Rule2024-05850
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 3, 2024
Effective
June 3, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. The amendments include: HAP from unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources previously not regulated by the NESHAP; previously unregulated HAP for sinter plants:; previously unregulated pollutants for blast furnace (BF) stoves and basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs) primary control devices; and previously unregulated pollutants for BF primary control devices. We are also finalizing an update to the technology review for this source category.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23294-23336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05850]
[[Page 23293]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 65
April 3, 2024
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 3, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 23294]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-5919.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV82
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions. The amendments include: HAP from unmeasured fugitive and
intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources previously not regulated by the
NESHAP; previously unregulated HAP for sinter plants:; previously
unregulated pollutants for blast furnace (BF) stoves and basic oxygen
process furnaces (BOPFs) primary control devices; and previously
unregulated pollutants for BF primary control devices. We are also
finalizing an update to the technology review for this source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 3, 2024. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of material publications listed in the rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register (FR) beginning June 3, 2024.
The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain other material listed
in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register (FR)
as of July 13, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are listed on the
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> website. 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 is publicly available only in hard copy. With the
exception of such materials, publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Katie Boaggio, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2223;
email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a68656b6d6d636524616b7e636f4a6f7a6b246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0a2afa1a7a7a9afeeaba1b4a9a580a5b0a1eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ACI activated carbon injection
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
BTF Beyond-the-Floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
COS Carbonyl Sulfide
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
EAV equivalent annualized value
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
ICR Information Collection Request
II&S Integrated Iron and Steel
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PM particulate matter
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TEQ toxic equivalency
tpy tons per year
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
WP work practice
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
A. Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources for Both
New and Existing Sources
B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review
C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?
D. Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New
and Existing Sources
E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter
Plants Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-
the-Floor Limit for Mercury
F. Other Major Comments and Issues
G. Severability of Standards
H. What are the effective and compliance dates?
IV. 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?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in
[[Page 23295]]
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order
14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The EPA set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities major source
category in 2003 (68 FR 27645) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and
completed a residual risk and technology review final rule in July 2020
(85 FR 42074). The purpose of this rule is to (1) fulfill the EPA's
statutory obligations pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6); see Louisiana
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
(``LEAN''), and (2) improve the emissions standards for this source
category based on new information regarding developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
To comply with CAA section 112, we are finalizing: (1) new
emissions limits based on MACT for five currently unregulated HAP (COS,
CS<INF>2</INF>, Hg, HCl, and HF) from the sinter plants located at
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities; and (2) new MACT
standards, in the form of opacity limits and work practice (WP)
standards, for five unregulated sources of UFIP emissions: Unplanned
Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag Pits,
Beaching, and Bell Leaks. In this context, opacity is a measure of the
amount of light that is blocked or absorbed by an air pollution plume.
The components of air pollution that block or absorb light are
primarily particulate matter (PM). An opacity level of 0 percent means
that plumes of air pollution do not block or absorb light and are fully
transparent (i.e., no visible emissions), while an opacity of 100
percent means that plumes are dense and block all light (i.e., the
trained observer or special camera cannot see any background behind the
plume). Observers are trained and certified using smoke generators
which produce known opacity levels, and periodic recertification is
required every six months. More details regarding the EPA approved
method for opacity readings by a trained observer are available at the
following website: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/emc/method-9-visual-opacity">https://www.epa.gov/emc/method-9-visual-opacity</a>.
Alternatively, opacity can be observed with special cameras following a
specific method (known as the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT),
40 CFR 63.7823), and those images interpreted by trained individuals.
For the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing sector (and a number of
other metals processing and production sectors), a significant portion
of the emitted PM is composed of HAP metals (such as arsenic, lead,
manganese, and chromium) that are primarily emitted in particulate form
as demonstrated in the emissions tests available in the docket for this
action. Therefore, for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
sector, as well as several other industry sectors, PM and opacity serve
as surrogates for particulate HAP metals.
We are also finalizing new emissions limits for three unregulated
pollutants for BF stoves and BOPFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin
and non-furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F; and for two unregulated
pollutants for BFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-furan
organic HAP) and HCl. In this action, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are also finalizing: (1) work practice standards for the
basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops; (2) a requirement that
facilities conduct Method 9 readings two times per month at the BOPF
Shop and BF casthouse; (3) a fenceline monitoring requirement for
chromium to help ensure the work practices and opacity limits are
achieving the anticipated reductions; and (4) revised standards for D/F
and PAHs from sinter plants to reflect the installation and operation
of activated carbon injection (ACI) technology. At this time, we are
not finalizing the proposed revised opacity limits for the BOPF or the
BF casthouse, as explained later in this preamble.
3. Costs and Benefits
To meet the requirements of E.O. 12866, the EPA projected the
emissions reductions, costs, and benefits that may result from the
final rule. These results are presented in detail in the regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this final rule developed in
response to E.O. 12866. The final rule is significant under E.O. 12866
Section 3(f)(1), as amended by E.O. 14094, due to the monetized
benefits of fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) reductions
likely to result from the UFIP emissions standards included in the
final rule. The RIA, which is available in the docket for this action,
focuses on the elements of the final rule that are likely to result in
quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to a baseline without
these regulatory requirements. We estimated the cost, emissions, and
benefit impacts for the 2026 to 2035 period, discounted to 2024. We
show the present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of
costs, benefits, and net benefits of this action in 2022 dollars. The
EAV represents a flow of constant annual values that would yield a sum
equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical cost or
benefit for each year of the analysis, consistent with the estimate of
the PV, in contrast to year-specific estimates.
The initial analysis year in the RIA is 2026 because we assume that
will be the first year of full implementation of the rule. We are
finalizing that facilities will have 1 year to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant standards following promulgation. This analysis
assumes that full compliance with the standards will occur in early
2025. Therefore, the first full year of impacts will occur in 2026. The
final analysis year is 2035, which allows us to provide ten years of
projected impacts after the rule takes effect.
The cost analysis presented in the RIA reflects a nationwide
engineering analysis of compliance cost and emissions reductions.
Impacts are calculated by setting parameters on how and when affected
facilities are assumed to respond to a particular regulatory regime,
calculating estimated cost and emissions impact estimates for each
facility, differencing from the baseline scenario, and then summing to
the desired level of aggregation.
The EPA expects health benefits due to the emissions reductions
projected from the rule. We expect that HAP emission reductions will
improve health and welfare associated with reduced exposure for those
affected by these emissions. In addition, the EPA expects that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission reductions that will occur concurrent with
the reductions in HAP emissions will improve air quality and are likely
to improve health and welfare associated with exposure to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and HAP. For the RIA, the EPA monetized benefits
associated with premature mortality and morbidity from reduced exposure
to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Discussion of both the monetized and non-monetized
benefits can be found in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
Table 1 presents the emission changes and the PV and EAV of the
projected monetized benefits, compliance costs, and net benefits over
the 2026 to 2035 period under the rule. All discounting
[[Page 23296]]
of impacts presented uses social discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
Table 1--Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Final NESHAP Subpart FFFFF
Amendments, 2026 Through 2035 \a\
[Dollar estimates in millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent discount rate 7 Percent discount rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV EAV PV EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\................... $1,800 and $3,700 $200 and $420.... $1,200 and $2,600 $170 and $340.
Compliance Costs............... $45.............. $5.3............. $36.............. $5.1.
Net Benefits................... $1,800 and $3,700 $190 and $410.... $1,200 and $2,600 $160 and $330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short 2026-2035 Total
tons).
HAP........................ 640
PM......................... 18,000
PM2.5...................... 4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits in this HAP benefits from reducing 640 short tons of HAP from 2026-2035.
Table.
Non-health benefits from reducing 18,000 tons of PM, of which 4,700 tons is
PM2.5, from 2026-2035.
Benefits from reducing HCl, HF, Hg, D/F TEQ, COS, and CS2.
Visibility benefits.
Reduced vegetation effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
noted.
\b\ Monetized benefits include health benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 emissions. The monetized
health benefits are quantified using two alternative concentration-response relationships from the Di et al.
(2016) and Turner et al. (2017) studies and presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The two
benefits estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. Benefits
from HAP reductions remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Table 2 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this final rule.
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this final action is likely to
affect. The final standards are directly applicable to the affected
sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal government entities are not
affected by this final 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 Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category is any facility engaged in producing steel
from iron ore. Integrated iron and steel manufacturing includes the
following processes: sinter production, iron production, iron
preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel production. The iron
production process includes the production of iron in BFs by the
reduction of iron-bearing materials with a hot gas. The steel
production process occurs in the BOPFs where hot liquid iron from the
BF is loaded (i.e., charged) into the BOPF along with coke, lime,
alloys, and steel scrap, and includes blowing oxygen into the furnace
through a lance resulting in oxidation reactions to produce steel.
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Iron and Steel 40 CFR part 63, 331110
Manufacturing Facilities. subpart FFFFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
C. 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 final action at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards">https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards</a>. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the final rule and key technical documents at this
same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) by June 3, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
[[Page 23297]]
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category. The statutory authority for
this action is provided by section 112 of the CAA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). In the first stage of the CAA section 112
standard-setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based
standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified
as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b).
Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and
CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source
standards and area source standards. ``Major sources'' are those that
emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a
single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other
sources are ``area sources.''
For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the
technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts.
These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section
112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards,
known as the MACT ``floor.'' In certain instances, as provided in CAA
section 112(h), if it is the judgment of the Administrator that it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, the EPA may
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards.
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor, commonly referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF)
standards.
CAA section 112(d)(6) 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 eight years. While conducting
this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established during
earlier rulemakings. Nat. Resources Def. Council, et al. v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Ass'n 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). However, costs may not be considered when setting the MACT
floor and may only be considered when determining whether beyond-the-
floor standards are appropriate. See CAA section 112(d)(3).
CAA section 112(f) 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. This review is known as the ``residual risk
review,'' and it must occur within eight years after promulgation of
the standards. When the EPA conducts the ``technology review'' together
with the ``residual risk review,'' the combined review is known as a
``risk and technology review'' or ``RTR.''
The EPA initially promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27645), codified
at title 40, part 63, subpart FFFFF (the NESHAP). The rule was amended
on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39579). The amendments added a new compliance
option, revised emission limitations, reduced the frequency of repeat
performance tests for certain emission units, added corrective action
requirements, and clarified monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
In 2015, a coalition of environmental advocacy groups filed a
lawsuit to compel the EPA to fulfill its statutory duty to conduct the
CAA sections 112(d) and 112(f)(2) reviews of 21 NESHAPs, including
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities. As a result of that
litigation, the EPA was required by court order to complete the RTR for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category
by May 5, 2020. California Communities Against Toxics v. Wheeler, No.
1:15-00512, Order (D.D.C. March 13, 2017, as modified Feb. 20, 2020).
The resulting RTR conducted for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP was signed on May 4, 2020. 85 FR 42074
(July 13, 2020).
In an April 2020 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, on a petition for review of the EPA's
NESHAP rulemaking for a different source category (pulp mill combustion
sources), the court held that the EPA has an obligation to address all
unregulated HAP emissions from a source category when the Agency
conducts the eight-year technology review required by CAA section
112(d)(6). Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088, 1098-99 (``LEAN''). The parties in California Communities Against
Toxics thereafter filed a joint motion to extend those deadlines to
allow the EPA to revise the rules in accordance with the LEAN opinion.
The court granted the motion, setting a new deadline for this rule of
October 26, 2023. Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-
512 (D.D.C. April 14, 2021). Based on further negotiation between the
parties, the deadline for this final rule was changed to March 11,
2024. Minute Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-512
(D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2023).
In September 2021, industry and environmental advocacy groups filed
petitions for review of the 2020 Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities final rule, and these petitions have been
consolidated. American Iron and Steel Inst., et al. v. EPA, No. 20-1354
(D.C. Cir.); Clean Air Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 20-1355 (D.C. Cir.).
The consolidated case is being held in abeyance pending the
promulgation of this final rule. See EPA's Unopposed Mot. to Hold Cases
in Abeyance, No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir.), Dkt. No. 2028131
(reporting to the D.C. Circuit the March 11, 2024 final rule deadline);
Order, American Iron and Steel Inst., No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 7, 2022).
In light of this litigation history, this final rule addresses
multiple issues, including: (1) new standards to address previously
unregulated emissions of HAP from the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category pursuant to the LEAN decision
and CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and, (2) revised
standards for a few currently regulated HAP, as well as fenceline
monitoring requirements, pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review.
[[Page 23298]]
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate
its HAP emissions?
As described above, the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category includes any facility engaged in producing
steel from refined iron ore (also known as taconite pellets). These
facilities first produce iron from iron ore taconite pellets, sinter,
coke, and other raw materials using blast furnaces (BFs), then produce
steel from the hot liquid iron produced from the blast furnaces, along
with coke, lime, alloys, steel scrap, and other raw materials using
basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs). Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter production, iron
production, iron preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel
production. The iron production process includes the production of iron
in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing materials with a very hot gas.
The steel production process includes BOPFs and ladle metallurgy
operations. Currently there are eight operating facilities in this
source category.
The main sources of HAP emissions from integrated iron and steel
manufacturing are the BF; BF stove; BOPF; hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and skimming (HMTDS) operations; ladle metallurgy
operations; sinter plant windbox; sinter plant discharge end; and
sinter cooler. All eight facilities have BFs, BF stoves, BOPFs, HMTDS
operations, and ladle metallurgy operations. However, only three
facilities have sinter plants and only two facilities with currently
operating sinter plants.
The following are descriptions of the BF, BOPF, and sinter plants:
<bullet> The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore,
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
<bullet> The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite,
coal, coke, and alloys.
<bullet> Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter
plants in 2003.
In addition to point sources, the EPA identified seven UFIP
emission sources for this source category, including BF bleeder valve
unplanned openings, BF bleeder valve planned openings, BF bell leaks,
BF casthouse fugitives, BF iron beaching, BF and BOPF slag handling and
storage operations, and BOPF shop fugitives. These UFIP emission
sources were identified by observation of visible plumes by EPA
regional staff during onsite source inspections and were subsequently
investigated to determine the causes and any possible methods for
reductions. These inspections are documented in numerous reports and
photographs between 2008 and the present.\1\ The NESHAP regulates two
of these sources--BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives--with
opacity limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., communications between B. Dickens and P. Miller,
U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, IL, with D.L. Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation,
2015-2018. See also Ample Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in
the II&S Industry. Both documents are available in the docket to
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are descriptions of the main process units and the
seven UFIP sources:
<bullet> The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore,
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
<bullet> The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite,
coal, coke, and alloys.
<bullet> Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter
plants in 2003.
<bullet> The BOPF shop is the structure that houses the entire BOPF
and auxiliary activities, such as hot iron transfer, skimming, and
desulfurization of the iron and ladle metallurgy operations, which
generate fugitive emissions.
<bullet> The BF casthouse is the structure that houses the lower
portion of the BF and encloses the tapping operation and the iron and
slag transport operations, which generate fugitive emissions.
<bullet> The bleeder valve is a device at the top of the BF that,
when open, relieves BF internal pressure to the ambient air. The valve
can operate as both a self-actuating safety device to relieve excess
pressure and as an operator-initiated instrument for process control. A
bleeder valve opening means any opening of the BF bleeder valve, which
allows gas and/or PM to flow past the sealing seat. Multiple openings
and closings of a bleeder valve that occur within a 30-minute period
could be considered a single bleeder valve opening. There are two types
of openings, planned and unplanned.
<bullet> A planned bleeder valve opening means an opening that is
initiated by an operator as part of a furnace startup, shutdown, or
temporary idling for maintenance action. Operators can prepare the
furnace for planned openings to minimize or eliminate emissions from
the bleeder valves.
<bullet> An unplanned bleeder valve opening means an opening that
is not planned and is caused by excess pressure within the furnace. The
pressure buildup can occur when raw materials do not descend smoothly
after being charged at the top of the BF and accumulate in large masses
within the furnace. When the large masses finally dislodge (slip) due
to their weight, a pressure surge results.
<bullet> Slag is a by-product containing impurities that is
released from the BF or BOPF along with molten iron when the BF or BOPF
is tapped from the bottom of the furnace. The slag is less dense than
iron and, therefore, floats on top of the iron. Slag is removed by
skimmers and then transported to open pits to cool to enable later
removal. Usually there is one slag pit for every BF or BOPF.
<bullet> Iron beaching occurs when iron from a BF cannot be charged
to the BOPF because of problems in steelmaking units; the hot molten
iron from the BF is placed onto the ground, in some cases within a
three-sided structure.
<bullet> The BF bells are part of the charging system on top of the
furnace that allows for materials to be loaded into the furnace or next
bell (as in the case of small bells) without letting BF gas escape. It
is a two-bell system, where a smaller bell is above a larger bell.
These bells must be tightly sealed to the blast furnace when not in use
for charging, so that BF gas and uncontrolled emissions do not escape
to the atmosphere. Over time, the surfaces that seal the bells wear
down and need to be repaired or replaced. If these seals are not
repaired or replaced in a timely manner, emissions of HAP and PM can
increase significantly.
In the 2020 final rule, the Agency found that risks due to
emissions of air toxics from this source category were
[[Page 23299]]
acceptable and concluded that the NESHAP provided an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Although the 2020 NESHAP found the
risks acceptable and no new requirements should be imposed, new data
was collected via a CAA section 114 request to industry after re-
opening the rule, due to the LEAN court decision. These new data
necessitated technology review updates, in addition to establishing new
MACT standards for unregulated HAPs pursuant to the LEAN court
decision. Under the technology review in the 2020 RTR, the EPA found no
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
necessitated revision of the standards at that time. However, in
response to a 2004 administrative petition for reconsideration of the
2003 NESHAP, the 2020 final rule promulgated a new MACT emissions limit
for mercury (0.00026 lbs mercury/ton scrap metal) with two compliance
options: (1) conduct annual compliance tests (to demonstrate compliance
with the MACT limit); or (2) confirm that the facility obtains their
auto scrap from suppliers that participate in the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMRP) or another approved mercury
switch removal program or that the facility only uses scrap that does
not contain mercury switches. We also removed exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008); clarified that the emissions
standards apply at all times; added electronic reporting of performance
test results and compliance reports; and made minor corrections and
clarifications for a few other rule provisions. All documents used to
develop the previous 2003, 2006, and 2020 final rules can be found in
either the legacy docket, A-2000-44, or the electronic docket, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083.
The NESHAP includes emissions limits for PM and opacity standards--
both of which are surrogates for non-mercury PM HAP metals--for
furnaces and sinter plants. To support the continued use of PM as a
surrogate for certain non-mercury HAP metals, we considered the holding
in National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In
considering whether the EPA may use PM, a criteria pollutant, as a
surrogate for metal HAP, the D.C. Circuit stated that the EPA ``may use
a surrogate to regulate hazardous pollutants if it is `reasonable' to
do so,'' id. at 637, establishing criteria for determining whether the
use of PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP was reasonable. The
court found that PM is a reasonable surrogate for HAP if: (1) ``HAP
metals are invariably present'' in the source's PM,'' id.; (2) the
``source's PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals
along with other particulates,'' id. at 639; and (3) ``PM control is
the only means by which facilities `achieve' reductions in HAP metal
emissions,'' id. If these criteria are satisfied and the PM emission
standards reflect what the best sources achieve in compliance with CAA
section 112(d)(3), then ``EPA is under no obligation to achieve a
particular numerical reduction in HAP metal emissions.'' Id. The EPA
has established and promulgated PM limits as a surrogate for
particulate HAP metals successfully in several NESHAP regulations,
including Ferroalloys Production (80 FR 37366, June 30, 2015), Taconite
Iron Ore Processing (68 FR 61868), and Primary Copper Smelting (67 FR
40478, June 12, 2002).
The NESHAP also includes an operating limit for the oil content of
the sinter plant feedstock or, as an alternative, an emissions limit
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the sinter plant windbox
exhaust stream. The oil limit, and the alternative VOC limit, serve as
surrogates for all organic HAP. Moreover, the NESHAP includes an
emissions limit for mercury emissions from the BOPF Group, which is the
collection of BOPF shop steelmaking operating units and their control
devices including the BOPF primary emission control system, BOPF
secondary control system, ladle metallurgy units, and hot metal
transfer, desulfurization and slag skimming units.
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
On July 31, 2023, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal
Register to set standards to regulate HAP emissions from five UFIP
sources that were not previously regulated by the NESHAP: Bell Leaks,
Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag
Pits, and Beaching. For sinter plants, we proposed standards for five
previously unregulated HAP: COS, CS<INF>2</INF>, Hg, HCl, and HF. For
BF stoves and BOPFs, we proposed standards for three previously
unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-
furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F. And for BFs, we proposed standards
for two previously unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-
dioxin and non-furan organic HAP) and HCl.
As an update to the technology review, we proposed to revise the
previous BOPF shop fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent
opacity limit and require specific work practices; revise the current
BF casthouse fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent opacity
limit; and revise the current standards for D/F and PAH for sinter
plants to reflect current control performance of sinter plants for
these HAP. We also proposed a fenceline monitoring requirement for Cr,
including a requirement that if a monitor exceeds the proposed Cr
action level, the facility would need to conduct a root cause analysis
and take corrective action to lower emissions.
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and
responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and
amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document, Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, which is available in the
docket for this action. This document is also referred to as the
Response to Comments (RTC) in subsequent sections of this preamble.
A. Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources for Both New and
Existing Sources
1. What did we propose for the five previously unregulated UFIP
sources?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
Based on the data we received through the CAA section 114 requests,
the average number of unplanned openings of the best performing five
furnaces in the source category is 5 unplanned openings per year.
Therefore, we proposed an operational limit of five unplanned openings
per year per furnace for existing sources, which was an estimate of the
MACT floor level of performance for existing sources. For new sources,
we proposed an operational limit of zero unplanned openings per year
because the best performing single source in our database reported zero
unplanned openings for the most recent representative year.
[[Page 23300]]
Additionally, we proposed work practice standards that would
require facilities to do the following: (1) install and operate devices
(e.g., stockline monitors) to continuously measure/monitor material
levels in the furnace, at a minimum of three locations, using alarms to
inform operators of static conditions that indicate a slip may occur
and alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips
and unplanned openings from occurring; (2) install and operate
instruments such as a thermocouple and transducer on the furnace to
monitor temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip may
occur; (3) install a screen to remove fine particulates from raw
materials to ensure only properly-sized raw materials are charged into
the BF; and (4) develop, and submit to the EPA for approval, a plan
that explains how the facility will implement these requirements.
Additionally, we proposed that facilities would need to report the
unplanned openings (including the date, time, duration, and any
corrective actions taken) in their semiannual compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
Based on our evaluation of available information and pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), for existing sources we proposed a MACT
floor limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for
the BF planned bleeder valve openings. We did not propose the BTF
option of 5 percent opacity for existing sources because we determined
that 5 percent opacity may not be feasible for some sources on a
consistent basis. For new sources, we proposed an opacity of 0 percent
because based on the available data, the best performing single source
had opacity of 0 percent during the planned opening. We expect that new
sources will be able to configure their furnace design and operations
similarly to the best performing single source which, in combination
with utilizing the suggested work practices described in the document
Unmeasurable Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF, should allow them to achieve an opacity of 0 percent. We
did not propose any work practices under CAA section 112(h) for the BF
planned bleeder valve openings; facilities will have the flexibility to
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
Based on our analyses and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), for existing sources we proposed a BTF opacity limit of 5 percent
based on 6-minute averages for visible emissions from slag pits and
during slag handling, storage, and processing. Regarding new sources,
we proposed a MACT floor opacity limit of 2.5 percent based on 6-minute
averages for visible emissions from slag pits and during slag handling,
storage, and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
Based on our evaluation and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), we proposed 10 percent opacity as an action level, as described
below in this paragraph, for large bell leaks (not a MACT emissions
limit). Along with this action level, we also proposed that the BF top
will need to be observed monthly for visible emissions (VE) with EPA
Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, which determines the presence
or absence of a visible plume, to identify leaks, and if VE are
detected out of the interbell relief valve (indicating leaks from the
large bell), we proposed that the facility would then need to perform
EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, tests which determines the
opacity (i.e., degree to which a plume obscures the background),
monthly and if opacity is greater than 10 percent (based on a 3-minute
average), the large bell seals will need to be repaired or replaced
within 4 months. For the small bell, we proposed that facilities will
need to replace or repair seals prior to a metal throughput limit,
specified by the facility, that has been proven and documented to
produce no opacity from the small bells.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(h),
we proposed a MACT standard that would require facilities to: (1) have
full or partial enclosures for the beaching process or use
CO<INF>2</INF> to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the height, slope,
and speed of beaching.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed standards and, what are
our responses?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
Comment: Commenters stated that in developing the proposed limit on
the number of unplanned pressure release device (PRD) openings that
could occur within a year, the EPA treated all BFs alike by placing
them in a single category. Commenters stated that because larger BFs
are able to accommodate higher internal pressures before the need for
an unplanned opening, the EPA should create two separate subcategories
of blast furnaces. Commenters stated that in reviewing data for
unplanned PRD openings, they believed that subcategorization is
appropriate and necessary if an action level or limit of any type is to
be established for the number of events. In particular, commenters
noted that large BFs have significantly fewer unplanned openings, where
``Large BF'' is defined as a BF with a working volume greater than
2,500 cubic meters (m\3\). Commenters also stated that the EPA did not
account for variability across sources and asked EPA to apply an upper
prediction limit (UPL) if it were to finalize a limit on unplanned
openings. Commenters stated that a 99 percent UPL analysis of the data
supports limits of 52 unplanned openings for large BFs and 112
unplanned openings for small BFs.
Response: We agree with the commenter that larger BFs are able to
accommodate higher internal pressure and that subcategorization based
on BF size is appropriate. In this final rule, we define ``large BF''
as a BF with a working volume greater than 2,500 m\3\ and are
establishing separate limits on unplanned openings for large and small
BF.
EPA also agrees with commenters that it is important to account for
variability in the incidence of unplanned openings. Accordingly, in the
final rule the EPA has decided to base the limit on the highest number
of unplanned openings reported within the top five sources to ensure
that we adequately account for variability, rather than the proposed
approach of basing the limit on the average number of unplanned
openings within the top five sources.
EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion that it should apply a 99
percent UPL to determine the limit on unplanned openings. The EPA
commonly uses the 99 percent UPL to calculate numerical emissions
limits based on stack test data (e.g., grams of HAP per cubic meter of
stack exhaust gases). The UPL method is not appropriate to evaluate a
count of unplanned openings because these are discrete events and are
therefore not analogous to emissions data or test runs. In the context
of this final rule, application of the UPL would therefore not
appropriately reflect variability and would lead to an exceedingly high
limit on unplanned openings that does not reflect the performance
achieved at top-
[[Page 23301]]
performing sources. As noted above, the EPA has instead accounted for
variability in this final rule by basing the limit on the highest
number of unplanned openings observed among the five top-performing
sources.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
Comment: Commenters agreed that these opacity limits will result in
HAP reductions. Accordingly, commenters supported these revisions and
additions and encouraged the EPA to not weaken any of the proposed
limits.
Response: EPA appreciates the support and agrees that these opacity
limits for planned bleeder valve openings will result in HAP
reductions.
Comment: EPA should not adopt the proposed 8% opacity limit and
weekly Method 9 testing for planned openings in addition to the new
work practice standards. PRD openings by operators are routinely
necessary and appropriate for proper BF operation. Emissions from
planned openings are exceedingly low, ranging from 1.6 tpy to 0.3 tpy,
with reductions projected between 0.4 and 0.08 tpy across the entire
industry. The work practice standards are expensive, with estimated
cost-effectiveness based upon the proposed rule having rates ranging
from $134,000/ton to $672,000/ton. No regulation of these small
contributors should occur. If EPA nonetheless moves forward, there
should be an action level at 15% (based on a more robust UPL analysis).
Response: Based on our evaluation of public comments and available
information, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and the LEAN
court decision, for existing sources we are promulgating a MACT Floor
limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for the BF
planned bleeder valve openings. The MACT floor is the least stringent
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. For new sources,
we are promulgating an opacity of 0 percent because based on the
available data, the best performing single source had opacity of 0
percent during the planned opening, which we consider the MACT Floor
level for new sources pursuant to CAA section 112. As we explained in
the proposed rule, we determined based on evaluation of available
information that emissions can be minimized from bleeder valve planned
openings cost effectively by implementing various actions before the
valves are opened such as: (1) tapping as much liquid (iron and slag)
out of the furnace as possible; (2) removing fuel and/or stopping fuel
injection into the furnace; and (3) lowering bottom pressure. However,
as explained in the proposed rule preamble, we did not propose any
specific work practices for the BF planned bleeder valve openings and
we are maintaining the decision to not require any specific work
practices for the final rule. Facilities will have the flexibility to
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit.
We estimate that this standard will result in about 0.41 tpy
reduction in HAP metal emissions. The estimated cost is $54,600/yr for
the entire category and $6,800/yr per facility. The estimated cost
effectiveness is $134,000 per ton of HAP metals.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed 5 percent opacity
limit for slag handling operations should not be adopted. They contend
that it is virtually impossible to enclose the extremely hot slag
material or to universally apply water at all times to help suppress
emissions because of the volatile nature of the material and the
potential for a life-threatening hazardous explosion when the water
violently expands in the form of steam. Commenters stated that the EPA
had ignored these important safety concerns in proposing the 5 percent
opacity limit, and that the control measures the EPA had identified to
meet this limit could not be reasonably utilized. Commenters also
argued that even if EPA's suggested control measures were applied, a
UPL analysis would result in an opacity limit of 20 percent, far
exceeding the proposed 5 percent level. Commenters noted that the EPA
had improperly failed to account for variability in the performance of
sources by declining to apply a UPL or other statistical analysis.
Response: After considering these comments, we agree that a limit
of 5 percent opacity could result in higher cost impacts than we
estimated at proposal for some facilities. As described in the proposed
rule Federal Register notice published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402),
the proposed 5 percent opacity limit was a beyond-the-floor limit based
on the EPA's understanding at that time that emissions could be cost
effectively minimized from slag pits with the application of water
spray or fogging and/or other work practices such as installing wind
screens, dust suppression misters, and maintaining a high moisture
content of the slag during handling, storage, and processing. However,
at proposal we did not account for variability and certain other
factors such as weather conditions and possible safety issues. Although
we still conclude that these measures can help minimize emissions,
these measures might not be sufficient to consistently maintain opacity
below 5 percent.
In the proposed rule FR notice, we also described a potential MACT
floor opacity limit of 9 percent for existing sources which was based
on the straight average of the top five performing facilities. Based on
the comments submitted, the EPA is finalizing an opacity limit of 10
percent based on a MACT floor analysis for existing sources. This final
limit is based on the average opacity of 9 percent reported by the five
top performing facilities, but rounding up slightly to 10 percent to
account for variability. The EPA has historically used the UPL approach
to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of individual pollutants,
but has not historically determined opacity limits using a UPL
approach. The UPL calculation introduces a predictive element to the
statistics in order to account for variability. However, unlike typical
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 tests frequently result in values of
zero, which cannot be used in the UPL calculation so this approach for
accounting for variability was not used. The EPA determined that
rounding the opacity from 9 percent to 10 percent sufficiently accounts
for variability in this process. Therefore, in this final rule we are
promulgating a 10 percent opacity limit (based on six-minute averages)
for slag processing, handling, and storage. Because this 10 percent
opacity limit has been achieved in practice by top performing
facilities, we expect that all facilities will be able to achieve this
10 percent opacity limit by application of some or all of the work
practices described above and in the proposed rule Federal Register
notice (88 FR 49402). Other comments and responses on this issue are
provided in the RTC.
d. BF Bell Leaks
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the proposed triggers
for action for large bells are too low and that the repair and
replacement time should consider lead time and operational concerns.
Commenters suggested that with this in mind, the EPA could establish a
20 percent opacity action level (6-minute average) with quarterly EPA
Method 9 observation requirements. Under this approach, if a facility
observes opacity in excess of 20 percent, the facility should be
required to investigate, make operational changes, and conduct a
repair, followed by repeat testing using EPA Method 9 to confirm the
efficacy of the repair. If repairs are not successful, only then would
replacement obligations be triggered. Other
[[Page 23302]]
commenters stated that if the EPA moves forward with work practice
standards, the EPA should consider an alternative under which a
facility would need to initiate operational or other corrective actions
within five business days if an EPA Method 9 test identifies opacity of
20 percent or more. If the facility does not reduce opacity to less
than 20 percent with those actions, the facility would have another
five business days to initiate further operational or other corrective
actions to reduce opacity to less than 20 percent. Only if the second
attempt does not result in opacity of 20 percent or less would the test
result be deemed a deviation requiring reporting and corrective
actions, such as moving to the repair step or, if necessary,
replacement of the large bell.
Response: We agree with the commenter who suggested the two-step
approach for large bells is appropriate as well as the suggestion of
20% opacity instead of 10% opacity as a trigger. As discussed by the
commenter, the replacement of bells is costly and there are numerous
more cost-effective repair options available that can be achieved in a
shorter time period to avoid full repair and replacement. This would
help keep the bell repairs on a more organized schedule. Therefore, we
decided to finalize a 20 percent opacity action level (instead of the
proposed 10 percent opacity action level) and provide two five-business
day periods to investigate the opacity trigger, as suggested by the
commenter. Specifically, we changed the requirement to the following:
if EPA Method 9 identifies opacity greater than 20 percent, the
facility shall initiate corrective actions within five business days.
If the first attempt to correct fails and EPA Method 9 again identifies
that opacity is not reduced to 20 percent or lower, the facility would
have another five business days to initiate further corrective actions
to reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. Only if the second attempt
does not result in an opacity of 20 percent or less would it become a
deviation, requiring reporting and corrective actions that we included
in the proposed rule, such as moving to the repair step or, if
unsuccessful, replacement of the large bell.
e. Beaching of Iron From BF's
Comment: Commenters supported the proposal to require facilities
to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the beaching process or use
CO<INF>2</INF> to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the height, slope,
and speed of beaching. Commenters supported the addition of monitoring
of vents from the partial enclosures to allow for additional
information and accountability for these sources.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for the beaching requirements
in the proposed rule.
Comment: Industry commenters stated that the proposed work practice
standards to address already low emissions from beaching events, which
the industry consistently works to minimize, would not provide
meaningful reductions and would be extremely costly. Industry
commenters estimated about 4 pounds per year of reduction from these
proposed measures, lower than the estimates EPA provided in the final
rule. Commenters also pointed out that EPA's estimated cost per ton of
removal would be $15.8 million/ton and argued that this amount is
unreasonable notwithstanding EPA's explanation that it must adhere to
the floor provisions of the statute. Commenters stated that if EPA were
to use the more accurate emissions and cost information provided by
industry, the cost-effectiveness rate estimate based upon the proposed
rule would be multiple times higher at $311 million/ton. Commenters
also argued that EPA could reasonably interpret Section 112(d) to avoid
this result.
Response: As EPA explained in the proposal preamble, as mandated by
the LEAN court decision and CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and
112(h), we proposed a MACT floor standard (which is the least stringent
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act) that would
require facilities to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the
beaching process or use CO<INF>2</INF> to suppress fumes; and (2)
minimize the height, slope, and speed of beaching. We expect this will
result in a small amount of unquantified emission reductions since
baseline emissions are already low (less than 1 tpy of HAP) and because
most facilities are already following some or all of these work
practices. Regarding costs, when EPA determines the MACT floor level of
control, per the section 112 of the CAA, the EPA is obligated to
determine the MACT floor level regardless of costs. It is only the
potential beyond-the-floor standards for which costs become an
important consideration. Nevertheless, as we mentioned in the proposal
preamble, the estimated costs are only $55,000 per year for the entire
category and an average annual cost of $6,800 per facility. More
information regarding the standards for unregulated UFIP sources is
available in the following document: Unmeasurable Fugitive and
Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron
and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is
available in the docket for this action.
After considering public comments and available information,
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and the LEAN
court decision, we are promulgating the same MACT Floor standard as
proposed.
3. What are the final MACT standards and how will compliance be
demonstrated?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), if it is
the judgment of the Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),
the EPA may set work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in
lieu of numerical emission standards. For BF unplanned bleeder valve
openings, the Administrator has determined that since there is no
direct measurement of emissions, we are finalizing a work practice
standard. We are finalizing an operational limit for two subcategories
of blast furnaces: large furnaces with a working volume of equal to or
greater than 2,500 m\3\; and small furnaces with a working volume of
less than 2,500 m\3\. This is to account for variability in unplanned
opening occurrences between furnace size due to design elements that
allow higher operating pressure near the valve openings, which leads to
less openings per year for large furnaces. For the large blast
furnaces, we are finalizing an operational limit of four unplanned
openings per rolling year per furnace. For small blast furnaces, we are
finalizing an operational limit of 15 unplanned openings per rolling
year per furnace. Both are based on a qualitative approach of using the
highest number of unplanned openings from the top five performing
furnaces (top four for large furnaces as there are only four operating
large furnaces). For most MACT floor standards in NESHAP rules, we
typically have actual emissions test data for each of the top five
sources. To calculate the MACT floor limit we use all the data (all the
runs) from all 5 sources to calculate the 99th UPL to account for
variability. And, we conclude that this 99th value (which is higher
than the true average) represents the average performance of the top 5
sources with an adjustment to account for variability.
With unplanned openings, we do not have a UPL type tool. So, as an
alternative to a UPL, we considered all the data from the top five
performers,
[[Page 23303]]
and to ensure we account for variability among those top five
performers, in this particular situation, we conclude that using the
highest value (i.e., highest number of unplanned openings) from any one
source within the top five reflects our best estimate of an appropriate
limit that would reflect performance of the top five sources with an
adjustment to ensure we adequately account for the variability among
those top five sources.
This approach is appropriate because it accounts for variability
among the top five blast furnaces. For new sources, we are finalizing
our proposed operational limit of zero unplanned openings per rolling
year for both large and small furnaces because the best performing
single source large and small blast furnace in our database reported
zero unplanned openings for the most recent typical year.
Additionally, we are finalizing the work practice standards
proposed for both furnace subcategories that require facilities to do
the following: (1) install and operate devices (e.g., stockline
monitors) to continuously measure/monitor material levels in the
furnace, at a minimum of three locations, using alarms to inform
operators of static conditions that indicate a slip may occur, and
alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips and
unplanned openings from occurring; (2) install and operate instruments
such as a thermocouple and transducer on the furnace to monitor
temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip may occur; (3)
install a screen to remove fine particulates from raw materials to
ensure only properly-sized raw materials are charged into the BF; and
(4) develop, and submit to the EPA for approval, a plan that explains
how the facility will implement these requirements. Additionally,
facilities shall report the unplanned openings (including the date,
time, duration, and any corrective actions taken) in their semiannual
compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
We are finalizing what we proposed for planned bleeder valve
openings: a MACT floor limit of 8 percent opacity based on 6-minute
averages. For new sources, we are finalizing an opacity of 0 percent.
Facilities will have the flexibility to choose an appropriate approach
to meet these opacity limits.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
As discussed above, we are finalizing an opacity limit of 10
percent based on 6-minute averages for BF and BOPF slag processing,
handling, and storage, and slag pits. Regarding new sources, we are
finalizing an opacity limit of 3 percent based on 6-minute averages for
visible emissions from slag pits, and during slag handling, storage,
and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
For bell leaks, we are finalizing a 20 percent opacity action level
for large bell leaks as described below for new and existing large
bells. This is not a numerical MACT emissions standard; because the
Administrator has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard in this instance, pursuant to CAA section
112(h), the EPA is setting work practice standards in lieu of numerical
emission standards. We are also finalizing that the BF top must be
observed monthly for visible emissions (VE) with EPA Method 22, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, which determines the presence or absence of a
visible plume, to identify leaks from the interbell relief valve
(indicating leaks from the large bell). If VE are detected out of the
interbell relief valve (indicating leaks from the large bell), the
facility must perform EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, tests
which determines the opacity (i.e., degree to which a plume obscures
the background) monthly, and if opacity is greater than 20 percent
based on an average of three instantaneous and consecutive interbell
relief valve openings, the facility must initiate operational or other
corrective actions within five business days. After those five business
days, the facility must perform EPA Method 9 tests again and, if
opacity is greater than 20 percent, the facility will have another five
business days to initiate further operational or corrective actions to
reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. After five additional business
days (10 business days in total), the facility must perform EPA Method
9 tests again and, if opacity is still greater than 20 percent, the
large bell seals must be repaired or replaced within four months. For
the new and existing small bells, we are finalizing what we proposed, a
requirement that facilities shall replace or repair seals prior to a
metal throughput limit, specified by the facility, that has been proven
and documented to produce no opacity from the small bells.
Additionally, the facility must conduct monthly visible emissions
testing for 15 minutes and amend the metal throughput limit in their
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan as needed.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
As provided in CAA section 112(h), it is the judgment of the
Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for emissions from the beaching process, therefore
the EPA is finalizing the proposed work practice standards in lieu of
numerical emission standards. This work practice standard requires
facilities to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the beaching
process or use CO<INF>2</INF> to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the
height, slope, and speed of beaching. This standard applies to both
existing and new sources.
B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review
1. What did we propose for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop?
a. BF Casthouse
We proposed a 5 percent opacity limit based on 6-minute averages as
an update to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and proposed
that facilities will need to measure opacity during the tapping
operations (at least two times per month). We did not propose specific
work practices for the BF casthouse, except that we proposed that the
facilities will need to keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed
during tapping and material transfer events (the only openings allowed
during these events are those that were present in the original design
of the casthouse).
b. BOPF Shop
Based on our review and analyses of the CAA section 114 information
request responses we received in 2022 and 2023, and further review of
the data the EPA assembled to support the 2020 RTR, we proposed that a
standard composed of a 5 percent opacity limit with several specific
work practices would be feasible and cost-effective for the BOPF shop.
For example, based on the data we received, in the proposal we found
that the maximum 3-minute opacity readings for the BOPF shops at four
facilities were less than 5 percent. Furthermore, the use of work
practices (described below) by the best performing facilities in the
industry led us to conclude for the proposal that these work practices
were feasible and, accordingly, we proposed a 5 percent opacity limit
based on 3-minute average and work practices.
Specifically, we proposed that facilities will need to do the
following: (1) keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and
other openings that
[[Page 23304]]
are part of the designed ventilation of the facility, closed during
tapping and material transfer events (the only openings that would be
allowed during these events are the roof vents and other openings or
vents that are part of the designed ventilation of the facility) to
allow for more representative opacity observations from a single
opening; (2) have operators conduct regular inspections of BOPF shop
structure for unintended openings and leaks; (3) optimize positioning
of hot metal ladles with respect to hood face and furnace mouth; (4)
monitor opacity twice per month from all openings, or from the one
opening known to have the highest opacity, for a full steel cycle,
which must include a tapping event; and (5) develop and operate
according to an Operating Plan to minimize fugitives and detect
openings and leaks. We proposed that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan shall
include:
<bullet> An explanation regarding how the facility will address and
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
<bullet> A maximum hot iron pour/charge rate (pounds/second) for
the first 20 seconds of hot metal charge (i.e., the process of adding
hot iron from the BF into the basic oxygen process furnace);
<bullet> A description of operational conditions of the furnace and
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal
charge, including:
<bullet> A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture
system during hot metal charge;
<bullet> A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
<bullet> A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging:
and;
<bullet> An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed revised BF casthouse
and BOPF shop standards, and what are our responses?
a. BF Casthouse
Comment: Commenters noted that the EPA did not apply UPL
calculations to the opacity data, even though the EPA's practice has
been to do so for other numerical standards established on limited data
sets. Commenters claim that the EPA's proposed opacity limit of 5
percent, without any adjustment for variability, lacked justification
or explanation and is therefore arbitrary and capricious. These
commenters argued that, when utilizing limited datasets, it is
appropriate for the EPA to account for variability, and there is no
technical basis for suggesting that some statistical methods should not
be applied to this data set. When the EPA set the 20 percent opacity
limits in 2003, the preamble included the EPA's statistical basis
supporting that the limits were achievable. Commenters also stated the
EPA should also include a one-time alternative limit per furnace cycle
similar to the new source standards in the 2003 NESHAP.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the specific approach of using UPL
calculations to develop opacity limits in the same manner that the UPL
is used to calculate emissions limits. The EPA has historically used
the UPL approach to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of
individual pollutants but has not historically determined opacity
limits using a UPL approach. The UPL calculation introduces a
predictive element to the statistics in order to account for
variability. However, as noted by the commenter, unlike typical
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 may result in values of zero, which
cannot be used in the UPL calculation. While the EPA has used the UPL
approach for floor determinations when setting MACT emissions limits,
the proposed changes to the BOPF Shop and BF casthouse opacity
standards were based on a proposed updating of the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review. Additionally, in the case of opacity
measured according to EPA Method 9, the data EPA reviewed to develop
the proposed standards were the maximum 6-minute (or 3-minute as
applicable) averages evaluated over the entire test period. Likewise,
compliance determinations are also based on the same approach.
Utilizing the maximum short-term average during each test period to
determine an appropriate standard, and to determine compliance,
inherently accounts for some variation in the data used to set the
standard.
However, with regard to the comments on variability, we acknowledge
that there are many opacity readings that occurred over the past 2 to 6
years at the Integrated Iron and Steel (II&S) manufacturing facilities
that show that there is a substantial amount of variability in opacity
measurements across time and across furnaces. For example, many opacity
tests for BOPF and BF furnace cycles that were completed over these 2-6
years reported maximum 3-minute and 6-minute opacity readings below 5
percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. In fact, for many
furnace cycles the maximum opacity was 0 percent. On the other hand,
the data show that during some BOPF or BF cycles, opacity is above 5
percent and sometimes well above 20 percent. The EPA has additionally
continued to receive opacity data and analyses since the close of the
public comment period on this rulemaking.
The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data
before the deadline for this final rule ordered by the court in
California Communities Against Toxics. Also, for most of the opacity
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 5 and 10 percent, the EPA
does not have any information that explains why the opacity readings
were higher than 5 percent on those particular days. In most cases, the
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the
data and information currently available. Until further revision, the
opacity limits in the NESHAP for existing BOPF Shops and existing BF
casthouses will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages for the
BOPF Shop and 6-minute averages for the BF casthouse.
The opacity data and further explanation of the opacity data and
related information can be found in the technical memo titled:
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF, which is in docket for this final rule.
b. BOPF Shop
Comment: Some commenters conducted their own assessment of what
measures would be needed to comply with the proposed opacity limit and
work practice standards, which is of course facility-specific, because
every BOPF shop is unique. Based on their assessments, these commenters
asserted that each BOPF shop--after applying all ``required'' work
practice standards and even other work practices that the EPA
suggested--would likely need to install full-shop controls to meet a 5
percent opacity limit at all times. The commenters represented that the
cost to apply this type of control would be high and would involve the
addition of at least one large fabric filter device to properly capture
fugitive emissions and allow for proper ventilation for the building.
The commenters asked EPA to take into account the significant changes
BOPF shops would have to make to meet a 5 percent opacity standard that
even the best performers cannot currently achieve on a regular basis.
They suggested that because of the exorbitantly and unreasonably
expensive measures that would need to be undertaken by this industry
sector, and the significant possibility that even facilities installing
such measures would not be able to consistently meet
[[Page 23305]]
the 5 percent opacity standard, the EPA should not move forward with
the proposed opacity limit, at least until the Agency undertakes a
robust engineering analysis to determine the technical and economic
feasibility of controls that would be needed for BOPF shops to meet
this lower standard.
Response: After considering public comments, the EPA now recognizes
some operations may need to make more significant changes than we
anticipated at proposal to meet the 5 percent opacity standard at all
times. We acknowledge that there are many opacity readings that
occurred over the past 2 to 6 years that indicate that there is a
substantial amount of variability across time and across furnaces. For
example, many opacity tests for BOPF cycles (i.e., steel cycles) that
were completed over these 2-6 years reported maximum 3-minute opacity
readings below 5 percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. On the
other hand, the data show that during some BOPF cycles, opacity is
above 5 percent and sometimes above 20 percent.
The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data
before the court-ordered deadline for this final rule. Also, for those
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 10 or 20 percent, in most
cases, the EPA does not have any information that explains why the
opacity readings were high on those particular days. In most cases, the
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the
data and information we have. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing any
changes to the opacity limits for the BOPF Shop in this final action.
Instead, the EPA intends to continue reviewing and analyzing the
opacity data from both the BF casthouse and the BOPF shop that we have
and also collect additional data in the near future so that the EPA can
gain a better understanding of the achievability of various opacity
levels and the reasons why opacity levels are sometimes elevated. After
EPA completes this additional data gathering and analyses, the EPA
intends to consider potential revisions to the opacity limits in a
separate future action. Until further revision, the opacity limit in
the NESHAP for BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute
averages, and the opacity limit in the NESHAP for BF casthouses will
remain at 20 percent based on 6-minute averages, consistent with the
current regulation.
The EPA is still finalizing opacity testing requirements for BF
casthouse and BOPF shop fugitives as well as the proposed work practice
standards for BOPF shop fugitives which are expected to reduce HAP
emissions by 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's reliance on the
limited 2022 CAA section 114 testing results to determine that a 5
percent opacity standard would be achievable by BOPF shops for
relatively modest capital and annual operating costs was inappropriate
and has led the EPA to propose a standard that is technically and
economically infeasible to meet. In an appendix to their comments, the
commenters put forward alternative emission factors and cost estimates
that, in their view, indicate the proposed standards would cost $88
million per ton to reduce just 2.6 tpy of HAP emissions industrywide.
This conclusion is very different from the EPA's own analysis of its
proposed rule, which was based on an assumption that no capital
expenditures would be needed, and that for less than $500,000 per year
industry-wide, all 11 existing BOPF shops should be able to meet a 5
percent opacity standard and comply with the numerous proposed work
practice standards. Commenters also said that BOPF shops would not be
able to meet a 5 percent opacity standard based on 3-minute averages
from every opening at all times without significant capital
expenditures, and remain concerned that even with this level of
spending, there may be times when the shops would not be able to meet
that standard. Commenters stated that until the EPA can demonstrate
through a robust engineering study that the proposed opacity limit
would be achievable at a certain spending level and with certain
technology in place that is reasonable and cost-effective, the EPA
should not move forward to finalize the proposed standards.
Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. See previous responses to
comments in this preamble for further explanation.
Comment: Commenters stated that because the proposal establishing
an absolute 5 percent limit did not take into account the range of
operations or impacts resulting in variability, it is clear that some
periods of operation above 5 percent opacity will occur even with
proper operation. They believe that any proposal that includes an
opacity standard lower than 20 percent must provide that compliance is
achieved provided there are no more than a set number of excursions
above the revised limit in order to capture normal fluctuation events
that occur during normal operation. Specifically, the EPA should follow
the form of the current ``new source'' BOPF shop MACT opacity standard:
maintain the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building
housing a BOPF or shop operation at or below 15 percent, except that 6-
minute averages greater than 15 percent but no more than 20 percent may
occur twice per steel production cycle. A steel production cycle is
defined in 40 CFR 63.7822.
Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. The opacity limit for existing
BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages. See
previous responses to comments in this preamble for further
explanation.
3. What are the revised standards for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop
standards and how will compliance be demonstrated?
a. BF Casthouse
As stated in previous responses to comments in this preamble, the
EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits for the BF
casthouse in this final action. Facilities will need to comply with the
20 percent opacity limits that are already in the NESHAP. However, the
EPA is requiring more frequent Method 9 tests as explained elsewhere in
this preamble. See previous responses to comments in this preamble for
further explanation.
b. BOPF Shop
For the reasons discussed in the responses to comments above, we
are finalizing work practice standards for the BOPF. Specifically, in
this final rule, we are requiring facilities to do the following: (1)
keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and other openings that
are part of the designed ventilation of the facility, closed during
tapping and material transfer events (the only openings allowed during
these events are the roof vents and other openings or vents that are
part of the designed ventilation of the facility) to allow for more
representative opacity observations from a single opening; (2) have
operators conduct regular inspections of BOPF shop structure for
unintended openings and leaks; (3) optimize positioning of hot metal
ladles with respect to hood face and furnace mouth; (4) monitor opacity
twice per month from all openings, or from the one opening known to
have the highest
[[Page 23306]]
opacity, for a full steel cycle, which must include a tapping event;
and (5) develop and operate according to an Operating Plan to minimize
fugitives and detect openings and leaks.
The purpose of the Operating Plan is to address variability in unit
design and operations by creating an individualized strategy for
implementing work practice standards at each source. Owners and
operators can develop specific work practices that make sense for each
unit and that maximize emission reduction efficiency for each unit. We
require that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan include:
<bullet> An explanation regarding how the facility will address and
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
<bullet> A maximum hot iron pour/charge rate (pounds/second) for
the first 20 seconds of hot metal charge (i.e., the process of adding
hot iron from the BF into the basic oxygen process furnace);
<bullet> A description of operational conditions of the furnace and
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal
charge, including:
<bullet> A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture
system during hot metal charge;
<bullet> A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
<bullet> A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging:
and;
<bullet> An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
The BOPF shop work practice standards and Operating Plan are
expected to result in the same HAP emission reductions as the Proposed
Rule at 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.
C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?
1. What did we propose for fenceline monitoring?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed adding fenceline
monitoring for chromium. Fenceline monitoring refers to the placement
of monitors along the perimeter of a facility to measure pollutant
concentrations. Coupled with requirements for root cause analysis and
corrective action upon triggering an actionable level, this work
practice standard is a development in practices considered under CAA
section 112(d)(6) for the purposes of managing fugitive emissions. The
measurement of these pollutant concentrations and comparison to
concentrations estimated from mass emissions via dispersion modeling
can be used to ground-truth emission estimates from a facility's
emissions inventory. If concentrations at the fenceline are greater
than expected, the likely cause is that there are underreported or
unknown emission sources affecting the monitors. In addition to the
direct indication that emissions may be higher than inventories would
suggest, fenceline monitoring provides information on the location of
potential emissions sources. Further, when used with a mitigation
strategy, such as root cause analysis and corrective action upon
exceedance of an action level, fenceline monitoring can be effective in
reducing emissions and reducing the uncertainty associated with
emissions estimation and characterization. Finally, public reporting of
fenceline monitoring data provides public transparency and greater
visibility, leading to more focus and effort in reducing emissions.
Specifically, we proposed that facilities must install four ambient
air monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations around
the perimeter of the facility, regardless of facility size, based on a
site-specific plan approved by the EPA to collect and analyze samples
for total chromium every sixth day. In addition, we proposed that
facilities must implement the following work practice requirement: if
an installed fenceline monitor has a 12-month rolling average delta c
concentration--calculated as the annual average of the highest sample
value for a given sample period minus the lowest sample value measured
during that sample period--above the proposed action level of 0.1
[micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, the facility must conduct a root
cause analysis and take corrective action to prevent additional
exceedances. Data would be reported electronically to the EPA's
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on a
quarterly basis and subsequently available to the public via the Web
Factor Information Retrieval system (WebFIRE) website. Furthermore, we
proposed a sunset provision whereby if the annual average delta c
remain 50-percent or more below the action level (i.e., 0.05 [micro]g/
m\3\ or lower) for a 24-month period, then the facility can request to
terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the fenceline
monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities to meet all
other obligations under this subpart including the general duty to
minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d).
Because a method has not yet been proposed or promulgated for
fenceline monitoring of metals, we proposed that fenceline monitoring
would begin no later than one year after the EPA's promulgation of a
fenceline test method, or two years after the promulgation of the final
rule, whichever is later. The EPA is working as expeditiously as
possible to propose a new metals fenceline method. As part of the prior
CAA section 114 information collection effort, we relied on a common
ambient monitoring method \2\ for the collection of the metals samples
and associated analytical method \3\ for multi-metals for the analysis.
While these methods are robust and appropriate for ambient trends
applications, EPA needs to further investigate and revise these
approaches for a stationary source regulatory program to ensure
improved precision and accuracy in the method, in the same manner EPA
developed Method 327 \4\ from TO-15 in the recent Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Organic National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)--40 CFR 63 Subparts F,G,H,I
proposed rule, published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 25080). The required
determinations of whether the action level has been exceeded and any
subsequent root cause investigation will begin once the first annual
rolling average is acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended
Particulates in the Atmosphere (High Volume Method), 40 CFR 50,
Appendix B.
\3\ Method IO-3, Determination of Metals in Ambient Particulate
Matter Using Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Spectroscopy.
\4\ Federal Register Notice published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR
25080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What comments did we receive on the monitoring requirements, and
what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed focus on chromium as a
``surrogate'' and the proposal to set an action level for only chromium
is demonstrably inadequate. Emission standards under CAA section 112(d)
must be ``comprehensive controls for each source category that must
include limits on each hazardous air pollutant the category emits.''
(LEAN, 955 F.3d at 1095-96.) As identified in several background
documents for this proposed rule, air pollutants from various facility
processes include multiple toxic metals in addition to chromium
including arsenic, mercury, and lead; toxic halogenated compounds
including carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen fluoride, D/F; and other toxic pollutants such as hydrocarbons
and PM. The CAA requires ``as many limits as needed to control all the
emitted air toxics of a
[[Page 23307]]
particular source category.'' (Id. at 1097.) Commenters stated that the
2023 Proposal is unlawful on its face for only requiring monitoring and
action level standards for chromium.
Response: The EPA disagrees that conducting fenceline monitoring
for only chromium is inadequate or unlawful. The EPA recognizes there
are multiple toxic metals emitted by various facility processes from
the iron and steel facilities. We reiterate that we did not intend to
measure all pollutants, especially pollutants that are emitted from
point sources that are directly measurable through source tests and
continuous monitoring systems. These emissions sources and pollutants
are subject to other standards under these MACT. We disagree that it is
necessary to conduct fenceline monitoring for every HAP emitted from
fugitive emission sources at integrated iron and steel facilities.
Integrated iron and steel emissions can contain many different HAP and
it is very difficult for any fenceline method to detect every HAP
potentially emitted from integrated iron and steel facilities. The
fenceline monitoring standard was proposed as part of the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review to improve management of fugitive emissions
of metal HAPs and not as a risk reduction measure. In order to meet
that goal of improved management of fugitive emissions, it is not
necessary to obtain an accurate picture of the level of all HAP
emitted. We chose to propose fenceline measurements only for chromium
because it was a risk driver in the 2020 RTR analyses and has been
determined to be a good surrogate for other HAP metals, especially
arsenic, which was the other HAP metal driving the risks in the 2020
RTR risk analyses. Additionally, at the fenceline, based on fenceline
monitoring conducted in 2022-23 at Integrated Iron and Steel facilities
in response to the section 114 request, the highest monitored lead
levels were found to be 5 times lower than the current air quality
health NAAQS value (last issued in 2015 to provide an ``adequate margin
of safety to protect public health''). However, based on a lack of
information on fugitive lead and other metal HAP emissions, the EPA
does agree with this commenter that there is a need for more data
gathering, both at the fenceline and from other sources on the
facilities. EPA did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a
requirement to monitor any metals other than chromium as part of the
fenceline requirement, but we intend to gather more fenceline
monitoring data for lead in 2024 at Integrated Iron and Steel
facilities to better characterize fugitive lead emissions.
Additionally, we intend to gather more data regarding HAP metals from
sinter plant stacks through the use of PM continuous monitoring systems
(PM CEMs). We intend to collect this data in a separate action under
CAA section 114 that will follow this final rule.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should require monitoring
and set action level standards for all HAP metals emitted by II&S
facilities. These commenters asserted that the incremental cost to
monitor for all metals is insignificant and would have outsized
benefits to the community by establishing multiple triggers for
assessment and corrective action. As an alternative to required
fenceline monitoring for all HAP metals, commenters stated the EPA
should consider implementing a fenceline standard for lead because most
communities surrounding II&S facilities are EJ communities exposed to
lead from multiple sources. Commenters also specifically supported a
fenceline monitoring requirement for arsenic.
Response: The EPA observes that it is technically feasible to
require further speciation of metal HAPs collected within a single
sample. Although increasing the analyte list does increase the
analytical costs because additional calibration standards are required,
the EPA agrees with commenters that the costs to monitor for additional
metals would be relatively low. However, the incremental cost of
monitoring for additional HAPs is not the only consideration in
determining the scope of a fenceline monitoring requirement for this
source category. The EPA must also consider the efficacy of instituting
a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAPs, as well as
practical implementation concerns. At this time, the EPA believes these
factors weigh in favor of requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium
while continuing to gather information on other metal HAPs.
As discussed above, the EPA previously determined in the 2020 RTR
that chromium is one of the two principal drivers of health risk in
this source category and is also an effective surrogate for arsenic,
which is the other most significant contributor to risk. Because the
principal purpose of fenceline monitoring in this source category is to
assure compliance with the emission standards that address fugitive
emissions of particulate HAP metals, implementing this development will
provide ``necessary'' protection against fugitive emissions of metal
HAPs (including those that pose greatest risks to public health).
Fenceline monitoring is a development in practices, for the purpose of
managing fugitive emissions. In sum, fenceline monitors will be placed
at or near the perimeter of the applicable facility to measure
pollutant concentrations; this measurement is coupled with the
requirement to conduct applicable root cause analyses and implement
corrective action upon triggering an actionable level. The utilization
of fenceline monitors will serve to manage fugitive emissions with the
intent to reduce emissions, as well as to reduce uncertainty associated
with initial emissions estimation. The use of fenceline monitors,
coupled with action levels, represents a development in work practices.
Therefore, focusing fenceline monitoring requirements on chromium is
appropriate as a development pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium alone also facilitates
establishing an appropriate action level, reduces analytical costs, and
simplifies the determination of compliance for integrated iron and
steel owners and operators.
By contrast, including additional metal HAPs in the fenceline
monitoring program would require the EPA to resolve a number of
technical issues, including how an action level for additional HAPs
would be set, and whether each metal HAP would have its own action
level or instead a single action level for the sum of metal HAP
measured. The EPA was not able to develop the information needed to
address these issues within the timeframe for this rulemaking. Given
that the available information indicates that HAP metals emitted from
the integrated iron and steel facilities other than chromium and
arsenic do not contribute to significant ambient concentrations at or
near the facility boundaries (e.g., fenceline) at these facilities, we
have determined that at present the benefits of including other metal
HAPs in the scope of the fenceline monitoring requirement are also
unclear.
Although we did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a
fenceline monitoring requirement for any metals other than chromium at
this time, the EPA recognizes that further information on fugitive
emissions of lead and other HAP metals would be useful in informing
whether and how a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAP
metals as part of a future rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to gather
more data to better characterize fugitive lead and other HAP metals
through a separate action that will
[[Page 23308]]
follow this final rule as described in the previous response in this
preamble.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should not set an action
level that would be triggered if the UFIP sources were meeting all of
the proposed opacity limits and work practice standards, which is the
EPA's stated purpose for establishing the fenceline monitoring program.
Because the EPA did not consider or analyze whether II&S facilities
could maintain UFIP emissions at rates to ensure that the action level
would not be triggered or how much it would cost to maintain emissions
below the action level, the EPA should not entertain these lower values
of 0.08 and 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\. Commenters stated that for the EPA to
do so would be arbitrary and capricious per se.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the support and is finalizing the
action level at 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ as proposed.
Comment: Commenters stated that regardless of the numeric value
selected for the action level, the EPA should express the chromium
action level in [micro]g/m\3\ to at least two decimal places and
clarify that rounding occurs to the second decimal place (e.g., 0.11
[micro]g/m\3\ would not round down to 0.10 [micro]g/m\3\ and would
therefore exceed the action level). The EPA states that ``[b]ecause of
the variability and limitations in the data, to establish the proposed
action level we rounded[. . .]to one significant figure (i.e., 0.1
[micro]g/m\3\).'' Commenters stated that there are two issues with this
statement: (1) significant figures do not completely characterize
numerical precision, and (2) reporting chromium concentrations in
[micro]g/m\3\ to one decimal place does not reflect the precision of
modern sampling and analytical techniques. Commenters stated that in
response to the first point, consider two hypothetical reported
chromium concentrations: 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\. Both
have only one significant digit, but the second concentration is
reported with a greater level of precision. As for the second point,
Table 1 in EPA Compendium Method IO-3.5, which was the analytical
method used to determine fenceline chromium concentrations as part of
the EPA's CAA section 114 ICR, lists the estimated method detection
limit for chromium as 0.01 ng/m\3\ (0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\). This low
method detection limit demonstrates the sensitivity and precision of
modern sampling and analytical methods. As such, chromium
concentrations measured with these methods should be reported to at
least two decimal places (assuming units of [micro]g/m\3\).
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that more than one
decimal place should be used for the action level and further disagrees
with their definition of precision. Measurement precision relates to
the degree of variation in repeated measurements, and not what decimal
place a reading is. In the example proposed, 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01
[micro]g/m\3\, these are merely two values of differing magnitude, and
not two values of different precision.
The EPA also disagrees that the detection limit of EPA Compendium
Method IO-3.5 has meaning in this context. The detection limit is the
lowest level at which a valid measurement can be collected, beyond
indicating that, in this case, the measured values are within the
measurable range, it has no practical impact upon the number of
significant digits appropriate.
While the analytical techniques may be able to determine the
concentration out to more than one significant figure, the setting of
the action level is based not just upon the measurement itself, but
upon projected gains under the newly required limits on UFIP and the
calculation of delta c, further complicating the determination of an
appropriate action level. The EPA is finalizing the action level at one
significant figure as proposed.
Comment: Commenters stated that even if the EPA can sufficiently
explain why an action level was set for chromium for II&S facilities
based on fenceline monitoring, the EPA should set the action level
below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ because fenceline data collected as part of
EPA's CAA section 114 collection request shows that a lower action
level is achievable. Because the EPA did not request that all eight
II&S facilities perform fenceline monitoring pursuant to the CAA
section 114 request, the EPA did not identify the top five best
performing facilities. However, two of the four facilities that
conducted fenceline monitoring (Cleveland Works and Burns Harbor) had
6-month chromium delta c averages below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\, and a third
facility (Granite City) is projected to be at 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ after
implementing provisions of the rulemaking. The EPA has failed to
explain why they are requiring an action level that constitutes the
lowest number (0.1 [micro]g/m\3\) instead of the level that three of
the four facilities that conducted fenceline monitoring are able to
meet (0.10 [micro]g/m\3\). Accordingly, the EPA should set the action
level below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\.
Response: Consistent with refineries and all other proposed
fenceline monitoring standards, we are implementing the action level as
a single significant digit as discussed further in the response to the
previous comment of this section.
3. What are the revised standards for the fenceline monitoring
requirements and how will compliance be demonstrated?
We are finalizing what we proposed: facilities must install four
ambient air monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations
around the perimeter of the facility based on a site-specific plan that
must be submitted to and approved by the EPA, regardless of facility
size. These monitors shall collect and analyze samples for total
chromium every sixth day. The facilities must also implement the
following work practice requirement: if an installed fenceline monitor
has a 12-month rolling average delta c concentration that is above the
action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, calculated as the
annual average of the delta c determined during each sample period over
the year (highest sample value for a given sample period minus the
lowest sample value measured during that sample period), the facility
must conduct a root cause analysis and take corrective action to
prevent additional exceedances.
A facility may request to terminate fenceline monitoring after 24
months of consecutive results 50 percent or more below the action
level. The EPA selected the monitoring locations and sampling frequency
as specified to maintain the same basis of monitoring as that used in
the derivation of the action level as discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 49414). The use of four monitors was selected and
not expanded to the same number of monitoring sites as EPA Method 325A
because, unlike EPA Method 325A that uses passive samplers, the
methodology used for both the CAA section 114 request and the potential
candidate method for this rule requires power at each sampling
location, dramatically increasing the potential cost of each monitoring
site. The sampling frequency of every six days was selected to both
mimic that of the CAA section 114 request as well as to ensure
operations on each day of the week would be represented in the
calculation of the annual average delta c. Data will be reported
electronically to CEDRI on a quarterly basis and subsequently available
to the public via the WebFIRE website.
In response to many comments regarding fugitive emissions of lead
and other metals, we recognize the need to gather more data to
characterize these fugitive emissions at the fenceline and sinter
plants. We intend to take a separate action on this data collection
[[Page 23309]]
for lead and potentially other metals action under CAA section 114.
D. Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New and
Existing Sources
1. What standards did we propose to address unregulated point sources?
In addition to the unregulated UFIP sources, we identified five
unregulated HAP from sinter plant point sources (CS<INF>2</INF>, COS,
HCl, HF, and Hg); three unregulated HAP from BF stove and BOPF point
sources (D/F, HCl and THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/
F)); and two unregulated HAP from BF point sources (HCl and THC (as a
surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F). The proposed MACT emission
limits for these unregulated point sources are in Table 3.
Table 3--Estimated HAP Emissions and Proposed MACT Limits for Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated source category
Process HAP emissions Proposed MACT limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants................. CS2................... 42 tpy..................... Existing and new sources:
0.028 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. COS................... 57 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.030 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HCl................... 11 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.0012 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HF.................... 1.2 tpy.................... Existing and new sources:
0.0011 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. Hg.................... 66 pounds/yr............... Existing sources: 3.5e-5 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
1.2e-5 lb/ton sinter.
BF casthouse control devices.. HCl................... 1.4 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0013 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
5.9e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF casthouse control devices.. THC................... 270 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.092 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.035 lb/ton iron.
BOPF.......................... D/F (TEQ \1\)......... 3.6 grams/yr............... Existing and new sources:
4.7e-8 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... HCl................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.078 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
1.9e-4 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... THC................... 13 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.04 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
0.0017 lb/ton steel.
BF Stove...................... D/F (TEQ)............. 0.076 grams/year........... Existing and new sources:
3.8e-10 lb/ton iron.
BF Stove...................... HCl................... 4.5 tpy.................... Existing sources: 5.2e-4 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
1.4e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF Stove...................... THC................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.1 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.0011 lb/ton iron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalency.
2. What comments did we receive on the unregulated point sources, and
what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters state that they submitted additional stack
tests in Appendix L that cover the EPA's proposed MACT standards for BF
Stoves, BF Casthouses, and BOPF Primary Control Devices. These
commenters do not represent that the additional data submitted in
Appendix L alone or in combination with data underlying the EPA's
proposed standards capture the full range of operating conditions for
these point sources; however, they believe these additional data
further indicate that the EPA's limited datasets do not sufficiently
account for variability and, therefore, are not representative of best
performing units in this source category. The same commenters state
that the EPA's 15 proposed HAP limits for new sources rely on
insufficient data and are unlikely to be technologically feasible. They
are also concerned that any new sources would also not be able to meet
the emission rates of the best performers given the lack of sufficient
data underlying the EPA's proposed new source limits for the 15 HAPs
that inherently do not capture process, operational, raw material, or
seasonal and measurement variability of the EPA-designated best
performing source. Achievability of the new source proposed limits is a
concern because it is also unlikely that it would be technologically
feasible for pollution control equipment to guarantee any degree of
control of such low or dilute concentrations of D/F, PAHs, COS,
CS<INF>2</INF>, Hg, THC, HF, and HCl, which fall below the lowest
target concentrations and capture limitations of such equipment.
Further, the sources of raw materials and their impact on emissions
variability cannot be reasonably predicted.
Response: The EPA has considered these additional data and, where
deemed valid, incorporated the data into updated UPL calculations for
the point sources and HAPs. The promulgated limits are based on MACT
floor calculations (UPL) using the available valid data, which
represents our best estimate of current average performance, accounting
for variability (i.e., UPL calculations), of the sources for which we
have valid data (for affected sources). Additionally, based on industry
comments, we: (1) used surrogate limits for some HAP; (2) changed the
format of some limits; and (3) established work practices for HAP where
majority of data were below detection.
Furthermore, based on the limited data we have, we estimate that
all facilities will be able to meet these limits without the need for
new add-on control devices (e.g., we have no data indicating a source
cannot currently comply with these limits). Nevertheless, we
acknowledge that there are uncertainties because of the limited data.
However, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA and the LEAN court
decision, we must promulgate MACT emissions limits based on available
data in order to fulfill our court ordered CAA section 112(d)(6)
obligations.
Comment: Commenters stated that if EPA nonetheless proceeds with BF
Stove limits, the form must be revised to lb/MMBtu, and that EPA
erroneously used iron, rather than steel, production rates. The
commenter said the agency should use contemporaneous iron production
rates instead, which were provided on May 25, 2023. Notwithstanding
these errors, emission limits for combustion units including BF stoves
would be most appropriately expressed as lb/MMBtu, as although stove
and blast furnace operations are interrelated, there are significant
site specific differences in operation which make blast furnace
production inappropriate to use when developing a limit for BF stoves.
Lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate because the emissions per amount of
heat released is more directly related to total quantity of emissions
generated. Further, gas flow can be directly measured to account for
varying BF stove operation. Iron production is intermittent with
tapping and plugging of the furnace, so using emissions per ton could
produce misleading results and should not be used.
Response: The EPA agrees that BF stove emission limits in the units
of lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate than
[[Page 23310]]
unis of lb/ton. We have recalculated UPLs for BF stove emissions in the
units of lb/MMBtu and are finalizing MACT floor limits for HCl and THC
emissions from BF stoves in the units of lb/MMBtu. No additional costs
are expected to meet these limits.
Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its
proposed D/F limit for BF Stoves because D/F is not present, or, if
present, is only in trace amounts. The EPA estimates that the 17 BF
Stoves in the source category collectively emit 0.076 grams per year of
D/F. Commentors said that basing the proposed D/F limit on only two
tests, with a total of only 6 data points (5 of which are BDL) is not
permissible. If the EPA nevertheless pursues D/F limits for BF Stoves,
the EPA should review and revise the limits to ones that are
representative of the emissions limitations being achieved by the best
performers. The EPA should consider work practices, such as good
combustion practices, in lieu of numerical limits.
Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3)
and the court order for the EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in
this final rule. The EPA collected emissions test data through the CAA
section 114 requests. For D/F from BF stoves, when we made a
determination of BDL according to the procedures outlined in
Determination of ``non-detect'' from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and
EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of
MACT floors versus work practice standards (Johnson 2014) (Johnson
memo) available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1082), two of the
six runs are determined to be non-detect. Though we disagree in the
number of non-detect values with the commenter, we agree that, as only
33 percent of test runs were detected values, a work practice under CAA
section 112(h) is appropriate for the control of D/F from BF Stoves.
The EPA generally considers a work practice to be justified if a
significant majority of emissions data available indicate that
emissions are so low that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more
than 55 percent of test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the
Johnson Memo. An appropriate work practice for D/F for the stoves, due
to their similarity in operation with boilers and other heaters, is
good combustion practices, represented for this source by the THC
standard being finalized in this rule. The numerical THC standard
provides assurance of good combustion practices, and a further tune-up
style work practice requirement is not necessary.
Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its
proposed CS<INF>2</INF> and HF limits for sinter/recycling plants
because the available data demonstrates these pollutants are not
emitted. The EPA estimates sinter/recycling plants emit: a total 1.3
tpy of HF and 23 tpy of CS<INF>2</INF> for the source category. The EPA
bases its CS<INF>2</INF> estimate on a limited data set of six test
runs where the EPA flagged 83 percent (5 out of 6) of those results as
below detection limit (BDL). (2023 Data Memo at app. A) BDL means that
emissions are so low they are not able to be accurately read, measured,
or quantified. Similarly, 13 out of 14 (93 percent) of test runs for HF
from sinter/recycling plants were flagged BDL by the EPA, indicating
that HF is not emitted or emitted in trace amounts, and thus EPA should
not set a numerical standard for HF for sinter/recycling plants. The
commentor stated if the EPA nevertheless proceeds with such numerical
limits, it must revise its proposed limits upwards to help to account
for known data variability and limited datasets. Commentors stated that
data underlying the EPA's proposed CS<INF>2</INF> and HF limits
includes a significant number of readings below the detection limit.
The EPA explains that ``greater than 50 percent of the data runs were
BDL'' for HF and CS<INF>2</INF> from sinter/recycling plants. (2023
MACT Costs Memo at 19-21, tbl. 24.) The proposed limits for HF and
CS<INF>2</INF> are not representative of current performance due to the
frequency of near or BDL. The EPA has noted that ``section 112(d)(2) of
the CAA specifically allows EPA to establish MACT standards based on
emission controls that rely on pollution prevention techniques.'' Where
a majority of BDL values exist, the EPA should instead consider
pollution control techniques, such as a work practice, rather than
individual limits for these HAPs. Thus, the EPA should rely on the oil-
content and VOC limit pollution control techniques that are already in
place for these pollutants.
Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3)
and the court's Order for EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in
this final rule. The EPA reviewed the data in question and agrees with
the commenter's assessment of the number of non-detect results for
CS<INF>2</INF> and HF. Further, the single test run for which HF was
detected was only slightly above the detection limit (0.09 ppmv
detected value versus the detection limit of 0.08 ppmv). The EPA
generally considers a work practice to be justified if a significant
majority of emissions data available indicate that emissions are so low
that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more than 55 percent of
test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the Johnson Memo. Due to the
extremely high percentage of non-detect values, 83 and 93 percent for
CS<INF>2</INF> and HF respectively, it is appropriate for both of these
compounds at the sinter plant to be represented by a work practice
standard according to CAA section 112(h). For CS<INF>2</INF>, the work
practice being finalized consists of the existing requirement to
control the oil content in the sinter or the VOC emissions at the
windbox exhaust (40 CFR 63.7790(d)) to control the source of the
sulfur, combined with the new numerical standard for COS being
finalized in this rulemaking. For HF, where 93 percent of the values
were below the detection limit and the only detected value is only
slightly above, the numerical standard for HCl being finalized in this
rule shall act as a work practice (or surrogate) for HF, as control of
HCL will also control HF.
3. What are the revised standards for the unregulated point sources and
how will compliance be demonstrated?
We are finalizing the MACT Floor emission limits mostly as we
proposed, but with minor adjustments for some limits based on the
inclusion of additional valid data in the UPL calculations, the
revision of the format of BF Stove emission limits as advised in the
comments received, and the incorporation of work practices and
surrogates for CS<INF>2</INF> and HF at sinter plants and D/F from the
BF Stove. These work practices are being finalized because under CAA
section 112(h), the Administrator has determined that it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard for these
unregulated point sources. Furthermore, based on consideration of
public comments and further analyses, for mercury emissions from
existing sinter plants, we are promulgating a BTF limit based on
installation and operation of activated carbon injection (ACI),
described in section III.E of this preamble. The emission limits, along
with estimated annual emissions, for the unregulated point sources for
the final rule are provided in Table 4.
[[Page 23311]]
Table 4--HAP Emissions and Final MACT Limits for Previously Unregulated Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promulgated MACT emissions
Process HAP Estimated source category limit (or other applicable
emissions standard as noted below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants................. CS2................... 23 tpy..................... Meet applicable COS limit
and meet requirements of
40 CFR 63.7790(d).
Sinter Plants................. COS................... 72 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.030 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HCl................... 12 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.0012 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HF.................... 1.3 tpy.................... Meet the applicable HCl
standard.
Sinter Plants................. Hg.................... 55 pounds/yr............... Existing sources: 1.8e-5 lb/
ton sinter.\2\ New
sources: 1.2e-5 lb/ton
sinter.
BF casthouse control devices.. HCl................... 1.4 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0056 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
5.9e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF casthouse control devices.. THC................... 270 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.48 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.035 lb/ton iron.
BOPF.......................... D/F (TEQ \1\)......... 3.6 grams/yr............... Existing and new sources:
9.2e-10 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... HCl................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.058 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
2.8e-4 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... THC................... 13 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.04 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
0.0017 lb/ton steel.
BF Stove...................... D/F (TEQ)............. 0.076 grams/year........... Good combustion practices
demonstrated by meeting
the THC limit.
BF Stove...................... HCl................... 4.5 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0012 lb/
MMBtu. New sources: 4.2e-4
lb/MMBtu.
BF Stove...................... THC................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.12 lb/
MMBtu. New sources: 0.0054
lb/MMBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalency.
\2\ See section III.E for description of the final mercury limit.
E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter Plants Under
CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-the-Floor Limit for
Mercury
1. What standards did we propose to address the reconsideration of the
D/F and PAH standards for sinter plants, and new mercury limits from
sinter plants?
We proposed emissions limits of 3.5E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F
toxic equivalency (TEQ) and 5.9E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for
existing sinter plant windboxes. These limits reflect the average
current performance of the four existing sinter plants for D/F and PAHs
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For mercury, we proposed a MACT
Floor limit of 3.5E-05 lbs/ton sinter for existing sources, as
described in section III.D of this preamble.
For new sources, we proposed emissions limits of 3.1E-09 lbs/ton of
sinter for D/F (TEQ), and 1.5E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for new
sinter plant windboxes that reflect the current performance of the one
best performing sinter plant pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Regarding mercury, we proposed a MACT floor limit of 1.2E-05 lbs/ton
sinter for new sinter plants.
2. What comments did we receive on the reconsideration of the D/F and
PAH standards for sinter plants, and mercury emissions, and what are
our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the Agency's review of ACI during
the 2020 RTR found that the ACI add-on control technology for sinter/
recycling plant windboxes would not be cost-effective. They said the
Agency's BTF analysis and evaluation of ACI as a potential control
option for sinter/recycling plants are flawed. Commenters said that
they are unaware of any application of ACI with a wet scrubber for
particulate control being sufficiently demonstrated in practice as a
control technology for D/F. Commenters also assert that the assumed
brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection rate of 1.7 lb/
MMacf based on 2012 test data from the Gerdau Sayreville, NJ electric
arc furnace baghouse is unproven in the II&S industry and that the
Agency may be underestimating the required injection rates.
Response: Based on our review of the available information and
analyses, we estimate the brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC)
can achieve 85 percent reduction of D/F when used with fabric filters.
Regarding wet scrubbers, based on a scientific article by H.Ruegg and
A. Sigg (See ``Dioxin Removal In a Wet Scrubber and Dry Particulate
Removal'', Chemosphere, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, p. 143-148), we estimate ACI
used with a wet scrubber will achieve 70 percent reduction. Given that
PAHs and dioxins are both semi-volatile organic compounds, we assume
the ACI with a wet scrubber will also achieve 70 percent reduction of
PAHs from sinter plants with a wet scrubber. We note that only one of
the 4 sinter plants is controlled with a wet venturi scrubber. The
other three have baghouses.
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's MACT limits for existing
sinter plants should be lower, arguing that the EPA's establishment of
separate MACT floors for COS, HCl, and mercury for new plants at less
than half of the limit for existing sources indicates how outdated the
50 plus year-old existing sinter plants are. Commenters argued that the
fact that only two integrated steel mills continue to operate sinter
plants, down from nine facilities twenty years ago, further suggests
that American sinter technology is outdated. In commenters' view, the
EPA should not give these outdated sinter plants a ``pass'' on reducing
their significant emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Commenters further stated that the EPA should reconsider rejecting
ACI as too expensive, arguing that steel mills can clearly afford this
control measure based on recent profit margins. The EPA should more
carefully consider an evaluation of the human health costs associated
with the HAP emissions and factor that into the Agency's cost estimate.
Alternatively, the commenters urged EPA to consider advanced or
additional pollution controls on sinter windboxes, the most significant
source of emissions from sinter plants. The proposed NESHAP does not
appear to have considered the use of wet electrostatic precipitators,
redundant baghouses, or other types of controls.
Response: To address the comments that sinter plants need more
controls to reduce emissions of hazardous pollutants, specifically the
addition of ACI controls, we are finalizing emissions limits pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6) for D/F and PAHs, and CAA section 112(d)(2)/
(3) BTF limits for mercury that reflect the installation and operation
of ACI controls. We conclude that the estimated costs for these ACI
controls (described below) are reasonable given that these controls
will achieve significant reductions of these three HAPs, which are
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) HAPs. For example, D/F are
highly toxic carcinogens that bioaccumulate in various food sources
such as beef and dairy products. Mercury, once it is converted to
methylmercury in aquatic
[[Page 23312]]
ecosystems, is also known to bioaccumulate in some food sources,
especially fish and marine mammals which are consumed by people,
especially people who rely on subsistence fishing as an important food
source. Methylmercury is a potent developmental neurotoxin, especially
for developing fetuses. The PAHs are a subset of the polycyclic organic
matter (POM), which are a group of HAP that EPA considers to be PB-HAP,
and includes some known or probable carcinogens such as benzo-a-pyrene.
3. What are the revised standards for the D/F, PAH and mercury for
sinter plants, and how will compliance be demonstrated?
Based on the comments received, we are finalizing emissions limits
that reflect the installation and operation of ACI controls, which are
emissions limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.8E-03
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.8E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for
existing sinter plant windboxes. Regarding new sources, we are
promulgating limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.5E-03
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.2E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for new
sinter plant windboxes. The application of this ACI will achieve
significant reductions of mercury, D/F and PAH emissions, important
reductions given that all three HAP are highly toxic, persistent,
bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP), as described above. We estimate these
limits for the three separate HAP will result in total combined capital
costs of $950K, annualized costs of $2.3M, will achieve 8 grams per
year reductions of D/F TEQ emissions, 5.4 tpy reduction in PAHs, and 47
pounds of mercury. The estimated cost effectiveness (CE) for each HAP
individually are: CE of $287K per gram D/F TEQ, $426K per ton of PAHs,
and $49,000 per pound for mercury.
If the EPA evaluated these emissions limits individually (i.e.,
without consideration of the co-control of D/F, PAHs and mercury), the
EPA might have reached a different conclusion (e.g., maybe not
promulgated one or more of the individual final limits due to costs and
cost effectiveness). For example, historically, EPA has accepted cost
effectiveness for mercury up to about $32,000 per pound. Regarding the
D/F and PAHs, we have not identified cost effectiveness values that
have been accepted in the past as part of revising standards under
EPA's technology reviews pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
However, given that ACI is expected to be needed to achieve the
limits for all three HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described
previously in this section, we determined, similar to how we group non-
Hg HAP metals when evaluating cost effectiveness, that it is
appropriate to consider these three HAP as a group because they would
be controlled by the same technology. We note that the Hg cost-
effectiveness value is within a factor of 2 of values that we have
accepted, and that these three HAP are persistent and bioaccumulative
in the environment. Given that ACI is required to achieve the limits
for all three PB-HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described previously
in this section, we decided it was appropriate to establish these
limits for these three HAP that reflect application of ACI. Because
these three pollutants are PB-HAP, as described in more detail in
response above, we conclude the estimated costs are reasonable,
especially given that these annual costs are far less than 1 percent of
revenues for the parent companies, which is discussed further in the
economic impacts section of this preamble (see section IV.D).
F. Other Major Comments and Issues
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's 2023 Proposal for II&S
facilities poses many challenges to the domestic iron and steel
manufacturing industries. They stated when taken in conjunction with
other onerous EPA regulations, including the proposed revisions to the
NAAQS for PM, the 2023 Taconite Risk and Technology Review proposal and
the 2023 Coke Ovens and Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Risk and
Technology Review proposal, the domestic II&S manufacturers will incur
significant cost and will struggle to meet these additional, infeasible
standards. They stated it is critical that the EPA understand this 2023
Proposal significantly jeopardizes the potential successes of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA), and, as a result, undercut the decarbonization priorities of the
administration.
Commenters acknowledged the iron and steel industry faces
significant impacts from the 2023 Proposal along with other EPA
proposed rules including the Taconite MACT, the Coke MACT, the Good
Neighbor Rule, and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. They stated their
customers, coworkers, suppliers and themselves are concerned for the
future of iron and steelmaking, an essential industry, in the U.S.
Commenters stated the regulations moving through the EPA at the
current time are going to materially impact the Iron Range of Minnesota
and the entire domestic steel industry. Commenters urged the EPA to be
prudent and use caution before placing a single new regulation on these
industries. Commenters asked the EPA to show favor in the Agency's
decision making to the domestic iron and steel industry.
Response: As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and
in section IV.D of this preamble, the projected economic impacts of the
expected compliance costs of the rule are likely to be small. This
rulemaking is estimated to cost less than 1% of the annual revenues of
the parent companies. This rule should not be financially detrimental
to the source category. See sections IV.C and IV.D of this preamble,
and the RIA, for more details.
Comment: Commenters state that in 2020, the EPA conservatively
determined that II&S source category risk was well below the acceptable
levels established by the Congress and that existing standards are
protective of public health with an ample margin of safety, and the
proposal does not reopen or even question the EPA's conservative 2020
determination. As the proposal (briefly) recites, ``[i]n the 2020 final
rule, the Agency found that risks due to emissions of air toxics from
this source category were acceptable and concluded that the NESHAP
provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health.'' (2023
Proposal) The EPA's decision not to revisit that conclusion confirms
that the EPA supports the 2020 ample margin of safety determination and
sees no reason for amendment. In fact, detailed corrected emission and
modeling data show that the remaining risks are significantly smaller
than even the low levels the EPA estimated in 2020.
Response: The EPA is revising the 2020 final rule to satisfy the
LEAN decision, which requires the EPA to address any remaining
unregulated sources of emissions from the iron and steel facilities. In
meeting the requirements of this case law, the EPA collected more data
to revisit the standards in the 2020 final rule under a technology
review. Therefore, our revised standards are not based on assessment of
risk, but instead based on evaluation of additional data. All the
standards and other requirements in this final rule are being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(d)(6). The
EPA is not promulgating any new or revised standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) or revising its prior risk assessment results and
conclusions, but instead are finalizing these standards and other
requirements based on evaluation of additional data and applicable
112(d)
[[Page 23313]]
requirements that direct HAP emission reductions.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA's emissions estimates for
UFIP sources are flawed and must be corrected. The EPA has attempted to
estimate current HAP emission rates for all seven categories of UFIPs,
and to estimate emission reductions that it projects would occur if the
proposed opacity and work practice standards are achieved. The
commenter claims that EPA's emissions estimates are based, in part, on
the use of incorrect emission factors, which cause a significant
overstatement of emissions from UFIPs, and therefore significantly
overestimates risk from UFIPs. These errors result in significant
cascading and compounding effects that reveal that the current proposal
will be prohibitively expensive and cannot be justified, particularly
given the low-risk determination that the EPA has already made.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the UFIP emission factors led to a
significant overestimation of emissions from UFIP sources. The emission
factors for UFIP sources were developed from the literature, first
principles, discussions with the II&S industry, or a combination of all
three. The emission factors used for most UFIP sources are described in
the memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive
or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk
Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0956). The emission
factor used for bell leaks was lower than the emission factor used in
2019 after incorporating previous feedback from industry that the 2019
emission factor for bell leaks was an overestimation. The emission
factor used for bell leaks is described in the memorandum titled
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447), this
document is also referred to as the ``UFIP memorandum'' elsewhere in
this preamble.
The PM emission factors for UFIP and capture and control
efficiencies for control devices were taken primarily from a relatively
recent (2006) EPA document. However, this document used as its primary
source of data the 1995 update of the EPA's AP-42 section for the II&S
manufacturing industry (section 12.5), which relied upon even older
(1970) data in some cases. However, because the 2006 EPA document was
developed by the EPA after the II&S manufacturing industry MACT was
promulgated and was based on an expert evaluation of the available
emission information, it is considered the most reliable source of
information about PM emissions for the II&S manufacturing industry
available to the EPA and, hence, the most reliable information to be
used for UFIP sources.
Other data that were used to estimate UFIP emissions not available
in the 2006 EPA document were taken from reliable sources in the
literature. In some cases, for the purposes of the II&S manufacturing
industry RTR, an emission factor from AP-42 for one II&S manufacturing
industry source was used for another II&S manufacturing industry source
based on good engineering judgment. For example, if EPA staff
determined that the two sources were similar (e.g., used similar
processes, equipment, input materials, control devices, etc.), then
staff used such a source to estimate emissions from another similar
source. If not, staff searched for other relevant information to
estimate emissions. Whenever possible, the original source of data
referenced by the documents was obtained and reviewed; these references
are cited in the ``Example Facility memorandum'' along with the 1995
EPA AP-42 document. Also, where available, AP-42 emission factor
quality ratings were provided. In some cases, none of the available
literature provided emission factors considered appropriate for today's
industry. In these cases, the EPA developed emission factors from basic
scientific principles, industry data and feedback, emission factors for
similar sources, and the EPA's knowledge of the process. Further
explanation and discussion of how emissions were estimated are
available in the Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk
Assessment (Example facility memorandum) and/or the UFIP memorandum
cited previously in this preamble, which are available in the docket
for this action.
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA must consider additional data in
setting limits. Although the EPA collected data in 2022 from the eight
impacted facilities, the commenters urged the EPA to compile and
consider additional data before finalizing these 2023 amendments. The
limited data collection did not reflect the full range of variability
due to seasonal effects and variable operating scenarios. While much of
the industry meets the proposed limits at times, the variability may
require investment in controls that are currently excluded from the
cost estimates in the rules. The EPA must consider additional data and
revise the proposed limits to adjust them upwards, as appropriate to
account for variability, or eliminate the proposed limit where test
results were below detectable levels.
Response: The EPA has made use of all valid test data, both
received through the section 114 request in 2022 and submitted during
the comment period to establish the emissions limits for sinter plants,
BF stoves, BF Primary control devices and BOPF primary control devices.
These ``point source'' emissions limits were derived using the UPL
methodology using all the valid data. Regarding opacity limits for
planned openings and slag processing, we used all valid data for 2022
that we received though the section 114 request in electronic format
and that were gathered following the methods, instruction and
conditions described in the section 114 request and because these data
reflected the most current year. The fenceline monitoring requirements
are based on evaluation all the available fenceline monitoring data
that EPA received from 16 monitoring sites. EPA considered the
variability across all 16 sites to determine the appropriate action
level, which is described in detail in the proposed rule preamble
published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402). Regarding the work practice
standards for Bell Leaks, beaching and unplanned openings, those
standards wer developed using data collected through the section 114
requests along with additional data and information collected through
public comments. For more details, see the technical memos cited in
responses above.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should expand the proposed
standards to include best work practices that reduce toxic emissions
from steel mills at a minimum by 65% as was shown possible in 2019.
Commenters stated that the EPA should ensure air monitoring and testing
includes ALL 12 toxic emissions, not simply chromium, as currently
proposed.
Response: The change from the 65 percent emission reduction
estimated in 2019 to the emission reductions calculated for this rule
is primarily due to calculation improvements based on newly received
data rather than changes to the set of work practices published. The
EPA is finalizing many of the same UFIP work practices that were
published for comment in 2019. However, through the 2022 section 114
collection the EPA received information about work practices that are
currently being utilized by facilities. The data
[[Page 23314]]
showed that a subset of the facilities are already utilizing some of
the UFIP work practices that are being finalized, which was not taken
into account in the baseline emissions estimate conducted in 2019. In
the emissions estimate conducted for this rulemaking, baseline
emissions were adjusted based on facility-specific information on work
practices that are already in use, resulting in lower baseline
emissions. If a facility is already using a work practice that is being
finalized in this rulemaking, the percent reduction of emissions
estimated for that work practice was also removed from the total
estimated emission reduction for that facility. The estimated baseline
emissions and emission reductions are described in the memorandum
titled Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and
Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447).
G. Severability of Standards
This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d)(2)-(3), as well as targeted updates to existing
standards and work practices promulgated under section 112(d)(6). We
intend each separate portion of this rule to operate independently of
and to be severable from the rest of the rule.
First, each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific
determinations that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of
the rule. For example, our judgments regarding the 112(d)(2)-(3) MACT
Standard for planned bleeder valve openings rest on the best performing
units' historical data, based on opacity values; in contrast, our
judgments regarding 112(d)(6) work practice standards for the basic
oxygen process furnace rest on different analyses, including updates to
industry standards in practices. Thus, our assessment that the
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards are feasible and appropriate is fully
independent of our judgments about the 112(d)(6) technology-review-
update standards, and vice versa.
Further, EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards and each set of 112(d)(6) technology
updates, including monitoring requirements, is independent. For
example, there is nothing precluding a source from complying with its
unplanned bleeder-valve-opening MACT limit, even if that source does
not have any data from its fenceline monitors (which measure chromium),
and vice versa. Thus, each aspect of EPA's overall approach to this
source category could be implemented even in the absence of any one or
more of the other elements included in this final rule.
Accordingly, EPA finds that each set of standards in this final
rule is severable from and can operate independently of each other set
of standards, and at a minimum, that the MACT emissions standards, as a
group, are severable from the 112(d)(6) technology update standards
(which include the fenceline monitoring requirement).
H. What are the effective and compliance dates?
All affected facilities must continue to comply with the previous
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF until the applicable
compliance date of this final rule. This final action meets the
definition in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be 60 days after the promulgation date as specified in the
Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). The compliance
dates are in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, EPA revised compliance dates
for some of the final rule requirements. For explanation of revised
compliance dates, see section 6 of the RTC.
Table 5--Summary of Compliance Dates for the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed compliance
Source(s) Rule requirement date Final compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sinter plant windbox New emissions limits 6 months after the 3 years after the
sources that commence construction for mercury, HCl, COS, promulgation of the promulgation date of
or reconstruction on or before July D/F, and PAH. final rule. the final rule.
31, 2023.
All affected sources that commence Fenceline monitoring Begin 1 year after the Begin 1 year after the
construction or reconstruction on or requirements. promulgation of the promulgation of the
before July 31, 2023. fenceline method for fenceline method for
metals or 2 years metals or 2 years
after the promulgation after the promulgation
date of the final date of the final
rule, whichever is rule, whichever is
later. later.
All affected sources that commence Opacity limits for 12 months after the 12 months after the
construction or reconstruction on or Planned Openings, Work promulgation date of promulgation date of
before July 31, 2023. Practices for Bell the final rule. the final rule.
Leaks, and work
practices for BOPF
Shop.
All affected sources that commence Work Practices and 12 months after the 24 months after the
construction or reconstruction on or Limits for Unplanned promulgation date of promulgation date of
before July 31, 2023. Openings, Work the final rule. the final rule.
Practices for
Beaching, and Opacity
limit for Slag
Processing.
All affected BF and BOPF sources that New emissions limits 6 months after the 3 years after the
commence construction or for HCl, THC, and D/F promulgation date of promulgation date of
reconstruction on or before July 31, (see Table 4). the final rule. the final rule.
2023.
All affected sources that commence All new and revised Effective date of the Effective date of the
construction or reconstruction after provisions. final rule (or upon final rule (or upon
July 31, 2023. startup, whichever is startup, whichever is
later). later).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The affected sources are facilities in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category. This includes any
facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron and
steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes the
BOPF. Based on the data we have, there are eight operating integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, and one
idle facility.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We project emissions reductions of about 64 tpy of HAP metals and
about 473 tpy of PM<INF>2.5</INF> from UFIP sources in the Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category due to the new
and revised standards for UFIP sources.
[[Page 23315]]
C. What are the cost impacts?
The estimated capital costs are the same as the proposed estimate
at $5.4M and annualized costs are $2.8M per year for the source
category for the new UFIP control requirements. Also, compliance
testing for all the new standards is estimated to cost the same as the
proposed estimate at about $1.7M once every 5 years for the source
category (which equates to about an average of roughly $320,000 per
year). The estimated cost breakdown for the fenceline monitoring
requirement is the same as proposed at $25,000 capital cost and $41,100
annual operating costs per monitor, $100,000 capital costs and $164,000
annual operating costs per facility, and $800,000 capital costs and
$1.3M annual operating costs for the source category (assumes 8
operating facilities). Additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with the final rule are expected to
cost the same as the proposed estimate at $7,500 per facility per year
($60,000 for the source category per year, assuming eight facilities).
The cost estimates were primarily revised in response to modifications
of the rule requirements, with some BTF components being substituted
for MACT floor options, as well as in response to contractor revisions.
Additional adjustments were made to recategorize some annual costs that
were initially miscategorized as capital costs. Based on the comments
received, emission limits for sinter plants were revised to reflect the
installation of ACI controls. ACI controls on the sinter plants are
expected to cost $950,000 in total capital cost and $2.3 million in
total annual cost. The total estimated capital costs are $7.1 million
and total estimated annualized costs are $6.7 million for all the
requirements for the source category. However, annual costs could
decrease after facilities complete 2 years of fenceline monitoring
because we have included a sunset provision whereby if facilities
remain below the one half of the action level for 2 full years, they
can request to terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the
fenceline monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities
to meet all other obligations under this subpart including the general
duty to minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d). There may be some
energy savings from reducing leaks of BF gas from bells, which is one
of the work practices described in this preamble, however those
potential savings have not been quantified.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for the final rule in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket
for this action. If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an
economic impact analysis, are small relative to the receipts of the
affected industries, then the impact analysis may consist of a
calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for
affected parent companies. This type of analysis is often applied when
a partial equilibrium, or more complex economic impact analysis
approach, is deemed unnecessary, given the expected size of the
impacts. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the
maximum price increase in the affected product or service needed for
the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the
regulation. We conducted a cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the
economic impacts of this final action, given that the EAV of the
compliance costs over the period 2026-2035 are $5.1 million using a 7
percent or $5.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate in 2022
dollars, which is small relative to the revenues of the steel industry.
There are two parent companies directly affected by the rule:
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel. Each reported greater than $20
billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the annualized compliance
cost each firm is expected to incur and determined the estimated cost-
to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 0.02 percent. Therefore, the
projected economic impacts of the expected compliance costs of the rule
are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small business
screening to determine the possible impacts of the rule on small
businesses. Based on the Small Business Administration size standards
and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel employment information, this
source category has no small businesses.
E. What are the benefits?
The UFIP emissions work practices to reduce HAP emissions (with
concurrent control of PM<INF>2.5</INF>) are anticipated to improve air
quality and the health of persons living in surrounding communities.
The opacity limits and UFIP work practices are expected to reduce about
64 tpy of HAP metal emissions, including emissions of manganese, lead,
arsenic, and chromium. Due to methodology and data limitations, we did
not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in
this analysis. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of
the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the rule in section 4.2 of the RIA, available in the
docket for this action. The EPA remains committed to improving methods
for estimating HAP-reduction benefits by continuing to explore
additional aspects of HAP-related risk from the integrated iron and
steel manufacturing sector, including the distribution of that risk.
The opacity limits and UFIP work practices are also estimated to
reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions by about 473 tpy for the source
category. The EPA estimated monetized benefits related to avoided
premature mortality and morbidity associated with reduced exposure to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> for 2026-2035. The present-value (PV) of the short-
term benefits for the rule are estimated to be $1.8 billion at a 3
percent discount rate and $1.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate
with an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $200 million and $170
million, respectively. The EAV represents a flow of constant annual
values that would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The PV of the long-
term benefits for the rule range are estimated to be $3.7 billion at a
3 percent discount rate and $2.6 billion at a 7 percent discount rate
with an EAV of $420 million and $340 million, respectively. All
estimates are reported in 2022 dollars. For the full set of underlying
calculations see the Integrated Iron and Steel Benefits workbook,
available in the docket for this action.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities sources, we
performed a proximity demographic assessment, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the
data from this assessment to the national average for each of the
demographic groups. This assessment did not inform and was not used to
develop the amended standards established in the final action. The
amended standards were established based on the technical and
scientific determinations described herein.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the just treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of income, race, color, national
origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making
and other Federal activities that affect human health and the
environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from
[[Page 23316]]
disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects
(including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate
change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and
the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii)
have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient
environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and
engage in cultural and subsistence practices.'' \5\ In recognizing that
communities with EJ concerns often bear an unequal burden of
environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it
could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?''[1]
The results of the proximity demographic analysis (see Table 6)
indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the nine integrated iron
and steel facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is
more than twice the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). In
addition, the percentage of the population that is living below the
poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times the poverty level
(52 percent) is well above the national average (13 percent and 29
percent, respectively). Other demographics for the populations living
within 5 km are below or near their respective national averages.
Within 50 km of the nine sources within the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities category, the percent of the population
that is Black is above the national average (20 percent versus 12
percent). Within 50 km the income demographics are similar to the
national averages. Other demographics for the populations living within
50 km are below or near the respective national averages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
As discussed in other subsections of the impacts of this action, in
this action the EPA is adding requirements for facilities to improve
UFIP emission control resulting in reductions of both metal HAP and
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this rule, including the
facilities at which the percentage of the population living in close
proximity who are Black and below poverty level is greater than the
national average. The rule changes will have beneficial effects on air
quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions from
integrated iron and steel facilities.
Table 6--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population within
Demographic group Nationwide within 50 km of 9 5 km of 9
facilities facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................... 329,824,950 18,966,693 478,761
-----------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
White..................................................... 60 63 52
Black..................................................... 12 20 27
Native American........................................... 0.6 0.1 0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......... 19 10 16
Other and Multiracial..................................... 9 7 5
-----------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................... 13 13 29
Above Poverty Level....................................... 87 87 71
Below 2x Poverty Level.................................... 29 28 52
Above 2x Poverty Level.................................... 71 72 48
-----------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................. 12 9 18
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................... 88 91 82
-----------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23317]]
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................... 5 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
<bullet> The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
block populations.
<bullet> To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
have also identified as in the Census.
In addition to the analyses described above, the EPA completed a
risk-based demographics analysis for the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) proposed rule (84 FR 42704, August 16, 2019) and the 2020
RTR final rule (85 FR 42074, July 13, 2020). A description of the
demographic analyses and the results are provided in those two Federal
Register notices.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, EPA, submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Any
changes made in response to recommendations received as part of
Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final action have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2003.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
Estimated number of respondents: 8 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
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 30,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $3,950,000 per year, of which $3,140,000 per year is
for this final rule, and $803,000 is for other costs related to
continued compliance with the NESHAP including $108,000 for paperwork
associated with operation and maintenance requirements.
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.
When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval
in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information
collection activities contained in this final rule.
C. 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. The Agency
confirmed through responses to a CAA section 114 information request
that there are only eight integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities currently operating in the United States and that these
plants are owned by two parent companies that do not meet the
definition of small businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business
Administration.
D. 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. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute
[[Page 23318]]
(ANSI). We also conducted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted
searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23,
25A, 26A, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 320 of 40 CFR part
63 appendix, and SW-846 Method 9071B. During the EPA's VCS search, if
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23, 25A, 26A, 29, 30B and SW-846 Method 9071B
not already incorporated by reference in this subpart. The search
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in
lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard, the EPA
determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency. The EPA incorporates by reference
VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is an extractive FTIR spectroscopy-
based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase
concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from
stationary sources. This field test method provides near real time
analysis of extracted gas samples. In the September 22, 2008, NTTAA
summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to EPA Method
320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) is a revised version of ASTM
D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from
direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks
the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version. We are finalizing
that the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), Annexes Al through A8 are mandatory; and in
ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We
are finalizing that, in order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be 70% > R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e.,
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.045
The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is available at ASTM
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See
<a href="http://www.astm.org/">www.astm.org/</a>.
The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements is an EPA developed
guidance manual for the installation, operation, maintenance and
calibration of meteorological systems including the wind speed and
direction using anemometers, temperature using thermistors, and
atmospheric pressure using aneroid barometers, as well as the
calculations for wind vector data for on-site meteorological
measurements. This VCS may be obtained from the EPA's National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (<a href="http://www.epa.gov/nscep">www.epa.gov/nscep</a>).
Additional information for the VCS search and determination can be
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this
action.
ASTM D7520-16 is already approved for the location in which it
appears in the amendatory text.
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with EJ concerns. For this action the EPA
conducted an assessment of the various demographic groups living near
Integrated Iron and Steel facilities (as described in section V.F of
this preamble) that might potentially be impacted by emissions from
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities. For populations living within 5
km of the nine integrated iron and steel facilities, the percent of the
population that is Black is more than twice the national average (27
percent versus 12 percent). Specifically, within 5 km of six of the
nine facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is more
than 1.5 times the national average (ranging between 1.5 times and 7
times the national average). The percentage of the population that is
living below the poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times
the poverty level (52 percent) is well above the national average (13
percent and 29 percent, respectively). Specifically, within 5 km of
seven of the nine facilities, the percent of the population that is
living below the poverty level is more than 1.5 times the national
average (ranging from 1.5 times and 3 times the national average).
Other demographics for the populations living within 5 km are below or
near the respective national averages.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns.
This
[[Page 23319]]
action requires facilities to improve UFIP emission control resulting
in reductions of about 64 tpy of metal HAP and about 473 tpy
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this rule, including the
facilities at which the percentage of the population living in close
proximity who are African American and below poverty level is greater
than the national average.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in sections IV and V of this preamble. The demographic analysis is
available in a document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. We have concluded that this action is
not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it contains no
regulatory requirements that will have an adverse impact on
productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit the rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Hydrogen chloride, Hydrogen fluoride, Incorporation by
reference, Mercury, Reorting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended 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. 4701, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(88) and (110)
and paragraph (o) introductory text and adding paragraph (o)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(88) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved December 1;
2020, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.365(b); 63.7825(g) and (h).
* * * * *
(110) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL;
63.7823(c) through (f), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
* * * * *
(o) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone: (202) 272-0167; website: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa">www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa</a>.
* * * * *
(3) EPA-454/B-08-002, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version
2.0 (Final), Issued March 2008, IBR approved for Sec. 63.7792(b).
* * * * *
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.7782 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse;
the blast furnace stove; and the BOPF shop including each individual
BOPF and shop ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal
desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy). This subpart
also covers fugitive and intermittent particulate emissions from blast
furnace unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace planned bleeder
valve openings, blast furnace and BOPF slag processing, handling, and
storage, blast furnace bell leaks, beaching of iron from blast
furnaces, blast furnace casthouse fugitives, and BOPF shop fugitives.
(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the
affected source before July 13, 2001.
(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if
you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source on
or after July 13, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets
the definition of reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.7783 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. This paragraph does not
apply to the emission limitations for BOPF group: mercury (Hg); sinter
plant windbox: Hg, hydrochloric acid (HCl), carbonyl sulfide (COS);
Blast Furnace casthouse: HCl, total hydrocarbon (THC); Blast Furnace
stove: HCl and total hydrocarbon (THC); primary emission control system
for a BOPF: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic
equivalent (TEQ), HCl, THC; fugitive and intermittent particulate
sources.
* * * * *
(g) If you have an existing affected source or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before July 31, 2023, each sinter plant windbox, BF
casthouse, BF stove,
[[Page 23320]]
prima
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on April 3, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.