[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50660-50695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19091]
[[Page 50659]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 186
September 25, 2019
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron
Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 186 / Wednesday, September 25, 2019
/ Proposed Rules
[[Page 50660]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664; FRL-9999-37-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT05
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal presents the results of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs)
for the National Emission Standards for the Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing, as required under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). Based on the results of the risk review, the EPA is
proposing that risks from emissions of air toxics from this source
category are acceptable and that the existing standards provide an
ample margin of safety. Furthermore, under the technology review, the
EPA identified no cost-effective developments in controls, practices,
or processes to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing no revisions to the existing standards based on the
RTRs. However, in this action the EPA is proposing: The removal of
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and
clarifying that the emissions standards apply at all times; the
addition of electronic reporting of performance test results and
compliance reports; minor technical corrections and amendments to
monitoring and testing requirements that would reduce the compliance
burden on industry while continuing to be protective of the
environment; and that regulation of a certain type compound emitted by
one of the facilities, known as elongated mineral particulate, is not
required under CAA section 112 because this compound is not a hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to the CAA. This action, if finalized,
would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of
the existing standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 12,
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 October 25, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 30, 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/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 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-2017-0664, 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-2017-0664 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664, 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 Center'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 proposed
action, contact Mr. David Putney, 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) 541-2016; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony,
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)
541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing
requirements, contact Ms. Gerri Garwood, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2406; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John
Cox, 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)
564-1395; 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-2017-0664. 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-
2017-0664. 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://
[[Page 50661]]
www.regulations.gov/, including any 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-2017-0664.
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:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins/furans
EMP elongated mineral particulate
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP electrostatic precipitator
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
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
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
The Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
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
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
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?
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 analytical results and proposed decisions for
this source category?
B. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
C. What other actions are we proposing?
D. 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
[[Page 50662]]
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 (NTTAA)
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 category that is 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 proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed amendments, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. 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, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category includes any operation
engaged in separating and concentrating iron ore from taconite, a low
grade iron ore to produce taconite pellets. The category includes, but
is not limited to, the following processes: Liberation of the iron ore
by wet or dry crushing and grinding in gyratory crushers, cone
crushers, rod mills, and ball mills; concentration of the iron ore by
magnetic separation or flotation; pelletization by wet tumbling with a
balling drum or balling disc; induration using a straight grate or
grate kiln furnace, and finished pellet handling.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taconite Iron Ore Processing...... 40 CFR part 63, 21221
subpart RRRRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 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-2017-0664).
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 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, 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
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 or revised standards is needed to
provide
[[Page 50663]]
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 Taconite Iron Ore Processing
NESHAP on October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61869), and it is codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRRRR. This NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from new
and existing taconite iron ore processing plants that are major sources
of HAP. The Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category consists of
eight individual facilities. Six of these facilities are in Minnesota
and two are in Michigan.
A taconite iron ore processing plant separates and concentrates
iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore containing 20- to 25-
percent iron, and produces taconite pellets, which are 60- to 65-
percent iron. Most of these pellets, nearly 98 percent, are sent to
iron and steel manufacturers for use as feed material. The regulated
sources are each new or existing ore crushing and handling operation,
ore dryer, pellet indurating furnace, and finished pellet handling
operation at a taconite iron ore processing plant that is (or is part
of) a major source of HAP emissions. The NESHAP also regulates fugitive
emissions from stockpiles (including uncrushed and crushed ore and
finished pellets), material transfer points, plant roadways, tailings
basin, pellet loading areas, and yard areas.
Taconite iron ore processing includes crushing and handling of the
crude ore; concentrating (milling, magnetic separation, chemical
flotation, etc.); agglomerating (dewatering, drying, and balling);
indurating; and finished pellet handling.
Taconite ore is obtained using a strip-mining process. Surface
material and rock are removed to expose the taconite ore-bearing rock
layers. Blasting is used to break up the taconite ore, which is then
scooped up using large cranes with shovels and loaded into trucks or
railcars. The ore is transported from the mine to the primary crushers.
The ore crushing process begins when the taconite ore is dumped
into the primary crusher which reduces the crude ore to a diameter of
about 6 inches. Additional fine crushing further reduces the material
to a size approximately \3/4\ of an inch in diameter. Intermediate
vibratory screens remove the undersized material from the feed before
it enters the next crusher. After it is adequately crushed, the ore is
conveyed to storage bins at the concentrator building.
In the concentrator building, water is typically added to the ore
as it is conveyed into rod and ball mills which further grind the
taconite ore to the consistency of coarse beach sand. Taconite ore is
then separated from the waste rock material using magnetic separation.
The iron content of the slurry is further increased using a combination
of hydraulic concentration (gravity settling) and chemical flotation.
Typically, application of water is utilized to suppress particulate and
HAP metal emissions from the concentrating processes.
From the concentration process, the taconite slurry enters the
agglomerating process. In this part of the process, water is removed
from the taconite slurry using vacuum disk filters or similar equipment
and, at one plant, rotary dryers follow the disc filters and provide
additional drying of the ore. The taconite is then mixed with binding
agents in a balling drum which tumbles and rolls the taconite into
unfired pellets. From the balling drum, the unfired pellets are
conveyed to the indurating furnace.
The unfired taconite pellets enter the induration furnace where
they are hardened and oxidized at a temperature of between 2,290 to
2,550 degrees Fahrenheit. Indurating furnaces are either straight grate
furnaces or grate kiln furnaces. The hardened, finished pellets exit
through the indurating furnace cooler.
The finished pellet handling process begins at the point where the
fired
[[Page 50664]]
taconite pellets exit the indurating furnace cooler (i.e., pellet
loadout) and ends at the finished pellet stockpile. The finished pellet
handling process includes finished pellet screening, transfer, and
storage.
Ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and finished pellet handling
are all potentially significant points of particulate matter (PM)
emissions. Taconite ore inherently contains trace metals, such as
manganese, chromium, cobalt, arsenic, and lead, which are listed as HAP
under CAA section 112(b) and the PM emissions from these three
operations can contain these metal compounds. Manganese compounds are
the predominant metal HAP emitted from ore crushing and handling, ore
drying, and finished pellet handling.
The indurating furnaces are the most significant sources of HAP
emissions, accounting for about 99 percent of the total HAP emissions
from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category. Three types of
HAP are emitted from the waste gas stacks of indurating furnaces. The
first type of HAP is metallic HAP existing as a portion of PM from the
taconite ore or from fuel (such as coal) fed into the furnaces.
Manganese and arsenic compounds are the predominant metal HAP emitted
by indurating furnaces. Other metal HAP emitted from these furnaces
include chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, and mercury. The second type
of HAP is organic HAP, primarily formaldehyde, resulting as a product
of incomplete fuel combustion. The third type of HAP is acid gases,
such as hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrofluoric acid (HF). Fluorine
and chlorine compounds in the raw materials are liberated during the
indurating process and combine with moisture in the exhaust to form HCl
and HF.
The current rule requires compliance with emission limits,
operating limits for control devices, and work practice standards at
all times except during periods of SSM. The emission limits are in the
form of PM limits, which are a surrogate for metal HAP emissions as
well as for HCl and HF for indurating furnaces. Emission limitations,
shown in Table 2, apply to each ore crushing and handling operation,
ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet handling operation.
Table 2--PM Emission Limits for Taconite Iron Ore Processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source is Emission limits
Affected source new or existing \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ore crushing and handling Existing.......... 0.008 gr/dscf
emission units.
New............... 0.005 gr/dscf.
Straight grate indurating Existing.......... 0.01 gr/dscf
furnace processing magnetite.
New............... 0.006 gr/dscf.
Grate kiln indurating furnace Existing.......... 0.01 gr/dscf.
processing magnetite.
New............... 0.006 gr/dscf.
Grate kiln indurating furnace Existing.......... 0.03 gr/dscf.
processing hematite.
New............... 0.018 gr/dscf.
Finished pellet handling Existing.......... 0.008 gr/dscf.
emission units.
New............... 0.005 gr/dscf.
Ore dryer....................... Existing.......... 0.052 gr/dscf.
New............... 0.025 gr/dscf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot.
Performance tests are required to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits and must be conducted twice per 5-year period. The rule
also requires that site-specific operating limits be established during
the performance test for each control device and monitored continuously
to demonstrate continuous compliance. Table 3 lists the operating
parameters that must be established during the performance test and
then monitored continuously.
Table 3--Operating Parameters Monitored To Demonstrate Continuous
Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring device Parameters
Control device \1\ \2\ monitored
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baghouse........................ Bag leak detection Relative change in
system. PM loading.
Dynamic wet scrubber............ CPMS.............. Scrubber water
flow rate and
either fan
amperage or
pressure drop.
Wet scrubbers (other than CPMS.............. Pressure drop and
dynamic wet scrubbers). scrubber water
flow rate.
Dry ESP......................... COMS, or CPMS..... Opacity Secondary
voltage and
secondary
current.
Wet ESP......................... CPMS.............. Secondary voltage,
stack outlet
temperature, and
water flow rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
\2\ CPMS = continuous parameter monitoring system, COMS = continuous
opacity monitor.
The current rule also includes operation and maintenance
requirements for pellet indurating furnaces to ensure good combustion
practices to minimize emissions of organic HAP (combustion-related HAP
such as formaldehyde) and requires that sources of fugitive dust
emissions at taconite iron ore processing plants be controlled using
work practices described in detail in a facility's fugitive dust
emissions control plan. The plan must address fugitive emissions from
stockpiles (including uncrushed and crushed ore and finished pellets),
material transfer points, plant roadways, tailings basin, pellet
loading areas, and yard areas.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
For the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category, the EPA did
not use data collection requests to gather emissions and other related
data used in the analysis of risks. The data and data sources used to
support this action are described in section II.D below.
[[Page 50665]]
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
Information used to estimate emissions from taconite iron ore
processing plants was obtained primarily from the EPA's 2014 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data) and
supplemental information submitted by industry. Data on the numbers,
types, dimensions, and locations of the emission points for each
facility were obtained from the NEI, state agencies, Google
EarthTM, and taconite iron ore processing industry staff.
The HAP emissions from taconite iron ore processing plants were
categorized by source into one of the five emission process groups as
follows: Ore crushing and handling operations; ore drying; pellet
induration; pellet handling operations; and fugitive sources. Data on
HAP emissions, including the HAP emitted, emission source, emission
rates, stack parameters (such as temperature, velocity, flow, etc.),
and latitude and longitude were compiled into a draft modeling file.
To ensure the quality of the emissions data, the EPA subjected the
draft modeling file to a variety of quality checks. The draft modeling
file for each facility was made available to the facility to review the
emission release parameters and the emission rates for their
facilities. Source latitudes and longitudes reported by facilities were
checked in Google EarthTM to verify accuracy and were
corrected as needed. These and other quality control efforts resulted
in a more accurate emissions dataset. The document, Development of the
Residual Risk Review Emissions Dataset for the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Source Category, provides a detailed description of the
development of the modeling dataset and is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
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
action.
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.\2\ 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 the 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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
[[Page 50666]]
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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this action. 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
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 seven 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 Taconite
Iron Ore Processing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule (also referred to as the Taconite Risk
Report in this preamble, and available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664). The methods used to assess risk (as described in the seven
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; \4\ and
described in the SAB review report issued in 2010. They are also
consistent with the key recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The HAP emissions from taconite iron ore processing plants fall
into the following pollutant categories: Metals (HAP metals), acid
gases (i.e., HCl and HF), and combustion-related organic HAP, such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins/furans (D/F), benzene, and
formaldehyde. The HAP
[[Page 50667]]
are emitted from several emission sources at taconite iron ore
processing plants which, for the purposes of the source category risk
assessment, have been categorized into five emission process groups as
follows: ore crushing and handling operations, ore drying, pellet
induration, finished pellet handling operations, and fugitive dust
emissions control plan sources.
The main sources of emissions data include the NEI data submitted
for calendar year 2014 and supplemental information submitted by
industry (available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664). Data on the
numbers, types, dimensions, and locations of the emission points for
each facility were obtained from the NEI, state agencies (i.e., the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality), Google EarthTM, and from
representatives of the taconite iron ore processing industry. A
description of the data, approach, and rationale used to develop actual
HAP emissions estimates is discussed in more detail in the document,
Development of the Residual Risk Review Emissions Dataset for the
Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, which is available in the
docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664).
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 emission rates for the taconite iron ore processing
plants were developed by scaling the actual emission rates.
Specifically, once the actual emission rates were developed for a given
facility, the allowable emission rate of each emission process group at
a given facility was estimated by multiplying the actual emission rate
of the emission process group by the ratio of the effective (maximum)
production rate of that facility to the actual production rate of that
facility during calendar year 2014. The ratios all exceeded 1.0
resulting in all allowable emissions being greater than actual
emissions. For a detailed description of the estimation of allowable
emissions, see the document, Development of the Residual Risk Review
Emissions Dataset for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category,
which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664).
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 action were
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.\6\ 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 \7\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ 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 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
[[Page 50668]]
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 \8\ emitted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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 the 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,\9\ 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 Taconite Iron Ore Processing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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,\10\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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
Taconite Iron Ore Processing 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. 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.'' \11\ 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
[[Page 50669]]
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.\12\ They are guideline levels for ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, 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.'' \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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, ore crushing and handling, ore drying,
and pellet handling operations may have batch operation cycles with
peak emissions as high as 10 times the average hourly actual emissions
occurring for part of that cycle. Therefore, a factor of 10 was used to
estimate peak hourly emissions for these sources. With regard to
fugitive dust emissions (e.g., stockpiles, material transfer points,
plant roadways, tailings basin, pellet loading areas, and yard areas),
we assumed peak hourly emissions could be as high as 10 times the
average (i.e., the default value described in footnote number 10)
because we did not have sufficient data or information to derive a
different value. However, with regard to indurating furnaces, which
typically operate continuously for long periods of time with relatively
minor fluctuations, it is estimated that emission rates could
occasionally increase by a factor of up to two times the average hourly
actual emission. Therefore, the EPA selected two as the appropriate
multiplier to estimate maximum acute emissions from indurating
furnaces. A more detailed discussion of the selection of the acute
emission factors is available in the document Development of the
Residual Risk Review Emissions Dataset for the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Source Category, available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0664).
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 analysis is greater than 1,
we assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an
off-site location. For this source category, for each HAP with an acute
HQ value greater than 1, the data refinements employed consisted of
plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the
facilities. We then assessed whether the highest acute HQs were off-
site and at locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g.,
roadways and public buildings). These refinements are discussed more
fully in the Taconite Risk Report, which is available in the docket for
this source category.
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 Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category, we identified
PB-HAP emissions of arsenic, cadmium, D/F, 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 the 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
[[Page 50670]]
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.
The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
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,
polychlorinated 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 screening value 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 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 on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption), \14\ and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios).\15\ If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\15\ 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.
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.\16\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 Taconite Risk Report, which is available in the docket for this
action.
5. 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, D/F, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury
and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the
screening assessment are HCl and 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
[[Page 50671]]
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 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 Taconite Risk Report,
which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Taconite
Iron Ore Processing source category, we identified emissions of
arsenic, cadmium, D/F, HCl, HF, lead, mercury, and POM. 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, D/F, 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
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
screening value 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
Taconite Risk Report, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664.
6. 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
[[Page 50672]]
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 NEI and supplemental
information submitted by industry. The source category records of that
dataset were evaluated and updated as described in section II.D of this
preamble. Once a quality assured source category dataset was available,
it 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 action. 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 Taconite Risk Report, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0664, 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.
7. 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 Taconite Risk Report, which is
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, Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 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
considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain
years, and they 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 average annual
hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
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.
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.\17\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
[[Page 50673]]
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
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,\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ 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.
\19\ 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 emission 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 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.
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 (dioxins, 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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
[[Page 50674]]
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, D/F, 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 analytical results and proposed decisions for this
source category?
1. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described in section III of this preamble, for the Taconite Iron
Ore Processing source category, we conducted a risk assessment for all
HAP emitted. We present results of the risk assessment briefly below
and in more detail in the Taconite Risk Report, which is available in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
a. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 4 below provides a summary of the results of the inhalation
risk assessment for the source category. For more details about the
estimated emission levels for actual and allowable emissions rates and
the risk assessment methods and results, see the Taconite Risk Report,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
Table 4--Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Estimated population at Estimated annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum
cancer risk (in 1 increased risk of cancer incidence (cases per noncancer TOSHI \1\ screening acute
million) >= 1-in-1 million year) -------------------------- noncancer HQ \2\
Risk assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on Based on
actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable actual allowable Based on actual
emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category............... 2 6 38,000 43,000 0.001 0.001 0.2 0.2 HQREL = <1
Whole Facility................ 2 ........... 40,000 ........... 0.001 ........... 0.2 ........... ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.
Based on the results of the inhalation risk modeling using the
actual emissions estimates, as shown in Table 4 of this preamble, the
maximum individual cancer risk based on actual emissions (lifetime) is
estimated to be 2-in-1 million (driven by arsenic and nickel from
fugitive dust and indurating sources), the estimated maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.2 (driven by
manganese compounds from fugitive dust and ore crushing sources), and
the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility site) is
less than 1 (driven by arsenic from fugitive dust and ore crushing
sources). The total estimated annual cancer incidence
[[Page 50675]]
(national) from these facilities based on actual emission levels is
0.001 excess cancer cases per year or 1 case in every 1,000 years. The
results using allowable emissions indicate that the estimated maximum
individual cancer risk based on allowable emissions (lifetime) is 6-in-
1 million (driven by arsenic and nickel from fugitive dust and
indurating sources) and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value is
0.2 (driven by manganese compounds from fugitive dust and ore crushing
sources).
b. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Table 4 of this preamble shows the estimated acute risk results for
the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category. To estimate the peak
emission rates from average emission rates, the screening analysis for
acute impacts was based on an industry specific multiplier of 2 for
indurating furnaces and a factor of 10 for all other emissions sources.
For more detailed acute risk results, refer to the Taconite Risk
Report, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 multipathway screening analysis
indicate that PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions)
from each of the eight facilities in the source category exceed the
screening threshold emissions rate for the carcinogenic PB-HAP
(combined D/F, POM, and arsenic screening values) with a maximum
screening value of 3,000 for arsenic emissions. For the noncarcinogenic
PB-HAP, all eight facilities have screening values greater than 1 for
cadmium emissions with a maximum screening value of 20, and seven
facilities have screening values greater than 1 for mercury emissions
with a maximum screening value of 40. For the PB-HAP and facilities
that did not screen out at Tier 1, we conducted a Tier 2 multipathway
screening analysis.
The Tier 2 multipathway screen replaces some of the assumptions
used in Tier 1 with site-specific data, the location of fishable lakes,
and local wind direction and speed. In Tier 2, the gardener scenario is
included to represent consumption of produce grown in rural gardens. It
is important to note that, even with the inclusion of some site-
specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway screening
analysis is still a very conservative, health-protective assessment
(i.e., upper-bound consumption of local fish, locally grown, and/or
raised foods) and in all likelihood will yield results that serve as an
upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
Based on the Tier 2 screening analysis, seven facilities emitting
arsenic, D/F, and POM emissions have Tier 2 cancer screening values
greater than 1 for the farmer scenario with a maximum screening value
of 300. Arsenic emissions are driving the risk for the farmer scenario
as well as the gardener scenario with a maximum Tier 2 gardener
scenario cancer screening value of 200. The maximum Tier 2 cancer
screening value for the fisher scenario is 30, with arsenic driving the
risk. When we considered the effect multiple facilities within the
source category could have on common lake(s) in the modeling domain,
the maximum cancer screening value is 40.
For mercury, four facilities emit mercury emissions above the Tier
2 noncancer screening threshold emissions rate, with at least one
facility with a screening value of 10 for the fisher scenario. When we
considered the effect multiple facilities within the source category
could have on common lake(s) in the modeling domain, mercury emissions
resulted in a noncancer screening value of 20, with seven facilities
contributing to the risk levels at common lakes. For cadmium, two
facilities emit cadmium emissions above the Tier 2 noncancer screening
threshold emissions rate, with at least one facility with a screening
value of 2 for the fisher scenario. When we considered the effect
multiple facilities within the source category could have on common
lake(s) in the modeling domain, cadmium emissions exceeded the
noncancer screening threshold emissions rate by a factor of 3, with
seven facilities contributing to the risk levels at common lakes.
An exceedance of a screening threshold emissions rate (i.e., a
screening value greater than 1) in any of the tiers cannot be equated
with a risk value or a HQ or HI. Rather, it represents a high-end
estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. It represents the high-end
estimate of risk because we choose inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
screens; and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. For more details on
the multipathway screening results, refer to Appendix 10 of the
Taconite Risk Report, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
Thus, facility emissions exceeding the screening threshold emissions
rate by a factor of 2 (i.e., a screening value of 2) for a non-
carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ
would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions exceeding the
cancer screening threshold emissions rate by a factor of 20 (i.e., a
screening value of 20) for a carcinogen means that we are confident
that the risk is lower than 20-in-1 million.
Based upon the maximum Tier 2 screening values for mercury (fisher
scenario) and arsenic (fisher and gardener scenario) occurring from the
same location, we proceeded to a site-specific assessment using
TRIM.FaTE versus conducting a Tier 3 screen. We also selected this site
for assessing noncancer risks from cadmium utilizing the fisher
scenario as the site was comparable to the maximum Tier 2 location. The
selected site represents the combined contribution of mercury, arsenic
and cadmium emissions from five taconite iron ore processing plants.
The site selected was modeled using TRIM.FaTE to assess cancer risk
from arsenic emissions and noncancer risks from mercury and cadmium
emissions for the fisher and gardener scenarios. The final cancer risk
based upon the fisher scenario and gardener scenario was less than 1-
in-1 million from arsenic emissions. The final noncancer risks had a HI
less than 1 for mercury (0.02) and for cadmium (0.01). Further details
on the site-specific multipathway assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of the Taconite Risk Report, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0664.
d. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.C of this document, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic,
cadmium, D/F, HCl, HF, 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), D/F and POM emissions had no exceedances of
any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Arsenic emissions had Tier
1 exceedances for three surface soil benchmarks: Threshold level (plant
communities), no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (avian ground
insectivores--woodcock), and NOAEL (mammalian insectivores--shrew) with
a maximum screening value of 4. Cadmium emissions had Tier 1
exceedances for two surface soil benchmarks: NOAEL (mammalian
insectivores--shrew) and NOAEL (avian ground insectivores--woodcock)
with a
[[Page 50676]]
maximum screening value of 4. Cadmium emissions also had Tier 1
exceedances for three fish--avian piscivores benchmarks: NOAEL
(merganser), geometric-maximum-allowable-toxicant-level (GMATL)
(merganser), and lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL)
(merganser) with a maximum screening value of 3. Divalent mercury
emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following benchmarks: Sediment
threshold level, surface soil threshold level (plant communities), and
surface soil threshold level (invertebrate communities) with a maximum
screening value of 3. Methyl mercury had Tier 1 exceedances for the
following benchmarks: fish (avian/piscivores), NOAEL (merganser),
surface soil NOAEL (mammalian insectivores--shrew), and surface soil
NOAEL for avian ground insectivores (woodcock) with a maximum screening
value of 2.
A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for arsenic, cadmium,
divalent mercury, and methyl mercury. In the Tier 2 screening analysis,
there were no exceedances of any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated
for any of the pollutants.
For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. For HCl and HF, 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 and HF (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.
e. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Six facilities have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 2-in-1
million, driven by arsenic and nickel from fugitive dust and indurating
emissions. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility
is 0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every
1,000 years. Approximately 40,000 people were estimated to have cancer
risks above 1-in-1 million from exposure to HAP emitted from both
source category and non-source category sources at six of the eight
facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for
the source category is estimated to be 0.2, mainly driven by emissions
of manganese from fugitive dust and ore crushing emissions.
f. 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 Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category across different demographic groups within
the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 5--Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer Population
risk at or with chronic
Nationwide above 1-in-1 noncancer HI
million due to above 1 due to
taconite iron taconite iron
ore processing ore processing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population............................................ 317,746,049 38,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 93 0
Minority........................................................ 38 7 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Detail by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 1 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 2.8 0
Hispanic or Latino.............................................. 18 1 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below the Poverty Level......................................... 14 19 0
Above the Poverty Level......................................... 86 82 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 Without High a School Diploma........................... 14 8 0
Over 25 With a High School Diploma.............................. 86 92 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 0.2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50677]]
The results of the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category
risk assessment (described in section IV.A.1 of this preamble)
indicates that actual emissions from the source category expose
approximately 38,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million
and no one to a chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. The percent of
minorities nationally (38 percent) is much higher than for the category
population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (7
percent). The category population with cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million has a greater percentage of Native American
(2.8 percent) as compared to nationally (0.8 percent), but lower
percentages for African American (1 percent) and Hispanic (1 percent)
as compared to nationally, 12 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The
category population with cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million has about the same percentage of the population below the
poverty level (18 percent) as compared to nationally (14 percent). The
percentage of the population over 25 without a high school diploma and
the percentage of the population that is linguistically isolated are
lower for the category population (8 percent and 0.2 percent,
respectively) than nationally (14 percent and 6 percent, respectively).
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Taconite
Iron Ore Processing Source Category Operations, June 2019 (hereafter
referred to as the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Demographic Analysis
Report), which may be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
2. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.A of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
cancer MIR, the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk
ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum
acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of
cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and risk
estimation uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
For the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category, the risk
analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
could be up to 2-in-1 million due to actual emissions or up to 6-in-1
million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less
than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence
(0.001 cases per year for actual and allowable emissions), and we did
not identify a potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects.
The acute noncancer risks based on actual emissions are low, with a
maximum HQ of less than 1 (based on the REL) for arsenic. Therefore, we
find there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health
impacts from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment
indicates no significant potential for multipathway health effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose to find that the risks from the
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category are acceptable, we are required to consider
whether the MACT standards for the source category provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. The risk estimates show that
approximately 38,000 individuals in the exposed population have a
cancer risk above 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 43,000
individuals have a cancer risk above 1-in-1 million based on allowable
emissions. The MIR based on actual emissions is 2-in-1 million, and
based on allowable emissions, the MIR is 6-in-1 million. With regard to
chronic and acute noncancer risks, as described above in section
IV.A.1, all HIs and HQs are below one. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, in addition to the health risks, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review as described in section III.B of this preamble) that
could be applied to this source category to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment.
In this analysis, we focused on cancer risks since all the chronic
and acute noncancer HIs and HQs are below one. The cancer risks are
driven by metal HAP emissions (e.g., arsenic, nickel, and chromium VI)
from indurating furnaces and fugitive dust sources. The indurating
furnaces are currently controlled via wet scrubbers. We evaluated the
option of reducing emissions from indurating furnaces by installing a
wet electrostatic precipitator (wet ESP) after the existing wet
scrubbers. Under this scenario, we estimate that the current metal HAP
emissions would be reduced by about 99.9 percent, and the MIR would be
reduced from 2-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 6-in-1 based
on allowable emissions to less than 1-in-1 million for both actual and
allowable emissions. We estimate annual costs of about $167 million for
the industry, with a cost effectiveness of about $16 million per ton of
metal HAP reduced. Due to the relatively small reduction in risk and
the substantial costs associated with this option, we are proposing
that additional emissions controls for metal HAP from indurating
furnaces are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. See the technical memorandum titled Taconite
Iron Ore Processing--Ample Margin of Safety Analysis, in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664 for details.
For the other affected sources that emit metal HAP (i.e., ore
crushing and handling operations, finished pellet handling operations,
ore drying, and sources subject to the fugitive dust emission control
plan), we did not identify any developments in processes, practices, or
control technologies. Therefore, we are proposing that additional
emissions controls for metal HAP from these affected sources are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
c. Environmental Effects
The emissions data for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category indicate that eight environmental HAP are emitted by sources
within this source category: Arsenic, cadmium, D/F, mercury, POM, lead,
HCl, and HF.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), D/F and POM emissions had no exceedances of
any of the ecological benchmarks evaluated. Arsenic, cadmium, and
mercury had Tier 1 exceedances for some of the benchmarks evaluated by
a maximum screening value of 4. Therefore, a Tier 2 screening analysis
was performed for arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. In the Tier 2
screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the ecological
benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants.
The screening-level evaluation of the potential for adverse
environmental
[[Page 50678]]
effects from emissions of lead indicated that the secondary NAAQS for
lead would not be exceeded by any facility. The screening-level
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects
associated with emissions of HCl and HF from the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category indicated that each individual concentration
(i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the
ecological benchmarks for all facilities. In addition, we are unaware
of any adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by this
source category. Therefore, we do not expect there to be 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, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
B. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
The MACT standards for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category require compliance with numeric emission limits for PM, a
surrogate for metal HAP, for ore crushing and handling operations, ore
dryers, pellet induration furnaces, and finished pellet handling
sources and for acid gases for pellet indurating furnaces. The rule
requires work practice standards to reduce PM (again as a surrogate for
metal HAP) emissions from fugitive dust emission sources (i.e.,
stockpiles, material transfer points, facility roadways, tailings
basins, pellet loading areas, and yard areas). Furthermore, the rule
includes operation and maintenance requirements for pellet indurating
furnaces to ensure good combustion to minimize emissions of
formaldehyde and other organic HAP that are products of incomplete
combustion.
Under the technology review we searched, reviewed, and considered
several sources of information to determine whether there have been
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies as
required by section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. Section III.B of this
preamble describes the types of information and factors we consider to
determine if there have been any such ``developments.'' Our
investigations included internet searches, discussions with industry
representatives during site visits to taconite iron ore processing
plants, a review of state permits, and a review of state air quality
and regional haze implementation plans from Minnesota and Michigan, the
two states where taconite iron ore processing plants are located.
Particulate matter emissions from the pellet induration furnaces
are controlled by wet scrubbers or wet ESPs. Based on our review, we
identified wet ESPs as a potential development in control technology
for indurating furnaces, as discussed under the ample margin of safety
analysis (see section IV.A.2.b of this preamble). As described in our
ample margin of safety analysis, we estimate the cost for implementing
this control technology would be $167 million annualized costs for the
source category, with estimated cost effectiveness of $16 million per
ton of metal HAP. We are proposing that it is not necessary under CAA
section 112(d)(6) to require these additional controls for indurating
furnaces because of the high annualized costs and because these
controls are not cost effective.
With regard to the ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and
finished pellet handling emissions sources as well as for fugitive dust
emissions, based on our searches and reviews of the information sources
described above, we did not identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies. For more details, refer to the
document, Technology Review for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source
Category, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
C. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are
proposing some 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 (DC 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 are also proposing
the following: (1) Facilities can reduce compliance testing duration of
individual runs from 2 hours to 1 hour; (2) to remove pressure drop as
a monitoring option for dynamic wet scrubbers; (3) to remove the
requirements for monitoring pressure drop and conducting quarterly
internal baghouse inspections whenever the baghouse is equipped with a
bag leak detection system; and (4) various other changes to clarify
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and to
correct typographical errors. Furthermore, we are proposing a
determination that a certain compound (known as elongated mineral
particulate) is not a HAP. Our analyses, proposed changes, and proposed
determination related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC 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 (h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the
CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature
and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some
section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing the
elimination of the SSM exemption in this NESHAP and we are proposing
the standards apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 2 (the General Provisions Applicability Table) which
are explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
sources develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as 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 considered
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, is
not proposing alternative standards for those periods. The associated
control devices are operational before startup and during shutdown of
the affected sources at taconite iron ore processing facilities.
Therefore, we expect that emissions during startup and shutdown would
be no higher than emissions during normal operations. We know of no
reason why the existing standards should not apply at all times.
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
[[Page 50679]]
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
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
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.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs) 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.)
Based on the EPA's knowledge of the processes and engineering
judgement, malfunctions in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category are considered unlikely to result in a violation of the
standard. Affected sources at taconite iron ore processing plants are
controlled with add-on air pollution control devices which will
continue to function in the event of a process upset. Also, processes
in the industry are typically equipped with controls that will not
allow startup of the emission source until the associated control
device is operating and will automatically shut down the emission
source if the associated controls malfunction. Indurating furnaces,
which are the largest sources of HAP emissions, typically operate
continuously for long periods of time with no significant spikes in
emissions. These minimal fluctuations in emissions are controlled by
the existing add-on air pollution control devices used at all plants in
the industry.
In the unlikely 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,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions.
[[Page 50680]]
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).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' 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 63.9600(a) 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
3.6(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 and SSM events in describing
the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40
CFR 63.9600(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions
Applicability Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by
changing the ``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR''
to a ``no.'' 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 63.9600(a).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Generally,
these paragraphs 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.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' 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 v. EPA 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 v. EPA, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.9621(a). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text removes the cross-reference to
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and 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 proposed performance testing
provisions will not allow performance testing during malfunctions. 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 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.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing
the ``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a
``no.'' 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 Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' 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 63.9632(b)(5) text that is identical to 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) except for the final sentence with the reference to SSM.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' 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 will 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 Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the
``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.''
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR
63.9642. 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 63.9642
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
[[Page 50681]]
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 Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
``yes'' in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.''
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 will 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 63.9642.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' 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
will no longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes''
in the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' The EPA
is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. 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.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions Applicability
Table (Table 2) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in
the column titled ``Applies to Subpart RRRRR'' to a ``no.'' Section
63.10(d)(5) 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 63.9641. 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 semi-annual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must 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 will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because SSM 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 necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii), which requires an immediate report for SSM when a
source failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM
plan. We will 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 SSM plans would no longer be
required.
2. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of taconite iron ore
processing plants submit electronic copies of required performance test
reports and compliance reports through 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-2017-0664. 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 \21\ 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.
For 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. The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we have 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. We are 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 EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.9641. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which 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
[[Page 50682]]
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 63.9641. 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, and will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment. Furthermore, it 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 \22\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in
keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \23\ developed in response to
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\24\ For more information
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see 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-2017-0664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\23\ 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.
\24\ 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. Performance Testing
The Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP performance testing
requirements specify that stack tests conducted for ore crushing and
handling, finished pellet handling, ore drying, and indurating furnace
affected sources must consist of three separate runs of a minimum of 2
hours for each run. Industry representatives have stated that 2-hour
test runs are unnecessary because an adequate sample volume can be
obtained when conducting a 1-hour test. Industry representatives also
pointed out that Minnesota state rules for performance testing only
require that test runs be 1 hour in duration. They claim longer run
time increases the cost of testing without any improvement in the data
collected. With the time needed for test contractors to set up and
break down their sampling equipment, perform the necessary QA/QC
checks, and conduct a minimum of 6 hours of testing for a three-run
test on a single stack, testing can take 9 to 10 hours to complete.
The EPA has previously concluded that the representative method
detection limit for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, is 2
milligrams for a sample volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter.\25\ This
is the approximate sample volume for a 1-hour test run. This detection
limit is equivalent to 0.0026 gr/dscf, which is well below the emission
limits in this rule. Additionally, we reviewed a number of test reports
submitted during the development of this action. After examining those
PM test results, we did not find any of the test results to be below
the method detection limit, even when the test run was only 1 hour
long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. EPA. Memorandum from Conniesue Oldham to Bob Schell.
Revision of Estimated Method 5 Detection Limit. June 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon our review of available information, we agree that a
test run time of 1 hour should provide an adequate sample volume to
determine compliance with the emission limits if good testing practices
are followed. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the minimum time
for test runs for performance tests conducted on ore crushing and
handling, finished pellet handling, ore drying, and indurating furnace
affected sources from a minimum of 2 hours for each test run to a
minimum of 1 hour for each test run. While we agree that this change
should not cause an issue with determining compliance, as the number of
samples below the method detection limit should not increase as long as
good testing practices are followed, we are also proposing that if the
measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit, the
method detection limit will be used for that value when calculating the
average particulate concentration.
Performance testing of indurating furnaces is required no less
frequently than twice per 5-year permit term. Industry has requested
that the EPA revise the frequency to once every 5 years if the
performance test results are less than 80 percent of the emissions
limit. We currently do not have sufficient justification or data to
support this change. Therefore, we are not proposing this change.
However, we solicit comments, data, and information as to whether this
change would be appropriate or if other possible alternatives to the
current requirement should be considered that would provide the
industry more flexibility while ensuring that emissions would remain
below the PM limits. In particular, we are interested in emissions data
or other information that would support a margin of 80 percent, or some
other margin, as sufficient to ensure that emissions would not exceed
the emission limits for the 5-year period.
4. Baghouse Monitoring
Under the current rule, baghouses that are used on affected sources
to comply with the emission limits for PM are required to be equipped
with a bag leak detection system in order to monitor the relative
change in PM loadings. The current rule contains installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements that apply to bag leak
detection systems to ensure their proper performance. The Taconite Iron
Ore Processing NESHAP also requires that the owner or operator monitor
the daily pressure drop across each baghouse in addition to conducting
physical inspections of several baghouse components on a daily, weekly,
or monthly basis depending on the baghouse component. Then, the
interior of the baghouse must be inspected on a quarterly basis to
determine if there are air leaks. In view of the requirement for
baghouses to be equipped with a bag leak detection system, the
requirements to monitor baghouse pressure drop and to conduct baghouse
inspections are redundant and, therefore unnecessary. Therefore, we are
proposing to remove the requirements for conducting quarterly internal
baghouse inspections whenever the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak
detection system that is installed, operated, and maintained in
compliance with the requirements in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
NESHAP. The use of bag leak detection systems is superior to older
methods of monitoring baghouse performance (such as visual inspections)
and is more consistent with monitoring
[[Page 50683]]
requirements for baghouses required in other EPA regulations.
Industry has also requested that the EPA revise the requirement at
40 CFR 63.9600(b)(2) to initiate corrective action to determine the
cause of a bag leak detection system alarm within 1 hour of its
occurrence. We currently do not have sufficient justification or data
to support this change. Therefore, we are not proposing this change.
However, we solicit comments, data, and information as to whether a
longer time frame within which industry is required to initiate
corrective action would be appropriate, or if other possible
alternatives to the current requirement should be considered that would
provide the industry more flexibility while ensuring that emissions
would remain below the PM limits.
5. Dynamic Wet Scrubbers
The current rule requires that where dynamic wet scrubbers, also
known as low energy scrubbers, are used to comply with PM emission
limits, the owner or operator must establish site-specific operating
limits for scrubber water flow rate and either fan amperage or pressure
drop during the PM performance testing for each dynamic wet scrubber.
Compliance with the operating limits is determined by monitoring the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan
amperage or the daily average pressure drop. Since the MACT rule was
promulgated, we have determined that pressure drop is not adequate for
monitoring dynamic scrubbers as the pressure drop for these scrubbers
is very low and does not vary greatly. Furthermore, the operator is not
able to adjust or control the differential pressure in order to remain
in compliance. Therefore, we are proposing to remove pressure drop as a
monitoring option for dynamic wet scrubbers. Under the proposed
amendments, dynamic wet scrubbers used to comply with the Taconite Iron
Ore Processing NESHAP emission limits for PM would be required to
establish and monitor the scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage.
While we maintain that scrubber water flow is an appropriate operating
parameter for these scrubbers, we request comment on whether an
operating parameter other than fan amperage or pressure drop would be
as effective or more appropriate to monitor in conjunction with
scrubber water flow to ensure the continued removal efficiency of the
scrubber.
6. Performance Testing of Similar Sources
Under the current rule, the owner/operator may elect to group up to
six similar ore crushing and handling operations and finished pellet
handling operations sources and conduct a compliance test on a single
representative unit. The rule establishes the criteria that emission
units must meet to be considered similar. This provision has the
benefit of reducing testing costs for those facilities that can take
advantage of it. Industry representatives requested that the EPA modify
the rule language to allow up to 10 emission units in a group of
similar sources. However, we currently do not have sufficient
justification or data to support this change. Therefore, we are not
proposing revisions to this requirement at this time. However, we
request comments and information from companies and other stakeholders
on the positive and/or negative aspects of increasing the number of
similar sources that can be grouped for testing purposes, including the
potential economic benefits for companies and potential environmental
impacts, and whether the EPA should allow such an increase in the
number of units in a group of similar sources for testing, and if so,
why.
7. Elongated Mineral Particulate
In 2004, after promulgation of the original Taconite Iron Ore
Processing NESHAP, the National Wildlife Federation filed a petition
for review of that rule with the Court (Case No. 03-1458). In that
petition, the National Wildlife Federation alleged that the EPA had
failed to set standards for what they believed to be emissions of
asbestos, or asbestos-like fibers, from taconite iron ore processing
plants. We are referring to these compounds as amphibole ``elongated
mineral particulate (EMP).'' The EPA subsequently requested, and was
granted, a partial voluntary remand to further investigate this issue
and consider possible options to address the issue, as appropriate. As
part of the development of this RTR proposed rulemaking, we gathered
and reviewed available information on the amphibole EMP. Based on
available information, amphibole EMP emissions only occur from the
operations at one of the taconite iron ore processing plants, due to
the effects of the Duluth Gabbro Complex on the associated taconite
iron ore mine--specifically, the Peter Mitchell Mine associated with
the Northshore Mining Company processing plant located in Silver Bay,
Minnesota.
After reviewing and evaluating available information, we have
determined that the EMP do not meet the definition of ``asbestos''
found in current EPA regulations and technical documents. This is
because asbestos is always defined as the asbestiform varieties of
certain minerals (see 40 CFR 61.141, 763.83, and 763.163), whereas the
EMP in question developed in the non-asbestiform geologic form. Also, a
study by Ross et al. (The search for asbestos within the Peter Mitchell
Taconite iron ore mine, near Babbitt, Minnesota, which is available in
the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664) found no asbestos in
the Peter Mitchell Mine. Ross et al. analyzed 53 samples from 30 sites
within the mine where fibrous minerals were thought to potentially
occur. Samples were analyzed using transmission electron microscopes
and other state-of-the-art equipment. No asbestos of any type was found
in the mine pit samples. In another study by Wilson et al., ambient air
samples from monitors at the taconite mill and in a nearby town were
analyzed. It was found that the fibers collected by the ambient air
monitors were non-asbestiform ferroactinolite and grunerite, not
asbestos. (Risk assessment due to environmental exposures to fibrous
particulates associated with taconite ore, which is available in the
docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.)
We also evaluated the EMP to determine if they might meet the
definition of ``fine mineral fibers'' (the other HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b) which we initially thought might be interpreted to
include EMP). Footnote 3 after the list of HAP found in CAA section
112(b)(1) explains that ``[f]ine mineral fibers includes mineral fiber
emissions from facilities manufacturing or processing glass, rock or
slag fibers (or other mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1
micrometer or less.'' The EPA Health Effects Notebook (available at
https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants) further explains that the term ``fine mineral fibers'' was
intended to apply to the synthetic vitreous fibers glasswool, rockwool,
slagwool, glass filaments, and refractory ceramic fibers. Based on the
CAA definition, and further interpretation provided in the EPA Health
Effects Notebook, we conclude that EMP do not meet the definition of
``fine mineral fibers'' because the taconite iron ore processing
facilities are not manufacturing or processing synthetic vitreous
fibers such as rockwool, glasswool, slagwool, glass filaments, and
refractory ceramic fibers.
Since the EMP do not meet the definition of HAP pursuant to CAA
[[Page 50684]]
section 112(b), the EPA did not review the EMP for regulation under CAA
section 112. Nevertheless, we note that the EMP are a component of PM
which are subject to control by the NESHAP as a surrogate for metal HAP
and acid gases. We also note that the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency requires this facility to monitor the EMP and ensure ambient
levels of EMP near the facility are no higher than levels found in a
non-affected location (i.e., St. Paul, Minnesota). Also, EMP are the
subject of an exposure study being conducted in taconite communities in
Minnesota by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the
EPA's Region 5 office. More information on the EPA's review of the EMP
and EPA's proposed determination is available in the memorandum, EPA's
Analysis of Elongated Mineral Particulate, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
We are proposing that existing facilities must comply with all
changes proposed in this action 180 days after promulgation of the
final rule. All new or reconstructed facilities must comply with all
requirements in the final rule upon startup. 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 time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised 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?
The Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category consists of eight
facilities. One facility (Empire Mine) that is currently in a state of
indefinite idle, is expected to resume operations once market
conditions become more favorable. Also, a new facility is under
construction near Nashwauk, Minnesota. The date that this new facility
will begin operations is unknown, but not expected until after
completion of this rulemaking. The affected sources at a taconite iron
ore processing plant include ore crushing and handling operations, ore
dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling operations.
The owner/operator of a taconite iron ore processing plant must also
prepare and operate according to a fugitive dust emissions control plan
to minimize emissions from sources of fugitive emissions (e.g.,
stockpiles, tailings basins, roadways, pellet loading areas, material
transfer points, and yard areas).
B. What are the air quality impacts?
In this action, we are proposing no new emission limits and no
additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as
a result of the proposed amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The proposed amendments include no changes to emission standards or
add-on controls. As described in section IV.C.3 of this preamble, the
proposed amendments would reduce emissions performance test run times
from 2 hours to 1 hour and remove the unnecessary requirement to
conduct quarterly internal visual inspections of baghouses that are
equipped with a bag leak detection system. The proposed amendments
would replace the current reporting requirements with electronic
reporting. Electronic reporting eliminates paper-based, manual
processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, and minimizing data reporting errors,
ultimately reducing the burden on regulated facilities. Therefore, the
proposed amendments impose no additional costs. In fact, the amendments
and clarifications to rule language are expected to result in a
reduction of current costs because compliance will be more
straightforward. As described in the cost memorandum, we estimate the
proposed amendments will result in an overall cost savings of $190,000
per year mainly due to the reduced testing duration and elimination of
need for internal visual baghouse inspections.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a proposed rule. Because the overall costs and
savings associated with the proposed revisions are relatively small, no
significant economic impacts from the proposed amendments are
anticipated.
E. What are the benefits?
While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in
emissions of HAP, this action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. Also, the
electronic reporting requirements will enhance transparency by making
performance test results and compliance reports more readily available
to the public.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, 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 for risk modeling. 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/
[[Page 50685]]
stationary-sources-air-pollution/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-
emission-standards-hazardous. 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-2017-0664 (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/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
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 not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2050.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing amendments that require electronic reporting,
remove the malfunction exemption, and impose other revisions that
affect reporting and recordkeeping for taconite iron ore processing
facilities. This information would be collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of taconite iron
ore processing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLLLL).
Estimated number of respondents: Eight (total).
Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 1,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden
for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $550,000 (per year). The only costs associated with the
information collection activity is labor cost. There are no capital/
startup or operation and maintenance costs for this ICR.
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 October 25, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Based on the
Small Business Administration size category for this source category,
no small entities are subject to this action.
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. No tribal governments own facilities subject to
this proposed action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. However, since tribal officials expressed significant
interest in this rulemaking, consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, a tribal consultation
is planned for this rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring,
[[Page 50686]]
compliance, and implementation of the rule, which could lower the risk
to all people affected by emissions from these facilities, including
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
section IV of this preamble and in the Taconite Risk Report, which is
available in the docket.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' manual portion only, as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and
incorporates the alternative method by reference. The ANSI/ASME PTC
19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010) method incorporates both manual and
instrumental methodologies for the determination of oxygen content of
the exhaust gas. The manual method segment of the oxygen determination
is performed through the absorption of oxygen. The method 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). To
the extent that this action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule, we believe that
it could decrease the risks posed by taconite iron ore processing
facilities for these populations. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in section IV of this action. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble and in the Taconite Risk Report, which is available in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 28, 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.
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, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.9621(b) and (c),
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), 63.8450(e),
63.8600(e), 63.9632(a)(5), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *
Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
0
3. Section 63.9583 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced before December 18, 2002, you must
comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to
you no later than October 30, 2006, except as provided in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(b) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced on or after December 18, 2002, and
its initial startup date is on or before October 30, 2003, you must
comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and
operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to
you by October 30, 2003, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(c) If you have an affected source and its initial startup date is
after October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation,
work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in
this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup, except as noted
in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source
that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
(1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a
new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance
with this subpart upon startup, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must
be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after the
plant becomes a major source, except as noted in paragraphs (f)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
(f)(1) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced before September 25, 2019, you
must comply with the following requirements of this subpart by [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]: Sec. 63.9590(b)(2); Sec. 63.9600(a); Sec. 63.9610(a)
introductory text; Sec. 63.9621(a); Sec. 63.9622(b) introductory
text, (b)(1) and (2) and (d)(2); Sec. 63.9623(b)(2); Sec. 63.9631(c);
Sec. 63.9632(a)(3); Sec. 63.9634(b)(3), (f) introductory text, and
(f)(1), (3), and (4);
[[Page 50687]]
Sec. 63.9637; Sec. 63.9641(b)(7)(ii), (b)(8)(ii) and (iv), (c), (e),
(g), (h), (i), and (j); Sec. 63.9642(a)(4), (5), and (6) and (b)(3);
Sec. 63.9643(d); Table 2 to this subpart.
(2) If you have an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced on or after September 25, 2019,
you must comply with all the requirements of this subpart by [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
0
4. Section 63.9590 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) For each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan
amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) at or
above the minimum levels established during the initial performance
test.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.9600 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must always 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. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such
operation and maintenance procedures are being used 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.
(b) * * *
(2) Corrective action procedures for bag leak detection systems. In
the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, you must
initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1
hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of
the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective
action as soon as practicable. If the alarm sounds more than 5 percent
of the operating time during a 6-month period as determined according
to Sec. 63.9634(d)(3), it is considered an operating parameter
deviation. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, the
actions listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9610 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and removing and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) of this section at all times.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.9620 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory
text and removing paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct
performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(f) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, the units that are grouped together
as similar units must meet the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.9621 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and
(2), and (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9621 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 under normal maximum operating conditions of the
affected source. The owner or operator may not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator 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,
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests. You must also conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
(b) * * *
(1) Except as provided in Sec. 63.9620(e), determine the
concentration of particulate matter in the stack gas for each emission
unit according to the test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A 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, 2A, 2C, 2D, 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, as
applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 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 to determine the
concentration of particulate matter.
(2) Each Method 5, 5D, or 17 performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour. If
any measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit,
use the method detection limit for that value when calculating the
average particulate matter concentration. The average particulate
matter concentration from the three runs will be used to determine
compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25SE19.004
[[Page 50688]]
Where:
Ci = Average particulate matter concentration for
emission unit, grains per dry standard cubic foot, (gr/dscf);
C1 = Particulate matter concentration for run 1
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf;
C2 = Particulate matter concentration for run 2
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf; and
C3 = Particulate matter concentration for run 3
corresponding to emission unit, gr/dscf.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each
stack according to the test methods listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Method 1 or 1A 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, 2A, 2C, 2D, 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, as
applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 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 to
determine the concentration of particulate matter.
(2) Each Method 5 or 5D performance test must consist of three
separate runs. Each run must be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour. If
any measurement result is reported as below the method detection limit,
use the method detection limit for that value when calculating the
average particulate matter concentration. The average particulate
matter concentration from the three runs will be used to determine
compliance, as shown in Equation 1 of this section.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.9622 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?
* * * * *
(b) For dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in
Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan
amperage in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific
operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage every 15 minutes
during each run of the particulate matter performance test.
(2) Calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and
the average fan amperage for each individual test run. Your operating
limits are established as the lowest average scrubber water flow rate
and the lowest average fan amperage value corresponding to any of the
three test runs.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average
value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each wet electrostatic precipitator field.
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average value for
each operating parameter of secondary voltage and water flow rate
corresponding to any of the three test runs, and the highest average
value for each stack outlet temperature corresponding to any of the
three test runs.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.9623 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in
Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan
amperage in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits and have a record of the scrubber water flow
rate and the fan amperage value, measured during the performance test
in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(b).
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.9625 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
For each air pollution control device subject to operating limits
in Sec. 63.9590(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements if you meet all of the
requirements in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.9631 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
(a) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate matter
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system to monitor the relative change
in particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9632(a), and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) and (8)
of this section. For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart that is not required
by Sec. 63.9632(a) to be equipped with a bag leak detection system,
you must conduct inspections at their specified frequencies according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the scrubber water
flow rate and the fan amperage operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2),
you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the daily
average scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.9632 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1).
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (8) as paragraphs (a)(4)
through (9).
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3).
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5) introductory
text, (a)(7) introductory text, and (a)(7)(i).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) through (6) and (f)(2) and (4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
[[Page 50689]]
Sec. 63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitoring equipment?
(a) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure
baghouse equipped with a stack, applied to meet any particulate
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must install, operate,
and maintain a bag leak detection system for each exhaust stack
according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this
section.
(1) A bag leak detection system installed before September 25,
2019, must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting
emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 milligrams per
actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. A bag
leak detection system installed after September 25, 2019, must be
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting emissions of
particulate matter at concentrations of 1 milligram per actual cubic
meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
* * * * *
(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(4) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over the alarm
level set point established according to paragraph (a)(5) of this
section. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the
appropriate plant personnel.
(5) For each bag leak detection system, you must develop and submit
to the Administrator for approval, a site-specific monitoring plan that
addresses the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (v) of
this section. The monitoring plan shall be consistent with the
manufacturer's specifications and recommendations contained in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance document, ``Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015) (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 63.14). You must operate and maintain the bag
leak detection system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at
all times. The plan shall describe all of the items in paragraphs
(a)(5)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(7) Following initial adjustment, do not adjust sensitivity or
range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time, without
approval from the Administrator except as provided for in paragraph
(a)(7)(i) of this section. In no event may the sensitivity be increased
more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365-
day period unless such adjustment follows a complete baghouse
inspection that demonstrates the baghouse is in good operating
condition.
(i) Once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity or range of
the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects,
including temperature and humidity, according to the procedures
identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required under
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Performance evaluation procedures, a schedule for performing
such procedures, and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations), as well
as corrective action to be taken if a performance evaluation does not
meet the acceptance criteria. If a CPMS calibration fails, the CPMS is
considered to be inoperative until you take corrective action and the
system passes calibration.
(4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures and a schedule for
preventative maintenance procedures, in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices and in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8).
(5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2). The owner or
operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of
the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject
to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection,
upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan
is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (14),
(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec. 63.8(a) and (b),
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (8), (d)(1) and (2), and (e) through (g) and
Procedure 3 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 60. At a minimum, the quality
control program must include a daily calibration drift assessment,
quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS.
* * * * *
(4) You must determine and record the 6-minute average opacity for
periods during which the COMS is not out of control. All COMS must
complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
0
14. Section 63.9633 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, out of control periods,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities (including as applicable, calibration checks and required
zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect
data at all required intervals) at all times an affected source is
operating.
(b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
out of control periods, associated repairs, and required quality
assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used
to report emission or operating levels, or to fulfill a minimum data
availability requirement. You must use all the data collected during
all other periods in assessing compliance.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.9634 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3), (d) introductory text, and (d)(2).
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(3).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (3), and (4),
(h)(1), and (j)(1) and (2).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling
emission units not selected for initial performance testing and defined
within a group of similar emission units in accordance with Sec.
63.9620(e), the site-specific operating limits established for the
emission unit selected as representative of a group of similar emission
units will be used as the operating limit for each emission unit within
the group. The operating limit established for the representative unit
must be met by each emission unit within the group.
* * * * *
[[Page 50690]]
(d) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9631(a) and recording all information needed
to document conformance with the requirements in Sec. 63.9631(a). If
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection
system beyond the limits specified in your site-specific monitoring
plan, you must include a copy of the required written certification by
a responsible official in the next semiannual compliance report.
(3) Each bag leak detection system must be operated and maintained
such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period. Calculate the alarm time as specified in
paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(ii) If corrective action is required, each alarm time (i.e., time
that the alarm sounds) is counted as a minimum of 1 hour.
(iii) If it takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time is counted as the actual amount of time taken to
initiate corrective action.
* * * * *
(f) For each dynamic wet scrubber subject to the operating limits
for scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage in Sec.
63.9590(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing
the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average scrubber water flow rate and the
daily average fan amperage at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial or subsequent performance test.
* * * * *
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubber water flow
rate and fan amperage according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.9632(c).
(4) If the daily average scrubber water flow rate or daily average
fan amperage, is below the operating limits established for a
corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (j) of
this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage and daily
average scrubber water flow rate for each field at or above the minimum
levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
Maintaining the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the
maximum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance
test.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within
10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was
successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue
to monitor and record all required operating parameters for equipment
that remains in operation. After the initial corrective action, if the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (j)(1)
of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional
corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the
subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of
corrective action, you must continue to monitor and record all required
operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. If the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.9637 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies
to you. You also must report each instance in which you did not meet
the work practice standards in Sec. 63.9591 and each instance in which
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.
63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be
reported in accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.9641.
(b) [Reserved]
0
17. Section 63.9640 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the 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). If the performance
test results have been submitted electronically in accordance with
Sec. 63.9641(f), the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested,
and the date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted
in the notification of compliance status report in lieu of the
performance test results. The performance test results must be
submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) by the date the notification of compliance status report is
submitted.
0
18. Section 63.9641 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (4), (b) introductory text, and
(b)(2) and (3).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(7), (b)(8) introductory text, (b)(8)(ii)
through (vii) and (b)(8)(ix), and (c).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) * * *
(2) The first compliance report must be electronically submitted,
postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever
date comes first after your first compliance report is due.
* * * * *
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be electronically
submitted, postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31,
whichever date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting
period.
* * * * *
[[Page 50691]]
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section, as
applicable.
* * * * *
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report. If your report is submitted via CEDRI,
the certifier's electronic signature during the submission process
replaces the requirement in this paragraph (b)(2).
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period. You are no longer required to provide the date of report when
the report is submitted via CEDRI.
* * * * *
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Table 1 to
this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are not using
a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or COMS) to comply
with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) The total operating time in hours of each affected source
during the reporting period.
(ii) Information on the affected sources or equipment, the emission
limited deviation from, the start date, start time, duration in hours,
and cause of each deviation (including unknown cause) as applicable, an
estimate of the quantity in pounds of each regulated pollutant emitted
over an emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions, and the corrective action taken.
(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.
* * * * *
(ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) For each affected source or equipment, the date, the time that
each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(v) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of all
deviations for each CMS during the reporting period, the total
operating time in hours of the affected source during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source
operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration in hours (or minutes for
COMS) 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.
(vii) The total duration in hours (or minutes for COMS) of
continuous monitoring system downtime for each continuous monitoring
system during the reporting period, the total operating time in hours
of the affected source during the reporting period, and the total
duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the
total source operating time during the reporting period.
* * * * *
(ix) The monitoring equipment manufacturer and model number and the
pollutant or parameter monitored.
* * * * *
(c) Submitting compliance reports electronically. Beginning on
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], submit all subsequent compliance reports to the EPA via
CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(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 report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (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/SPPD/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Sector Lead, MD C404-02, 4930
Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must
be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph (c).
* * * * *
(f) Performance tests. Within 60 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 (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 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 CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the 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 the 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 (f)(1) or (2) 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
the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the 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 the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(g) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of
[[Page 50692]]
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 (g)(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 the 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.
(h) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the 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 (h)(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.
0
19. Section 63.9642 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) through (6).
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9642 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(6) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) 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, the cause and duration of each failure.
(5) 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.
(6) Record actions taken in accordance with the general duty
requirements to minimize emissions in Sec. 63.9600(a) 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 as required in Sec. 63.9632(b)(5), with the program of
corrective action included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
0
20. Section 63.9650 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
0
21. Section 63.9651 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9651 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 63.9652 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``Conveyor belt transfer point''.
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Deviation''.
0
c. Removing the definition of ``Wet grinding and milling''.
0
d. Adding the definition of ``Wet scrubber''.
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
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) or operation and maintenance requirement;
or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
Wet scrubber means an air pollution control device that removes
particulate matter and acid gases from the waste gas stream of
stationary sources. The pollutants are removed primarily
[[Page 50693]]
through the impaction, diffusion, interception and/or absorption of the
pollutant onto droplets of liquid. Wet scrubbers include venturi
scrubbers, marble bed scrubbers, or impingement scrubbers. For purposes
of this subpart, wet scrubbers do not include dynamic wet scrubbers.
0
23. Table 2 to subpart RRRRR of part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.9650, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in
the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject RRRRR Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4).............. Applicability......... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6).................. Applicability......... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(9).............. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(12)............ Applicability......... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).................. Initial Applicability Yes. ...........................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(b)(3).................. Initial Applicability Yes. ...........................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)-(2).............. Applicability After Yes. ...........................
Standard Established,
Permit Requirements.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4).............. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).................. Area Source Becomes Yes. ...........................
Major.
Sec. 63.1(d)..................... [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.1(e)..................... Equivalency of Permit Yes. ...........................
Limits.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions........... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)................. Units and Yes. ...........................
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2).............. Prohibited Activities. Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(5).............. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................. Circumvention, Yes. ...........................
Fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2).............. Construction/ Yes. ...........................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).................. Construction/ Yes. ...........................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4).............. Construction/ Yes. ...........................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.5(b)(6).................. Applicability......... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.5(c)..................... [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)-(4).............. Application for Yes. ...........................
Approval of
Construction or
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)..................... Approval of Yes. ...........................
Construction or
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)..................... Approval Based on Yes. ...........................
State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)..................... Compliance with Yes. ...........................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5).............. Compliance Dates for Yes. ...........................
New/Reconstructed
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................. Compliance Dates for Yes. ...........................
New/Reconstructed
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).............. Compliance Dates for Yes. ...........................
Existing Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).............. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................. Compliance Dates for Yes. ...........................
Existing Sources.
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............... Operation and No.................... See Sec. 63.9600(a) for
Maintenance general duty requirement.
Requirements--General
Duty to Minimize
Emissions.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).............. Operation and No. ...........................
Maintenance
Requirements--Require
ment to Correct
Malfunction as Soon
as Possible.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............. Operation and Yes. ...........................
Maintenance
Requirements--Enforce
ability.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. Startup, Shutdown, No. ...........................
Malfunction (SSM)
Plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).............. Methods for Yes. ...........................
Determining
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).............. Alternative Nonopacity Yes. ...........................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)..................... Compliance with No.................... Opacity limits in subpart
Opacity and Visible RRRRR are established as
Emission (VE) part of performance
Standards. testing in order to set
operating limits for ESPs.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............. Extension of Yes. ...........................
Compliance.
[[Page 50694]]
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................. Extension of Yes. ...........................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Presidential Yes. ...........................
Compliance Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).............. Applicability and No.................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
Performance Test performance test
Dates. applicability and dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4).............. Performance Testing Yes. ...........................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(b)..................... Notification.......... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.7(c)..................... Quality Assurance/Test Yes. ...........................
Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d)..................... Testing Facilities.... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Conduct of Performance No.................... See Sec. 63.9621.
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4).............. Conduct of Performance Yes. ...........................
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)..................... Alternative Test Yes. ...........................
Method.
Sec. 63.7(g)..................... Data Analysis......... Yes................... Except this subpart
specifies how and when the
performance test results
are reported.
Sec. 63.7(h)..................... Waiver of Tests....... Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).............. Monitoring Yes. ...........................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Additional Monitoring No.................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)-(3).............. Conduct of Monitoring. Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... Operation and No.................... See Sec. 63.9632 for
Maintenance of CMS. operation and maintenance
requirements for
monitoring. See Sec.
63.9600(a) for general
duty requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).............. Spare parts for CMS Yes. ...........................
Equipment.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. SSM Plan for CMS...... No. ...........................
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).............. CMS Operation/ Yes. ...........................
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Frequency of Operation No.................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
for CMS. requirements for operation
of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)-(8).............. CMS Requirements...... Yes................... CMS requirements in Sec.
63.8(c)(5) and (6) apply
only to COMS for dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).............. Monitoring Quality Yes. ...........................
Control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................. Monitoring Quality No.................... See Sec. 63.9632(b)(5).
Control.
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... Performance Evaluation Yes. ...........................
of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative Monitoring Yes. ...........................
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Relative Accuracy Test No.................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Alternative (RATA). require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4).............. Data Reduction........ Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.8(g)(5).................. Data That Cannot Be No.................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
Used. data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9........................ Notification Yes................... Additional notifications
Requirements. for CMS in Sec. 63.9(g)
apply to COMS for dry
electrostatic
precipitators.
Sec. 63.10(a).................... Recordkeeping and Yes. ...........................
Reporting,
Applicability and
General Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................. General Recordkeeping Yes. ...........................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).............. Records of SSM........ No.................... See Sec. 63.9642 for
recordkeeping when there
is a deviation from a
standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............. Recordkeeping of No.................... See Sec. 63.9642 for
Failures to Meet recordkeeping of (1) date,
Standard. time and duration; (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. ...........................
Minimize Emissions
During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v).............. Actions Taken to No. ...........................
Minimize Emissions
During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............. Recordkeeping for CMS Yes. ...........................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii)...... Recordkeeping for CMS. Yes. ...........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... Records for Relative No.................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Accuracy Test. require continuous
emission monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............ Records for Yes. ...........................
Notification.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................. Applicability Yes. ...........................
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............. Additional Yes. ...........................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............. Records of Excess No.................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
Emissions and recordkeeping
Parameter Monitoring requirements.
Exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................. [Reserved]............ No. ...........................
[[Page 50695]]
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)........... CMS Recordkeeping..... Yes ...........................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................ Use of SSM Plan....... No. ...........................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)............. General Reporting Yes................... Except this subpart
Requirements. specifies how and when the
performance test results
are reported.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Reporting opacity or No.................... Subpart RRRRR does not have
VE observations. opacity and VE standards
that require the use of
Method 9 of appendix A-4
to 40 CFR part 60 or
Method 22 of appendix A-7
to 40 CFR part 60.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................. SSM Reports........... No. See 63.9641 for ...........................
malfunction reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e).................... Additional Reporting Yes. ...........................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(f).................... Waiver of Yes. ...........................
Recordkeeping or
Reporting
Requirements.
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device and No.................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Work Practice require flares.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12(a)-(c)................ State Authority and Yes. ...........................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13(a)-(c)................ State/Regional Yes. ...........................
Addresses.
Sec. 63.14(a)-(t)................ Incorporations by Yes. ...........................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15(a)-(b)................ Availability of Yes. ...........................
Information and
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16....................... Performance Track Yes. ...........................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-19091 Filed 9-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P