[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54394-54433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20422]
[[Page 54393]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 196
October 9, 2019
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron and
Steel Foundries Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54394]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373; FRL-10000-13-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT30
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron
and Steel Foundries Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action presents the proposed results of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) residual risk and technology
review (RTR) required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for major
source Iron and Steel Foundries, initially promulgated in 2004 and
amended in 2008. Pursuant to the CAA, this action also presents the
proposed results of the technology review for the NESHAP for area
source Iron and Steel Foundries, initially promulgated in 2008. In this
proposed action, the EPA is also proposing to remove exemptions for
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and specify that
the emissions standards apply at all times; require electronic
reporting of performance test results and compliance reports; and make
minor corrections and clarifications for a few other rule provisions
for major sources and area sources. Implementation of these proposed
rules is not expected to result in significant changes to the emissions
from iron and steel foundries, human health, or environmental impacts
associated with those emissions. However, 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 25,
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 November 8, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before October 15, 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/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. 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-2019-0373, 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-2019-0373 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0373.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373, 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 Phil Mulrine, 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) 541-5289; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
questions about monitoring and testing requirements, contact Kevin
McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D230-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-3796; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact 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-2019-0373. 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-
2019-0373. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any 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
[[Page 54395]]
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-2019-0373.
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
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
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
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PCS pouring, cooling, and shakeout
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
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
[mu]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
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 are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate the 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 results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. 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?
[[Page 54396]]
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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 categories that are the subject of this proposal.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this 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
major source Iron Foundries and Steel Foundries were initially listed
as two separately defined source categories. However, in the proposed
and final NESHAP for major sources (in 2002 and 2004, respectively),
the two source categories were combined into one major source category
known as the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category. A single
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) was developed to regulate both
iron and steel major source foundries because of the similarities in
the processes and because many ferrous foundries produce both iron and
steel castings. Subsequently, on June 26, 2002, the EPA added Iron
Foundries area sources and Steel Foundries area sources as two separate
area source categories to the source category list, and the EPA
established one area source NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ) that
applies to the two area source categories. This proposed action
addresses the major source NESHAP that applies to the major source Iron
Foundries and the major source Steel Foundries and this action also
addresses the area source NESHAP that applies to the Iron Foundries
area source category and the Steel Foundries area source category. An
iron and steel foundry is any facility engaged in the production of
final shape ferrous castings from the melting of scrap, ingot, and/or
other forms of iron and/or steel and pouring the molten metal into
molds. Iron and steel foundries include the following four main process
operations: Raw materials handling and preparation, metal melting, mold
and core production, and casting and finishing.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and Steel Foundries.......... 40 CFR part 63 331511
subpart EEEEE.
40 CFR part 63 331512
subpart ZZZZZ. 331513
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the
proposal and key technical documents at these same websites.
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 is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies''
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority
and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA
[[Page 54397]]
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 is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What are the source categories and how do the current NESHAP
regulate the HAP emissions?
Iron and steel foundries manufacture metal castings by melting iron
and/or steel in a furnace, pouring the molten iron or steel into a mold
of a desired shape, allowing the casting to cool (solidify) in the
mold, removing the casting from the mold, and finishing (grinding and
cleaning) the final cast product. The primary processing units of
interest at iron and steel foundries, because of their potential to
generate HAP emissions, are the following: Metal melting furnaces; mold
and core making lines; pouring, cooling, and shakeout (PCS) lines; and,
if present, scrap preheaters. Melting furnaces primarily emit metal
HAP. The three types of metal melting furnaces are cupolas (a blast-
type furnace), electric arc furnaces, and electric induction furnaces.
Mold and core making and PCS lines primarily emit organic HAP. Molds,
which define the outer shape of the castings, are primarily made of
sand, clay, and water (referred to as ``green sand'') with small
amounts of coke added to maintain a reducing atmosphere and prevent
oxidation of the metal while it is cooling. Cores, which are used to
create internal void spaces in the casting, generally require more
mechanical strength than molds and consist of sand mixed with a
chemical binder to create a hard, durable form for the internal shapes.
Depending on the size and shape of the casting, chemical binders may
also be used in the mold sand to increase the strength of the molds.
Many of the binder systems contain organic solvents, some of which may
volatilize and be emitted when the binder is mixed with the sand (i.e.,
mold and core making emissions). When the molten metal is poured in the
sand molds, the hot metal causes the coke and/or organic chemical
binders in the mold/cores to degrade and pyrolyze, which creates a
variety of organic HAP emissions during the cooling and subsequent
shakeout process (where the hardened casting is removed from the sand
molds).
[[Page 54398]]
The EPA promulgated MACT standards for major source iron and steel
foundries on April 22, 2004, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE (69 FR
21906). The MACT standards established: Particulate matter (PM)
emission limits (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and alternative metal
HAP emission limits for metal melting furnaces; triethylamine emission
limits from phenolic urethane cold box mold and core making operations
and included work practice standards prohibiting methanol to be used as
a specific component of furan (also known as furfuryl alcohol) warm box
mold and core making lines; and organic HAP emission limits for new and
existing cupola melting furnaces and scrap preheaters and for new
automated cooling and shakeout lines. For other ancillary sources at
the foundry, such as casting finishing, the MACT standards include a
building opacity limit. The MACT standards also instituted scrap
selection and inspection requirements to limit the amount of mercury,
lead, chlorinated plastics, and free liquids present in the scrap fed
to metal melting furnaces. There are approximately 45 major source iron
and steel foundries in the United States.
The EPA promulgated GACT standards for area source iron and steel
foundries on January 2, 2008, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ (73
FR 252). The area source standards subcategorized foundries by size.
Existing area source foundries with annual metal melt production of
20,000 tons or less and new area source foundries with annual metal
melt capacity of 10,000 tons or less are defined as ``small''
foundries; area source foundries exceeding these metal melt rates are
defined as ``large'' foundries. Small and large area source iron and
steel foundries are required to operate according to scrap selection
and inspection requirements to limit the amount of mercury, lead,
chlorinated plastics, and free liquids present in the scrap fed to
metal melting furnaces and to operate furan warm box mold and core
making lines without the use of methanol as a component of the catalyst
formulation. The GACT standards for large iron and steel foundries also
include PM emission limits (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and
alternative metal HAP emission limits for metal melting furnaces and
include building opacity limits for other ancillary sources at the
foundry. The GACT standards for metal melting furnaces at area source
foundries are less stringent than the MACT standards for major source
foundries and include an allowance to use emissions averaging. We
estimate there are approximately 390 area source iron and steel
foundries in the United States.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
For the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP RTR, the EPA used emissions
and supporting data from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) as
the primary data to develop the model input files for the residual risk
assessments for major source iron and steel foundries. The NEI is a
database that contains information about sources that emit criteria air
pollutants, their precursors, and HAP. The database includes estimates
of annual air pollutant emissions from point, nonpoint, and mobile
sources in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases
an updated version of the NEI database every 3 years. The NEI includes
data necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP
emissions estimates from individual emission sources at facilities and
the related emissions release parameters. In certain cases, we
contacted state inventory compilers and facility owners or operators to
confirm and clarify the sources of emissions, emissions estimates, and
release parameters that were reported in the NEI. Additional
information on the development of the modeling file can be found in
Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel
Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
For the risk review portion of the RTR, there was no other relevant
background information obtained beyond that used to develop the model
input file as described above. For the technology review portion of the
RTR, we collected information from the Reasonably Available Control
Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC). This is a database that contains
case-specific information on air pollution technologies that have been
required to reduce the emissions of air pollutants from stationary
sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a facility
is planning new construction or a modification that will increase the
air emissions above certain defined thresholds, an NSR permit must be
obtained. The RBLC promotes the sharing of information among permitting
agencies and aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We
examined information contained in the RBLC to determine what
technologies are currently used for these source categories to reduce
air emissions. Additional information about these data collection
activities for the technology reviews is contained in the technology
review memorandum titled Major and Area Source Technology Review for
the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP, which is available in the docket
for this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal. In this proposed action, pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the
EPA is conducting a risk review for the major source NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE) MACT standards. Consistent with the provision
regarding alternative standards for area sources in section CAA
112(d)(5), the risk review does not cover the NESHAP for area sources.
Therefore, the discussions of risk assessment methods and modeling
analyses described in the following paragraphs only apply to the major
source category. However, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is
proposing the technology review for both major source NESHAP and the
area source NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ). Therefore, the
discussions in the paragraphs below regarding how EPA conducted the
technology reviews apply to both major sources and area sources.
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
[[Page 54399]]
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 the 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 1-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \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 proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards
[[Page 54400]]
were promulgated. Where we identify such developments, we analyze their
technical feasibility, estimated costs, energy implications, and non-
air environmental impacts. We also consider the emission reductions
associated with applying each development. This analysis informs our
decision of whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions
standards. In addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying
controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this
exercise, we consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as
described in the eight primary steps below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB in 2009; \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 EPA's initial estimates of actual emissions and the emission
release characteristics for each facility in the major source Iron and
Steel Foundries source category were based on the 2014 NEI. For this
source category, emissions are released from both point and fugitive
emissions sources. An example of a point release is furnace emissions
that are captured by a control device such as a baghouse and released
through a stack. Examples of fugitive releases include uncaptured
emissions from mold making or pouring, cooling, and shakeout operations
that exit the building through a roof vent or other openings. After
compiling the initial emissions estimates from the 2014 NEI, the EPA
posted the draft actual emissions estimates and stack parameters on the
EPA's website to allow stakeholders an opportunity to review the data
and provide corrections, if appropriate. In some cases, state and local
inventory compilers and/or facility representatives were contacted to
confirm or correct emissions that appeared to be outliers that were
otherwise inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or that
were associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening
analyses. Where appropriate, emission values and release
characteristics were corrected, based on revised stack parameter
information provided by the state, local, or facility representative.
These revisions were documented and are included in Appendix 1 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action. Nevertheless,
some uncertainties remain in the emissions estimates used in our
analysis. The annual emission estimates in the NEI are commonly
developed using emission factors (rather than actual measurement data)
and applying the maximum throughput or permitted operating hours, and,
therefore, in some cases, may be conservative (i.e., more likely to be
overestimates versus underestimates of the true actual emissions). When
available, actual source test data may be used to develop a facility-
specific emission rate. Because source test requirements generally
specify testing near maximum capacity, source test data generally
represent upper-end emissions rates. These emission rates are then
generally applied to the permitted operating hours, resulting in high
estimates of the actual annual emissions.
However, there may also be situations where emissions data are
highly uncertain, lacking, or underestimated. For example, the 2014 NEI
emissions estimates relied on by the EPA for this source category are
developed largely by state or local agencies and different states or
local agencies may use different methods to estimate the HAP emissions.
We know there are times that state or local agencies used specific
emissions factors or emissions estimation procedures to account for
some uncaptured fugitive emissions at facilities. These emission
estimates are quite uncertain because it is difficult to measure or
estimate uncaptured fugitive emissions. On the other hand, there may
[[Page 54401]]
be situations where uncaptured fugitive emissions were not estimated
such that these emissions may have been underreported in the 2014 NEI
emission inventory. The EPA requests comments on the adequacy of the
2014 NEI or other available information for estimating uncaptured
fugitive emissions from foundry operations. Additional information on
the development of the model input file for the major source category,
including the development of the actual emissions and emissions release
characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk
Assessment for Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule document,
which is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
Typically, 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.)
As discussed in the prior section, the EPA understands, based on
conversations with state and local inventory developers, that the
emission estimates reported to the NEI are generally the maximum
permitted emissions. Although actual source test data may be used, when
available, to develop a facility-specific emission factor or emissions
rate, the NEI emissions estimates are commonly developed using default
emission factors and the maximum capacity of the plant or maximum
permitted operating hours for the source. Therefore, we think the NEI
emissions for the Iron and Steel Foundries source category are likely
to be more closely representative of allowable emissions than actual
emissions.
Additionally, for many of the sources, there are two potential
emission limits in the NESHAP that the facility may comply with. For
example, there are two alternative emission limits for metal melting
furnaces: One based on PM and one based on metal HAP. Similarly, most
of the organic HAP limits include both a percent reduction standard and
a concentration standard. Given the emission limit alternatives
available in the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP, it is difficult to
assess or ``back-calculate'' the allowable emissions based on the data
reported in the NEI. Because the NEI emissions for this source category
generally reflect the maximum permitted emissions, and because we could
not identify a reasonable alternative approach for developing allowable
emission estimates, we assumed the MACT-allowable emissions were equal
to the estimated actual emissions (as reported to the 2014 NEI along
with the corrections described above). For more information, see
Estimating Allowable and Acute Emission Rates for Major Source Iron and
Steel Foundries document, which is available in the docket for this
proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
We acknowledge that the EPA generally estimates allowable emissions
for RTRs by assuming facilities emit each HAP at the level that would
be allowed by the numerical emissions limits in the NESHAP and assuming
production rates remain at historic typical production levels. However,
we did not use this approach for this proposed RTR because of the
complexities of the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP (described above)
and because we had insufficient data to determine appropriate scale-up
factors for each of the HAP. Therefore, we used the approach described
above to derive estimates of allowable emissions for this proposed
rule. We solicit comments regarding our assumptions, data, and approach
to derive allowable emissions estimates and whether a different method
or approach should be used to calculate allowable emissions.
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 major source category addressed in this
proposal 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 major 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
[[Page 54402]]
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 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 Iron and Steel Foundries Major 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
[[Page 54403]]
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 the
Iron and Steel Foundries Major 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 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 the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category, we
estimated the peak hourly emission rate for each emission point based
on the estimates of annual actual emissions described above (e.g., 2014
NEI annual emissions estimates) and knowledge of the foundry processes.
For foundry emissions sources that operate during the majority of the
foundry operating hours, e.g., melting furnaces and pouring, cooling,
and shakeout line operations, an emission adjustment factor of 4 was
used to estimate a maximum hourly emissions rate from the annual
average actual emissions estimates. For sources that have periodic
emission releases, like tapping and inoculation, we applied the default
factor of 10 because hourly emissions during these periodic operations
are not quantifiable but can be significantly higher than the annual
average emissions from these sources. These acute factors were applied
based on the reported NEI source characterization code for each
emission point. For more information, see Appendix 2 of the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which
is available in the docket for this proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0373). Appendix 2 is titled Estimating Allowable and Acute
Emission Rates for Major Source Iron and Steel Foundries.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site
location. For this source category, the data refinements employed are
discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, 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-
[[Page 54404]]
modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library.
For the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category, we
identified PB-HAP emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM) (of
which polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is a subset), lead
compounds, mercury compounds, cadmium compounds, and arsenic compounds
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 compare the facility-specific emission rates of these
PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to
assess the potential for significant human health risks via the
ingestion pathway. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the
Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission
rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening
value.''
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 the 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 impacted 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 Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control
options under consideration. In these cases, the
[[Page 54405]]
expected emission reductions are applied to the specific HAP and
emission points in the RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding
estimates of risk and incremental risk reductions.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Iron and Steel Foundries major
source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the Iron and
Steel Foundries major source category, we identified emissions of
arsenic, cadmium, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric
chloride), 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, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which
[[Page 54406]]
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 CAA 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
Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset
from that used for the source category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed 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, we
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for
this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide
analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of
source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, 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 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
[[Page 54407]]
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
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 CAA section 112 of the CAA.
The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional
[[Page 54408]]
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, as 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 assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume-rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks. For all tiers of the
multipathway and environmental screening assessments, our approach to
addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose
model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the
influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the
exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a
high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not
identifying high risks for adverse impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The EPA completed an inhalation risk assessment for the major
source Iron and Steel Foundries source category. Table 2 of this
preamble provides a summary of the results of the inhalation risk
assessment for the major source category. More detailed information on
the risk assessment can be found in the risk document titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category
in
[[Page 54409]]
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available
in the docket for this rule.
Table 2--Iron and Steel Foundries Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for Major Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Population at increased risk of cancer Annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum Screening Acute
cancer risk (in-1 ---------------------------------------- incidence (cases noncancer TOSHI Noncancer HQ \4\ based
million) \2\ based per year) based on based on . . . on . . .
Number of facilities \1\ on . . . . . . ----------------------------------------------
--------------------- >=1-in-1 million >=10-in-1 million --------------------
Actual/allowable Actual/allowable Actual/allowable Actual emissions
emissions \3\ emissions emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45...................... 50 (naphthalene, 144,000 6,900 0.02 0.5 (spleen; 1 (arsenic).
benzene). aniline).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of major source facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Actual and allowable emissions are the same for this source category.
\4\ Arsenic REL. The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ
values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ
using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.
The assessment of inhalation risk from exposure to actual emissions
estimates that the increased risk of cancer for the individual most
exposed to emissions from the source category (the MIR) is 50-in-1
million, primarily driven by naphthalene from steel foundries mold and
core making processes and benzene from steel foundries pouring,
cooling, and shakeout processes. The second highest risk facility in
the source category has an estimated maximum risk of slightly less than
50-in-1 million, driven by PAHs and napthalene from iron foundries
pouring, cooling, and shakeout processes. The estimated maximum risk
attributable to emissions of metal HAP (e.g., chromium and nickel) is
30-in-1 million. In total, eight facilities are predicted to pose
cancer risk greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million. The total
estimated cancer incidence due to emissions from this source category
is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case about every 50
years. About 144,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks at or
above 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the sources in this source
category, with 6,900 of those people estimated to have cancer risks
greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million. The estimated maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI due to the sources in the source category is 0.5
(spleen) driven by emissions of aniline compounds from iron foundries
metal melting processes. No individual would have exposures resulting
in a TOSHI at or above 1. See the risk background document referenced
above for details of these analyses.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides the results of the acute
inhalation analysis. Based on actual baseline emissions, the highest
refined screening acute HQ is estimated to be 1 (based on the acute REL
for arsenic compounds from two facilities). The methodology for
conducting the acute assessment included refining the analysis to
ensure that the highest acute exposure was outside facility boundaries.
No facilities are estimated to have an acute HQ based on an REL, AEGL,
or an EPRG greater than 1. By definition, the acute REL represents a
health-protective level of exposure, with effects not anticipated below
those levels, even for repeated exposures.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening and Site-Specific Assessments Results
The PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category include
POM (of which PAH is a subset), lead compounds, mercury compounds,
cadmium compounds and arsenic compounds. To identify potential
multipathway health risks from PB-HAP other than lead, we first
performed a tiered screening assessment based on emissions of PB-HAP
emitted from each facility in the source category.
Of the 45 facilities in the source category, 23 facilities reported
emissions of carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic and POM), and 21 facilities
reported emissions of non-carcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury).
Three facilities' emission rates of POM exceeded the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate by up to a factor of 780. Twelve facilities'
emission rates of arsenic exceeded the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate by up to a factor of 24. For the non-carcinogens, mercury
was emitted at rates that exceeded the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate at nine facilities, with the maximum exceedance by a
factor of 110. Two facilities exceeded the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate for cadmium, with the maximum exceedance by a factor of
5.
For the PB-HAP and facilities that exceeded the Tier 1 multipathway
screening threshold emission rate, we used facility site-specific
information to refine some of the assumptions associated with the local
area around the facilities. While maintaining the exposure assumptions,
we refined the scenario to examine a subsistence fisher and a gardener
separately to develop a Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate. As
described in section III.C.4 of this preamble, the ratio of a
facility's actual emission rate to the screening threshold emission
rate is referred to as a ``screening value.'' The result of this
assessment was the development of site-specific Tier 2 emission
screening values for each of the PB-HAP. Based on this Tier 2 screening
assessment, POM emissions exceeded the cancer screening threshold
emission rate values at two facilities, with maximum Tier 2 screening
value of 14 for the fisher scenario and a screening value of 19 for the
gardener scenario. One facility had a Tier 2 cancer screening value for
arsenic of 4. For mercury, seven facilities' emissions exceeded the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, with the maximum screening
value of 14. No facility exceeded the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate for cadmium. A Tier 3 multipathway screening analysis was
not conducted for this source category. Instead, as noted below, a
site-specific refined analysis was performed.
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 cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, because of the
conservative, or health-protective, assumptions incorporated into the
screening analyses, a screening value represents a
[[Page 54410]]
high-end estimate of what the cancer risk or HQ may be. We choose
inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the
influential parameters used in the screening tiers; and we assume that
the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a
high total exposure.
When tiered screening values for any facility indicate a potential
health risk of concern to the public, we may conduct a more refined
multipathway assessment. A refined or site-specific assessment replaces
many of the assumptions made in the screening assessment with site-
specific information. For this source category, we conducted a site-
specific multipathway assessment for one of the facilities based upon
their mercury emissions. To select the candidate facility for the site-
specific assessment, we examined the facilities with the highest Tier 2
mercury screening values and assessed other site-specific information.
Considering this information, the Cadillac Casting Inc. facility in
Cadillac, Michigan, was selected. We expect that the exposures we
assessed for this facility would be among the highest and therefore be
representative of the highest potential multipathway risk for the
source category.
The site-specific multipathway analysis for mercury estimated a
maximum noncancer HQ of 0.05 from fish ingestion under a scenario where
an adult female angler is consuming fish at the 99th percentile
ingestion rate for a subsistence fisherman. The protocol for developing
the refined site-specific multipathway assessment, input data,
assumptions, and detailed results are presented in the risk document
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and Steel Foundries Major
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway risk from emissions of
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the primary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [micro]g/m\3\). The highest annual lead
concentration of 0.04 [micro]g/m\3\ is well below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating low potential for multipathway risk of concern due to lead
emissions.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.C of this document, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Iron and Steel
Foundries major source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic,
cadmium, 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), arsenic and dioxins/furans emissions had no
Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. Cadmium emissions at
one facility had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (mammalian insectivores) benchmark by a
maximum factor of 2. Divalent mercury emissions at eight facilities had
Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil threshold level (invertebrate
and plant communities) and the sediment threshold level by a maximum
factor of 50. Methyl mercury at 10 facilities had Tier 1 exceedances
for the surface soil NOAEL (avian ground insectivores and mammalian
insectivores), fish NOAEL (avian piscivores), and fish geometric-
maximum-allowable-toxicant-level (GMATL) (avian piscivores) by a
maximum factor of 80. The POM emissions at two facilities had Tier 1
exceedances for the sediment no-effect level, sediment threshold level,
water-column community threshold level, and surface soil NOAEL
(mammalian insectivores) benchmarks by a maximum factor of 50.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for cadmium, divalent
mercury, methyl mercury, and POM. Cadmium, divalent mercury, and methyl
mercury had no Tier 2 exceedances of any ecological benchmark. POM
emissions at one facility had Tier 2 exceedances of a sediment
community no-effect level benchmark by a maximum factor of 5. This
exceedance was identified for Brinker Lake in Waterloo, Iowa. Upon
further evaluation, we found that over half of Brinker Lake is highly
disturbed by a sand and gravel dredge mining operation. Therefore, any
impact to natural lake sediments and sediment communities from the POM
emissions would be minimal in this highly disturbed lake. We looked at
the lake with the next highest exceedance from POM emissions, which is
a lake just to the west of Brinker Lake named George Wythe Lake; this
lake also had an exceedance of the screening value by a factor of 5 for
POM for a sediment community no-effect level benchmark. No other POM
benchmarks were exceeded for POM emissions in Tier 2. Specifically,
none of the other POM sediment community benchmarks were exceeded,
including the threshold level and the probable-effect level. In
addition, no other POM no-effect level evaluated (mammalian piscivores
and mammalian insectivores) was exceeded. Therefore, we do not expect
an adverse environmental effect as a result of the POM emissions.
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.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Based on facility-wide emissions, the estimated inhalation cancer
MIR is 60-in-1 million, mainly driven by the Iron and Steel Foundries
major source category, specifically by naphthalene and benzene from
steel foundries mold and core making processes and by benzene from
steel foundries pouring, cooling, and shakeout processes. The total
estimated cancer incidence from the facility-wide analysis is 0.02
excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 50 years.
Approximately 164,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks at or
above 1-in-1 million, and 7,200 of these people were estimated to have
cancer risks at or above 10-in-1 million, from exposure to HAP emitted
from sources that are part of the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
category and sources that are not part of the source category. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI (neurological) is estimated to be 0.9,
mainly driven by emissions of lead and manganese compound emissions
from non-category fugitive sources. Emissions from non-category sources
are described in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available in the docket for
this action.
6. 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 Iron and Steel
Foundries source category across different
[[Page 54411]]
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions for the population living within
50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Iron and Steel Foundries Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic HI at or
Item Nationwide million due to above 1 due to
iron and steel iron and steel
foundries foundries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.................................... 317,746,049 144,053 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White............................................... 62 66 0
Minority............................................ 38 34 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American.................................... 12 16 0
Native American..................................... 0.8 0.2 0
Hispanic or Latino includes white and nonwhite)..... 18 15 0
Other and Multiracial............................... 7 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level................................. 14 20 0
Above Poverty Level................................. 86 80 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma............. 14 19 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.............. 86 81 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated............................. 6 4 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category
expose approximately 144,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1
million and zero people to a chronic noncancer HI greater than or equal
to 1. The African American population exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million due to iron and steel foundries emissions is 4
percent above the national average. Likewise, populations living
``Below Poverty Level'' and ``Over 25 and without High School Diploma''
are exposed to cancer risk above 1-in-1 million, 6 and 4 percent above
the national average, respectively. The percentages of the at-risk
population in other demographic groups are similar to or lower than
their respective nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Iron and Steel
Foundries, available in the docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). For the Iron and
Steel Foundries major source category, the risk analysis estimates that
the maximum cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 50-in-1
million due to actual emissions or allowable emissions. This risk is
less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation
exposures for the source category is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year,
or one excess case every 50 years. We estimate that approximately
144,000 people face an increased cancer risk greater than or equal to
1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this
source category. The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure, 0.5 (spleen), is less than 1.
The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts
estimates a maximum acute HQ of 1 (due to arsenic) based on the REL.
With regard to multipathway human health risks, we estimate the maximum
cancer risk for the highest exposed individual is 20-in-1 million (due
to POM) and the maximum noncancer chronic HI is less than 1 for all the
PB-HAP.
[[Page 54412]]
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, the EPA proposes that the risks are acceptable. The
estimated cancer risks are below the presumptive limit of
acceptability, and the noncancer risk results indicate there is minimal
likelihood of adverse noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions
from this source category.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied to further reduce the risks
(or potential risks) due to emissions of HAP from the source category.
In this analysis, we considered the results of the technology review,
risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any controls or other measures that would reduce risk
further and would be required to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
Our risk analysis estimates that the maximum individual cancer risk
is 50-in-1 million from the Iron and Steel Foundries major source
category and that 144,000 people may be exposed to cancer risk
exceeding 1-in-1 million. Therefore, we evaluated the sources and HAP
that contribute most to these risks and assessed control options that
would result in reducing these cancer risks. Based on our analysis,
these cancer risks are driven largely by naphthalene, benzene, and PAH
emissions from PCS lines and by naphthalene emissions from mold and
core making operations. However, HAP metals also pose cancer risks, as
described below.
With regard to organic HAP, three potential emission reduction
measures were identified: Low-emitting binder formulations, carbon
adsorption, and thermal oxidizers. In addition, one potential emission
reduction measure for metal HAP was identified: Capture systems
combined with a particulate control device (e.g., scrubber or
baghouse). Our evaluation of these emission reduction options are
discussed below.
a. Low-Emitting Binder Formulations for Organic HAP Emissions Reduction
Low-emitting or ``green'' binder formulations may include inorganic
binder formulations or organic binder formulations with reduced levels
of HAP and/or total organics. Reduced organic HAP content in the
chemical binders leads to reductions in organic HAP emissions from the
mold and core making operations. Organic HAP emissions from PCS lines
are impacted by both the HAP content of the binders and the total
organic content of the binders available for pyrolysis when exposed to
molten metal. Therefore, a binder system with low HAP content but with
a high overall organic content may still have substantial emissions
during the PCS process. Thus, there are some difficulties determining
whether an organic binder system is ``low emitting,'' and testing
generally would be needed to ensure an alternative organic binder
system would reduce emissions for the facility when considering mold
and core making and PCS emissions combined. Inorganic binder systems,
on the other hand, are generally effective at reducing HAP emissions
from both mold and core making operations and PCS lines and may be
considered ``low-emitting'' with limited or no additional testing.
However, inorganic binder systems may not be practical or feasible in
some applications.
Different binder systems exist because of their different
properties and capabilities. The size, shape, and tolerance of the
castings, the production volume, and the environmental conditions
(temperature and humidity) must all be considered when selecting a
binder system. Some binder formulations may have poor performance when
the humidity is high; some may be negatively impacted by high or low
ambient temperatures; some may not have the strength needed for large
castings, while others may be too durable, making them difficult to
separate from the metal castings (increasing shakeout times). Based on
the myriad of conditions impacting binder selection, there is no single
binder system that will work in all applications, and we cannot
determine if a low-emitting binder alternative is available for all
applications. As such, we conclude that it would be inappropriate to
propose a national emissions standard requiring the use of low-emitting
binder systems. We recognize that some facilities may be able to meet
tighter organic HAP emission limits, if established, using low-emitting
binder systems; however, there would likely be cases where low-emitting
binder systems could not meet production performance requirements and,
therefore, other control options might be needed. Therefore, we are not
proposing any requirements based on use of binders to reduce emissions.
However, we solicit comments and data on the potential use of low
emitting binders to reduce organic HAP emissions and whether any such
requirement should be considered for the Iron and Steel Foundries
NESHAP.
b. Carbon Adsorption and Thermal Oxidizers for Organic HAP Emissions
Reduction
Carbon adsorption and thermal oxidizers are both add-on control
measures for organic HAP that we identified and considered for control
of PCS lines during the development of the MACT standard for major
source iron and steel foundries (67 FR 78292). These control systems
are also applicable to mold and core making operations, and we expect
that the design and performance of these controls when applied to mold
and core making operations would be similar to that for PCS lines. The
control efficiency for a carbon adsorption system is typically 90 to 95
percent, while thermal oxidizers typically achieve 98 percent or higher
destruction efficiencies. However, at low concentrations, the control
efficiency of the system generally declines, and the EPA has a long
history of establishing an alternative organic concentration limit of
20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to address cases of low inlet
concentrations. Based on the low organic HAP concentrations observed in
measured emissions from well-captured PCS lines, the EPA established a
volatile organic HAP limit of 20 ppmv in the original NESHAP for
automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines and automated shakeout
lines for new iron and steel foundries that use a sand mold system [40
CFR 63.7690(a)(10)] and did not provide a control efficiency
alternative. Note that this control system is for sources at new iron
and steel foundries where close capture hooding systems can be
integrated into the foundry design. If capture systems are not present
and need to be added to control emissions from existing mold and core
making or PCS lines, we expect the hooding system will be less enclosed
and require more ventilation air to capture the emissions.
Consequently, the inlet organic HAP concentrations are expected to be
less than 100 ppmv going into the control device, which is considered a
relatively low inlet concentration for these types of control devices.
We reviewed the 2014 NEI data and developed aggregate organic HAP
emission estimates for each foundry from their mold and core making and
PCS lines. We estimated that total volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions were approximately 1.5 times the organic HAP emissions. We
then
[[Page 54413]]
developed four differently sized model control systems to span the
range of emissions observed in the NEI data. In this screening
analysis, we developed a single control system for the aggregate
emissions from mold and core making and PCS lines. In practice, these
emission sources may be a large distance apart, and it may not be
practical to employ a single control system for the aggregate
emissions. However, for a screening assessment, we conclude this
assumption represents the most cost-effective control scenario. If the
cost for the aggregate control system is determined to be not cost
effective under this scenario, we can conclude with confidence that
separate control systems for mold and core making and PCS lines would
also not be cost effective.
The capital investment and total annualized costs for four
differently sized carbon adsorption and thermal oxidizer control
systems (both recuperative and regenerative) were developed using the
recently updated chapters of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual.22 23 24 These model plant control systems were
assigned to each major source iron and steel foundry based on their
reported 2014 NEI emissions. The emission reductions for each facility
were estimated assuming the carbon adsorption system would achieve 90-
percent control efficiency and that the thermal oxidizer would achieve
greater than 99-percent control efficiency. Based on the inlet
concentrations expected, particularly for a retrofit control system
where close capture hooding may not be feasible, the assumed emission
reductions serve as an upper-range estimate. It is likely that the
exhaust concentration of organic HAP would be less than 100 ppmv, so
that meeting the 20-ppmv emissions limit in the current NESHAP would
only require 80- percent, or less, emissions reduction. Nonetheless, we
assumed an upper-range emission reduction for this analysis because
this assumption would yield lower cost-effectiveness values. If the
control system is not cost effective using these upper-range emission
reduction estimates, we can conclude that the control systems for mold
and core making and PCS lines would not be cost effective when applied
to the actual facilities, which are expected to have low inlet organic
HAP concentrations and likely lower required control efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Carbon Adsorbers. Section 3.1, Chapter 1 as revised for the
7th Edition of EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. October 2018.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/final_carbonadsorberschapter_7thedition.pdf.
\23\ Incinerators and Oxidizers. Section 3.2, Chapter 2 as
revised for the 7th Edition of EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual. November 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/oxidizersincinerators_chapter2_7theditionfinal.pdf.
\24\ All costs provided in this section are in 2017 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis indicated that the cost effectiveness, measured in
dollars per ton, was significantly lower for the carbon adsorption
control system compared to both the recuperative and regenerative
thermal oxidizer control systems. The nationwide total capital
investment for carbon adsorption control systems was estimated to be
$27 million spread across 25 facilities which reported organic HAP
emissions from these sources.\25\ The nationwide total capital
investment for recuperative thermal oxidizer control systems was
similar, estimated to be $30 million for the 25 facilities. However,
the total annualized costs (including capital recovery) for the thermal
oxidizer system are about 3 times that of the carbon adsorption system
($17 million versus $5.8 million) due to higher variable operating and
maintenance costs. Specifically, the low organic concentrations in the
exhaust stream to be controlled require high consumption rates of
auxiliary fuel to maintain appropriate combustion temperatures for the
recuperative thermal oxidizer system. In contrast, a regenerative
thermal oxidizer system has better thermal efficiencies and can reduce
the total annualized costs to $12 million, but requires a total capital
investment of $70 million. Consequently, since emissions reductions
were assumed to be similar for any of these control systems, the
average cost effectiveness of carbon adsorption control systems
($12,700 per ton of organic HAP removed) was estimated to be
significantly lower than for either recuperative or regenerative
thermal oxidizer control systems ($26,000 to $37,000 per ton). For more
detail regarding the cost estimates, see Control Cost Estimates for
Organic HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The other 20 major source facilities in our dataset did not
report any emissions of organic HAP from these processes. Therefore,
we assumed those 20 facilities could comply with this control option
without additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to risk reductions, we estimate that application of
carbon adsorption requirements to the source category would reduce the
MIR from 50-in-1 million to 30-in-1 million, the number of people with
risks >= 10-in-1 million would be reduced from 6,900 to 400, and the
number of people with risks >= 1-in-1 million would be reduced from
144,000 to 42,000. Under this control scenario the primary remaining
risk drivers would be HAP metals since the organic HAP would be reduced
significantly by the carbon adsorption systems.
Based on our analysis, we propose to conclude that these control
systems are not cost effective for this source category for the
following reasons. First, our estimated control costs, which represent
a best-case (i.e., most cost effective) scenario, are relatively high
while the reductions in risks that would be achieved by those controls
are moderate. In addition, a number of facilities are small businesses,
and we estimate that at least one small business would likely incur
costs exceeding 2 percent of their annual revenue, which would likely
result in negative impacts for this business. Nevertheless, we solicit
comments and data regarding our analyses described above and we solicit
comments regarding our proposed determination that these controls are
not cost effective.
c. Capture and Particulate Control Devices for Metal HAP Emissions
Reduction
While the highest cancer risk was due to organic HAP, our risk
analysis also indicated that metal HAP emissions sources at four
facilities result in cancer risk to the individual most exposed greater
than 10-in-1 million and that 42,000 (of the 144,000 people for the
entire source category) may have cancer risks exceeding 1-in-1 million
due to metal HAP emissions. Therefore, we also evaluated these metal
HAP emission sources and assessed control options that would result in
reducing these cancer risks. The foundry emission sources that
contributed to these elevated cancer risks from metal HAP include scrap
charging, alloy addition, and molten metal transfers. The emissions
from these sources that are driving most of the estimated risks for HAP
metals are ``fugitive'' emissions which are typically emitted through
open roof vents and are currently subject to the building opacity limit
in the NESHAP. Reducing these emissions for these metal HAP sources
would require installing and operating capture systems (e.g., hooding,
duct work, fans, etc.) that direct the emissions to a particulate
control device (e.g., scrubber or baghouse). In some applications, an
existing particulate control device may have adequate capacity for
handling the additional gas stream load, but in general, we expect that
a new particulate control device would be
[[Page 54414]]
required due to the relatively large volumes of air that may need to be
collected. As most iron and steel foundries use baghouse control
systems for their PM control, we estimated the costs based on
installing new hooding, duct work, fans, and a relatively small
baghouse.
Initially, we evaluated a requirement for all facilities to capture
and control these fugitive metal HAP emission sources. The average
metal HAP emissions for foundries from these fugitive emission sources
are estimated to be 0.18 tpy based on the NEI data. We estimated the
capital investment and total annualized costs for two differently sized
baghouse capture and control systems using the methods provided in the
6th Edition of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \26\ and we
assumed approximately half of the foundries could control their sources
using the smaller baghouse capture and control system and the other
half of the foundries would need the larger capture and control system.
The nationwide total capital investment for all major source foundries
to install metal HAP capture and control systems was estimated to be
$23 million; the total annualized costs (including capital recovery)
for the metal HAP control systems were estimated to be $6 million.\27\
The nationwide metal HAP emissions reduction, assuming an aggregate
capture and control efficiency of 90 percent, was estimated to be 4.64
tpy for an average cost effectiveness of $1.3 million per ton of metal
HAP removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Baghouses and Filters. Section 6, Chapter 1 (chapter dated
December 1998). EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. 6th Edition.
EPA/452/B-02-001. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
\27\ Costs are reported in 2017 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the NEI data, we observed that many
foundries had very limited estimated metal HAP emissions from these
fugitive sources. The EPA has concluded this is mainly because some
foundries, particularly grey iron, do not use metal alloying. Many of
these foundries may also use cupola furnaces, which are continuous
melting furnaces. It is easier to control emissions during scrap
charging for these furnaces compared to other types of furnaces used at
foundries. Therefore, we also considered a regulatory option that would
require only foundries that perform alloying with metal HAP or that
otherwise produce casting with high metal HAP content to control the
metal HAP emission sources. Under this scenario, we estimated that the
average metal HAP emissions from these fugitive emission sources are
0.29 tpy. The nationwide total capital investment for a targeted rule
requiring metal HAP capture and control systems for foundries with
higher metal HAP alloys was estimated to be $13 million; the total
annualized costs for (including capital recovery) the metal HAP control
systems were estimated to be $3.3 million. The nationwide metal HAP
emissions reduction, assuming an aggregate capture and control
efficiency of 90 percent, was estimated to be 4.16 tpy for an average
cost effectiveness of $790,000 per ton of metal HAP removed. For more
detail regarding these cost estimates for the metal HAP control
systems, see Control Cost Estimates for Metal HAP Emissions from Iron
and Steel Foundries, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
With regard to risk reductions, we estimate that application of
either of these two improved capture and control of HAP metals
described above would reduce the MIR due to HAP metals from 30-in-1
million to about 3-in-1 million. However, the overall MIR for the
source category would still be 50-in-1 million due to organic HAP, as
described above. With regard to population exposures, we estimate that
the number of people with risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1
million would only be reduced slightly (e.g., 6,900 to 6,500), and
number of people with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
would be reduced from 144,000 to about 100,000 if we were to require
metal HAP emissions reductions.
Based on consideration of the costs and cost effectiveness of both
the organic HAP and metal HAP emission control systems, consideration
of potential impacts to small businesses, the moderate risk reductions
that would be achieved, and the uncertainties in the emissions
estimates (as described in sections III.C.1 and 2 of this preamble), we
propose that the Iron and Steel Foundries major source NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect health and we are not proposing
any changes to the NESHAP based on the risk review. Nevertheless, we
solicit comments and data regarding our analyses described above.
Additionally, we solicit comments regarding whether it would be
appropriate to require the controls for organic HAP and/or metal HAP
described above, and, if so, why, and we also solicit comments
regarding our proposed determination that the current NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
As described in sections III.A and IV.A.4 of this preamble, we
conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries major source category for the following pollutants:
Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl
mercury and mercuric chloride), and POM. As explained in section IV.A
of this preamble, based on our analyses, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy,
safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of potential
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the major source and area source NESHAP were
promulgated in 2004 and 2008, respectively. In conducting the
technology review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding
the emissions from iron and steel foundries. We conducted separate but
similar reviews for the Iron and Steel Foundries major source category
and the two area source categories. The reviews included a search of
the RBLC database, reviews of air permits for iron and steel foundries,
and a review of relevant literature, including international best
practices. We reviewed these data sources for information on practices,
processes, and control technologies that were not considered during the
development of the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since development of the Iron and Steel
Foundries NESHAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes or control
technologies to further reduce emissions from major source iron and
steel foundries under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE. Furthermore, as
part of our technology review for major sources, we considered the same
controls and measures described above in section IV.B.2 of this
preamble (i.e., in the ample margin of safety analysis), including low-
emitting
[[Page 54415]]
binder formulations, carbon adsorption, and thermal oxidizers for
control of organic HAP and improved capture systems with new baghouses
for the metal HAP emissions. The costs, cost effectiveness, and other
considerations for these four control scenarios for major sources are
described in detail in section IV.B.2 of this preamble. As discussed in
section IV.B.2 of this preamble, we also considered revisions in the
cost algorithms for carbon adsorption systems and thermal oxidizers in
our assessment of control options to reduce organic HAP emissions. We
did not identify any improvements in performance of these control
systems for major sources, and our updated cost analysis continues to
demonstrate that these control systems are not cost effective for
existing sources in this major source category, largely due to the
dilute nature of the organic HAP emission streams. Further details
regarding our technology review for major source iron and steel
foundries are available in the memorandum titled: Major Source
Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP, which is
available in the docket for this proposed action.
With regard to area sources, we did not identify any developments
in practices, processes or control technologies to those evaluated
during the development of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ. Specifically,
we did not identify any improvements in performance of metal HAP
control systems used for area source iron and steel foundries or any
significant change in the control costs for these systems.
Consequently, we concluded that the analyses of control options
conducted in 2008 to support the development of metal HAP emission
limits in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, are still comprehensive and
valid today, and that the rationale and conclusions supporting the
final area source metal HAP emission limits are still appropriate. We
did not specifically evaluate or calculate the costs, cost
effectiveness, feasibility, or economic impacts of the four control
scenarios detailed in section IV.B.2 of this preamble for area sources.
However, since we conclude these controls and measures are either not
feasible and/or not cost effective for major sources, we conclude they
would also not be feasible and/or not cost effective for area sources
since area sources typically have lower emissions than the major
sources and a larger percent of area sources are likely to be small
businesses. Further details regarding our technology review for area
source iron and steel foundries are available in the memorandum titled:
Area Source Technology Review for the Iron and Steel Foundries NESHAP,
which is available in the docket for this proposed action.
Based on the technology review described above, we determined that
there are no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that necessitate revisions to the NESHAP for major source
Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE) or the NESHAP
for area source Iron and Steel Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZZ). Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to these NESHAP
based our technology review. We solicit comments and data regarding our
technology review analyses described above and our proposed
determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are warranted based on
our technology review.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the NESHAP to require the use of electronic
reporting of performance test reports and semiannual reports. We also
are proposing to correct section reference errors and make other minor
editorial revisions. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, section 112 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.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in both Iron
and Steel Foundries NESHAP which appears at 40 CFR 63.7746 and Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 (Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart EEEEE) and in Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63
(Applicability of General Provisions to New and Existing Affected
Sources Classified as Large Foundries). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are also proposing several revisions to Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE as
is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
During periods where the process is in startup or shutdown, the
emission controls used should still provide HAP emissions control. For
example, emissions from a melting furnace can be directed to a baghouse
while the melting furnace is undergoing startup or shutdown. Similarly,
a triethylamine scrubber or carbon adsorption system can be operational
while the emission source being controlled is undergoing startup or
shutdown. The one potential exception to this is the afterburner used
to control organic HAP emissions from a cupola. The cupola afterburner
control system is primarily designed to burn the carbon monoxide
emitted as a result of the combustion of coke under oxygen limited
conditions during normal process operations. Most cupola afterburner
systems rely on the heat input from carbon monoxide in the cupola's
off-gas to maintain incineration temperatures. During startup of the
cupola, complete combustion of natural gas or other fuels are used to
preheat the cupola furnace. While the combustion of the startup fuels
do not generate adequate carbon monoxide to maintain incineration
temperatures in the afterburner section of the cupola, the complete
combustion of the startup fuels will not generate organic HAP
emissions. Therefore, we are proposing that foundry owners or operators
can
[[Page 54416]]
comply with the complete combustion limits (20-ppmv organic HAP limit)
during cupola startup even though the cupola afterburner is not
operating at the same temperature as it does during normal operations.
We understand that there will be a transition period when the cupola
startup operation shifts from a complete (oxygen rich) combustion mode
to a partial (oxygen limited) combustion mode when the cupola
afterburner temperature may not be sufficient to ensure full combustion
of the organic HAP that may be produced during this transition.
However, this transition period is expected to be short relative to the
3-hour averaging period of the organic HAP emissions limit. Therefore,
we are proposing that it is not necessary to provide alternative
standards for periods of startup or shutdown. We request comment on the
need for alternative standards during startup and shutdown. Commenters
should provide data demonstrating that an alternative standard is
necessary and provide suggestions regarding recommended alternative
emission limitations and monitoring parameters that ensure compliance
with the alternative emission limitations.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources
``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be
calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in
setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the
Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is
not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as the type of
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to
consider such events in setting CAA section 112 standards. Similarly,
although standards for area sources are not required to be set based on
``best performers,'' the EPA is not required to consider malfunctions
in determining what is ``generally available.''
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 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 considers whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether sufficient information is available to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction in the
foundry operations will result in a violation of the standard because
the air pollution control equipment used to control the emissions from
the process would still be operating. If the malfunction occurs in the
pollution control equipment, the iron and steel foundry operator should
discontinue process operations until such time that the air pollution
control systems are operable in order to comply with the requirements
to minimize emissions and operate according to good air pollution
practices. In general, process operations should be able to be shutdown
quickly enough to avoid a
[[Page 54417]]
violation of an emissions limitation. However, a malfunction in the
control equipment could result in a violation of the standard depending
on how quickly emissions decline upon process shut down. For example,
once molten metal is poured into molds, the molds can emit organic HAP
for several hours while they are cooling. Thus, even though process
operations may be shut down immediately (e.g., no more molten metal is
poured into molds once the organic HAP control system malfunctions),
the emissions may continue and a deviation may occur as a result. In
this case, foundry owners or operators must report the deviation, the
quantity of HAP emitted over the emissions limit, the cause of the
deviation, and the corrective action taken to limit the emissions
during the event.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) of
40 CFR part 63 to provide a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) and
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Additionally, we are
proposing to revise the current 40 CFR 63.10890(i) by re-designating it
to 40 CFR 63.10890(j) and removing the reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e).
Section 63.10890(i) currently contains a summary of the General
Provision sections that apply to affected sources classified as small
foundries (similar to the Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 for
affected sources classified as large foundries). Section 63.6(e)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions and requirements for
an SSM plan. Some of the language in that section is no longer
necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. For 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, we are proposing to
revise general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7710(a) to eliminate
the reference to 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) but maintain the general duty to
``. . . operate the foundry in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
levels required by this subpart.'' We are also proposing to delete the
phrase ``. . ., except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction'' from 40 CFR 63.7720(a) and to delete and reserve 40 CFR
63.7746(b), which states that deviations during periods of SSM are not
violations if the source was operating in accordance to 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1). For 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, we are proposing to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.10890(i) for affected sources
classified as small foundries and at 40 CFR 63.10896(c) for affected
sources classified as large foundries that reflects the general duty to
minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered
by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With
the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing in 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
Similarly, 40 CFR 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 revised or added in 40 CFR part
63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ.
b. SSM Plan
In our proposed revisions of Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63
and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 to provide a separate entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no,'' we are
also proposing that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) does not apply. Generally, the
paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan
and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary. We are also proposing to delete and reserve 40 CFR
63.7720(c) that details the requirement to prepare the SSM plan and to
revise the definition of ``off blast'' to remove reference to the SSM
plan.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) to
provide a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and changing the ``yes''
in column 3 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 vacated the exemptions
contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires that some
CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra
Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at
all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h) to provide separate entries for 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2)-(9). We are proposing to change the
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) to include a ``no'' in column 3. The
current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held
that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112
[[Page 54418]]
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times. In a
related amendment, the EPA is proposing to revise the definition of
``deviation'' in both 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, to
remove subsection (3) that describes deviations during periods of SSM.
Since the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at
all times, the distinction described in subsection (3) is no longer
relevant.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) to
add a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and change the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.7732(a)
and 40 CFR 63.10898(c) to add a performance testing requirement to test
under representative conditions. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.7732(a) and 40 CFR 63.10898(c) to remove the reference to 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and language that
precluded startup and shutdown periods from being considered
``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The proposed
performance testing provisions do not allow performance testing during
startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests
conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance
test'' available to the Administrator upon request but does not
specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and
including a ``no'' in column 3. The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add provisions to subpart EEEEE at 40 CFR 63.7752(b)(2)
and to subpart ZZZZZ at 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(14) that is identical to 40
CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan as required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2)(vi).''
The monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 63.10897(g) require owners or
operators to restore normal operations as quickly as possible when
monitoring demonstrates a deviation of an emission limit (including an
operating limit). The EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.10897(g) to remove reference to minimizing periods of SSM. We
consider this to be redundant to the requirement to take ``any
necessary corrective action to restore normal operations and prevent
the likely recurrence of the exceedance'' and is irrelevant since the
EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all
times, including periods of SSM.
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) by
adding a separate entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v)
and including a ``no'' in column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes
the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These
recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal
operations 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. Consequently, we are
also proposing additional revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE
and ZZZZZ, to remove SSM-related records. First, we are proposing to
replace the SSM recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.7752(a)(2),
which refers to records specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3), with
requirements to keep records of maintenance performed on air pollution
control and monitoring equipment as required by 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iii). Second, we are proposing to revise the recordkeeping
requirement at 40 CFR 63.7752(b)(4) to remove the records needed to
indicate whether deviation of a continuous emission monitoring system
occurred during periods of SSM. Third, we are proposing to revise the
recordkeeping requirement at 40 CFR 63.10899(b) to revise the general
reference to records required by 40 CFR 63.10 to specify that only
records required by 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iii), (vi) through (xiv), and
(b)(3) are necessary.
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements
during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to
40 CFR 63.7752(d) and to 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(15). 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 requirements to 40 CFR
63.7752(d) and to 40 CFR 63.10899(b)(15) that sources keep records that
include a list of the affected source or equipment and actions taken to
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information
[[Page 54419]]
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.
Section 63.10(b)(2)(iv), when applicable, 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
the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 63.7752(d) and in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(15).
Section 63.10(b)(2)(v), when applicable, 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 table for major
source foundries (Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63) by moving the
reference to 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) to include it with an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(c)(7) and (8) that includes a ``no'' in column 3. The EPA is
proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable,
the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's
SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of
the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing
to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be
required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any
useful purpose for affected units. The General Provisions table for
area source foundries (Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63) already
indicates that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does not apply, so the EPA is not
proposing to revise the designation in column 3 for this entry.
However, based on the additional records specified in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(15), the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.10(c)(7)
and (8) are redundant and no longer necessary. Therefore, we are
proposing to include a single entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c) in Table 3 to
Subpart ZZZZZ that includes a ``no'' in column 3.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions tables (Table 1
to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63 and Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no'' and to delete and reserve 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(4) and (c), which
cross-references the 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) reporting requirements. 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 63.7751(b)(7) and (8) and 40 CFR 63.10899(c).
The replacement language differs from the General Provisions
requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that requires sources that fail to
meet an applicable standard at any time to report the information
concerning such events in the semiannual report already required under
this rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the 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 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. For
example, both 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ require foundry
owners or operators to prepare and operate according to a site-specific
operating and maintenance plan for each control device and continuous
monitoring system associated with that control device and to maintain
records documenting conformance with these requirements and the added
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7751(b)(7) and (8), as well as 40
CFR 63.10899(c) to include reporting of specific deviations.
The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii), which describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We 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
plans would no longer be required.
We are also proposing to revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) in
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63 by changing the ``yes'' in column 3
to ``no.'' Given the additions to the reporting requirements as
described above, we are also proposing to include all relevant
deviation reporting requirements directly in 40 CFR 63.10899(c), rather
than relying on cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3). These edits are
not expected to alter the reporting burden; however, the direct
inclusion of the 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) reporting requirements into 40 CFR
63.10899(c) will provide clarity of the reporting requirements to area
source foundry owners and operators. We note that 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE, directly includes these reporting elements and indicates
that 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) does not apply, so no revision to this entry is
required for the major source foundry NESHAP.
2. Electronic Reporting
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of iron and steel foundries submit electronic copies of
required initial notifications, performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-2019-0373. The proposed
rule requires that performance test results collected using test
methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
as
[[Page 54420]]
listed on the ERT website \28\ at the time of the test be submitted in
the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other
performance test results be submitted in portable document format (PDF)
using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semiannual 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 templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\29\ As
part of these revisions, we are also proposing that the semiannual
mercury switch removal report, currently described in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(2)(ii), must be included as part of the semiannual
compliance report. Currently, the semiannual mercury switch removal
report may be submitted as a standalone report or as part of the
semiannual compliance report. Therefore, to aide in the electronic
reporting of mercury switch removal when a site-specific plan for
mercury is used, we are proposing to move the reporting in 40 CFR
63.10899(b)(2)(ii) to the semiannual compliance report requirements
included under 40 CFR 63.10899(c). The EPA specifically requests
comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Iron_Steel_Foundry_Semiannual_Template_EEEEE_Draft and
Iron_Steel_Foundry_Area_Sources_Semiannual_Template_ZZZZZ_Draft
available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7751(h) and
40 CFR 63.10899(f). 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 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 63.7751(i) and 40 CFR 63.10899(g). Examples of
such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment
failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \30\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \31\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\32\ 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 Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-2019-0373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\31\ 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.
\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also proposing to amend the implementation and
enforcement delegations addressed in 40 CFR 63.7761(c) and 40 CFR
63.10905(c) to stipulate that the authority to approve any alternative
to any electronic reporting cannot be delegated.
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
The EPA is proposing one additional editorial correction for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart EEEEE, as follows.
Revise 40 CFR 63.7732(e)(1) to correct the reference to
``paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v)'' to be ``paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
through (v).''
The EPA is also proposing additional changes that address technical
and editorial corrections for 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ as follows.
Revise 40 CFR 63.10885(a)(1) to add the sentence: ``Any
post-consumer engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily
turnings that are processed and/or cleaned to the extent practicable
such that the materials do not include lead components, mercury
switches, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids can be included
in this certification.'' This provision was added to the major source
NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7700(b) in the 2008 amendments (73 FR 7218) shortly
after the area source NESHAP was promulgated. The requirements in 40
CFR 63.10885(a)(1) were developed based on the provisions in 40 CFR
63.7700(b) and this provision for major source iron and steel foundries
should also apply to area source iron and steel foundries.
Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec. 63.9(h)(1)(i)'' to be ``Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i).''
Revise 40 CFR 63.10890(f) to correct the reference to
``Sec. 63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec. 63.13.''
Revise 40 CFR 63.10897(d)(3) and (g) to replace all
instances of ``correction action'' with ``corrective action'' to
correct typographical errors.
Revise 40 CFR 63.10899(c) to correct the reference to
``Sec. 63.10(e)'' to be ``Sec. 63.13.''
Revise the entry for 40 CFR 63.9 in Table 3 to Subpart
ZZZZZ to add an explanation in column 4 to read ``Except for opacity
performance tests.'' This explanation was included in the major source
NESHAP in Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE but was inadvertently not included
in the area source NESHAP. This proposed amendment relieves area source
foundries of providing notifications of semiannual opacity
[[Page 54421]]
observations of fugitive emissions from buildings or structures housing
foundry operations.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
We are proposing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ. As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that
initial notifications, performance test results, performance evaluation
reports, and the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted
electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for
SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop
and implement an SSM plan.
Our experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
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. Therefore, we are proposing 6
months to transition the periodic reports to electronic reporting
through CEDRI. For performance tests, most stack testing contractors
already have electronic reporting capabilities and have used EPA's
electronic reporting system. Therefore, we are proposing that
performance test reports and performance evaluation reports be
submitted electronically for tests conducted after the effective date
of the final rule. These reports are due within 60 days of the
completion of the performance test so facilities will have up to 60
days (and generally longer since the performance test and performance
evaluations are required annually or once every 5 years). We are
proposing that the elimination of SSM exemptions will become effective
on the effective date of the rule. We understand that the regulated
facility generally requires some time period 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.
However, most foundry processes are batch processes, so the control
systems are designed to accommodate differing operations, including
startup and shutdown. We do not expect that the proposed SSM revisions
will require any new control systems and very few, if any, operational
changes. Additionally, much of the revisions are eliminating additional
records and reports related to SSM. These changes can be implemented
quickly by the foundry owner or operator at no cost (and likely some
cost savings) and if these records are still collected after the final
rule is promulgated, the facility will still be in compliance with the
proposed requirements. Finally, this proposal serves to provide
notification to the iron and steel foundry industry of the EPA's intent
to require compliance with the applicable standards at all times,
including periods of SSM, and the evaluations and adjustments needed to
comply with the standards at all times can be conducted based on this
proposal. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to require compliance with
the SSM revisions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts EEEEE and ZZZZZ, upon
the effective date of the final rules. We solicit comment on this
proposed compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are approximately 45 major source iron and steel foundries
and approximately 390 area source iron and steel foundries affected by
this proposal. In this proposal, we have included editorial
corrections, electronic reporting requirements, and changes in policies
regarding SSM. Because we are proposing no new requirements or controls
in this RTR, no iron and steel foundries are adversely impacted by
these proposed revisions. In fact, the impacts to iron and steel
foundries from this proposal are expected to be minimal.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
Because we are not proposing revisions to the emission limitations,
we do not anticipate any quantifiable air quality impacts as a result
of the proposed amendments. However, we anticipate that the proposed
requirements, including the removal of the SSM exemption and addition
of periodic emissions testing, may reduce some unquantified emissions
by ensuring proper operation of control devices during SSM periods.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We expect that the proposed amendments will have minimal cost
impacts for iron and steel foundries. The proposed editorial
corrections will have no cost impacts. The proposed revisions to use
electronic reporting effectively replace existing requirements to mail
in copies of the required reports and notifications. We expect that the
electronic system will save some time and expense compared to printing
and mailing the required reports and notifications; however, it will
take some time for foundry owners and operators to review the new
electronic notification and reporting form, review their recordkeeping
processes, and potentially revise their processes to more efficiently
complete their semiannual reports. There may also be initial costs
associated with electronic reporting of performance tests. We are also
proposing revisions to SSM provisions. Again, these revisions are
expected to have minimal impact on affected iron and steel foundries.
For major source iron and steel foundries, we are eliminating the need
to develop a SSM plan or submit an immediate SSM report when the SSM
plan is not followed and there is an exceedance of an applicable
emission limitation. While this may reduce some burden, iron and steel
foundry owners and operators will still need to assess their operations
and make plans to achieve the emission limitations at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
We estimate the initial one-time costs associated with the proposed
electronic reporting and SSM revisions would be $96,000 for the 45
major source iron and steel foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE, or approximately $2,130 per major source foundry. For
area source foundries subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ, we
estimate the total initial one-time costs would be $375,000 for the 390
area sources. The average one-time cost for an area source foundry
classified as a small area source foundry is estimated to be $732 per
[[Page 54422]]
foundry; the average one-time cost for an area source foundry
classified as a large area source foundry is estimated to be $1,920 per
foundry. Once electronic reporting is adopted, we expect costs savings
to be realized for the ongoing report submissions. We estimate that a
reduction in the time to prepare and submit semiannual reports of 1 to
2 hours per report would off-set the initial one-time costs within the
first 3 years after implementation of the electronic reporting.
Consequently, we consider the cost impacts associated with the proposed
electronic reporting provisions to be minimal. Also, we expect there
would only be a small number of immediate SSM reports each year, so
that the cost savings associated with eliminating the immediate SSM
reports each year would be under $500 nationwide. Consequently, we
estimate the total one-time cost impacts of the proposed electronic
reporting and SSM revisions will be approximately $470,000 across all
foundries (area and major sources) and that these costs will largely be
offset within the first 3 years of implementation.
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 costs associated
with the proposed revisions are minimal, no significant economic
impacts from the proposed amendments are anticipated.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate any significant reductions in
HAP emissions as a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that
the action, if finalized as proposed, would result in improvements to
the rule. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise the standards
such that they apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed
amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial notifications,
performance test results, and semiannual reports will increase the
usefulness of the data, are in keeping with current trends of data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated community. See section IV.D.3 of this preamble for more
information.
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/stationary-sources-air-pollution/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. 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-2019-0373 (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/iron-and-steel-foundries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
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 Regulation 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, as described for each
source category covered by this proposal in sections C.1 and C.2 below.
1. Iron and Steel Foundries Major Sources
The information collection request (ICR) document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2096.07. 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 iron and steel foundries major
source facilities. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries major source facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEEE).
Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).
Frequency of response: Initial, semiannual, and annual.
[[Page 54423]]
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 15,000 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 $1,400,000 (per year), which includes $206,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
2. Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2267.05. 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 iron and steel foundries area
source facilities. This information would be collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZ.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of iron and
steel foundries area source facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZZ).
Estimated number of respondents: 390 (total), 75 of these are
classified as large iron and steel foundries and 315 are classified as
small iron and steel foundries.
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 14,400 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 $1,150,000 (per year); there are no annualized capital
or operation and maintenance costs.
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 November 8, 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 an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian Tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 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's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Iron and
Steel Foundries Major Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for
this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not 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 rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test'' was previously
approved for incorporation by reference into Sec. 63.10885 and no
changes are proposed.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.3
of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near the
Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category, which is located in the
public docket for this action.
We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, source category
across different social, demographic, and economic groups within the
populations living near facilities identified as having the highest
risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are
included in the technical report, Risk and
[[Page 54424]]
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near the Iron and Steel Foundries Source Category, available in
the docket for this action.
The results of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEE, source category
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the Iron and Steel
Foundries major source category expose approximately 144,000 people to
a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and none exposed to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population in each demographic group (except for ``African American,''
``Below Poverty Level,'' and ``Over 25 and without High School
Diploma'') are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide
percentages. The African American population exposed to a cancer risk
at or above 1-in-1 million due to iron and steel foundries major source
emissions is 4 percent above the national average. Likewise,
populations living ``Below Poverty Level'' and ``Over 25 and without
High School Diploma'' are exposed to cancer risk above 1-in-1 million,
6 and 4 percent above the national average, respectively.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 13, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart EEEEE--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries
0
2. Section 63.7710 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7710 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must always operate and maintain your iron and steel
foundry, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a
manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.7720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7720 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart at all times.
* * * * *
(c) [Reserved]
0
4. Section 63.7732 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and revising
paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7732 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
iron and steel foundry based on your selected compliance alternative,
if applicable, according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through
(i) of this section. Each performance test must be conducted under
conditions representative of normal operations. Normal operating
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Determine the VOHAP concentration for each test run according
to the test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, that are specified
in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.7746 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7746 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
* * * * *
(b) [Reserved]
0
6. Section 63.7751 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(6) through (8);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (e) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7751 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was inoperable or out-of-control as
specified by Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods
during which the CPMS was inoperable or out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(7) For each affected source or equipment for which there was a
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit,
work practice standard, or operation and maintenance requirement) that
occurs at an iron and steel foundry during the reporting period, the
compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section. This requirement includes
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) A list of the affected source or equipment and the total
operating time of each emissions source during the reporting period.
(ii) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit, work practice standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement) that occurs at an iron and steel foundry during the
reporting period, report:
(A) The date, start time, duration (in hours), and cause of each
deviation (characterized as either startup, shutdown, control equipment
problem, process problem, other known cause, or unknown cause, as
applicable) and the corrective action taken; and
(B) 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.
(iii) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of
deviations during the reporting period across all causes both in hours
and as a percent of
[[Page 54425]]
the total source operating time during the reporting period.
(8) For each continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or
CEMS) used to comply with the emissions limitation or work practice
standard in this subpart that was inoperable or out-of-control during
any portion of the reporting period, you must include the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (vi) of this section. This
requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system,
including manufacturer and model number.
(ii) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(iii) A brief description and the total operating time of the
affected source or equipment that is monitored by the continuous
monitoring system during the reporting period.
(iv) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(v) For each period for which the continuous monitoring system was
inoperable or out-of-control during the reporting period, report:
(A) The date, start time, and duration (in hours) of the deviation;
(B) The type of deviation (inoperable or out-of-control); and
(C) The cause of deviation (characterized as monitoring system
malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes, and unknown causes,
as applicable) and the corrective action taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
monitoring system malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions,
quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and
unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of deviations during the
reporting period across all causes both in hours and as a percent of
the total source operating time during the reporting period.
(c) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(e) Compliance report submission requirements. Prior to [DATE 6
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit semiannual compliance reports to the
Administrator as specified in Sec. 63.13. Beginning on [DATE 6 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
you must submit all subsequent semiannual compliance reports to the EPA
via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (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 date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in 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 or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on
the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in
this paragraph.
(f) Performance test results submission requirements. 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 the 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
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 (e)(1) 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 paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) Performance evaluation results submission requirements. Within
60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring system
(CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2), you must
submit the results of the performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. 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 XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 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
[[Page 54426]]
information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) 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 paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(h) 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 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 (h)(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.
(i) 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 (i)(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
7. Section 63.7752 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (4); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7752 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Records of required maintenance performed on the air pollution
control and monitoring equipment as required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Records of the site-specific performance evaluation test plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2) 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, you 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. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
as required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2)(vi).
* * * * *
(4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and
stopped.
* * * * *
(d) You must keep the following records for each failure to meet an
emissions limitation (including operating limit), work practice
standard, or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart.
(1) Date, start time and duration of each failure.
(2) List of the affected sources or equipment for each failure, 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.
(3) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.7710(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
8. Section 63.7761 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7761 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or
tribal
[[Page 54427]]
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
9. Section 63.7765 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Deviation'' and ``Off blast'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7765 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an
owner or operator of such an affected source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including operating limits), work practice standard, 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 iron and steel foundry
required to obtain such a permit.
A deviation is not always a violation. The determination of whether
a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the
discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the standards.
* * * * *
Off blast means those periods of cupola operation when the cupola
is not actively being used to produce molten metal. Off blast
conditions include cupola startup when air is introduced to the cupola
to preheat the sand bed and other cupola startup procedures. Off blast
conditions also include idling conditions when the blast air is turned
off or down to the point that the cupola does not produce additional
molten metal.
* * * * *
0
10. Table 1 to subpart EEEEE is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart EEEEE of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart EEEEE
[As stated in Sec. 63.7760, you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject EEEEE? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................. Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes....................
63.3................................. Units and abbreviations Yes....................
63.4................................. Prohibited activities.. Yes....................
63.5................................. Construction/ Yes....................
reconstruction.
63.6(a) through (d).................. Compliance Yes....................
applicability and
dates.
63.6(e).............................. Operating and No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
maintenance operating and
requirements. maintenance
requirements.
63.6(f)(1)........................... Applicability of non- No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
opacity emission applicability of non-
standards. opacity emission
standards.
63.6(f)(2) through (3)............... Methods and finding of Yes....................
compliance with non-
opacity emission
standards.
63.6(g).............................. Use of an alternative Yes....................
nonopacity emission
standard.
63.6(h)(1)........................... Applicability of No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
opacity and visible applicability of
emissions standards. opacity and visible
emission standards.
63.6(h)(2) through (9)............... Methods and other Yes....................
requirements for
opacity and visible
emissions standards.
63.6(i) through (j).................. Compliance extension Yes....................
and Presidential
compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(1) through (2)............... Applicability and No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
performance test dates. applicability and
performance test
dates.
63.7(a)(3) through (4)............... Administrators rights Yes....................
to require a
performance test and
force majeure
provisions.
63.7(b) through (d).................. Notification of Yes....................
performance test,
quality assurance
program, and testing
facilities.
63.7(e)(1)........................... Performance test No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
conditions. performance test
conditions.
63.7(e)(2) through (4), (f) through Other performance Yes....................
(h). testing requirements.
63.8(a)(1) through (3), (b), Monitoring requirements Yes....................
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (3),
(c)(6) through (8), (d)(1) through
(2).
63.8(a)(4)........................... Additional monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements for require flares.
control devices in
Sec. 63.11.
63.8(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iii)........... Operation and No..................... 40 CFR 63.8 requires
maintenance of good air pollution
continuous monitoring control practices and
systems. sets out the
requirements of a
quality control
program for monitoring
equipment.
63.8(c)(4)........................... Continuous monitoring No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
system (CMS) requirements for
requirements. operation of CMS and
CEMS.
63.8(c)(5)........................... Continuous opacity No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
monitoring system require COMS.
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
[[Page 54428]]
63.8(d)(3)........................... Quality control program No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
records that must be
kept associated with
site-specific
performance evaluation
test plan.
63.8(e), (f)(1) through (6), (g)(1) Performance evaluations Yes.................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
through (4). and alternative requirements for
monitoring. alternative monitoring
systems.
63.8(g)(5)........................... Data reduction......... No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
data reduction
requirements.
63.9................................. Notification Yes.................... Except: For opacity
requirements. performance tests,
Subpart EEEEE allows
the notification of
compliance status to
be submitted with the
semiannual compliance
report or the
semiannual part 70
monitoring report.
63.10(a),(b)(1), (b)(2)(iii) and (vi) Recordkeeping and Yes.................... Additional records for
through (xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1) reporting requirements. CMS in Sec.
through (6), (c)(9) through (14), 63.10(c)(1) through
(d)(1) through (4), (e)(1) through (6), (9) through (15)
(2), (f). apply only to CEMS.
63.10(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v)... Recordkeeping for No.....................
startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events.
63.10(c)(7), (8) and (15)............ Records of excess No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
emissions and records requirements.
parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
63.10(d)(5).......................... Periodic startup, No.....................
shutdown, and
malfunction reports.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess emissions No..................... Subpart EEEEE specifies
reports. reporting
requirements.
63.10(e)(4).......................... Reporting COMS data.... No..................... Subpart EEEEE data does
not require COMS.
63.11................................ Control device No..................... Subpart EEEEE does not
requirements. require flares.
63.12................................ State authority and Yes....................
delegations.
63.13-63.15.......................... Addresses of State air Yes....................
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
Incorporation by
reference.
Availability of
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart ZZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources
0
11. Section 63.10885 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.10885 What are my management practices for metallic scrap
and mercury switches?
(a) * * *
(1) Restricted metallic scrap. You must prepare and operate at all
times according to written material specifications for the purchase and
use of only metal ingots, pig iron, slitter, or other materials that do
not include post-consumer automotive body scrap, post-consumer engine
blocks, post-consumer oil filters, oily turnings, lead components,
chlorinated plastics, or free liquids. For the purpose of this subpart,
``free liquids'' is defined as material that fails the paint filter
test by EPA Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test'' (incorporated
by reference--see Sec. 63.14). The requirements for no free liquids do
not apply if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the free liquid
is water that resulted from scrap exposure to rain. Any post-consumer
engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily turnings that are
processed and/or cleaned to the extent practicable such that the
materials do not include lead components, mercury switches, chlorinated
plastics, or free organic liquids can be included in this
certification.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.10890 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d), (e)(3), (f) and (i); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.10890 What are my management practices and compliance
requirements?
* * * * *
(c) You must submit a notification of compliance status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i). You must send the notification of compliance
status before the close of business on the 30th day after the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.10881. The
notification must include the following compliance certifications, as
applicable:
* * * * *
(d) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape
disks, or on microfiche. Any records required to be maintained
[[Page 54429]]
by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(e) * * *
(3) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury switch removal under Sec. 63.10885(b)(1), you must
maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or the
weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed, the
estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent
of mercury switches recovered.
* * * * *
(f) You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the
Administrator according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10899(c), (f),
and (g), except that Sec. 63.10899(c)(5) and (7) do not apply.
* * * * *
(i) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
(j) You must comply with the following requirements of the General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A): Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.5;
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), and (c); Sec. 63.9; Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (f); and Sec. Sec. 63.13
through 63.16. Requirements of the General Provisions not cited in the
preceding sentence do not apply to the owner or operator of a new or
existing affected source that is classified as a small foundry.
0
13. Section 63.10896 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.10896 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
0
14. Section 63.10897 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(3)
introductory text and revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.10897 What are my monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) In the event that 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 corrective action as soon as practicable, but no later than 10
calendar days from the date of the alarm. You must record the date and
time of each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the
corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was
completed. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
(g) In the event of an exceedance of an established emissions
limitation (including an operating limit), you must restore operation
of the emissions source (including the control device and associated
capture system) to its normal or usual manner or operation as
expeditiously as practicable in accordance with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The response shall include
taking any necessary corrective actions to restore normal operation and
prevent the likely recurrence of the exceedance. You must record the
date and time corrective action was initiated, the corrective action
taken, and the date corrective action was completed.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.10898 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.10898 What are my performance test requirements?
* * * * *
(c) You must conduct each performance test under conditions
representative of normal operations according to the requirements in
Table 1 to this subpart and paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section.
Normal operating conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
You must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.10899 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text and paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(14) and (15);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (e) through (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.10899 What are my recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
(a) As required by Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must maintain files of
all information (including all reports and notifications) for at least
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the
most recent 2 years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining 3
years of data may be retained off site. Such files may be maintained on
microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks or flash drives, on
magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche. Any records required to be
maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to
make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated
air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
* * * * *
(b) In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iii),
(vi) through (xiv), and (b)(3), you must keep records of the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (15) of this
section.
* * * * *
(2) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury under Sec. 63.10885(b)(1), you must maintain records of
the number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury
recovered from the switches and properly managed, the estimated number
of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the percent of mercury
switches recovered.
* * * * *
(14) You must keep records of the site-specific performance
evaluation test plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2) 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, you shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the
[[Page 54430]]
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan as
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2)(vi).
(15) You must keep the following records for each failure to meet
an emissions limitation (including operating limit), work practice
standard, or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart.
(i) Date, start time, and duration of each failure;
(ii) List of the affected sources or equipment for each failure, 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.
(iii) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.10896(c), and any corrective actions taken to return the affected
unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(c) Prior to [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must submit semiannual compliance reports
to the Administrator according to the requirements in Sec. 63.13.
Beginning on [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must submit all subsequent semiannual
compliance reports to the EPA via the 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 date report templates become available will be listed on
the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in 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 or an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA
via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. The reports
must include the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3)
of this section and, as applicable, paragraphs (c)(4) through (9) of
this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If there were no deviations from any emissions limitations
(including operating limits, pollution prevention management practices,
or operation and maintenance requirements), a statement that there were
no deviations from the emissions limitations, pollution prevention
management practices, or operation and maintenance requirements during
the reporting period.
(5) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS or CEMS) was inoperable or out-of-control as
specified by Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods
during which the CPMS was inoperable or out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(6) For each affected source or equipment for which there was a
deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit,
pollution prevention management practice, or operation and maintenance
requirement) that occurs at an iron and steel foundry during the
reporting period, the compliance report must contain the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section. This
requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) A list of the affected source or equipment and the total
operating time of each emissions source during the reporting period.
(ii) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an
operating limit, pollution prevention management practice, or operation
and maintenance requirement) that occurs at an iron and steel foundry
during the reporting period, report:
(A) The date, start time, duration (in hours), and cause of each
deviation (characterized as either startup, shutdown, control equipment
problem, process problem, other known cause, or unknown cause, as
applicable) and the corrective action taken; and
(B) 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.
(iii) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of
deviations during the reporting period across all causes both in hours
and as a percent of the total source operating time during the
reporting period.
(7) For each continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or
CEMS) used to comply with the emissions limitation or work practice
standard in this subpart that was inoperable or out-of-control during
any portion of the reporting period, you must include the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (vi) of this section. This
requirement includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(i) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system,
including manufacturer and model number.
(ii) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(iii) A brief description and the total operating time of the
affected source or equipment that is monitored by the continuous
monitoring system during the reporting period.
(iv) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(v) For each period for which the continuous monitoring system was
inoperable or out-of-control during the reporting period, report:
(A) The date, start time, and duration (in hours) of the deviation;
(B) The type of deviation (inoperable or out-of-control); and
(C) The cause of deviation (characterized as monitoring system
malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality assurance/
quality control calibrations, other known causes, and unknown causes,
as applicable) and the corrective action taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviations
that occurred during the reporting period by cause (characterized as
monitoring system malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions,
quality assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and
unknown causes) and the cumulative duration of deviations during the
reporting period across all causes both in hours and as a percent of
the total source operating time during the reporting period.
[[Page 54431]]
(8) Identification of which option in Sec. 63.10885(b) applies to
you. If you comply with the mercury requirements in Sec. 63.10885(b)
by using one scrap provider, contract, or shipment subject to one
compliance provision and others subject to another compliance provision
different, provide an identification of which option in Sec.
63.10885(b) applies to each scrap provider, contract, or shipment.
(9) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury under Sec. 63.10885(b)(1), include:
(i) The number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury
recovered from the switches and properly managed, the estimated number
of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent of mercury switches
recovered;
(ii) A certification that the recovered mercury switches were
recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities; and
(iii) A certification that you have conducted periodic inspections
or taken other means of corroboration as required under Sec.
63.10885(b)(1)(ii)(C).
* * * * *
(e) 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
(e)(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 the 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
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 (e)(1) 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 paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (f)(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.
(g) 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 (g)(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.
0
17. Section 63.10905 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.10905 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this
section.
* * * * *
(7) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
18. Section 63.10906 is amended by revising the definition of
``Deviation'' to read as follows:
[[Page 54432]]
Sec. 63.10906 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source or an
owner or operator of such an affected source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including operating limits), management practice, 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 iron and steel foundry
required to obtain such a permit.
* * * * *
0
19. Table 3 to subpart ZZZZZ is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to New and Existing Affected Sources
Classified as Large Foundries
As required in Sec. 63.10900(a), you must meet each requirement in the following table that applies to you:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to large
Citation Subject foundry? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1................................. Applicability.......... Yes....................
63.2................................. Definitions............ Yes....................
63.3................................. Units and abbreviations Yes....................
63.4................................. Prohibited activities.. Yes....................
63.5................................. Construction/ Yes....................
reconstruction.
63.6(a) through (d).................. Compliance Yes....................
applicability and
dates.
63.6(e).............................. Operating and No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
maintenance operating and
requirements. maintenance
requirements.
63.6(f)(1)........................... Applicability of non- No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
opacity emission applicability of non-
standards. opacity emission
standards.
63.6(f)(2) through (3)............... Methods and finding of Yes....................
compliance with non-
opacity emission
standards.
63.6(g).............................. Use of an alternative Yes....................
nonopacity emission
standard.
63.6(h)(1)........................... Applicability of No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
opacity and visible applicability of
emissions standards. opacity and visible
emission standards
63.6(h)(2) through (9)............... Methods and other Yes....................
requirements for
opacity and visible
emissions standards.
63.6(i) through (j).................. Compliance extension Yes....................
and Presidential
compliance exemption.
63.7(a)(1) through (2)............... Applicability and No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
performance test dates. applicability and
performance test
dates.
63.7(a)(3) through (4)............... Administrators rights Yes....................
to require a
performance test and
force majeure
provisions.
63.7(b) through (d).................. Notification of Yes....................
performance test,
quality assurance
program, and testing
facilities.
63.7(e)(1)........................... Performance test No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
conditions. performance test
conditions.
63.7(e)(2) through (4), (f) through Other performance Yes....................
(h). testing requirements.
63.8(a)(1) through (3), (b), Monitoring requirements Yes....................
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (3),
(c)(6) through (8), (d)(1) through
(2), (e), (f)(1) through (6), (g)(1)
through (4).
63.8(a)(4)........................... Additional monitoring No.....................
requirements for
control devices in
Sec. 63.11.
63.8(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iii)........... Operation and No..................... 40 CFR 63.8 requires
maintenance of good air pollution
continuous monitoring control practices and
systems. sets out the
requirements of a
quality control
program for monitoring
equipment.
63.8(c)(4)........................... Continuous monitoring No.....................
system (CMS)
requirements.
63.8(c)(5)........................... Continuous opacity No.....................
monitoring system
(COMS) minimum
procedures.
63.8(d)(3)........................... Quality control program No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
records that must be
kept associated with
site-specific
performance evaluation
test plan.
(e), (f)(1) through (6), (g)(1) Performance evaluations Yes....................
through (4). and alternative
monitoring.
63.8(g)(5)........................... Data reduction......... No.....................
63.9................................. Notification Yes.................... Except for opacity
requirements. performance tests.
63.10(a), (b)(1),(b)(2)(xii) through Recordkeeping and Yes....................
(xiv), (b)(3), (d)(1) through (4), reporting requirements.
(e)(1) through (2), (f).
[[Page 54433]]
63.10(b)(2)(i) through (xi).......... Malfunction and CMS No.....................
records.
63.10(c)............................. Additional records for No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
CMS. records requirements.
63.10(d)(5).......................... Periodic startup, No.....................
shutdown, and
malfunction reports.
63.10(e)(3).......................... Excess emissions No..................... Subpart ZZZZZ specifies
reports. reporting
requirements.
63.10(e)(4).......................... Reporting COMS data.... No.....................
63.11................................ Control device No.....................
requirements.
63.12................................ State authority and Yes....................
delegations.
63.13 through 63.16.................. Addresses of State air Yes....................
pollution control
agencies and EPA
regional offices.
Incorporation by
reference.
Availability of
information and
confidentiality.
Performance track
provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-20422 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P