have been identified as occurring at facilities in this source
category and the cost and effectiveness of potential work practices
that could be implemented to reduce emissions from these fugitive and
intermittent sources.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 30,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before September 16, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before August 21, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering for a public
hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Cenetr's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposal,
contact Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk assessment methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Kevin
McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D230-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-3796; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Adrian Gates at (919) 541-4860
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any
[[Page 42705]]
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen processing furnace
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EAF electric arc furnace
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP electrostatic precipitators
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometers
lbs/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MOU memorandum of understanding
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NVMSRP National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SIP state implementation plan
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SV screening value
THC total hydrocarbon
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
URE unit risk estimate
U.S. United States
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
[[Page 42706]]
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and 112(d)(3)?
E. What other actions are we proposing?
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposal is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposal. As defined
in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992)
and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List (see
EPA-450/3-91-030), the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source
category is any facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore.
integrated iron and steel manufacturing includes the following
processes: sinter production, iron production, iron preparation (hot
metal desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production
process includes the production of iron in blast furnaces (BFs) by the
reduction of iron-bearing materials with a hot gas. The steel
production process includes basic oxygen processing furnaces (BOPF).
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Iron and Steel 40 CFR part 63, 331110
Manufacturing. subpart FFFFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposal at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following publication
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies''
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority
and Methodology, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
[[Page 42707]]
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The EPA initially promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing NESHAP on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), under title 40,
part 63, subpart FFFFF (the NESHAP). The rule was amended on July 13,
2006 (71 FR 39579). The amendments added a new compliance option,
revised emission limitations, reduced the frequency of repeat
performance tests for certain emission units, added corrective action
requirements, and clarified monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All documents used to develop the previous 2003 and 2006
final rules can be found in either the legacy docket, A-2000-44, or the
electronic docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
An Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing facility produces steel
from iron ore pellets, coke, metal scrap, and other raw materials using
furnaces and other processes. The Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing source category includes sinter production, iron
preparation, iron production, and steel production. Currently there are
10 operating facilities and one idle facility in the source category.
The main sources of air toxics emissions from an Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing facility are from the BF; BOPF; hot metal
transfer, desulfurization, and skimming (HMTDS) operations; ladle
metallurgy operations; sinter plant windbox; sinter plant discharge
end; and sinter cooler. All 11 facilities have BFs, BOPFs, HMTDS
operations, and ladle metallurgy operations. However, only three
facilities have sinter plants.
The NESHAP includes emissions limits for particulate matter (PM)
and opacity standards (both of which are surrogates for PM HAP) for
furnaces and sinter plants. The NESHAP also includes an operating limit
for the oil content of the sinter plant feedstock or, as an
alternative, an emissions limit for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
for the sinter plant windbox exhaust stream. The oil limit, and the
alternative VOC limit, serve as surrogates for all organic HAP.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA issued a CAA section 114 information collection request
(ICR) in
[[Page 42708]]
2010, including a facility questionnaire and source testing request, to
nine parent companies, resulting in information for 11 facilities.
After testing was conducted and data were submitted, two of the 11
facilities became idle. However, one of these two facilities recently
has restarted some of its operations. The other idle facility may shut
down at the end of 2019.
The facility questionnaire was composed of six parts: General
Facility Information, Previously Performed Testing and Test Report
Data, Process and Emissions Control Device Tables, Startups and
Shutdowns, Energy Consumption and Energy Projects, and Economics
Section. The compilation of the facility responses can be found in the
docket to this proposed rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083). Source
testing was requested for HAP metals and PM at the following point
sources: Sinter plant windbox control device, sinter plant discharge
end control device, BOPF primary and secondary control devices, BF
stoves, BF control device, ladle metallurgy control devices, HMTDS
control devices, and electric arc furnaces (EAFs) at 11 facilities. In
addition, the sinter plant windbox control device and EAFs were
required to test for VOC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
dioxins/furans, carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrochloric acid
(HCl), and total hydrocarbons (THC). The compilation of source testing
results can be found in the docket to this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083). The EPA sent each facility its compiled testing results for
review and corrections and incorporated their comments and revisions.
The ICR data for point source emissions for the 11 existing facilities
were used in the risk assessment dataset, as needed, and included all
source testing results and questionnaire responses (e.g., annual
production, stack parameters, stack locations).
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to point sources, the EPA identified seven unmeasured
fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) emission sources for this
industry, including BF bleeder valve unplanned openings (also known as
slips), BF bleeder valve planned openings, BF bell leaks, BF casthouse
fugitives, BF iron beaching, BF slag handling and storage operations,
and BOPF shop fugitives. The UFIP sources are also referred to as
nonpoint sources of emissions. These UFIP emission sources were
identified by observation of visible plumes of fugitives being emitted
from the seven UFIP sources during inspections by EPA Regional staff
and documented in reports and photographs for years 2008 to present.\2\
Two of these sources, BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives,
are currently regulated by opacity limits in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Personal communication. B. Dickens and P. Miller, U.S. EPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois, with D. L. Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation,
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 2015-2018. See
also the document titled Ample Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources
in the II&S Industry, available in the docket to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are descriptions of the BF, BOPF, and then the seven
UFIP sources. More detail can be found in the technical memorandum
discussed below.
BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit where
molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore, lime,
sinter, and coke.
BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit where
steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, and alloys.
BOPF shop is the structure that houses the entire BOPF and
auxiliary activities, such as hot iron transfer, skimming, and
desulfurization of the iron, which generate fugitive emissions.
BF casthouse is the structure that houses the lower
portion of the BF and encloses iron and slag transport operations,
which generate fugitive emissions.
Bleeder valve is a device at the top of the BF that, when
open, relieves BF internal pressure to the ambient air. The valve can
operate as both a self-actuating safety device to relieve excess
pressure and as an operator-initiated instrument for process control. A
bleeder valve opening means any opening of the BF bleeder valve, which
allows gas and/or PM to flow past the sealing seat. Multiple openings
and closings of a bleeder valve that occur within a 30-minute period
could be considered a single bleeder valve opening. There are two types
of openings (planned and unplanned).
Planned bleeder valve opening means an opening that is
initiated by an operator as part of a furnace startup, shutdown, or
temporary idling for maintenance action. Operators can prepare the
furnace for planned openings to minimize or eliminate emissions from
the bleeder valves.
Unplanned bleeder valve opening means an opening that is
not planned and is due to excess pressure within the furnace that
triggers opening of the valve. The pressure build up occurs when raw
materials do not descend smoothly after being charged at the top of the
BF and accumulate in large masses within the furnace. When the large
masses finally are dislodged due to their weight, a pressure surge
results.
Slag is a by-product containing impurities that is
released from the BF along with molten iron when the BF is tapped from
the bottom of the furnace. The slag is less dense than iron and,
therefore, floats on top and is removed by skimmers and then
transported to open pits to cool to enable later removal. Usually there
is one slag pit for every BF.
Iron beaching occurs when iron from BF cannot be charged
to the BOPF because of problems in steelmaking units; the hot molten
iron from the BF is placed onto the ground, in some cases within a 3-
sided structure.
BF bells are part of the charging system on top of the
furnace that allows for materials to be loaded into the furnace or next
bell (as in the case of small bells) without letting BF gas escape. It
is a two-bell system, where a smaller bell is above a larger bell.
These bells need to have a tight seal onto the blast furnace when not
in use for charging so that BF gas and uncontrolled emissions do not
escape to the atmosphere. But over time, the surfaces that seal the
bells wear down and need to be repaired (as for small bells) or
replaced (as for large bells). If these seals are not repaired or
replaced in a timely manner, emissions of HAP (and PM) can increase
significantly.
The EPA used several resources, including industry consultation,
AP-42 emission factors, EPA studies, and other published technical
documents to estimate emissions for the UFIP (or nonpoint) sources and
to conduct a risk assessment for an example facility with the highest
production in the industry. The risk assessment is explained in section
III.C.3 below.
The seven UFIP sources and development of emissions estimates for
these sources at the example facility are described in detail in two
technical memoranda. One memorandum titled Ample Margin of Safety for
Nonpoint Sources in the II&S Industry, available in the docket for this
rule, describes the seven UFIP sources, work practices for control of
HAP (and PM) emissions, the estimated costs of these work practices,
and the estimated risk before and after implementation of work
practices. The other memorandum, titled Development of Emissions
Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an
Example Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility for Input to
the RTR Risk Assessment, also available in the docket, describes: (1)
The development of emissions estimates for UFIP from processes where
emissions
[[Page 42709]]
from UFIP are thought to occur; (2) estimates of PM emissions from
these processes at an example facility; (3) HAP to PM ratios used to
estimate HAP emissions from the PM emissions estimates; and (4) the
resulting HAP emissions estimated for the example facility. The
memorandum also presents the modeling parameters used to model the
dispersion of the HAP emitted from UFIP sources at the example
facility, the results of the example facility risk assessment, and a
comparison of the risk assessment results to data from an ambient
monitor near the example facility.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\3\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of EPA's risk
analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration
of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is
only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information.
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category.
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble,
in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
[[Page 42710]]
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. See sections II.C and II. D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.A of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to
assess risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are
consistent with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by
a panel of the EPA's SAB in 2009; \5\ and described in the SAB review
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. Accessed at: https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The point sources at Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
facilities include the BOPF primary and secondary control devices, BF
stoves, BF control device, ladle metallurgy control devices, HMTDS
control devices, BF cooling tower, sinter plant windbox control
devices, and sinter plant discharge end control devices. Emissions
estimates and release characteristics for all metal HAP (including
mercury) for all the above affected point sources were derived from
stack test data obtained through the ICR. In addition, emissions
estimates and release characteristics for VOC, PAH, dioxins/furans,
carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and THC were developed from stack
test data at the exit from the sinter plant windbox control device that
were obtained through the ICR. The derivation of all actual emissions
estimates and release characteristics for point sources at Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing facilities are discussed in more detail in
the document: Integrated Iron and Steel Data Summary for Risk and
Technology Review, available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
As mentioned in section II.D above, emissions also were estimated
for seven nonpoint sources for an example facility with the highest
steel production in the industry. The seven UFIP sources and
development of emissions estimates for these sources at the example
facility are described in detail in the technical memorandum titled
Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP
Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facility for Input to the
[[Page 42711]]
RTR Risk Assessment, available in the docket to this rule and
summarized above.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Allowable emissions were calculated two ways, depending on the
pollutant and whether PM was used as a surrogate for the pollutant in
this NESHAP. The allowable emissions were set equal to the actual
emissions for the following pollutants for which PM is not a surrogate:
(1) Mercury (total) from all process units; (2) carbon disulfide,
carbonyl sulfide, dioxins/furans, HCl, naphthalene, PAH, benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes from the sinter plant windbox; and
(3) hydrogen cyanide from the BF waste water cooling tower. For the
non-mercury metal HAP, which were regulated as PM in the NESHAP through
emissions and opacity standards, the allowable emissions were estimated
using a ratio of the current PM emissions standard to actual PM
emissions measured in the ICR performance tests and applied to actual
emissions measured for each non-mercury metal HAP in the ICR. Further
details regarding the development of allowable emissions estimates are
provided in the following document that summarizes all of the emissions
and assumptions used to develop annual emissions for Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing facilities using the data from source test
reports and other parts of the ICR: Integrated Iron and Steel Data
Summary for Risk and Technology Review, available in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\6\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\7\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \8\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\8\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP, in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may
use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other
values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values
used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \9\ emitted
[[Page 42712]]
by the modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block
within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the
highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to EPA: (1)
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum
Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA
Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\10\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in
Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR
rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\11\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions, and the
point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and reasonable worst-case air
dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is present at the
point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix
5 of the report titled Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \12\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\13\ They are
guideline levels for
[[Page 42713]]
``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations
of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is
specifically defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm
(parts per million) or mg/m\3\ (milligrams per cubic meter)) of a
substance above which it is predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could experience notable discomfort,
irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the
effects are not disabling and are transient and reversible upon
cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne
concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce
mild and progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor,
taste, and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory
effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration
(expressed as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a
substance above which it is predicted that the general population,
including susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or
other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired
ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\13\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001, document titled
Standing Operating Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels
for Hazardous Chemicals, on page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \14\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, a factor of 2 was applied to the actual
emissions to calculate the acute emissions. The multiplier is based on
the NESHAP provision that allows an opacity (20 percent) once per steel
production cycle that is twice the opacity limit applicable at all
other times (10 percent). For buildings that house BOPF operations, the
rule states: ``You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere
any secondary emissions . . . that exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
minute averages) greater than 10 percent, except that one 6-minute
period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once per steel production
cycle.'' (see Table 1 to subpart FFFFF).
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library.
For the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source category, we
identified PB-HAP emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead,
mercury and polycyclic organic matter (POM), so we proceeded to the
next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk
screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In
a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of
the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation
to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To
facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated
Methodology Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model.
The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and POM. Based on EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules (see
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value'' (SV).
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM), or, for HAP that cause
noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the SV is greater than 1), we conduct a second
screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment.
The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher
and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener
scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies
[[Page 42714]]
within 50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish
from lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences
between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in
the Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-
developed Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for
each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS lakes database. In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we
maintain an assumption that the farm is located within 0.5 km of the
facility and that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables,
and fruit produced near the facility. We may further refine the Tier 2
screening analysis by assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a
range of exposures, with the gardener scenario being more plausible in
RTR evaluations. Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener
consumes home-produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same
ingestion rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely the
high-end food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local
fish (adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \15\) and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \16\). If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 SV greater than 1, we
consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\16\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\17\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
For point sources, as described in the ample margin of safety
analysis section of this preamble, we assessed risks for a few possible
control options to address risks due to emissions from some point
sources for a few HAP that were driving the risks from point sources.
For those few HAP and sources, we evaluated possible control
technologies (such as activated carbon injection and wet electrostatic
precipitators) and estimated the costs and the reduction in risks that
would be achieved by those control technologies.
For nonpoint emission sources, we estimated risks at an example
facility before and after potential emission reductions that could be
achieved by control options based on application of various work
practices (see section IV.B of this preamble for further details). The
analyses, control options, and estimated risks for the example facility
before and after implementation of the potential work practices are
described in section IV.B of this preamble and also in the technical
memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facility for Input to the RTR Risk Assessment,
available in the docket to this rule.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are HCl and hydrogen
fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable
[[Page 42715]]
effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-
adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were
available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all
of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether
ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be
considered significant and widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source category, we
identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, POM (as
PAH), mercury, and HCl. Because one or more of the environmental HAP
evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category,
we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
SV around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted
average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI). The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed,
evaluated, and updated as described in section II.C of this preamble
(``What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?''). Once a quality assured source category dataset was
available, it
[[Page 42716]]
was placed back with the remaining records from the NEI for that
facility. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to
the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the
populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the
methods used for the source category analysis described above. For
these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks
were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of
the facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category
addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the facility
that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined
the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the
docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document titled Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway
Residual Risk Assessment Report, available in the docket for this
action.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Datasets
Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates for point sources
considered in this analysis generally are three-run averages and,
therefore, do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of
a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly
emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on
an emission adjustment factor applied to the estimated emission rates
and are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal
facility operations.
The emissions from nonpoint sources were included in the risk
assessment in an example facility analysis to assess the potential risk
contributed by UFIP and the effect that omission of these sources from
the source category could affect the estimate of risks for the source
category as a whole. However, emission estimates for the nonpoint
sources, in most cases, were based on available emission factors
developed (many by the EPA) before 1980 and, in some cases, were
developed from only a few facilities and included poor quality data as
determined by the EPA's emission factor quality rating system (see
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/basic-information-air-emissions-factors-and-quantification), or originally
were developed for other processes. In addition, the example facility
had a higher arsenic-to-PM ratio for the BF in the ICR data compared to
other facilities. Furthermore, the industry provided additional, more
recent test data for the example facility that indicate arsenic
emissions are likely lower than the level we had estimated based on the
2011 ICR data that we used in our analysis.\18\ Therefore, we conclude
our risk results are conservative (upper limit) estimates of the
potential risks due to nonpoint sources and should be viewed more as a
qualitative indication of potential upper end risks rather than a
quantitative assessment of risk from nonpoint sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Paul Balserak, 2019. Letter and attachment from P.
Balserak, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, to C.
French, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. 34 pages. February 4,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of emissions estimates for the nonpoint sources at
the example facility as well as emissions estimates considered but not
used in this proposal are described in detail in the technical
memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facility for Input to the RTR Risk Assessment,
available in the docket for this action.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
[[Page 42717]]
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\19\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\21\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\20\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\21\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
[[Page 42718]]
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and furans, POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two
acid gases (HF and HCl). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient
air concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS
standard for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with
the use of these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any
assessment that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty
and input uncertainty.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Point Sources
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for point source emissions for the source
category. More detailed information on the risk assessment can be found
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this
rule. Risks associated with sources of nonpoint emissions are discussed
in a subsequent section below.
[[Page 42719]]
Table 2--Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Point Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer Population at increased Annual cancer incidence Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI Maximum screening
risk (in 1 million) \2\ risk of cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) based based on . . . acute noncancer HQ
Number of based on . . . million based on . . . on . . . ---------------------------------------- \3\ based on . . .
facilities --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual Allowable Actual emissions Allowable -------------------
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions Actual emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 10 70 64,000 6,000,000 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 (arsenic)
(developmental) (developmental)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ As REL. The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ
values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
Results of the inhalation risk assessment based on actual point
source emissions indicate that the increased risk of cancer for the
individual most exposed due to actual emissions could be as high as 10-
in-1 million, with chromium VI compound emissions from the BF process
as the major contributor to the risk. The total estimated cancer
incidence from point sources for this source category is 0.03 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case about every 33 years. About
64,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or above 1-in-1
million from HAP emitted from the point sources in this source
category, with 60 of those people estimated to have cancer risks
greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI due to the point sources in the source category could be up to
0.1 (developmental) driven by emissions of arsenic and lead compounds
from the oxygen furnace. No individual would have exposures resulting
in a TOSHI ratio at or above 1. See the risk document referenced above
for details of these analyses.
Results of the inhalation risk assessment based on MACT-allowable
point source emissions indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as
70-in-1 million with arsenic compounds, chromium VI compounds, nickel
compounds, and cadmium compound emissions driving the risks. The
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI (developmental) could be as high as 0.9
based upon the MACT-allowable emissions level, with arsenic compounds
and lead compounds driving the TOSHI. The total estimated cancer
incidence from the point sources in this source category considering
allowable emissions is estimated to be about 0.3 excess cancer cases
per year or 1 excess case about every 3 years. Based on allowable
emission rates, approximately 6,000,000 people are estimated to have
cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million, with 80,000 of those people
estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million. No
individuals are estimated to have exposures that result in a noncancer
HI at or above 1 at allowable emission rates.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results for Point Sources
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, the worst-case acute HQ
(based on the REL) is 0.3, driven by emissions of arsenic from oxygen
furnace and BF operations. This value is the highest HQ that is outside
facility boundaries and is based on the assumption that hourly arsenic
compound emissions from the BOPF and BF are 2 times the hourly
emissions in the actual emissions. No facilities are estimated to have
an HQ greater than or equal to 1 based on any benchmark (REL, AEGL, or
EPRG). Acute risk estimates for each facility and pollutant are
provided in the risk document referenced above.
3. Inhalation Risk Results for Nonpoint and Point Sources at an Example
Facility
After the EPA conducted the initial risk assessment for point
sources only, a cursory comparison of those results with available
ambient monitoring data at an example facility (U.S. Steel Gary Works
located in Gary, Indiana) indicated that we may have underestimated the
total facility emissions and that there may be other sources of
category emissions not included in the point inventory. Furthermore, we
obtained information from EPA Region V staff based on visual
observations and ambient monitor measurements near some Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing facilities suggesting that there were sources
of unmeasured fugitive and intermittent emissions (UFIP, or nonpoint
emissions) that had not been included in the inventories yet nor
included in any of the modeling runs. These emissions may account for
the apparent initial underestimation of total facility emissions.
Therefore, to address the apparent gap in emissions or sources, we
investigated, evaluated, and estimated the potential emissions from
nonpoint sources. These emissions are discussed in more detail below.
The information and visual observations we obtained from Region V staff
along with our assumptions and other details about the nonpoint sources
and their emissions are discussed in the memorandum titled Development
of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP Emission
Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility
for Input to the RTR Risk Assessment, available in the docket for this
proposed rule and summarized above.
Based on the outcome of this investigation and evaluation, as
described in section II.D above, the EPA estimated potential HAP
emissions from seven nonpoint sources for the example facility to
determine if the nonpoint sources could account for discrepancies in
modeled versus monitored air concentrations. The example facility is
the largest facility in the source category based on production
capacity and also had the highest estimated HAP emissions from steel-
making sources (i.e., facility emissions not including sinter plant
emissions). The seven nonpoint sources are: BF bleeder valve unplanned
openings (also known as slips); BF bleeder valve planned openings; BF
bell leaks; BF casthouse fugitives; BF iron beaching; BF slag handling
and storage operations; and BOPF shop fugitives. The EPA developed a
risk model input file for these seven nonpoint sources for this one
large example facility. Next, we combined these emissions estimates
with the point source emissions sources to create a risk model input
file for the example facility with both point sources and nonpoint
sources. Finally, the EPA conducted a risk assessment using upper-end
emissions estimates to evaluate the potential exposures and risks due
to all the emissions for this one example facility. Given the
uncertainties regarding nonpoint source emissions, as described in
section III.C.8 and further below, we expect that the risk results
would over-predict the actual risks. The EPA primarily conducted this
assessment to obtain a
[[Page 42720]]
qualitative understanding of the potential risks from nonpoint sources
at the facilities.
Based on the results of the EPA's inhalation risk analysis for the
example facility, the estimated MIR for actual emissions increased from
2-in-1 million (for point sources alone) to about 20-in-1 million when
UFIP emissions are added to point sources emissions. The noncancer HI
for actual emissions increased from 0.03 to 0.3 when the UFIP emissions
were added to the estimated point source emissions for this facility.
Acute noncancer HQ (based on the REL) increased from <1 to 3 (for
comparison, the acute HI was not refined to the potential value at an
offsite location) when UFIP emissions of arsenic were added to arsenic
from point sources. Likewise, the affected population near the example
facility with estimated cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million also increased when UFIP emissions were added, from 3,000 to
4,000,000 people (with the upper value encompassing most of the city of
Chicago because of the close proximity of Gary, Indiana). The estimated
UFIP emissions affect a wider area than point sources with,
consequently, a greater exposed population. The plumes associated with
fugitive emissions are emitted at a relatively lower height than most
point sources resulting in a higher ground-level concentration that
takes longer to fall below levels of concern (such as 1-in-1 million
risk levels). Thus, a larger population (including the city of Chicago)
is estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million from these low-level fugitive emissions based on the EPA's
example facility risk assessment using upper-end emissions estimates.
In the EPA's analysis, when UFIP emissions are added to point
source emissions at the example facility, the MIR based on allowable
emissions for UFIP and point sources increased from about 30-in-1
million to about 50-in-1 million and the noncancer HI increased from
0.3 to 0.7. The affected population with risk greater than or equal to
10-in-1 million also increased when considering UFIP emissions. The
overall results for the EPA's example facility risk assessment for
actual and allowable emissions are presented in Table 3 of this
preamble. For both actual and allowable emission scenarios, the
increases in risk when considering the UFIP emissions primarily were a
result of fugitive and intermittent HAP metal emissions from the BF
casthouse and BOPF shop operations. Table 4 of this preamble presents
the estimated percent contribution from each of the emissions sources
to the total MIR for the example facility. Further details on the risk
analysis for the UFIP emissions can be found in the document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action.
Table 3--Inhalation Risk Estimates for Point and Nonpoint Sources for an Example Facility Based on EPA's Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation chronic cancer risks Inhalation chronic noncancer risks Acute noncancer risks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example facility Population
Emissions sources MIR (in 1 Population with risks
million) Incidence with risks >1- >10-in-1 Max HI Target organ Max HQ Pollutant
in-1 million million
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual.............................. Risks for Point Sources 2 0.010 3,000 0 0.03 Developmental.............. 0.3 Arsenic.
Only.
Risks for Nonpoint 20 0.12 4,000,000 9,000 0.3 Developmental.............. 3 Arsenic.
Emissions & Point
Sources.
Allowables.......................... Risks for Point Sources 30 0.13 4,000,000 11,000 0.3 Developmental..............
Only.
Risks for Nonpoint 50 0.24 4,000,000 90,000 0.7 Developmental..............
Emissions & Point
Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Estimated Percent Contribution to the MIR for All Emissions
Sources at the Example Facility Based on EPA's Estimated Actual
Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated percent contribution to the
total MIR of 20-in-1 million Emissions source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50........................................ BF casthouse (fugitives).
21........................................ BOPF shop (fugitives).
9......................................... BF bell leaks (fugitives).
8......................................... All point sources combined.
5......................................... BF planned openings
(intermittent).
4......................................... BF unplanned openings/Slips
(intermittent).
2......................................... BF slag handling
(fugitives).
2......................................... BF beaching (intermittent,
fugitive).
100....................................... Total.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section III.C.8 above, there are uncertainties in
the EPA's emissions estimates for the nonpoint sources used in the
example facility risk analysis since the estimates are based on
emission factors (some of which are relatively old) and many
assumptions, especially where emission factors from other processes are
used as estimates for UFIP sources. In addition, the example facility
had a higher arsenic-to-PM ratio for the BF in the 2011 ICR data
compared to other facilities. Subsequently, the American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) provided additional, more recent test data for the
example facility that suggest arsenic emissions are lower than the
level we had estimated based on the 2011 ICR data that we used in our
analysis (see Paul Balserak, 2019, citation in footnote 18). Therefore,
we conclude the emissions used in our risk assessment are conservative
(upper-end) estimates. This uncertainty also leads us to conclude that
the risk results that include nonpoint sources are a qualitative
indicator of the potential risk, rather than a true quantitative
analysis, that may be higher than the actual risk due to assumptions
about the level of emissions from nonpoint sources. These assumptions
and uncertainties are explained in the memorandum titled Development of
Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources
for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility for
Input to the RTR Risk Assessment, available in the docket to this rule
and summarized above.
In addition to supplying new test data, the AISI also conducted
their own risk analysis for the same example facility using the same
input data (e.g., stack release parameters, fugitive source
characteristics, latitude/longitude data for each emissions source,
receptor information, etc.), the same model and following the same
modeling analysis approach that the EPA used, except that
[[Page 42721]]
AISI used the newer 2018 test data instead of the 2011 ICR test data
that the EPA used. The new test data and AISI risk results are
described in the February 2019 AISI document (see Paul Balserak, 2019),
which is available in the docket for this action.
We did not have adequate time to complete an extensive review of
the new test data, revise our model input files, and redo our risk
analysis before proposal; therefore, we have not yet evaluated the full
extent of how the new data will affect the overall results of the
example facility risk assessment. Nevertheless, we expect that once we
incorporate the new test data into our analyses and rerun our risk
model, the risks will be lower than the risk estimates presented in
Table 3 above. The results presented by AISI (which are presented in
Table 5) indicate the MIR when the UFIP emissions are included could be
about half the estimated value in the EPA's risk characterization
presented above (i.e., 8-in-1 million compared to the EPA's estimate of
20-in-1 million) and that population risks also could be substantially
lower than those presented above in this preamble, with an estimated
500,000 people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
compared to the estimate of 4,000,000 in the EPA's risk
characterization.
Table 5--Comparison of the Inhalation Risk Estimates for Point and Nonpoint Sources for Example Facility Based on the EPA and AISI Analyses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation chronic cancer risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIR (in 1 million) Population with risks >1-in-1 Population with risks >10-in-
-------------------------------- million 1 million
Emissions ---------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA's Based on Based on Based on
risk analysis AISI's risk Based on EPA's AISI's risk Based on EPA's AISI's risk
analysis risk analysis analysis risk analysis analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual.................................................. 20 8 4,000,000 500,000 9,000 0
Allowables.............................................. 50 20 4,000,000 NA 90,000 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not available.
Despite uncertainties in the individual nonpoint emission estimates
and the range of estimated potential risks reflected in Table 5,
monitor data near the example facility indicate that both the EPA and
AISI analyses better predict levels of metal HAP (e.g., arsenic and
lead) when nonpoint emissions are included. The comparisons of modeled
results to ambient monitoring data are described in the EPA's technical
memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facility for Input to the RTR Risk Assessment, and
in the February 2019 AISI risk assessment document,\18\ both available
in the docket for this proposed rule.
In summary, comparing the EPA's risk model results for UFIP
emissions plus point sources to the risk model results for point
sources alone for the example facility, the MIR based on actual
emissions from only point sources was approximately an order of
magnitude lower than the MIR obtained when UFIP emissions were included
(about 2-in-1 million compared to about 20-in-1 million). The AISI
analysis indicates the MIR based on actual emissions from only point
sources also was approximately an order of magnitude lower than the MIR
obtained when UFIP emissions were included (about 0.7-in-1 million
compared to about 8-in-1 million). A similar relationship is seen for
noncancer HI in the EPA's analysis, with 0.03 HI for point sources only
as compared to 0.3 HI for point sources plus UFIP emissions. As shown
in Tables 3 and 5 of this preamble, population risks also increased
significantly when including UFIP emissions with actual point source
emissions. For both actual and allowable emission scenarios, the
increase in estimated risk when including UFIP emissions was primarily
a result of the fugitive HAP metal emissions from BF and BOPF
operations. However, as described above, there are uncertainties in the
UFIP emissions estimates. Further details on the EPA's risk analysis
for the UFIP and other emissions can be found in the document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action.
It is important to note that we did not estimate the nonpoint
emissions for any facilities other than the example facility in the
source category. Therefore, we did not estimate the risks due to
nonpoint emissions from those facilities. Because the fugitive
emissions from UFIP sources were estimated from production-based
emission factors, we made a reasonable assumption that the facility
that produces the most product would be estimated to have the highest
fugitive emissions; hence, the selection of the example facility to run
the risk model for UFIP emissions because it has the highest production
rate in the source category. Additionally, actual nonpoint emissions
could be affected to some unknown extent by the quality of equipment
and operational practices at each facility.
Nevertheless, by evaluating the risk results from the example
facility (for both nonpoint and point sources) along with the risk
results for the point sources for all 11 facilities, it appears that
the inclusion of nonpoint sources for risk assessment at all other
facilities potentially could result in an MIR slightly greater than 70-
in-1 million based on allowable emissions, but less than 90-in-1
million. We derived this upper bound worst-case potential risk by
taking the MIR for another facility, which had the highest MIR based on
point source allowable emissions among all 11 facilities (i.e., MIR of
70-in-1 million from Table 2), and assumed that the risks due to
nonpoint sources at this facility would be less than the 20-in-1
million MIR we estimated for the example facility, because the other
facility has much lower production rate compared to the example
facility. Thus, we conclude that the estimated upper end MIR based on
allowable emissions for the source category could be slightly more than
70-in-1 million but less than 90-in-1 million. We are asking for
comments on the potential risk from UFIP sources, as described above,
and the impact that the potential additional risk could have on the
risk for the source category and overall acceptability of the risk for
the source category.
[[Page 42722]]
4. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and gardener
scenario were evaluated using a three-tier screening assessment of the
PB-HAP emitted by point sources at facilities in this source category.
All 11 facilities have reported emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP
(dioxins/furans, arsenic, and POM) and non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium
and mercury) that exceed the Tier 1 SV of 1 for the fisher/farmer
scenario. For facilities that exceeded a Tier 1 multipathway SV of 1,
we used additional facility-specific information to perform an
assessment through Tiers 2 and 3 and a site-specific analysis, as
necessary, to determine the maximum chronic cancer and noncancer
multipathway health risks for the source category. For cancer, the
highest Tier 3 SV was 200 (arsenic and dioxins/furans), and there were
seven facilities with Tier 3 SV greater than 1. For noncancer, the
highest Tier 3 SV was 2 (mercury and cadmium), and there was one
facility with Tier 3 SV greater than 1.
An exceedance of a SV in any of the tiers cannot be equated with a
risk value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it represents a high-end estimate
of what the risk or hazard may be. For example, a SV of 2 for a non-
carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ
would be lower than 2. Similarly, a SV of 200 for a carcinogen means
that we are confident that the risk is lower than 200-in-1 million. Our
confidence comes from the conservative, or health-protective,
assumptions encompassed in the screening tiers: We choose inputs from
the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential
parameters used in the screening tiers; and we assume that the exposed
individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total
exposure.
To further evaluate the potential multipathway risks, we conducted
a site-specific analysis of three facilities that are located in close
proximity to each other: ArcelorMittal-Indiana Harbor facility, U.S.
Steel Gary Works, and ArcelorMittal-Burns Harbor. All three facilities
also have sinter plants that emit dioxins/furans and are close to water
bodies. These candidate sites also were selected because of their
exceedances of the cancer SV, where arsenic and dioxins/furans under
the fisher and gardener scenarios had the highest exceedances for the
source category, and because of their exceedances of the tiered
noncancer SV, where mercury and cadmium under the fisher scenario had
the highest exceedances for the source category. We expect that the
exposures we assessed are among the highest that might be encountered
in this source category, based on combination of the magnitude of HAP
emissions and the density of the population in the regions surrounding
the facilities.
The site-specific analysis for the fisher scenario resulted in an
estimated maximum excess individual cancer risk of about 40-in-1
million (due to dioxin/furan emissions from sinter plants) and the
gardener (rural) scenario resulted in an estimated maximum excess
individual cancer risk of about 20-in-1 million for arsenic and
dioxins/furans. The site-specific multipathway assessment for the
fisher scenario produced a noncancer HQ of 0.1 for cadmium and 0.5 for
mercury. The protocol for developing the refined site-specific
multipathway assessment, input data, assumptions, and detailed results
are presented in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the
docket for this action.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\). The highest annual lead
concentration of 0.004 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to
lead. Multipathway risks were not explicitly calculated with the
additional estimated actual UFIP. However, based upon the increase in
certain metal emissions (arsenic and mercury), we could expect these
risks to increase as well, although not linearly with emission changes.
5. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.C of this document, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing source category for the following pollutants:
Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, lead, mercury (methyl mercury
and mercuric chloride), and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic emissions at two facilities had
exceedances for the surface soil threshold level (plant communities)
and the surface soil No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) (avian
ground insectivores) by a maximum SV of 4. Cadmium emissions at nine
facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil NOAEL (mammalian
insectivores and avian ground insectivores), the fish NOAEL (avian
piscivores and mammalian piscivores), the sediment community no-effect
level, and the water-column community threshold level by a maximum SV
of 50. Dioxins/furans emissions at three facilities had Tier 1
exceedances for the surface soil NOAEL (mammalian insectivores) by a
maximum SV of 600. Divalent mercury emissions at 11 facilities had Tier
1 exceedances for the surface soil threshold level (invertebrate and
plant communities) and the sediment threshold level by a maximum SV of
60. Divalent mercury emissions, and subsequent methylation and
formation of methyl mercury in biota, at the 11 facilities resulted in
Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil NOAEL (avian ground
insectivores and mammalian insectivores) and the fish NOAEL (avian
piscivores) by a maximum SV of 90. POM emissions at two facilities had
Tier 1 exceedances for the sediment no-effect level by a maximum SV of
5.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for arsenic, cadmium,
dioxins/furans, divalent mercury, methyl mercury, and POM emissions.
Arsenic, divalent mercury, and POM emissions had no Tier 2 exceedances
for any ecological benchmark. Emissions from five facilities impact one
lake (Chubb Lake), which caused an exceedance of the Tier 2 screen for
the fish NOAEL (avian piscivores) by a maximum SV of 2 for both cadmium
and divalent mercury. Dioxins/furans emissions from one facility
exceeded the Tier 2 screen for the surface soil, NOAEL (mammalian
insectivores) by a maximum SV of 4. This exceedance is based on the
area-weighted average dioxins/furans concentration in the soils around
this facility, for which 100 percent of the modeled soil area exceeded
the Tier 2 screen. None of the other dioxin benchmarks evaluated were
exceeded in the Tier 2 screen, including the NOAEL for common merganser
and the NOAEL for mink.
A site-specific assessment, incorporating plume rise and hour-by-
hour concentrations, was conducted for the dioxins/furans emissions
from this facility. In the site-specific assessment, the area-weighted
average dioxins/furans concentration in the soils around the facility
did not exceed any benchmark. However, approximately 39 percent of the
modeled soil area did exceed the NOAEL benchmark for mammalian
insectivores (shrew) (exceedance areas had an area-weighted average
exceedance of 3). However, none of the other 12 ecological benchmarks
evaluated for dioxins/
[[Page 42723]]
furans showed any exceedances. This includes the following other NOAEL
benchmarks: NOAEL for fish-eating birds (common merganser), NOAEL for
fish-eating mammals (mink), and a lake benthic sediment no-effect
level. Since the area-weighted-average dioxins/furans soil
concentration did not exceed any benchmark and only one NOAEL of the
three NOAELs evaluated showed any exceedance of a portion of the
modeled area, we do not expect a significant and widespread adverse
effect as a result of the dioxins/furans emissions from this source
category. The analysis estimated no exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled concentration around each facility
(i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the
modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition,
each individual modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data
point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for
all facilities.
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis,
we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
6. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Based on facility-wide emissions of point sources and noncategory
sources, the estimated cancer MIR is 80-in-1 million, mainly driven by
emissions from coke ovens, which are from noncategory sources, i.e.,
not part of the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source
category. The total estimated cancer incidence from the facility-wide
analysis is 0.1 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every
9 years. Approximately 1,800,000 people were estimated to have cancer
risks at or above 1-in-1 million, and 67,000 of these people were
estimated to have cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, from
exposure to HAP emitted from both sources that are part of the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source category and sources
that are not part of the source category at the 11 facilities in the
source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for the source
category is estimated to be 0.8 (for the neurological HI) driven by
emissions of manganese compounds from sources that are not part of the
source category. Emissions of noncategory sources are described in the
technical memorandum titled Integrated Iron and Steel Data Summary for
Risk and Technology Review, available in the docket to this rule, that
includes a description of all the emissions and process data used in
this proposed rule along with any assumptions that were made.
7. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing source category point sources across different
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\23\
Note that we did not do this type of analysis for the UFIP emissions
because we only estimated UFIP emissions for one facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 6
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions from point sources for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 6--Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or at Population with
or above 1-in-1 chronic HI at or
Item Nationwide million due to above 1 due to
integrated iron and integrated iron and
steel manufacturing steel manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.............................. 317,746,049 64,158 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White......................................... 62 63 0
Minority...................................... 38 37 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.............................. 12 29 0
Native American............................... 0.8 0.1 0
Hispanic or Latino includes white and 18 4 0
nonwhite)....................................
Other and Multiracial......................... 7 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level........................... 14 23 0
Above Poverty Level........................... 86 77 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma....... 14 12 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma........ 86 88 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42724]]
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated....................... 6 0.6 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source
category demographic analysis indicate that point source emissions from
the source category expose approximately 64,000 people to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a chronic noncancer HI
greater than or equal to 1. The percentages of the at-risk population
in each demographic group (except for African American and Below
Poverty Level) are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide
percentages. The African American population exposed to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million due to Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing emissions is more than three times the national average.
Likewise, populations living ``Below Poverty Level'' exposed to cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 million is nearly twice the national average.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this
action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
In this section, we discuss the results of our analysis of risk
from point sources and our analysis of risk from point and nonpoint
sources at the example facility. We also discuss our proposed finding
of acceptability and our ample margin of safety analysis.
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing sources, and we
considered these in determining acceptability.
The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
to actual emissions from the source category based on modeling point
source emissions for all 11 facilities is 10-in-1 million. The
estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures due to the
point sources for the source category is 0.03 excess cancer cases per
year, or one excess case every 33 years. We estimate that approximately
64,000 people face an increased cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-
in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from the point
sources for this source category. The Agency estimates that the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure due to point sources
(only) for this source category is 0.1. The screening assessment of
worst-case acute inhalation impacts due to point sources (only)
indicates a maximum HQ of 0.3 (due to arsenic) based on the REL. With
regard to multipathway human health risks, we estimate the cancer risk
for the highest exposed individual is 40-in-1 million (due to dioxins/
furans emissions from sinter plants) and the maximum chronic HI is less
than 1 for all the PB HAP. Although we did not assess multipathway risk
for the example facility, the highest exposed individual for dioxins/
furans in the point source modeling was not due to the example facility
and none of the nonpoint sources are expected to include dioxin/furans
emissions.
Based on allowable emissions, the estimated inhalation cancer risk
to the individual most exposed from point sources for the source
category would be 70-in-1 million and the estimated incidence of cancer
due to inhalation exposures to these allowable emissions would be 0.3
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 3 years. An
estimated 6 million people would face an increased cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to allowable
HAP emissions from this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI from inhalation exposure would be 0.9 based on allowable
emissions.
With regard to the estimated risks due to actual emissions from
nonpoint and point sources for the example facility, the estimated
inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to actual
emissions for the example facility when nonpoint sources were included
in the EPA's risk analysis increased from 2-in-1 million to 20-in-1
million. The population exposed to risks greater than or equal to 1-in-
1 million increased from 3,000 to 4,000,000,\24\ and the population
exposed to risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million increased
from 0 to 9,000 due to increase in the estimated HAP emissions from 3
tpy to 53 tpy. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation
exposures remained at less than 1, but the acute HQ increased from 0.3
to 3 based on the REL (for arsenic). Based on allowable emissions, the
estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
increased from 30-in-1 million to 50-in-1 million with nonpoint
sources. Thus, if nonpoint emissions were quantified for the entire
source category, the source category risks presented in this section
(based on point sources only) including the number of individuals with
cancer risk exceeding 1-in-1 million would be expected to increase for
each facility. Although it is problematic to estimate from the results
presented here what the increase in risk might be for each facility in
the entire industry without quantifying nonpoint emissions for each
facility, based upon results from the example facility, we conclude
that it is likely that the cancer and noncancer risks at other
facilities would be less than 90-in-1 million and
[[Page 42725]]
the maximum chronic noncancer HI would be less than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The large affected population reflects the Greater Chicago
area, which is in close proximity to the example facility. Metal HAP
emissions at the example facility increased by a factor of 15 when
UFIP emissions estimates were added to point source emissions; this
increase is reflected in the estimated risk impacts for the example
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty as described above. The risk results indicate
that the inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed may be
more than 70-in-1-million but less than 90-in-1 million, as a worst
case, considering the highest allowable risk due to point sources among
the industry facilities plus the conservative estimate of risk from
UFIP, which is less than the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-
in-1 million,\25\ and also considering the uncertainties in the example
facility analysis, as described above in section III.C.8.a. There are
no facilities with an estimated maximum chronic noncancer HI greater
than or equal to 1 from point sources. The maximum acute HQ for all
pollutants is less than 1 when we only consider point source emissions,
and up to 3 based on the REL for arsenic when including exposures to
estimated emissions from nonpoint emissions at the example facility.
For the acute screening analyses, to better characterize the potential
health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to
HAP, the EPA examines a wider range of available acute health metrics
than is done for chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement
that there are generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute
reference values than there are in chronic reference values. By
definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of
exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for
repeated exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause
health effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration
increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. In
addition, the acute screening assessment includes the conservative
(health protective) assumptions that every process releases its peak
hourly emissions at the same hour, that the near worst-case dispersion
conditions occur at that same hour, and that an individual is present
at the location of maximum concentration for that hour. Further, the HQ
value was not refined to an off-site location, which, in many cases,
may be significantly lower than that estimated at an on-site receptor.
Thus, because of the conservative nature of the acute inhalation
screening assessment as well as the uncertainty in the nonpoint
emission estimates, there is low probability that the maximum HQ of 3
is associated with adverse health effects in the industry as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989)
discussion above in section II.A of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties regarding our estimates of
nonpoint emissions discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA
proposes that the risks are acceptable. The estimated cancer risks are
below the presumptive limit of acceptability and the noncancer results
indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse noncancer health
effects due to HAP emissions from this source category. We request
comments on this proposed determination of acceptability.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Potential Controls
We next considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In the ample margin of
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (such as work practices) that
could be applied to the source category to further reduce the risks due
to emissions of HAP. For purposes of the ample margin of safety
analysis, after we evaluated these controls and measures and identified
possible regulatory options based on this evaluation, we estimated the
reductions in risks that would occur through adoption of these options
for both actual and allowable emissions.
a. Point Sources
The point sources at Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
facilities are already well controlled with baghouses and scrubbers.
However, as part of the ample margin of safety assessment, we evaluated
the following additional technologies for controlling point source
emissions to further reduce risk from these sources, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant factors. First,
we evaluated the installation of a wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
on the exhaust of the current air pollution control devices for the BF
casthouse primary units to reduce chromium VI and arsenic emissions,
respectively. We also evaluated the installation of activated carbon
injection (ACI) systems onto current control devices for the sinter
plant windbox to reduce emissions of dioxins/furans. Table 7 below
shows the estimated costs, and emission and risk reductions with
installation of these controls.
Table 7--Results of Ample Margin of Safety Analysis for Point Source Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By HAP and Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium VI (actuals) Arsenic (allowable) Dioxins/furans
Item -------------------------------------------------- (actuals, as TEQ)
------------------------
BF BOPF Sinter plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital.............................. $476,538,529........... $793,465,144........... $781,286.
Annual............................... $62,065,611............ $103,342,953........... $1,849,781.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.29E-02 tpy........... 2.25 tpy............... 1.97E-02 lb/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Effectiveness [Annual Costs/Emissions Removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual HAP....................... $943,217/lb............ $22,918/lb............. $94,006,541/lb.
[[Page 42726]]
$1.9 trillion/ton...... $46 million/ton........ $188 trillion/ton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk MIR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before Control....................... 10..................... 70..................... 40.
After Control........................ <1..................... 4...................... <1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the MIR could be reduced from 10-in-1 million, 70-in-1
million, and 40-in-1 million for BF chromium actual emissions, BOPF
arsenic allowable emissions, and sinter plant dioxins/furans actual
emissions as toxic equivalents (TEQ),\26\ respectively, we are not
proposing any of these control scenarios because of the relatively high
capital costs and annualized costs. These controls are not considered
cost effective, where cost effectiveness estimates are determined to be
$1.9 trillion/ton ($940,000/pound(lb)), $46 million/ton ($23,000/lb),
and $188 trillion/ton ($94 million/lb) for BF chromium, BOPF arsenic,
and sinter plant dioxins/furans, respectively. For details of this
analysis, see the technical document titled Ample Margin of Safety for
Point Sources in the II&S Industry, available in the docket to this
rule, that describes the costs of additional control of BF chromium,
BOPF arsenic, and sinter plant dioxin/furans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ From the 2005 World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity
equivalence factors. See Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors
(TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Publication
No. EPA/100/R-10/005. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Nonpoint Sources
In addition to the control options assessed for point sources, we
identified work practices that could achieve HAP reductions from the
seven nonpoint sources, such as more frequent measurements (e.g.,
opacity, internal furnace conditions), increased maintenance, applying
covers on equipment, developing operating plans to minimize emissions,
optimizing positioning of ladles with respect to hood faces, and
earlier repair of equipment. We evaluated work practices for these
seven nonpoint sources, because the nature of these fugitive and
intermittent emissions are such that they are not emitted through a
conveyance designed and constructed to capture these pollutants. The
work practices are described in more detail below. We request comments
on these work practices and related information included below.
As shown in Table 4 (above), the two nonpoint sources that present
the highest contribution to the MIR are the BF casthouse and BOPF shop,
which are currently regulated by opacity limits in the rule. These two
nonpoint sources account for an estimated 71 percent of the 20-in-1-
million MIR at the example facility. The other five nonpoint sources
(BF slag handling and storage, BF bell leaks, BF (bleeder valve)
planned openings, BF (bleeder valve) unplanned openings, and BF iron
beaching), when combined, account for about 22 percent of the 20-in-1-
million MIR at the example facility.
We evaluated two main options to reduce emissions and risks under
the ample margin of safety analysis under CAA section 112(f)(2).
Although we are not proposing standards based on either option, we are
requesting comments on the options. We ask for comments on the costs
and effectiveness of the work practices to reduce emissions; whether
these work practices should be viewed as viable methods to reduce
emissions and, therefore, risk from these nonpoint sources; and whether
further control of fugitive and/or intermittent emissions from these
nonpoint sources by implementation of the work practices, pursuant to
CAA section 112(h), should be required under the ample margin of safety
analysis for this source category.
Option 1 would be to establish work practice standards for two of
the nonpoint sources (BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives),
which pose the greatest contribution to the MIR. Potential work
practices for each of these two fugitive sources include the following:
Potential work practices for the BF casthouse fugitives:
Keep runner covers in place at all times except when
runner or cover is being repaired or removed for inspection purposes
(2-hour repair or observation limit);
Develop and operate according to a ``BF Casthouse
Operating Plan'' to minimize fugitive emissions and detect openings and
leaks;
Measure opacity frequently during the tapping operation
(e.g., during four taps per month) with all openings closed (except for
roof monitor) using EPA Method Alt-082 (camera) or EPA Method 9; and
Keep doors and other openings, except roof monitors,
closed during all transfer operations to extent feasible and safe.
Potential work practices for the BOPF shop fugitives:
Develop and operate according to a ``BOPF Shop Operating
Plan'' to minimize fugitive emissions and detect openings and leaks;
BOPF Shop Operating Plan may include:
[cir] List of all events that generate visible emissions (VE),
including slopping, and steps company will take to reduce incidence
rate;
[cir] Minimize hot iron pour/charge rate (minutes);
[cir] Schedule of regular inspections of BOPF shop structure for
openings and leaks to the atmosphere;
[cir] Optimize positioning of hot metal ladles with respect to hood
face and furnace mouth;
[cir] Optimize furnace tilt angle during charging;
[cir] Keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed, especially
during transfer, to extent feasible and safe;
[cir] Use higher draft velocities to capture more fugitives at a
given distance from hood, if possible; and
[cir] Monitor opacity periodically (e.g., once per month) from all
openings with EPA Method Alt-082 (camera) or with EPA Method 9.
We estimate these work practices would achieve a range of 50- to
90-percent reduction in fugitive emissions from these sources, based on
EPA judgement as to the potential
[[Page 42727]]
effectiveness of the work practices. With regard to reductions in
risks, we developed a model input file to reflect the estimated
emissions reductions that would be achieved under the Option 1 scenario
and performed a post-control modeling scenario to estimate risk
reductions. For the post-control scenario, we assumed the work
practices would achieve 70-percent reduction in emissions (the midpoint
between 50 and 90 percent). Based on this modeling assessment, we
estimate Option 1 would reduce the MIR from 20-in-1 million to about
10-in-1 million for the example facility, the estimated population with
risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would decrease from
4,000,000 to 1,500,000, and the estimated population with risks greater
than or equal to 10-in-1 million would decrease from 9,000 to 800. In
addition, the maximum acute HQ would decrease from 3 to 2. This option
also would achieve reductions in PM at or below 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). We request comments on these estimated reductions.
We estimate the total capital costs of Option 1 for the source
category would be about $1.4 million and annualized costs would be
about $1.7 million per year, with a cost effectiveness value of
approximately $10,000/ton HAP corresponding to an estimate of 173 tons
of HAP reductions. This estimate is based on cost estimates for
individual emission units that were projected to the entire industry
based on the number of units of each type at each facility. For details
on these cost estimates, see the technical memorandum titled Cost
Estimates and Other Impacts for the Integrated Iron and Steel Risk and
Technology Review, available in the docket to this proposed rule, that
describes the costs estimated for implementation of work practices to
control emissions from nonpoint sources, the estimated emission
reductions of HAP (and PM) at nonpoint sources with implementation of
the work practices, and the cost effectiveness of the work practices in
terms of estimated cost per ton of HAP (and PM) removed. We request
comments on these cost estimates.
Option 2 would be to establish work practice standards for all
seven of the nonpoint sources described above. Potential work practices
for two of the seven sources, the BF casthouse and BOPF shop under
Option 2, would be the same as described above for Option 1. Potential
work practices for the other five out of seven nonpoint sources in
Option 2 include the following:
BF slag handling and storage operations
Limit opacity to 10 percent, as 3-minute average; and
Use of fog spray systems over pit area, applying spray
after each dump of slag and during all digging activities to extent
feasible and safe.
BF bell leaks (defined as opacity 10 percent for
45 seconds total)
Limit opacity to 10 percent, as average of three
consecutive observations made 15 seconds to 5 minutes apart at any
location at the top of the furnace (i.e., small bell or inter-bell
relief valve);
Observe BF top for VE monthly to identify beginning of
leaks; measure opacity if VE positive;
Maintain metal seats of large and small bells to minimize
wear on seals; and
Repair/replace seals within 4 months if fail to meet
limit.
BF planned openings
Limit opacity to 10 percent, as 3-minute average;
Develop and operate according to a ``Dirty Gas Bleeder
Valve Opening Plan'' to meet opacity limit;
Idling preparation activities:
[cir] Tap as much liquid (iron and slag) out of furnace as
possible;
[cir] Remove fuel and/or stop fuel injection into furnace; and
[cir] Establish and use lowest bottom pressure possible, according
to EPA-specified procedures.
BF unplanned openings (``slips'')
Limit four slips/month;
[cir] If exceed this limit (5th slip, 1st exceedance), develop and
operate according to a ``Slip Avoidance Plan'';
Perform root cause analysis for 2nd and 3rd exceedance of
monthly limit (6th and 7th slip); modify plan as appropriate and safe
to decrease occurrence of slips; and
At 4th exceedance of monthly limit (8th slip), install
additional devices to continuously measure/monitor material levels in
furnace (i.e., stockline), at a minimum of three locations, with alarms
to inform operators of static (i.e., not moving) stockline conditions
which increase the likelihood of slips. Also install/use instruments on
furnace to monitor temperature and pressure to help determine when a
slip has occurred. This information can help operators identify
potential problems and, therefore, adjust controls/actions to avoid
unplanned slips. These installations and monitoring would be required
within 3 months of 8th slip.
BF iron beaching
Limit opacity to 20 percent, as 6-minute averages
continuously measured during entire beaching event;
Minimize height, slope, and speed of beaching; and
Use carbon dioxide shielding during beaching event; and/or
use full or partial (hoods) enclosures around beached iron.
Table 8--Estimated Costs, Reductions, and Cost-effectiveness of Control of Nonpoint Sources via Work Practices
in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
HAP effectiveness
Nonpoint source Capital costs Annual costs reductions $/ton HAP
tpy \a\ removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF Unplanned Openings........................... $1,200,000 $197,747 3.1 $63,962
BF Planned Openings............................. .............. 59,205 2.0 29,605
BF Bell Leaks................................... 5,000,000 555,771 4.3 130,680
BF Casthouse Fugitives.......................... 960,000 1,183,981 36 32,821
BOPF Shop Fugitives............................. 480,000 500,541 137 3,665
BF Iron Beaching................................ .............. 99,494 0.042 2,392,593
Slag Handling & Storage......................... 1,100,000 451,602 2.9 157,167
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Total............................... 8,740,000 3,048,342 185 16,478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the total capital costs of Option 2 for the source
category would be about $8.7 million and annualized costs would be
about $3 million per year, for a cost effectiveness of $16,000/ton HAP
corresponding to an estimate of
[[Page 42728]]
185 tons of HAP reductions. The estimated costs (capital and
annualized), reductions, and cost effectiveness for the work practices
for the seven individual UFIP sources are shown above in Table 8 and
discussed in detail in the technical memorandum titled Ample Margin of
Safety Analysis for Nonpoint Sources in the II&S Industry, available in
the docket for this rule. We assume these work practices would achieve
a range of 50- to 90-percent reduction in fugitive emissions.
We request comments on these estimated reductions and cost
estimates. There may be energy savings from reducing leaks of BF gas
from bells, which is one of the work practices described above. We
solicit comment on the potential energy and related cost savings for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing facilities with implementation
of this work practice.
The cost methodology and cost estimates for control of emissions
from the seven UFIP sources are described in detail in the technical
memorandum titled Cost Estimates and Other Impacts for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Risk and Technology Review, available in the docket to
this rule. We request comments on these cost estimates.
With regard to reductions in risks, we developed a risk model input
file to reflect the estimated emissions reductions that would be
achieved under Option 2 and performed a post-control analysis to
estimate potential risk reductions. For the post-control scenario, we
assumed the work practices would achieve 70-percent reduction in
emissions (the midpoint between 50 and 90 percent). Based on this post-
control modeling assessment, we estimate Option 2 (i.e., work practices
for all seven nonpoint sources) would reduce the MIR from 20-in-1
million to about 9-in-1 million for example facility, the estimated
population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million would
decrease from 4,000,000 to 800,000, and the estimated population with
risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million would decrease from
9,000 to 0. Also, the maximum acute HQ would decrease from 3 to 0.9.
This option would also achieve reductions in PM2.5.
We note that there are uncertainties in our assessment and are
requesting comments on this and any other issues that impact this
assessment. First, as described above, there are uncertainties in the
baseline UFIP emissions. Second, there are uncertainties in the
estimated reductions that would be achieved by the work practices
because we made assumptions regarding how much reduction would be
achieved with the work practices. Third, there are uncertainties in the
cost estimates because we made various assumptions about number of
labor hours, equipment needed, and other known factors. There may be
cost factors that are unknown to us at this time; we request comment on
any additional cost impacts.
c. Ample Margin of Safety Decisions
Based on consideration of all the information described above,
including the risk results, costs, and uncertainties, we are proposing
that no additional standards are necessary under section 112(f) of the
CAA and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety.
This decision is based largely on the cost and cost effectiveness of
the point source controls and the uncertainties in the nonpoint source
assessment in terms of baseline emissions, costs of the work practices,
how much risk reduction they could achieve, and uncertainties regarding
potential effects of the work practices on the facilities' operations,
safety, and economics.
We solicit comment on this proposed decision. We also solicit
comments, as well as additional information and data, on the work
practices and the two options described above. Specifically, we solicit
comment on the emissions estimates, cost estimates, cost savings,
estimated emissions reductions, control effectiveness, and any other
relevant information regarding the value or appropriateness of
incorporating work practices for UFIP sources into the NESHAP. We
solicit comment on whether Option 1 or Option 2 should be required for
these facilities, or some other combination of work practices. We also
solicit comments, data, and information on the specific seven work
practices, any issues they may present (e.g., safety, costs,
disruptions of operations, etc.) and whether or not they should be
included in the NESHAP and why.
We also solicit comment on whether only opacity limits (similar to
opacity limits currently in the NESHAP for the BF casthouse and BOPF
shop fugitives) should be established for the other five UFIP (BF slag
handling and storage, BF bell leaks, BF planned openings, BF unplanned
openings, and BF iron beaching) without requiring any of the work
practices described above. For example, we are seeking comments on
whether it would be appropriate to establish opacity limits of 20
percent for all five of these UFIP or a subset of these five UFIP
sources. We also seek comments on whether it would be appropriate to
establish opacity limits of 20 percent for BF bell leaks and BF bleeder
valves (BF planned and unplanned openings) and 10 percent for BF iron
beaching and BF slag handling and storage that would be consistent with
requirements in some of the state implementation plans (SIP) for
criteria pollutants that apply to some of the existing facilities.
These opacity standards would ensure that these nonpoint sources in all
states do not have opacity above the SIP levels. Details of the SIP
requirements can be found in the technical memorandum titled Ample
Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in the II&S Industry, located in
the docket for this rule and described above.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
Considering the results of our environmental risk screening, we do
not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category, and we are proposing that it is not
necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
1. What are the results of our technology review for point sources?
The emissions from point sources at Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing facilities are controlled by baghouses, ESPs, scrubbers,
and fume/flame suppressants. For point sources, in addition to the
controls considered for point sources under the ample margin of safety
analysis above (in section IV.B), under the technology review, we
evaluated the cost effectiveness of upgrading fume/flame suppressants
used for control of fugitive PM and HAP metal emissions from BF to
control of emissions with baghouses, and process modifications to
further reduce dioxin/furan emissions from sinter plants. The
technology reviews of these two emissions sources are discussed below
and in detail in the technical memorandum titled Technology Review for
the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP, available in the docket to this
rule.
a. Upgrading Fume/flame Suppressants at Blast Furnaces to Baghouses
Most emissions from the BF casthouse occur from tapping the molten
iron (product) and slag (waste) to remove these materials from the
furnace. Emissions occur at the taphole on the BF, from open troughs
(runners) that transport the iron and slag, from open
[[Page 42729]]
ladles that receive the molten iron, and open iron transport systems
(torpedo cars). These emissions are controlled in the Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing industry in one of two fundamentally different
ways: fume and flame suppression techniques, or conventional
ventilation practices that route exhaust air to control devices such as
baghouses. Fume suppression consists of blowing natural gas over the
open equipment which retards vaporization and prevents emissions. With
flame suppression, the natural gas is ignited with accompanying oxygen
consumption that suppresses the formation of metal oxide emissions. In
more efficient control practices, local ventilation practices, such as
localized hooding and other area ventilation techniques, are used to
collect the emissions from the open BF equipment. Alternatively, the
casthouse may be totally enclosed and evacuated to a control device.
The use of fume/flame suppressants for control of fugitive BF casthouse
emissions is estimated to have 75-percent control, whereas control with
baghouses is estimated to have 95-percent control.
There are a total of eight BF with fume/flame suppressants
distributed at four facilities among the 21 BF total at 11 Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing facilities. Per-unit capital costs for
converting from fume/flame suppressant control to baghouses are
estimated to be $18 million with $2.7 million in annual unit costs,
where some facilities have two or three units. Total industry costs are
estimated to be $140 million in capital costs and $22 million annual
costs. The estimated cost effectiveness of upgrading the fume/flame
suppressant control to ventilation and baghouses at all eight BF is $7
million/ton of metal HAP with 3 tons of HAP removed, and $160,000/ton
PM with 120 tons of PM removed. We conclude these controls for PM and
metal HAP emissions are not cost effective. Details of this cost
estimate and other aspects of upgrading fume/flame suppressants to
baghouses can be found in the technical memorandum cited above. We ask
for comments and additional information regarding the estimated costs
of these conversions, the underlying assumptions of our analysis, and
our proposed conclusion that converting from the use of fume
suppressant to installation of new baghouses for these sources would
not be cost effective.
b. Process Modifications To Control Dioxins at Sinter Plants
There are three facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing source category that have sinter plants. The sinter
plants are currently regulated by PM and opacity limits on the windbox
exhaust stream, sinter cooler, and discharge end of sinter plant. In
addition, the sinter plant windbox is regulated for organic HAP with
compliance demonstrated by either meeting a VOC limit or a limit on oil
content of the sinter feed. Dioxins/furans are components of the
organic HAP but because of the high toxicity of this HAP, often are
addressed separately under control scenarios. Therefore, our technology
review included exploration of potential control measures that could
further reduce dioxin/furans from sinter plants.
We conducted a literature search and reviewed various technical
publications (largely from Europe and other countries in the Stockholm
Convention) \27\ regarding potential control technologies and practices
to reduce dioxins from sinter plants and found a number of potential
options that could potentially be applied at sinter plants in the
U.S.28 29 30 These options include urea injection to inhibit
dioxin formation; partial windbox exhaust gas recirculation; post-
exhaust windbox chemical spray (monoethanolamine and triethanolamine
dissolved in water and sprayed onto exhaust); and elimination of
certain inputs (e.g., no ESP dust). The European Union also included
these measures in their 2013 Best Available Technology evaluation.\31\
As far as we know, none of these technologies or practices are
currently used at sinter plants in the U.S. However, based on the
literature cited above, we believe some of these technologies or
measures may be used to control dioxins/furans in other countries (such
as in Europe and other countries complying with the Stockholm
Convention).\27\ Nevertheless, we have not been able to estimate the
costs or effectiveness of these control methods due to lack of cost
information in the literature, nor have we been able to estimate the
feasibility for U.S. facilities. See the technical memorandum cited
above for details on the technology review for dioxin/furans from
sinter plants. We ask for comments on these potential process
modifications and feasibility for control of dioxin/furans from sinter
plants at U.S. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(Pops), Texts and Annexes. Revised in 2017. Published by the
Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, Geneva, Switzerland. May
2018. Available at: http://www.pops.int.
\28\ Ooi, T. C. and L. Lu. Formation and mitigation of PCDD/Fs
in iron ore sintering. Chemosphere 85 291-299. 2011.
\29\ Boscolo, M, E., Padoano, and S. Tommasi. Identification of
possible dioxin emission reduction strategies in preexisting iron
ore sinter plants. Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute. Ironmaking and
Steelmaking. 15:35:11.The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield, UK. October
19, 2007.
\30\ Lanzerstorfer, C. State of the Art in Air Pollution Control
for Sinter Plants. Chapter 18, in Ironmaking and Steelmaking
Processes. P. Cavaliere, Ed. Springer International Publishing,
Springer Nature, Switzerland AG. 2016.
\31\ Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron
and Steel Production. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
(Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). R. Remus, M. A.
Aguado-Monsonet. S. Roudier, L. D. Sancho. European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for prospective technological
studies. European IPPC Bureau, Seville, Spain. Luxembourg
Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/97469. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Technology Review of Point Sources
Considering all the information described above in our technology
reviews, we have not identified any developments in practices,
processes, or technologies that warrant revision of the NESHAP for
point sources. Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the
NESHAP pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the CAA for point sources.
Other than the technologies and measures described above, we have
not identified any additional potential developments in practices,
processes, or technologies available to control emissions from point
sources. Based on consideration of all the information described above,
we are proposing that no additional standards are necessary under
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. We solicit comments on this proposed
decision.
2. What are the results of our technology review for nonpoint sources?
Fugitive emissions generated within the BF casthouse and BOPF shop
from activities such as charging, tapping, and door openings for
maintenance and process monitoring are partially controlled by
secondary capture systems that route emissions captured by hoods and
other collection systems to control devices that are either the primary
control system or stand-alone secondary control devices. Because
capture of fugitive emissions within the BF casthouse and BOPF shop is
not always done or complete (i.e., not 100 percent) some uncaptured
fugitive emissions escape through roof vents and other openings. To
restrict the amount of fugitive emissions that escape the BF casthouse
and BOPF shop, the NESHAP set opacity limits of 20 percent (3-minute
average) for all openings at existing units to be measured a
[[Page 42730]]
minimum of once every 5 years (see 40 CFR 63.7821).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ New BOPF sources have a 10-percent opacity limit, with one
6-minute period greater than 10 percent but less than the 20 percent
allowed each steel production cycle. For new BF, the opacity limit
is 15 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the analyses for nonpoint sources (described in sections II,
III, and IV.B), we estimated the amount of fugitive PM and metal HAP
potentially emitted from these two nonpoint sources, BF casthouses and
BOPF shops. The occurrence of visible plumes of fugitives being emitted
from these process structures has been observed during inspections and
documented in reports and photographs by EPA Regional staff for years
2008 to present.\2\ In the ample margin of safety analysis under Option
1 described above (see section IV.B), we evaluated potential work
practices to reduce uncaptured fugitive emissions from BF casthouses
and BOPF shops; these sources contribute the highest risk of all UFIP
sources. We also considered whether these work practices (described
above under Option 1 in section IV.B to reduce fugitive emissions and
associated risks from these sources) may constitute a development in
work practices, processes, or technology to reduce fugitive emissions
from BF casthouses and BOPF shops pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA that was not identified or considered during development of the
original MACT standards. For more details of the technology review, see
the technical memorandum titled Technology Review for the Integrated
Iron and Steel NESHAP, available in the docket to this rule for details
of the evaluation of work practices for control of fugitive HAP
emissions from BF casthouses and BOPF shops. The estimated capital
costs for work practices for these two nonpoint sources are $1.4
million and annualized costs are $1.7 million. We estimate these work
practices would achieve about 173 tpy reduction in metal HAP.
Nevertheless, as described above, there are significant
uncertainties in the baseline UFIP emissions, estimated reductions that
would be achieved by the work practices, and costs. There are also
uncertainties regarding the effect the work practices would have on
facility operations, economics, and safety.
After considering all the information described above, we propose
to find that there are no developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that necessitate revising the standards for these
two UFIP sources under CAA section 112(d)(6). This decision is based
largely on the considerable uncertainties described above along with
the cost issues.
We ask for comments on our proposed decision, the costs and
effectiveness of the work practices for the two UFIP sources, and
whether these work practices should be viewed as a development in
practices, processes, or technologies (pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6)) to reduce emissions at BF casthouses and BOPF shops, and
whether further control of the above-mentioned fugitives from these
processes by implementation of the work practices should be required
under the technology review for this source category. These costs and
reductions are described in detail in the technical memorandum titled
Cost Estimates and Other Impacts for the Integrated Iron and Steel Risk
and Technology Review, available in the docket to this rule, and
discussed above.
In summary, we propose to find that there are no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for these
two UFIP sources. Therefore, we are not proposing any requirements
under CAA section 112(d)(6) based on our technology review. However, we
are soliciting comments on the potential of these work practices to
reduce emissions from the two UFIP sources, as described above.
D. What actions are we taking pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
112(d)(3)?
Separate from the RTR, in this action we are proposing standards
for mercury emissions pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3).\33\
The results of the analyses performed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)
and (3) and the standards proposed are presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The EPA has authority under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
to set MACT standards for previously unregulated emission points.
The EPA also retains the discretion to revise a MACT standard under
the authority of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) (see Portland Cement
Ass'n v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011), such as when it
identifies an error in the original standard. See also Medical Waste
Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 426 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (upholding EPA
action establishing MACT floors, based on post-compliance data, when
originally-established floors were improperly established).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background Regarding Mercury Emissions From the Source Category
The current NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing does
not include mercury emission standards. Based on data from the 2010
ICR, we estimate the facilities in the source category emitted about
1,000 lb/year of mercury in 2010. Based on the CAA section 114 test
results, most (80 percent) of the mercury is from the BOPF and
associated operations (i.e., HMTDS and ladle metallurgy). An
examination of possible sources of mercury from the BOPF and associated
operations revealed that the use of post-consumer steel scrap, as
reported in the ICR, was the most likely source of mercury. Based on
our understanding of the types of scrap and raw materials processed and
the likely sources of mercury in various materials, we conclude that
the predominant contributor to mercury emissions at integrated iron and
steel facilities is the motor vehicle convenience switches that contain
mercury (i.e., mercury switches) that are found in vehicles built
before 2003 and end up in steel scrap. Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that mercury emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing facilities predominantly result from steel scrap
containing mercury switches fed into the BOPF. Details of the sources
of mercury emissions can be found in the technical memorandum titled
Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel
Facilities, available in the docket to this rule, that describes the
sources of mercury from Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
facilities and the issues and costs involved in control of mercury.
However, based on models developed from analysis of the age of
motor vehicles in the U.S. vehicle fleet, we estimate that mercury
emissions from this source category are about 50 percent lower today as
compared to 2010 and are expected to continue to decline over the
coming years due to the 2003 U.S. motor vehicle mercury switch ban and
the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP). For more
information about the mercury emissions and predicted reductions see
the technical memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs
at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, available in the docket for
this action.
The NVMSRP is a cooperative effort established in 2006 among
vehicle manufacturers, steel manufacturers, vehicle dismantlers, scrap
shredders, the EPA, and other stakeholders, to support the removal of
mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. The NVMSRP involves more
than 10,000 steel recyclers. The initial Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the NVMSRP parties was signed in 2006. On November 15,
2018, the EPA signed a renewed MOU that extends the program through
2021. Given its success, the EPA continues to support the NVMSRP that
already has removed and safely recycled more than 6.8
[[Page 42731]]
million mercury switches containing a total of more than 7.6 tons of
mercury. The MOU, renewed MOU, and other information regarding the
NVMSRP are available at: https://www.epa.gov/smartsectors/mercury-switch-recovery-program, and in the docket for this rule.
2. Reconsideration Petition
In 2004, the EPA received a petition for reconsideration from the
Sierra Club, who referred to the EPA's statement in the Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP that steel plants emit mercury but not
in appreciable quantities. Sierra Club argued that the CAA does not
allow the EPA not to set standards because emissions are insignificant.
In 2005, the EPA granted reconsideration to evaluate a possible mercury
standard. Consequently, the EPA is proposing in this action an
emissions standard for mercury for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing source category pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3).
3. Proposed MACT Standards for Mercury
Section 302(k) of the CAA defines an emission standard as a
requirement ``which limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis, including any
requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of a source to
assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard promulgated under this chapter.''
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), we are proposing a MACT floor
limit of 0.00026 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed as an input-
based limit for all existing BOPFs and existing integrated iron and
steel manufacturing facilities. This limit was derived using ICR test
data of the mass of mercury emissions from all BOPFs and related units
(HMTDS and ladles) at each facility per mass of scrap used by each
facility in their BOPFs with the assumption that the mass of mercury
emitted from all BOPFs and related units is equivalent to the mass of
mercury in the scrap input because mercury is neither created or
destroyed in the BOPF. The mercury-to-scrap input ratios from the best
performing five facilities out of all 11 integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
source category were used to develop an input-based MACT floor for
mercury. We then determined an upper prediction limit (UPL) to develop
the mercury standard that incorporates the potential variability in
future measurements. Because there are fewer than 30 sources in the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source category, as described
below, we evaluated the best performing five sources in the category,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3)(B).
The EPA's MACT analyses use the UPL approach to identify the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing sources.
The EPA uses this approach because it incorporates the average
performance of the best performing sources as well as the variability
of the performance during testing conditions. The UPL represents the
value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future
observations (e.g., 3-run average) to fall below for the specified
level of confidence (99 percent), based upon the results from the same
population. In other words, the UPL estimates what the upper bound of
future values will be based upon present or past background data. The
UPL approach encompasses all the data point-to-data point variability
in the collected data, as derived from the dataset to which it is
applied. For more details regarding how this limit was derived, see the
technical memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs at
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, located in the docket for this
rule, and described above.
We are proposing that existing facilities would have two options to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed input-based limit of 0.00026
lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed, as follows: (1) Conduct an
annual emissions test at all BOPF-related units and convert the sum of
the results to input-based units (i.e., lb of mercury per ton of scrap
input) and document the results in a test report that can be submitted
electronically to the delegated authority with the results (see section
IV.E below); or (2) certify annually that the facility obtains all of
their scrap from NVMSRP participants (or similar program as approved by
the delegated authority) or establish that their scrap is not likely to
contain mercury.
Although we do not know exactly what type of scrap was used when
the integrated iron and steel facilities performed the ICR testing for
mercury,\34\ we assume the scrap was either NVMSRP scrap or scrap with
higher amounts of mercury per ton of scrap than NVMSRP scrap. It is
reasonable for the EPA to conclude that NVMSRP scrap in the future will
contain similar levels of mercury or less mercury than the scrap used
to develop the MACT floor limit, and this proposal relies on that
conclusion. Therefore, if a facility opts to comply with the emission
limit by certifying that all their scrap is from NVMSRP participants
(or a similar approved program) or establishes that their scrap is not
likely to contain mercury, it is also reasonable to conclude that the
amount of mercury in the scrap achieves the same level of mercury
reduction or more reduction as the numeric MACT floor limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ It is our understanding that there are at least three
facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing source
category that obtain all their steel scrap from scrap providers that
participate in the NVMSRP. (Personal communication (telephone).) P.
Balserak, AISI, Washington, DC, with C. French, U. S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 13, 2018.). Also, during
other discussions in 2018, industry representatives indicated they
believed all, or most, facilities obtain all of their steel scrap
from scrap providers that participate in the NVMSRP. However, we
have not yet confirmed this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3) requirements for new sources, the
standard for new sources shall not be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source, we are proposing a new source MACT limit of 0.00008 lbs of
mercury per ton of scrap processed as an input-based limit for any new
BOPF and new integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility. A new
BOPF and new integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is
defined to be any BOPF or facility constructed or reconstructed on or
after August 16, 2019. This limit was derived using ICR test data of
the mass of mercury emissions from all BOPF and related units (HMTDS
and ladles) per mass of scrap used by the lowest-emitting facility. In
addition, similar to existing sources above, we are proposing that new
BOPF or new facilities would have two options to demonstrate compliance
with the proposed input-based limit of 0.00008 lbs of mercury per ton
of scrap processed, as follows: (1) Conduct an annual emissions test at
all BOPF-related units and convert the sum of the results to input-
based units (i.e., lbs of mercury per ton of scrap input) and document
the results in a test report that can be submitted electronically to
the delegated authority with the results (see section IV.E below); or
(2) certify annually that the facility obtains all of their scrap from
NVMSRP participants (or similar program as approved by the delegated
authority) or certify that their scrap is not likely to contain
mercury.
Following the same reasoning discussed above in connection with the
existing source standard, although we do not know exactly what type of
scrap was used when the integrated iron and steel facilities performed
the ICR testing
[[Page 42732]]
for mercury, we assume the scrap was either NVMSRP scrap or scrap with
higher amounts of mercury per ton of scrap than NVMSRP scrap.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the EPA to conclude that scrap subject
to the NVMSRP or other approved scrap program in the future will
contain similar levels of mercury or less mercury than the scrap used
to develop the MACT floor limit, and this proposal relies on that
conclusion. We request comment on our proposed emissions standards for
mercury at new and existing BOPF-related units.
In terms of cost impacts, our analysis indicates that all
facilities could meet the mercury limit in 2020 without any additional
add-on controls. With declining mercury levels in vehicle scrap, we
expect that all facilities that obtain all their scrap from suppliers
who participate in the NVMSRP or similar approved program will meet
this input-based standard without the need for any additional controls.
For facilities that choose to comply by certifying they get all their
scrap from NVMSRP participants, or a similar switch removal program, we
estimate that the only costs to comply with this standard would be for
recordkeeping and reporting, which we estimate at $1,058 per year per
facility, and $11,639 per year for all 11 integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities. If one or more facilities choose to conduct
annual emissions tests, their costs would be higher due to the costs
for the emissions tests. The costs to conduct an annual emissions test
at all BOPF-related units, convert the sum of the results to input-
based units (i.e., lb of mercury per ton of scrap input), and document
the results in a test report that can be submitted electronically to
the delegated authority with the results is estimated to be
approximately $151,000 per year per facility and $1,660,000 for the
total industry.
However, we assume all, or most, facilities will choose the option
to comply by certifying scrap selection. We request comment on these
compliance costs and also the assumption that purchasing scrap from
NVMSRP scrap providers or a similar approved program results in a small
additional cost to facilities. For more information regarding the
derivation of the cost estimates for this proposed mercury standard and
all aspects of mercury emissions and controls, see the document titled
Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel
Facilities, available in the docket to this rule.
4. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor Options
The EPA also evaluated possible beyond-the-floor options based on
the addition of ACI with baghouses on BOPF and related units to further
reduce emissions of mercury coming from their existing control devices
(scrubbers, baghouses, and ESPs). We estimate the total capital costs
for installing baghouse (if not already present) and ACI systems would
be $24 million and annualized costs would be $38 million, and would
achieve about 280 lbs mercury reduction per year for the first few
years of compliance with such standards, based on the amount of mercury
projected to be in the scrap in 2020 and considering the decrease in
mercury expected in motor vehicle scrap. This results in estimated cost
effectiveness of $136,000 per lb of mercury reductions. However, under
this option, the amount of emissions and associated reductions would
decrease over time as a result of the expected decline in mercury input
due to the 2003 ban on mercury switches and aging of the vehicle fleet.
Therefore, the beyond-the-floor controls would become less cost
effective over time. For this reason, and because of the relatively
high capital and annualized cost of ACI with baghouses, and poor cost
effectiveness, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor option based
on ACI with baghouses. See the document titled Mercury Emissions,
Controls, and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, available
in the docket to this rule, for details regarding the derivation of the
cost and emission estimates for the beyond-the-floor option.
5. New Terms and Definitions
With the addition of proposed MACT standards for mercury and to
clarify a few other aspects of the NESHAP, we are proposing to add new
terms along with their definitions. We ask for comment on the clarity
of these definitions.
Basic oxygen process furnace group means the collection of
BOPF shop steelmaking operation units including the BOPF primary units
(BOPF emissions from oxygen blow iron refining), BOPF secondary units
(secondary fugitive emissions in the shop from iron charging, tapping,
and auxiliary processes not elsewhere controlled), ladle metallurgy
units, and hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and slag skimming
units;
Deviation for an affected source subject to this subpart,
or an owner or operator of such a source, also includes failure to meet
any requirement or obligation established by this rule, including, but
not limited to, any emission limitation (including operating limits),
standard, or operation and maintenance requirement;
Mercury switch means a mercury-containing capsule or
switch assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism
installed in a motor vehicle;
Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on
rails and usually operated with rubber tires for use on highways;
Motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from
discarded vehicles or automobile bodies, including automobile body
hulks that have been processed through a shredder. Motor vehicle scrap
does not include automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous
vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers, or other components that do not
contain mercury switches. Motor vehicle scrap typically is not sold
separately but is combined with other steel scrap for sale;
Opening means any roof monitor, vent, door, window, hole,
crack, or other conduit that allows gas to escape to the atmosphere
from a BF casthouse or BOPF shop;
Post-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is
composed of materials made of steel that were purchased by households
or by commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in their
role as end-users of the product and which can no longer be used for
its intended purpose;
Pre-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is left
over from industrial or manufacturing processes and which is
subsequently recycled as scrap. Other terms used to describe this scrap
are new, home, run-around, prompt-industrial, and return scrap;
Scrap provider means the company or person (including a
broker) who contracts directly with a steel mill to provide steel
scrap. Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle
dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are not
scrap providers; and
Steel scrap means pre-consumer and post-consumer discarded
steel that is processed by scrap providers for resale (post-consumer)
or used on-site (pre-consumer or run-around scrap from within a
facility or company). Post-consumer steel scrap may or may not contain
motor vehicle scrap, depending on the type of scrap. In regard to motor
vehicle scrap, steel scrap only can be classified as ``scrap that is
likely to contain motor vehicle scrap'' vs. ``scrap that is not likely
to contain motor vehicle scrap,'' as determined by the scrap provider.
[[Page 42733]]
E. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes to modify reporting and
monitoring. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues
are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, CAA section 112 emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.7810(a) and Table 4. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all
times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 4 (the General
Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below.
For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We
also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods. The
integrated iron and steel manufacturing industry has not identified
(and there are no data indicating) any specific problems with removing
the SSM provisions. However, we solicit comment on whether any
situations exist where separate standards, such as work practices,
would be more appropriate during periods of startup and shutdown rather
than the current standard.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties', such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
[[Page 42734]]
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, when the EPA conducted the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the
EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine
that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to
the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December. 1, 2015). The EPA
will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.7810(c) General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize
emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary
or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are
proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.7810(c) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR
63.7810(c) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a ``no''
in column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.7810(c).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require
development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to
an emission standard during such events. The applicability of a
standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources
from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above,
the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this
provision and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources
from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing
to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7823 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.7822(a) and 63.7823(a). The performance
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes
of performance testing. The revised performance testing provisions
require testing under representative operating conditions and exclude
periods of startup and shutdown.
As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this
subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions
during malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to
determine the condition of the performance test'' available to the
Administrator upon request but does not specifically require the
information
[[Page 42735]]
to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including a
``no'' in column 3. The cross-references to the general duty and SSM
plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of
other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.7842(b)(3) text that is
identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is
replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.7842 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping
and reporting applicable to normal operations would apply to startup
and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable to
startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to 40 CFR 63.7842. The regulatory text we are proposing to
add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the
General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of
the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air
pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that
this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard
and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and duration of
the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing
to add to 40 CFR 63.7842(a)(4) a requirement that sources keep records
that include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions
taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with
their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM
plans would no longer be required. The requirement previously
applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to
minimize emissions and record corrective actions is now applicable by
reference to 40 CFR 63.7842(a)(5).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to record
actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were
consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. 40 CFR 63.7841 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(4). The replacement language differs
from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic
SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
reporting period compliance report already required under this rule. We
are proposing that the report would contain the number, date, time,
duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We would no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer
[[Page 42736]]
necessary because the events would be reported in otherwise required
reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We would no longer
require owners and operators to report when actions taken during a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities submit
the required electronic copies of summaries of performance test results
and semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), as listed on the ERT website \35\ at
the time of the test, be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT, and that other performance test results be submitted in
portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT.
Similarly, performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring
systems measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test would be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semiannual compliance reports, the proposed rule requires that
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for
these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\36\ The
EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities--40 CFR 63.7841(b), Semiannual Compliance
Report Spreadsheet Template, available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7841(e). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that would be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.7841(f). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \37\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \38\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\39\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\38\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\39\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Incorporation by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes incorporation by
reference (IBR). In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA
is proposing to incorporate by reference the following documents
described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.7822(b) and 63.7824(e). This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from
stationary combustion sources. The gases covered in the method are
oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide,
sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and
hydrocarbons.
EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7831(f). This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, the EPA document
generally
[[Page 42737]]
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ and at
the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information). The ANSI/ASME document is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org;
by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone
at (800) 843-2763.
4. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following lists additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7823 to specify the
conditions for conducting performance tests;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822, 63.7823, 63.7824, and 63.7833 to
clarify the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7824 to add IBR for ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981;
Revised Tables 1 and 3 to clarify that opacity
observations be made at all openings to the BF casthouse;
Revised Tables 1, 2, and 3 to clarify that the affected
source is each BOPF shop, rather than only the roof monitor at the BOPF
shop;
Revised Table 1 to add a mercury emission limit, revised
Table 2 to add demonstration of initial compliance with the mercury
emission limit, and revised Table 3 to add demonstration of continuous
compliance with the mercury emission limit
Revised 40 CFR 63.7831 to add IBR for EPA-454/R-98-015;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841, and 63.7842 to include
the requirements to record and report information on failures to meet
the applicable standard; and
Revised 40 CFR 63.7852 to add definitions for ``basic
oxygen process furnace group,'' ``mercury switch,'' ``motor vehicle,''
``motor vehicle scrap,'' ``opening,'' ``post-consumer steel scrap,''
``pre-consumer steel scrap,'' ``steel scrap,'' and ``scrap provider.''
F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
Because most of these amendments provide corrections and
clarifications to the current rule and do not impose new requirements
on the industry, we are proposing that these amendments become
effective 180 days after promulgation of the final rule, except for the
provisions for mercury control via scrap selection or meeting scrap
input-based emission standards, for which we are requiring compliance
for existing sources within 1 year of promulgation. New sources,
defined to be new BOPF or facilities constructed or reconstructed after
August 16, 2019, are subject to the new source mercury limit on the
effective date of the final rule.
We are proposing the 1-year existing source compliance date to
allow facilities to switch scrap suppliers, if needed, and become
familiar with the reporting requirements for scrap providers; for
facilities who would choose to comply with the input-based mercury
scrap limit, the compliance date was chosen so as to allow for
arrangements for testing and reporting of test results. We solicit
comments on the timeframe for compliance and the ability of facilities
to comply within this timeframe.
Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware and software, become
familiar with the process of submitting performance test results
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic
submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements;
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards
during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule and make
any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording
systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to
reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that
multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements would
create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates would
impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with
the entirety of the revised requirements excluding the mercury
requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's
effective date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
These proposed amendments to the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing NESHAP include rule updates that address electronic
reporting requirements and changes in policies regarding SSM that
affect all integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The
proposed requirement to purchase scrap from scrap providers who certify
they participate in the NVMSRP or a similar approved program or use
scrap not likely to contain mercury would affect any facility that uses
post-consumer steel scrap in their BOPFs, potentially all integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facilities.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are proposing scrap selection requirements to control and reduce
mercury emissions. Air quality is expected to improve as a result of
the proposed amendments in proportion to the number of facilities that
are not currently purchasing scrap from providers who participate in
the NVMSRP or another approved program, or who use scrap not likely to
contain mercury. We solicit comment on this assumption of air quality
improvements and the extent of such improvements.
Although we are not proposing requirements to control HAP emitted
from nonpoint sources, the work practices presented as potential
methods to control these emissions would improve air quality. We
solicit comment on the potential for improvement in air quality by
reduction in HAP and PM2.5 with the implementation of the
work practices for nonpoint sources.
C. What are the cost impacts?
In this proposal, as described above, we are proposing compliance
testing or scrap selection requirements to control and reduce mercury
emissions. We expect that facilities that choose scrap selection likely
will not incur operational costs to comply with this requirement
because we believe that most, if not all, facilities are already
purchasing scrap from providers who participate in the NVMSRP. However,
we estimate a cost of $1,058 per year per facility and $11,638 per year
for all 11 facilities in the industry, for recordkeeping and reporting
of compliance with the program. We solicit comment on this assumption
and the estimated costs for the proposed mercury standard.
Although we are not proposing requirements to control HAP emitted
[[Page 42738]]
from seven nonpoint sources, we estimate that the work practices
evaluated to reduce these emissions would cost an estimated $8.7
million in capital costs and $3 million annually to the industry if
they were included in the rule. We estimate the total capital costs of
proposing requirements to control HAP from the two nonpoint sources of
BF casthouse and BOPF shop to be about $1.4 million and annualized
costs to be about $1.7 million per year. These costs are described in
the memorandum titled Cost Estimates and Other Impacts for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Risk and Technology Review, available in the
docket to this rule. We solicit comment on these estimated costs of
implementation of work practices for nonpoint sources.
D. What are the economic impacts?
No economic impacts are expected to be incurred by integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facilities due to the proposed mercury standard
because we believe that most, if not all, facilities are already
purchasing scrap from providers who participate in the NVMSRP. We
solicit comment on this assumption.
Although we are not proposing requirements to control HAP emitted
from nonpoint sources, the work practices evaluated to reduce these
emissions could have an economic impact on facilities if they were
required. We solicit comment on the potential economic impact on
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities if implementation of
these work practices for nonpoint sources was required. There may be
energy savings from reducing leaks of BF gas from bells, which is one
of the work practices described in this preamble. We solicit comment on
the potential cost savings for integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities with implementation of this work practice.
E. What are the benefits?
The proposed amendments may result in some unquantified reductions
in emissions of mercury, depending on the extent of current limitation
of mercury input or participation in the scrap selection program by
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. While the EPA
believes most, or all, facilities are already meeting the proposed
mercury standard, to the extent that additional reductions may be
achieved, if finalized, this rule would result in improved health in
surrounding populations, especially protection of children from the
negative health impacts of mercury exposure.
The proposed requirements to submit reports and test results
electronically would improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation
of the rule.
Although we are not proposing requirements to control HAP emitted
from nonpoint sources, the work practices evaluated to reduce these HAP
emissions (with concurrent control of PM and PM2.5) and for
which EPA is soliciting comment on, if adopted, could improve air
quality and health of persons living in surrounding communities.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposal. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are especially interested in
receiving comments regarding the estimated emissions from nonpoint
(UFIP) sources, the potential for the work practices, individually or
together, to reduce emissions from the nonpoint sources, and the
estimated costs of the work practices. We are also interested in
additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other
analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements
to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used in the
risk assessment, including the estimates and assumptions used for the
example facility risk assessment. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. The data files include detailed information for
each HAP emissions release point for the facilities in the source
category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review because it has novel legal and policy issues. Any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be subject to Executive Order 13771
because this proposed rule is expected to result in no more than de
minimis costs.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2003.08. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
[[Page 42739]]
We are proposing amendments that require electronic reporting;
remove the SSM exemptions; and impose other revisions that affect
reporting and recordkeeping for integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities. We are also proposing standards for mercury that will
require facilities to certify the type of steel scrap they use. This
information would be collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF.
Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
Estimated number of respondents: 11 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP is estimated to be 6,500 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the
requirements in the NESHAP is estimated to be $800,000 (per year), of
which $20,000 (per year) is for this proposal, and $780,000 is for
other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAP including
$50,300 for paperwork associated with operation and maintenance
requirements. The total rule costs reflect a savings of $240,000 (per
year) from the previous ICR due to the transition to electronic
reporting.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than September 16, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action would not impose any requirements on small entities. No small
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of
this preamble and further documented in the document titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, available in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Only one new standard is proposed in
this rule, which under one compliance option would require facilities
to purchase steel scrap from suppliers who participate in a pollution
prevention program approved by the EPA, where motor vehicle switches
containing mercury are removed from steel scrap by the suppliers before
sale. These suppliers already provide steel scrap to most (or all) of
the current integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its
manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the
exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the
docket for this rule.
We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the NESHAP source category across different
social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living
near
[[Page 42740]]
facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology and
the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical
report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this rule.
The results of the source category demographic analysis for the
NESHAP (point sources only) indicate that emissions expose
approximately 60 people to a cancer risk at or above 10-in-1 million
and none exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than or equal to
1. The specific demographic results indicate that the overall
percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is less
than its corresponding national percentage for the minority population
(37 percent for the source category compared to 38-percent nationwide).
However, the ``African American'' population (29 percent for the source
category compared to 12 percent nationwide) and the population ``Below
the Poverty Level'' are greater than their corresponding national
percentages. The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that
the population percentages for certain demographic categories within 5
km of source category emissions are greater than the corresponding
national percentage for certain demographics groups including:
``African American,'' ``Ages 0 to 17,'' ``Over age 25 without a high
school diploma,'' and ``Below the poverty level.''
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low
for all populations (i.e., inhalation cancer risks are no greater than
or equal to 10-in-1 million for all populations and noncancer HI are no
greater than or equal to 1). Furthermore, we do not expect this
proposal to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore,
we conclude that this proposal will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations because it does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. However, this proposal, if
finalized, will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups
by improving the compliance, monitoring, and implementation of the
NESHAP.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (n)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a),
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d),
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b),
63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f),
63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table
5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK,
tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4
to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.7831(f),
63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *
Subpart FFFFF--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.7782 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(c) This subpart addresses emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the BF and casthouse; and
the BOPF shop including each individual BOPF and shop ancillary
operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag
skimming, and ladle metallurgy).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.7783 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before May 20, 2003, then you must comply with each emission
limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you by May 20, 2003.
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after May 20, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation,
standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart
that applies to you upon initial startup.
* * * * *
0
5. The undesignated center heading before Sec. 63.7790 is revised to
read as follows:
``Emission Limitations and Standards''
0
6. Section 63.7791 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7791 What are the requirements for the control of mercury
from scrap?
Mercury requirements. If you have an existing affected sources, you
must meet the mercury emission limit for each BOPF Group in Table 1 to
this subpart or procure steel scrap pursuant to the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section beginning [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If the
initial startup of your affected source is after August 16, 2019 but
before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you
must comply with the mercury requirements beginning [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If the initial
startup of your affected source is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply
[[Page 42741]]
with the mercury requirements upon initial startup of your affected
source. For participation in the National Vehicle Mercury Switch
Recovery Program (NVMSRP), you must procure scrap pursuant to the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment. For scrap not likely to contain motor vehicle
scrap, you must procure scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. For
scrap obtained under another EPA-approved program, you must procure
scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section for
each scrap provider, contract, or shipment. You may have certain scrap
providers, contracts, or shipments subject to one compliance provision
and others subject to another compliance provision.
(a) Participation in the NVMSRP. (1) You must obtain all post-
consumer scrap likely to contain vehicle scrap from scrap providers who
participate in the NVMSRP. The NVMSRP is an EPA-approved program under
this section unless and until the Administrator disapproves the program
(in part or in whole);
(2) You must certify in your notification of compliance status that
you purchase post-consumer steel scrap according to paragraph (a)(1) of
this section;
(3) If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must certify that all
scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers
who participate in the NVMSRP;
(4) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the
manner through which your facility is participating in the NVMSRP. The
plan must include facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-
wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as
appropriate for each facility. The plan must include a list of all
suppliers and proof of participation in an approved mercury reduction
program. You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap
supply chain the need to promote the removal of mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the permitting authority, you
must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to
suppliers, such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing
agents, and scrap inspection protocols; and
(5) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers are aware of
the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
(b) Scrap not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap not
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section,
you must:
(1) Obtain information from scrap suppliers or other entity with
established knowledge of scrap content that the steel scrap used is not
likely to contain motor vehicle scrap and maintain records of the
information; and
(2) Certify in your notification of compliance status that the
scrap is not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap, according to the
information obtained and recorded.
(c) Use of approved mercury program. (1) You must obtain all post-
consumer scrap likely to contain vehicle scrap from scrap providers who
participate in a program for the removal of mercury switches that has
been approved by the Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
(i) The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of
the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and
guidance for removing mercury switches;
(ii) The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of
mercury switches from the motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider
processes. Although a program approved under paragraph (c) of this
section may require only the removal of convenience light switch
mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable
mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as
sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride
control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the
80 percent goal; and
(iii) The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the
number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing
subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress
reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program
participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for
progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may
change the approval status of a program or portion of a program (e.g.,
at the State level) following a 90-day notice based on the progress
reports or on other information;
(2) You must certify in your notification of compliance status that
you purchase post-consumer steel scrap according to paragraph (c)(1) of
this section;
(3) If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must certify that all
scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers
who participate in a program for the removal of mercury switches that
has been approved by the Administrator based on the criteria in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
(4) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved
program. The plan must include facility-specific implementation
elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a
trade association as appropriate for each facility. The plan must
include a list of all suppliers and proof of participation in an
approved mercury reduction program. You must provide in the plan
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to promote the
removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request
of the permitting authority, you must provide examples of materials
that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters, contract
language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection
protocols; and
(5) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers are aware of
the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
0
7. Section 63.7800 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the
introductory text of paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (b)(8) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.7810(c), you must always operate and
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels
required by this subpart.
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for
[[Page 42742]]
each capture system or control device subject to an operating limit in
Sec. 63.7790(b). Each plan must address the elements in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
(8) The compliance procedures within the operation and maintenance
plan shall not include any periods of startup or shutdown in emissions
calculations.
0
8. Section 63.7810 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations,
standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart
at all times.
* * * * *
(c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
0
9. Section 63.7821 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in Table 1
to this subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) For each BOPF Group, if complying with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1, you must conduct subsequent performance tests
annually at the outlet of the control devices for the BOPF Group, with
no two consecutive annual performance tests occurring less than 3
months apart or more than 15 months apart.
0
10. Section 63.7822 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (i) of this section. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
(b) * * *
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods:
(i) Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Sampling
ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to
any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter or
Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to determine the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures)
in Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter or
Method 17 in appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter, as applicable, to
determine the concentration of particulate matter (front half
filterable catch only).
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1),
(d)(1)(i) through (iii), (d)(2)(i), and (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter except
as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(ii) Instead of procedures in section 2.4 of Method 9 in appendix
A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, record observations to the nearest 5
percent at 15-second intervals for at least three steel production
cycles.
(iii) Instead of procedures in section 2.5 of Method 9 in appendix
A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, determine the 3-minute block average
opacity from the average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at 15-
second intervals.
(2) * * *
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.7824 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (e), paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), and the defined term
``Mc'' in Equation 1 in paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
[[Page 42743]]
Sec. 63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?
* * * * *
(e) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec. 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section. You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of
startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(1) Determine the volatile organic compound emissions according to
the following test methods:
(i) Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Sampling
ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to
any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter or
Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to determine the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures)
in Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the mass concentration of volatile organic compound emissions
(total gaseous nonmethane organics as carbon) from the sinter plant
windbox exhaust stream stack.
(2) Determine volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions every 24
hours (from at least three samples taken at 8-hour intervals) using
Method 25 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. Record the sampling date and
time, sampling results, and sinter produced (tons/day).
(3) * * *
Mc = Average concentration of total gaseous nonmethane
organics as carbon by Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7),
milligrams per dry standard cubic meters (mg/dscm) for each day;
* * * * *
0
13. Sections 63.7825 and 63.7826 are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 63.7826
and 63.7827, respectively, and a new Sec. 63.7825 is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7825 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit for mercury?
(a) If you choose to comply with the mercury emission limit for
each BOPF Group in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a
performance test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limit. You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (f) of this section. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction.
(1) You must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(2) For sources with multiple emission units ducted to a common
control device and stack, compliance testing must be performed either
by conducting a single compliance test with all affected emissions
units in operation or by conducting a separate compliance test on each
emissions unit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may request
approval from the permit authority for an alternative testing approach.
If the units are tested separately, any emissions unit that is not
tested initially must be tested as soon as is practicable.
(b) To determine compliance with the emission limit for mercury in
Table 1 to this subpart, follow the test methods and procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of mercury according to the
following test methods:
(i) Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Sampling
ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to
any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter or
Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to determine the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
voluntary consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures)
in Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of mercury from each unit of the BOPF Group
exhaust stream stack.
(2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each
mercury test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test of each BOPF Group unit. If the emission testing
results for any of the emission points yields a non-detect value, then
the minimum detection limit (MDL) must be used to calculate the mass
emissions (lb) for that emission unit and, in turn, for calculating the
sum of the emissions (in units of pounds of mercury per ton of steel
scrap) for all BOPF Group units subject to the emission standard for
determining compliance. If the resulting mercury emissions are greater
than the MACT emission standard, the owner or operator may use
procedures that produce lower MDL results and repeat the mercury
emissions testing one additional time for any emission point for which
the measured result was below the MDL. If this additional testing is
performed, the results from that testing must be used to determine
compliance (i.e., there are no additional opportunities allowed to
lower the MDL).
(c) Calculate the mercury mass emissions, based on the average of
three test run values, for each BOPF Group unit (or combination of
units that are ducted to a common stack and are tested when all
affected sources are operating pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section)
[[Page 42744]]
using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16AU19.247
Where:
E = Mass emissions of mercury, pounds (lb);
Cs = Concentration of mercury in stack gas, gr/dscf;
Vmstd = Standard meter volume, dscf; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.
(d) You must install, calibrate, maintain and operate an
appropriate weight measurement device, to measure the tons of steel
scrap input to the BOPF cycle simultaneous with each BOPF Group unit's
stack test.
(e) You must maintain the systems for measuring weight within
5 percent accuracy. You must describe the specific
equipment used to make measurements at your facility and how that
equipment is periodically calibrated. You must also explain, document,
and maintain written procedures for determining the accuracy of the
measurements and make these written procedures available to your
permitting authority upon request. You must determine, record, and
maintain a record of the accuracy of the measuring systems before the
beginning of your initial compliance test and during each subsequent
quarter of affected source operation.
(f) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap to determine initial
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1. Sum the mercury
mass emissions (in pounds) from all BOPF Group units calculated using
Equation 1 of this section. Divide that sum by the sum of the total
amount of steel scrap charged to the BOPFs (in tons).
0
14. Section 63.7831 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14). You may install, operate, and maintain other types of bag leak
detection systems in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's
written specifications and recommendations.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.7833 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, in
the case of an exceedance of the hourly average opacity operating limit
for an electrostatic precipitator, measurements of the hourly average
opacity based on visible emission observations in accordance with
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4) may be taken to evaluate the
effectiveness of corrective action.
* * * * *
(h) If you choose to comply with Sec. 63.7791 by complying with
the mercury emissions limits in Table 1 for BOPF Groups, you must
conduct annual mercury performance tests in accordance with Sec.
63.7821(e) and calculate the emissions from each new and existing
affected source in pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap to
determine annual compliance with the mercury emission limits in Table
1. Sum the mercury mass emissions (in pounds) from all BOPF Group units
calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.7825. Divide that sum by the
sum of the total amount of steel scrap charged to the BOPFs (in tons).
(i) If you choose to comply with Sec. 63.7791 by using the NVMSRP
or another EPA- approved mercury program, or by using scrap not likely
to contain mercury, you must obtain and certify the use of steel scrap
per Sec. 63.7791(a), (b), or (c), as applicable, to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the standard.
0
16. Section 63.7835 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Except as provided in Sec. 63.7833(g), you must report each
instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation in Sec.
63.7790 that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each instance in which
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.
63.7800 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7841.
(a) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure, record the
date, time and duration of each failure.
(b) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(c) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.7810(c), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
0
17. Section 63.7840 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding
paragraphs (f) through (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the summary of performance test results, before the
close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of
the performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(f) The notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h)
must include each applicable certification of compliance, signed by a
responsible official, in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section,
regarding the mercury requirements in Sec. 63.7791.
(1) ``This facility participates in and purchases scrap only from
scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the EPA Administrator and has
prepared a plan demonstrating how the facility participates in the EPA-
approved program, in accordance with Sec. 63.7791(a)(4) or (c)(4)'';
or
(2) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
is not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap, in accordance with Sec.
63.7791(b).''
(g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results
of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you
may assert a claim of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec.
63.7841(e), or force majeure, in accordance with
[[Page 42745]]
Sec. 63.7841(f), for failure to timely comply with this requirement.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(h) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined
in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you may assert a claim
of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(e), or force
majeure, in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(f), for failure to timely
comply with this requirement.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
0
18. Section 63.7841 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b), paragraph (b)(4),
the introductory text of paragraph (b)(8), and paragraphs (b)(8)(iv)
and (vi);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(9) and (10);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (g) and revising the newly
redesignated paragraph; and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (d) through (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (10) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) If you failed to meet an applicable standard, the compliance
report must include the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard and the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure, the compliance report must include a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of malfunction.
* * * * *
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a malfunction or during another
period.
* * * * *
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes.
* * * * *
(9) Any deviation from the requirements in Sec. 63.7791(a) and the
corrective action taken.
(10) If there were no deviations from the requirements in Sec.
63.7791(a), a statement that there were no deviations from the
requirements during the reporting period.
(c) Beginning on [date 6 months after date of publication of final
rule in the Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following
the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).
You must use the appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this
subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on
the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in
[[Page 42746]]
which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information
required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for failure
to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of
force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(g) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation,
standard, or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart,
submission of the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report
the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However,
submission of a compliance report does not otherwise affect any
obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements
for an affected source to your permitting authority.
0
19. Section 63.7842 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7842 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Records of the date, time and duration of each failure to meet
an applicable standard.
(3) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(4) Records of the actions taken to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7810(c), and any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2), with the program of
corrective action included in the plan.
* * * * *
(e) You must keep records to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for mercury in Sec. 63.7791(a) as applicable. You must
keep records documenting compliance with Sec. 63.7791(b) for scrap not
likely to contain motor vehicle scrap. If you are subject to the
requirements for an approved mercury program under Sec. 63.7791(a),
you must maintain records identifying each scrap provider and
documenting the scrap provider's participation in an approved mercury
switch removal program. If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must
maintain records identifying each
[[Page 42747]]
broker and documentation that all scrap provided by the broker was
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in an approved
mercury switch removal program.
0
20. Section 63.7843 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7843 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
21. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
22. Section 63.7852 is amended by revising paragraph (1) under the
definition of ``deviation'' and adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``basic oxygen process furnace group,'' ``mercury
switch,'' ``motor vehicle,'' ``motor vehicle scrap,'' ``opening,''
``post-consumer steel scrap,'' ``pre-consumer steel scrap,'' ``scrap
provider,'' and ``steel scrap.''
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Basic oxygen process furnace group means the collection of BOPF
shop steelmaking operation units including the BOPF primary units (BOPF
emissions from oxygen blow iron refining), BOPF secondary units
(secondary fugitive emissions in the shop from iron charging, tapping,
and auxiliary processes not elsewhere controlled), ladle metallurgy
units, and hot metal transfer, desulfurization and slag skimming units.
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits), standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement;
* * * * *
Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed
in a motor vehicle.
Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and
usually operated with rubber tires for use on highways.
Motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from discarded
vehicles or automobile bodies, including automobile body hulks that
have been processed through a shredder. Motor vehicle scrap does not
include automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous vehicle
parts, such as wheels, bumpers or other components that do not contain
mercury switches. Motor vehicle scrap typically is not sold separately
but is combined with other steel scrap for sale.
Opening means any roof monitor, vent, door, window, hole, crack or
other conduit that allows gas to escape to the atmosphere from a BF
casthouse or BOPF shop.
Post-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is composed of
materials made of steel that were purchased by households or by
commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in their role as
end-users of the product and which can no longer be used for its
intended purpose.
Pre-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is left over from
industrial or manufacturing processes and which is subsequently
recycled as scrap. Other terms used to describe this scrap are new,
home, run-around, prompt-industrial, and return scrap.
* * * * *
Scrap provider means the company or person (including a broker) who
contracts directly with a steel mill to provide steel scrap. Scrap
processors such as shredder operators or vehicle dismantlers that do
not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are not scrap providers.
* * * * *
Steel scrap means pre-consumer and post-consumer discarded steel
that is processed by scrap providers for resale (post-consumer) or used
on-site (pre-consumer or run-around scrap from within a facility or
company). Post-consumer steel scrap may or may not contain motor
vehicle scrap, depending on the type of scrap. In regard to motor
vehicle scrap, steel scrap only can be classified as ``scrap that is
likely to contain motor vehicle scrap'' vs. ``scrap that is not likely
to contain motor vehicle scrap,'' as determined by the scrap provider.
* * * * *
0
23. Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each applicable
emission and opacity limit in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with each of the
For . . . following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at You must not cause to be discharged
an existing sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.4 lb/ton of product
sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at You must not cause to be discharged
a new sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. You must not cause to be
existing sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow-weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf;
\12\ and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
that exhibit opacity greater than
20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new a. You must not cause to be
sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
[[Page 42748]]
5. Each sinter cooler at an You must not cause to be discharged
existing sinter plant. to the atmosphere any emissions
that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new You must not cause to be discharged
sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. You must not cause to be
blast furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
\2\ and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit all
openings in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than
20 percent (6-minute average).
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. You must not cause to be
furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.003 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit all
openings in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than
15 percent (6-minute average).
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. You must not cause to be
shop. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with a closed hood system at a new
or existing BOPF shop that contain,
on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of
0.03 gr/dscf during the primary
oxygen blow; \23\ and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with an open hood system that
contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of
0.02 gr/dscf during the steel
production cycle for an existing
BOPF shop \23\ or 0.01 gr/dscf
during the steel production cycle
for a new BOPF shop; \3\ and
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device used solely for the
collection of secondary emissions
from the BOPF that contain
particulate matter in excess of
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop \2\ or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a
new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer, You must not cause to be discharged
skimming, and desulfurization to the atmosphere any gases that
operation at a new or existing exit from a control device that
BOPF shop. contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.003 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy You must not cause to be discharged
operation at a new or existing to the atmosphere any gases that
BOPF shop. exit from a control device that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any secondary
emissions that exit any opening in
the BOPF shop or any other building
housing the BOPF or BOPF shop
operation that exhibit opacity
greater than 20 percent (3-minute
average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 6-minute
period not to exceed 20 percent may
occur once per steel production
cycle; or
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing You must not cause to be discharged
BOPF shop. to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from the collection of BOPF
Group control devices that contain
mercury in excess of 0.00026 lb/ton
of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF You must not cause to be discharged
shop. to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from the collection of BOPF
Group control devices that contain
mercury in excess of 0.00008 lb/ton
of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control
device as the discharge end.
\2\ This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not
apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the
discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an
existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop if the control
device was installed before August 30, 2005.
\3\ This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a
single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
0
24. Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7826(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at The process-weighted mass rate of
an existing sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.4 lb/ton of product
sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at The process-weighted mass rate of
a new sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. The flow-weighted average
existing sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter
from one or more control devices
applied to emissions from a
discharge end, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not
exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and
[[Page 42749]]
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a new a. The flow-weighted average
sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter
from one or more control devices
applied to emissions from a
discharge end, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 10
percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an The opacity of emissions, determined
existing sinter plant. according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(e),
did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new The average concentration of
sinter plant. particulate matter, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(b),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. The average concentration of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 20
percent (6-minute average).
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. The average concentration of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 15
percent (6-minute average).
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. The average concentration of
BOPF shop. particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with a closed
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(f), did not exceed
0.03 gr/dscf for a new or existing
BOPF shop;
b. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with an open
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(g), did not exceed
0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop; and
c. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(g),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer The average concentration of
skimming, and desulfurization at particulate matter from a control
a new or existing BOPF shop. device applied to emissions from
hot metal transfer, skimming, or
desulfurization, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(h), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing
BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/dscf for a
new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy The average concentration of
operation at a new or existing particulate matter from a control
BOPF shop. device applied to emissions from a
ladle metallurgy operation,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01
gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop
or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... The opacity of secondary emissions
from each BOPF shop, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d),
did not exceed 20 percent (3-minute
average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. The opacity of the highest set of
6-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
percent and the second highest set
of 6-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent; or
b. The opacity of the highest set of
3-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a top-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
percent and the second highest set
of 3-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing The average emissions of mercury
BOPF shop. from the collection of BOPF Group
control devices applied to the
emissions from the BOPF Group,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.00026
lb/ton steel scrap input to the
BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF The average emissions of mercury
shop. from the collection of BOPF Group
control devices applied to the
emissions from the BOPF Group,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.00008
lb/ton steel scrap input to the
BOPF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
25. Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. Maintaining emissions of
an existing sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.4
lb/ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. Maintaining emissions of
a new sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.3
lb/ton of product sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
[[Page 42750]]
3. Each discharge end at an a. Maintaining emissions of
existing sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.02 gr/
dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 20 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new a. Maintaining emissions of
sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.01 gr/
dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 10 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an a. Maintaining the opacity of
existing sinter plant. emissions that exit any sinter
cooler at or below 10 percent (6-
minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new a. Maintaining emissions of
sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.1
gr/dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. Maintaining emissions of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit all
openings in the casthouse or
structure housing the casthouse at
or below 20 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. Maintaining emissions of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf;
and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit all
openings in the casthouse or
structure housing the casthouse at
or below 15 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. Maintaining emissions of
BOPF shop. particulate matter from the primary
control system for a BOPF with a
closed hood system at or below 0.03
gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from the primary
control system for a BOPF with an
open hood system at or below 0.02
gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop
or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop; and
c. Maintaining emissions of
particulate matter from a control
device applied solely to secondary
emissions from a BOPF at or below
0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new
BOPF shop; and
d. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
10. Each hot metal transfer, a. Maintaining emissions of
skimming, and desulfurization particulate matter from a control
operation at a new or existing device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
BOPF shop. an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy a. Maintaining emissions of
operation at a new or existing particulate matter from a control
BOPF shop. device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... a. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing the BOPF shop or
shop operation at or below 20
percent (3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 6-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or shop operation at or below
10 percent, except that one 6-
minute period greater than 10
percent but no more than 20 percent
may occur once per steel production
cycle; and
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 3-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or shop operation at or below 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
BOPF shop. from the collection of BOPF Group
control devices at or below 0.00026
lb/ton steel scrap input to the
BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
shop. from the collection of BOPF Group
control devices at or below 0.00008
lb/ton steel scrap input to the
BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 42751]]
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................ Applicability......... Yes...................
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions........... Yes...................
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Yes...................
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited Activities. Yes...................
Sec. 63.5........................ Construction/ Yes...................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), Compliance with Yes...................
(e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g), Standards and
(h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9). Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............... General Duty to No.................... See Sec. 63.7810(c) for
Minimize Emissions. general duty requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).............. Requirement to Correct No....................
Malfunctions ASAP.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. SSM Plan Requirements. No....................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... No....................
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... No....................
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)............... Determining Compliance No.................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
with Opacity and VE methods and procedures for
Standards. determining compliance
with opacity emission and
operating limits.
Sec. 63.6(i)..................... Extension of Yes...................
Compliance with
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Exemption from Yes...................
Compliance with
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).............. Applicability and No.................... Subpart FFFFF and specifies
Performance Test performance test
Dates. applicability and dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b)-(d), (e)(2)- Performance Testing Yes...................
(4), (f)-(h). Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Performance Testing... No.................... See Sec. Sec.
63.7822(a), 63.7823(a),
and 63.7825(a).
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), Monitoring Yes................... CMS requirements in Sec.
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), (c)(4)(i)- Requirements. Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii),
(ii), (c)(5)-(6), (c)(7)-(8), (c)(5)-(6), (d)(1)-(2),
(d)(1)-(2), (e), (f)(1)-(5), and (e) apply only to
(g)(1)-(4). COMS.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Additional Monitoring No.................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... General Duty to No....................
Minimize Emissions
and CMS Operation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. Requirement to Develop No....................
SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Continuous Monitoring No.................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
System Requirements. requirements for operation
of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................. Written procedures for No.................... See Sec. 63.7842(b)(3).
CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. RATA Alternative...... No....................
Sec. 63.8(g)(5).................. Data Reduction........ No.................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9........................ Notification Yes................... Additional notifications
Requirements. for CMS in Sec. 63.9(g)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(x), Recordkeeping and Yes................... Additional records for CMS
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), Reporting in Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6),
(c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1)- Requirements. (9)-(14), and reports in
(2), (e)(4), (f). Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).............. Recordkeeping of No....................
Occurrence and
Duration of Startups
and Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............. Recordkeeping of No.................... See Sec. 63.7842(a)(2)-
Failures to Meet a (4) for recordkeeping of
Standard. (1) date, time and
duration of failure to
meet the standard; (2)
listing of affected source
or equipment, and an
estimate of the quantity
of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the
standard; and (3) actions
to minimize emissions and
correct the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)............ Maintenance Records... Yes...................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)............. Actions Taken to No.................... See Sec. 63.7842(a)(4)
Minimize Emissions for records of actions
During SSM. taken to minimize
emissions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).............. Actions Taken to No.................... See Sec. 63.7842(a)(4)
Minimize Emissions for records of actions
During SSM. taken to minimize
emissions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............. Recordkeeping for CMS Yes...................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)....... Other CMS Requirements Yes...................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... CMS Records for RATA No....................
Alternative.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............. Records of Excess No.................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and record requirements; see
Parameter Monitoring Sec. 63.7842.
Exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................ Use of SSM Plan....... No....................
[[Page 42752]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).............. Periodic SSM Reports.. No.................... See Sec. 63.7841(b)(4)
for malfunction reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)............. Immediate SSM Reports. No....................
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................. Excess Emission No.................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Reports. reporting requirements;
see Sec. 63.7841.
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device No.................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12....................... State Authority and Yes...................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13-Sec. 63.16.......... Addresses, Yes...................
Incorporations by
Reference,
Availability of
Information and
Confidentiality,
Performance Track
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-17349 Filed 8-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P