[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 134 (Monday, July 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42074-42130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09753]
[[Page 42073]]
Vol. 85
Monday,
No. 134
July 13, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology
Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 134 / Monday, July 13, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 42074]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-10008-45-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT03
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and
Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category regulated under national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The Agency found that risks due
to emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and
that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Under the technology review, we found no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revision
of the standards. In addition, we are taking final action to establish
emission standards for mercury in response to a 2004 administrative
petition for reconsideration which minimizes emissions by limiting the
amount of mercury per ton of metal scrap used. We also are removing
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
consistent with a 2008 court decision, and clarifying that the
emissions standards apply at all times; adding electronic reporting of
performance test results and compliance reports; and making minor
corrections and clarifications for a few other rule provisions.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 13, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5251; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk assessment methodology, contact Ted Palma, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
ACI activated carbon injection
ADL above detection limit
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BDL below detection limit
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COS carbonyl sulfide
DCOT Digital Camera Opacity Technique
DLL detection level limited
EAF electric arc furnace
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP electrostatic precipitators
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HCN hydrogen cyanide
HI hazard index
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
km kilometers
lbs pounds
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NVMSRP National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter at or below 2.5 micrometers.
ppm parts per million
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
Background information. On August 16, 2019, the EPA proposed the
results of the RTR and various amendments for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP (84 FR 42704). In this action, we
are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some
of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and
Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
[[Page 42075]]
0083). A ``redline'' (track changes) version of the regulatory language
that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the
docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP
emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category in our August 16, 2019,
proposal?
D. Regulatory Background
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments for mercury for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic
reporting?
F. What other changes are being made to the NESHAP?
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities Source Category
B. Technology Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities Source Category
C. Mercury Emission Limits
D. Changes to SSM Provisions
E. Electronic Reporting
F. Other Issues Regarding UFIP Sources of HAP Emissions
G. Other Items
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
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?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Iron and Steel 40 CFR part 63, subpart 331110
Manufacturing. FFFFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for
the RTR source categories.
C. 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
(the Court) by September 11, 2020. 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
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
[[Page 42076]]
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?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 42704, August 16, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the
source category?
The EPA promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646). The standards are
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart
FFFFF. The rule was amended on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39579). The
amendments added a new compliance option, revised emission limitations,
reduced the frequency of repeat performance tests for certain emission
units, added corrective action requirements, and clarified monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. All documents used to
develop the previous 2003 and 2006 final rules can be found in either
the legacy docket, A-2000-44, or the electronic docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083.
The Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities industry
consists of facilities that produce steel from iron ore pellets, coke,
metal scrap, and other raw materials using furnaces and other
processes. The Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category includes sinter production, iron preparation, iron
production, and steel production. The source category covered by this
MACT standard currently includes 11 facilities.
The main sources of air toxics emissions from Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities are the blast furnace (BF); basic oxygen
process furnace (BOPF); hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and
skimming (HMTDS) operations; ladle metallurgy operations; sinter plant
windbox; sinter plant discharge end; and sinter cooler. All 11
facilities have BFs, BOPFs, HMTDS operations, and ladle metallurgy
operations. However, only three facilities have sinter plants. See 40
CFR 63.7852 for definitions of the emission units at integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facilities.
The NESHAP includes emission limits for particulate matter (PM) and
opacity standards (both of which are surrogates for PM HAP) for
furnaces and sinter plants. The NESHAP also includes an emission limit
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the sinter plant windbox
exhaust stream or, as an alternative, an operating limit for the oil
content of the sinter plant feedstock. The VOC and oil content limits
serve as surrogates for all organic HAP emitted from the windbox.
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category in our August 16, 2019,
proposal?
On August 16, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that took into
consideration the RTR analyses (84 FR 42704). In the proposed rule, we
also proposed a numerical emissions standard for
[[Page 42077]]
mercury and an alternative compliance option based on limiting the
amount of mercury in the metal scrap used by these facilities. In
addition, we proposed the removal of exemptions for periods of SSM
consistent with a 2008 court decision, and clarifying that the
emissions standards apply at all times; the addition of electronic
reporting of performance test results and compliance reports; and minor
corrections and clarifications for a few other rule provisions.
D. Regulatory Background
In 2003, the EPA promulgated standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) for HAP emissions from the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category. In 2004, the Sierra Club
submitted an administrative petition for reconsideration on several
issues, including adding standards for mercury, dioxins/furans,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, and other organic HAP. In
2005, the EPA granted reconsideration to evaluate a possible mercury
emission limit, but denied the petition for reconsideration to the
extent it requested reconsideration of other issues. The Sierra Club
sought judicial review of the 2003 NESHAP as well as the EPA's 2005
denial of the petition for reconsideration. In February 2010, the EPA
asked the Court for a voluntary remand without vacatur of both the 2003
rule and the EPA's 2005 reconsideration denial letter. The Court
granted this request and the rule and the letter denying
reconsideration were remanded to the Agency.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category. This action also finalizes
amendments to the NESHAP, including the addition of mercury emission
limits, changes to SSM provisions, addition of electronic reporting,
and minor corrections and clarifications to a number of other rule
provisions. This final action also includes some changes to the August
2019 proposed requirements based on consideration of comments received
during the public comment period described in section IV of this
preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
The EPA proposed no changes to the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP based on the risk review conducted
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our
proposed determination that risks from this source category are
acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, and more stringent standards are not necessary to
prevent an adverse environmental effect. Section IV.A.3 of this
preamble provides a summary of key comments we received regarding the
risk review and our responses to those comments.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
Consistent with the proposal, we determined that there are no
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category.
Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments for mercury for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
The EPA is promulgating emissions standards for mercury for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
We are promulgating a MACT floor limit of 0.00026 pounds (lbs) of
mercury per ton of scrap processed as an input-based limit for all
existing BOPFs and related units at existing integrated iron and steel
facilities pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3) for existing sources. We
are finalizing the mercury emission limit for existing sources as
proposed. We are providing two options to demonstrate compliance with
the input-based emission limit in the final rule: (1) Subsequent to an
initial performance test required within 1 year of the effective date
of the rule, conduct performance testing twice per permit cycle, (i.e.,
mid-term and at initial or end term for permitted facilities, or every
2.5 years for facilities without a permit) at all BOPF-related units
and convert the sum of the results to input-based units (i.e., lbs of
mercury per ton of scrap input) and document the results in a test
report that can be submitted electronically to the delegated authority
with the results (see section IV.E below); or (2) certify annually that
the facility obtains all of their scrap from National Vehicle Mercury
Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) participants (or similar program as
approved by the delegated authority), or certify that the scrap
processed by the facility does not contain mercury switches. Existing
sources will have 1 year to comply with the mercury emission limits.
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), the standard for new sources
shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source. We are promulgating
a new source MACT limit of 0.000081 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap
processed as an input-based limit for any new BOPF and related units,
or any new integrated iron and steel facility. With regard to
compliance, new sources will have the same options to demonstrate
compliance as existing sources. These new source limits apply to BOPFs
for which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16,
2019.
The mercury emission limits, promulgated pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), have been added to Table 1 in the NESHAP. In
addition, 40 CFR 63.7791 (and related sections 40 CFR 63.7820, 63.7821,
63.7825, 63.7826, 63.7833, 63.7840, and 63.7841) describes the specific
compliance deadlines and compliance options related to the control of
mercury. Based on consideration of public comments discussed in section
IV.C below, we made some minor revisions to the proposed deadlines,
compliance options, and testing requirements in 40 CFR 63.7791,
63.7820(e), 63.7821(e), 63.7825, 63.7833(h), 63.7833(i), 63.7840(e),
63.7840(f), and 63.7841(b)(9)-(11). The specific revisions are
described in section IV.C.5 of this preamble.
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
In this action, we are finalizing revisions to the SSM provisions
of the NESHAP to ensure that they are consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), which
vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of SSM. We also are finalizing various other changes to
modify reporting and monitoring as a result of the SSM revisions. Our
analyses and changes related to these issues are discussed below. In
addition, we are making minor revisions to aspects of the proposed SSM
requirements in response to comments. These changes are discussed below
in IV.D.5.
We are finalizing the proposed revision of 40 CFR 63.7810(a) to
eliminate the SSM exemption. The
[[Page 42078]]
revision will apply after January 11, 2021. In addition, we are
updating the references in Table 4 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, including the
references to 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)--the provisions vacated by
Sierra Club v. EPA. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the standards
in this rule will apply at all times. We are also revising 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF, Table 4 to change several references related to
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. For example, we are
eliminating the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that sources develop an SSM plan. We also are eliminating and revising
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
exemption.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we eliminated
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. In promulgating the standards in this rule, the EPA has
taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons
explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods. The integrated iron and steel industry has not identified (and
there are no data indicating) any specific problems with removing the
SSM provisions.
1. 40 CFR 63.7810(d) General Duty
We are promulgating revisions to the General Provisions table
(Table 4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), which describes the general duty to minimize
emissions, and including a ``No'' for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, we include ``Yes on or before January
11, 2021 and No thereafter.'' in column 3. Some of the language in that
section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are instead adding general duty
regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.7810(d) that reflects the general duty to
minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered
by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With
the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
promulgating for 40 CFR 63.7810(d) does not include that language from
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) after January 11, 2021 for each such source, and
after July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019.
We are also finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table
(Table 4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.''
For all other affected sources, we are adding ``Yes, on or before
January 11, 2021 and No thereafter.'' in column 3. 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with the
elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty
requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.7810(d).
2. SSM Plan
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all
other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and No
thereafter.'' in column 3. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3) require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As
the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions, the affected units will be
subject to an emission standard during such events. The applicability
of a standard during such events will ensure that sources have ample
incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan
requirements are no longer necessary. For that same reason, we are
revising 40 CFR 63.7810(c) to remove the SSM plan requirement 180 days
after publication in the Federal Register for sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019, and to
remove the SSM plan requirement upon publication in the Federal
Register for all sources that commenced construction or reconstruction
after August 16, 2019.
3. Compliance With Standards
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and including ``No'' in column 3. The exemption at 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1), which exempted sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM, was vacated by the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA, as
discussed above.
We also are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table
(Table 4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1) and including ``No'' in column 3. The exemption at 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1), which exempted sources from opacity standards during
periods of SSM, was also vacated by the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is finalizing revisions to
standards in this rule to ensure that a CAA section 112 standard
applies at all times.
4. 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7823 Performance Testing
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all
other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and No
thereafter.'' in column 3. In section 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance
testing requirements are described. The EPA is instead adding a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.7822(a) and 63.7823(a).
The performance testing requirements we are adding differ from the
General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects.
The regulatory text we are adding does not include the language in 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and precluded SSM
periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of
performance testing. In 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted
under this subpart should not be conducted during SSM because
conditions during SSM are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. During SSM periods, both emission and flow rate profiles
can be highly variable and unsuitable for the emission measurement
methods. The EPA is promulgating language that requires the owner or
operator to record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in this
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. In 40 CFR 63.7(e), the owner or operator is required to make
available to the Administrator on request such records ``as may be
necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is adding to this provision builds onto that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
[[Page 42079]]
5. Monitoring
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding entries for 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16,
2019. For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11,
2021 and No thereafter.'' in column 3. The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require
good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set
out the requirements of a quality control program for monitoring
equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all
other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and No
thereafter.'' in column 3. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no
longer applicable. The EPA is adding to the rule at 40 CFR
63.7842(b)(3) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that
the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).''
6. 40 CFR 63.7842 Recordkeeping
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is requiring that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations would apply
to startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions
applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown
plan, there is no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup
and shutdown periods.
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is adding such
requirements to 40 CFR 63.7842. The regulatory text we are adding
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General
Provisions requires the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is finalizing this
requirement to apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and
is requiring the source to record the date, time, and duration of the
failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also adding to 40
CFR 63.7842(a)(3) a requirement that sources keep records that include
a list of the affected sources or equipment and actions taken to
minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet
the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
requiring that sources keep records of this information to ensure that
there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine the
severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data that
may document how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions
when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions
during SSM is now applicable at all times by 40 CFR 63.7842(a)(4).
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions
taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans would no longer be required.
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019. For all
other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and No
thereafter.'' in column 3. Because the SSM plan requirement is being
eliminated, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When applicable, the
provision allowed an owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM
plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the
SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is eliminating this
requirement because SSM plans would no longer be required, and,
therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for
affected units.
7. 40 CFR 63.7841 Reporting
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the
reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To
replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(4). The replacement
language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates
[[Page 42080]]
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are adding language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
reporting period compliance report already required under this rule. We
are requiring the report to contain the date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is promulgating this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We are no longer requiring owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans are no longer required. These final amendments,
therefore, eliminate from this section the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the SSM events would be reported in otherwise
required periodic reports with similar format and submittal
requirements.
We are finalizing revisions to the General Provisions table (Table
4) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including ``No, for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019.
For all other affected sources, Yes, on or before January 11, 2021 and
No thereafter.'' in column 3. 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an
immediate report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source
failed to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan.
We are no longer requiring owners and operators to report when actions
taken during an SSM event were not consistent with an SSM plan, because
such plans are no longer required.
E. What are the final rule amendments addressing electronic reporting?
Through this final rule, the EPA is requiring that owners and
operators of integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities submit
the required electronic copies of performance test results and
semiannual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A
description of the electronic data submission process is provided in
the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0909).
This final rule requires that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT), as listed on the ERT website at the time of the test, be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT, and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems that measure
relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT
at the time of the test, should be submitted in the format generated
through the use of the ERT; other performance evaluation results should
be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For
semiannual compliance reports, the final rule requires that owners and
operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. The draft template for these reports is included
in the docket for this rulemaking and the final template will be
available on the CEDRI homepage (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7841(e). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that would be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.7841(f). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0909).
We are also making minor revisions to aspects of the proposed
electronic reporting requirements in response to comments. These rule
changes are discussed in section IV.E.5 of this preamble.
[[Page 42081]]
F. What other changes are being made to the NESHAP?
1. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
We are promulgating regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by
reference the three documents listed below and amending 40 CFR 63.14 to
identify the provisions for which these documents are IBR approved for
this rule:
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e) and 63.7825(b). This method
determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts
resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases addressed in
the method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen,
sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. The method is approved for this
rule for oxygen and carbon dioxide measurements, with the caveats
described in section VI.J of this preamble.
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 40 CFR 63.7823(c), 63.7823(d), 63.7823(e), and
63.7833(g). This method describes procedures to determine the opacity
of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and software,
where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point source in
the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is determined
by the application of a digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) that
consists of a digital still camera, analysis software, and the output
function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine
and report plume opacity. The method is approved for this rule with
caveats described in section VI.J of this preamble.
Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-
015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7831(f). This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.
2. Technical and Editorial Rule Corrections and Clarifications
In this final rule, the EPA is making a number of technical and
editorial changes to the NESHAP to reflect corrections and
clarifications. These revisions are described in section IV.G.3 of this
preamble.
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
This final rule is effective on July 13, 2020. Because most of
these amendments provide corrections and clarifications to the current
rule and do not impose new requirements on the industry, existing
sources are required to comply with the amendments 180 days after
publication of the final rule, except where indicated otherwise, as in
the provisions for mercury. Sources constructed on or before August 16,
2019 must comply with the mercury emission limits within 1 year of
publication of the final rule. New BOPF or new facilities constructed
or reconstructed after August 16, 2019, must comply with the new source
mercury emission limit on the effective date of the final rule, or upon
startup, whichever is later. Electronic reporting for the compliance
report is required beginning either 180 days after promulgation of the
final rule or 180 days after the spreadsheet template is available in
CEDRI, whichever is later. Electronic reporting of performance tests is
required upon promulgation of the final rule.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For each significant issue, this section provides a description of
what we proposed and what we are finalizing for each issue, the EPA's
rationale for the final decisions and amendments, a summary of key
comments and responses, and impact on final rule language, if
applicable. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the Summary of Public
Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities document, which is
available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
On August 16, 2019 (84 FR 42704), the EPA proposed that risks posed
by emissions from the source category are acceptable, that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and
that additional standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. The estimated cancer risks were below the
presumptive limit of acceptability and the noncancer risk results
indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse noncancer health
effects due to HAP emissions from this source category. The proposed
decision on ample margin of safety was based on weighing factors
relevant to this particular source category, including the risk posed
by point sources and the costs and cost-effectiveness of additional
controls to reduce risk further, as well as uncertainties in the
assessment of unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
(UFIP),\2\ including uncertainties in the baseline emissions estimates
used in estimating risk posed by UFIP emissions, the costs and
effectiveness of the work practices we considered to reduce these
emissions, and the amount of risk reduction that could be achieved with
the work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The UFIP sources are BF bleeder valve unplanned openings
(also known as slips), BF bleeder valve planned openings, BF bell
leaks, BF casthouse fugitives, BF iron beaching, BF slag handling
and storage operations, and BOPF shop fugitives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-
step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to
determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health information,
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit
on maximum individual risk (MIR) of approximately 1-in-10 thousand.''
(54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In the proposal, the EPA estimated
risks based on actual and allowable emissions from integrated iron and
steel sources, and we considered these in determining acceptability. A
more thorough discussion of the risk assessment is included in the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2020 Final Rule document, available in the docket for this rule
[[Page 42082]]
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
In the proposed rule, as presented in Table 2 below, based on
modeling point source actual emissions from the source category for all
11 facilities, we estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual
most exposed was 10-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due
to inhalation exposures due to the point sources for the source
category was 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case
every 33 years. We estimated that approximately 64,000 people face an
increased cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to
inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from the point sources for this
source category. The Agency estimated that the maximum chronic
noncancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) from inhalation
exposure due to point sources for this source category was 0.1. In the
screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts due to
point sources, we estimated a maximum hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.3 (due
to arsenic) based on the reference exposure level (REL). With regard to
multipathway human health risks, we estimated the cancer risk for the
highest exposed individual to be 40-in-1 million (due to dioxins/furans
emissions from sinter plants) and the maximum chronic noncancer hazard
quotient (HQ) to be less than 1 for all the persistent and
bioaccumulative HAP. Based on the results of the environmental risk
screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as
a result of HAP emissions from point source emissions from this source
category.
As shown in Table 2, based on allowable emissions, the estimated
inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed from point
sources in the source category is 70-in-1 million and the estimated
incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposures to these allowable
emissions is 0.3 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every
3 years. An estimated 6 million people would face an increased cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure
to allowable HAP emissions from this source category. The maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure is 0.9 based on
allowable emissions.
Table 2--Risk Summary for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Source Category Point Source Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation cancer risk Population cancer risk Max chronic individual Max acute noncancer risk Multipathway
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ noncancer risk ----------------------------- assessment
Maximum ---------------------------------- ----------------
Emissions individual Cancer incidence >=10 in 1 >=1 in 1 Hazard Risk driver and
risk (in 1 Risk driver (cases per year) million million Hazard index Risk driver quotient Risk driver health
million) (TOSHI) endpoints
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions:
Source Category......... 10 chromium (VI) 0.03 60 64,000 0.1 arsenic and 0.7 arsenic Cancer (dioxins/
compounds. (developmental lead compounds. compounds. furans) site-
). specific MIR =
40-in-1
million;
Noncancer
(mercury) site-
specific HQ =
0.5
Baseline Allowable
Emissions:
Source Category......... 70 arsenic 0.3 79,500 5,900,000 0.9 arsenic and .......... ............... ...............
compounds, (developmental lead compounds.
chromium (VI) ).
compounds,
nickel
compounds,
cadmium
compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also estimated risk posed by both point source and nonpoint
(i.e., UFIP) emissions from an actual facility in the category that we
selected as an example facility. Of the facilities in the category, the
example facility has the largest production capacity, the highest
estimated HAP emissions from steel-making sources (i.e., facility
emissions not including sinter plant emissions), and the highest
estimated UFIP emissions. The example facility is also the facility
with the highest potential population exposure (4 million people within
50 kilometers of the facility). The EPA conducted a risk assessment
using conservative emissions estimates to evaluate the potential
exposures and risks due to all the emissions for this one example
facility. We performed the risk analysis for the example facility to
assess the potential change in the magnitude of risk when risk from
UFIP emissions is added to risk posed by point-source emissions. The
estimated risks due to actual emissions from nonpoint (i.e., UFIP) and
point sources for the example facility are presented in Table 3.
When UFIP sources were included in the EPA's risk analysis, the
estimated HAP emissions increased from 3 tpy to 53 tpy and the
estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to
actual emissions from the example facility increased from 2-in-1
million to 20-in-1 million. The estimated population with risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million increased from 3,000 to 4,000,000, and
the population with risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million
increased from 0 to 9,000. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from
inhalation exposures remained at less than 1, but the acute HQ
increased from 0.3 to 3 based on the REL (for arsenic). The two UFIP
sources that are the greatest contributors to the inhalation risk in
terms of MIR were the BF casthouse and BOPF shop, which are currently
regulated by opacity limits in the rule. Based on allowable emissions,
the estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed
increased from 30-in-1 million to 50-in-1 million with the inclusion of
emissions from UFIP sources.
There is considerable uncertainty in the estimated risk due to UFIP
sources for the example facility due to the uncertainties in the
estimated UFIP emissions and release parameters. Nevertheless, if UFIP
emissions were quantified for the entire source category, the source
category risks and the number of individuals with cancer risk exceeding
1-in-1 million would be expected to increase for each facility.
[[Page 42083]]
Although it is problematic to estimate from our risk assessment results
(shown in Tables 2 and 3) what the increase in risk might be for each
facility in the entire industry without quantifying UFIP emissions for
each facility, based upon results from the example facility, we
concluded that it is likely that the cancer MIR based on allowable
emissions at all other facilities would be less than 90-in-1 million
(70-in-1 million from point sources and up to 20-in-1 million from UFIP
emissions) and the maximum chronic noncancer HI would be less than 1.
For information on the development of emission estimates from the
example facility, see the memorandum titled Development of Emissions
Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an
Example Integrated Iron and Steel Facility for Input to the RTR Risk
Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0956), hereafter
called the ``Example Facility memorandum.''
Table 3--Inhalation Risk Results--Example Facility With and Without UFIP Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation chronic cancer Inhalation chronic noncancer Acute noncancer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Example facility sources Pop >1-in-1 Pop >10-in-1
MIR (in 1-M) Incidence million million HI (TOSHI) Target organ HQ Pollutant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual................................ Point Sources Only...... 2 0.010 3,000 0 0.03 Developmental 0.3 Arsenic
Point Sources & UFIP 20 0.12 4,000,000 9,000 0.3 Developmental 3 Arsenic
Emissions.
Allowables............................ Point Sources Only...... 30 0.13 4,000,000 11,000 0.3 Developmental .............. ..............
Point Sources & UFIP 50 0.24 4,000,000 90,000 0.7 Developmental .............. ..............
Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we did not assess multipathway risks for the example
facility used to represent a ``worst case'' for UFIP emissions, the
highest exposed individual for dioxins/furans in the point source
modeling was not due to the example facility. Furthermore, none of the
UFIP sources are known to emit dioxins/furans emissions. In addition,
because mercury is emitted as a gas, UFIP emissions, which are PM, did
not add to mercury emissions. See the Example Facility memorandum cited
above for more information on the estimated emissions from the model
facility.
Furthermore, it is important to note that after the EPA completed
its risk modeling, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
provided additional, more recent test data for the example facility
that suggest arsenic emissions are lower than the level we estimated
based on the 2011 information collection request (ICR) data that we
used in our analysis (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0804).
The AISI also conducted their own risk assessment using the new data
and using the same modeling methodology that the EPA uses. The results
presented by AISI (described in the EPA's proposal preamble at 84 FR
42704) indicate the MIR when the UFIP emissions are included could be
about 60 percent lower than the estimated value in the EPA's risk
characterization presented above (i.e., 8-in-1 million compared to the
EPA's estimate of 20-in-1 million) and that population risks also could
be substantially lower than the EPA's estimate presented above in this
preamble, with an estimated 500,000 people with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million compared to the estimate of 4,000,000 in the
EPA's risk characterization. Therefore, we conclude the emissions used
in our risk assessment are likely conservative (upper-end) estimates.
In determining whether risks are acceptable for this source
category, the EPA considered all available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty that includes the uncertainty in the data from
both point sources and the estimated UFIP emissions. (See proposal at
84 FR 42716, section III.C.8, How do we consider uncertainties in risk
assessment?) A more thorough discussion of the uncertainties is
included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2020 Final Rule, available in the docket for this
rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
The risk results indicate that the inhalation cancer risks to the
individual most exposed could be more than 70-in-1-million but less
than 90-in-1 million, as a worst case, based on the highest allowable
emissions due to point sources among the industry facilities plus the
conservative estimate of risk from UFIP emissions, and also considering
the uncertainties in the example facility analysis as discussed above
and in the proposal (84 FR 42716). This worst case risk is still below
the presumptive limit of 100-in-1 million risk. In addition, there were
no facilities with an estimated maximum chronic noncancer HI greater
than or equal to 1 from point sources. The maximum acute HQ for all
pollutants was less than 1 when we only considered point source
emissions, and up to 3 based on the REL for arsenic when including
exposures to estimated emissions from UFIP emissions at the example
facility.
For the acute screening analyses, to better characterize the
potential health risks associated with estimated worst-case acute
exposures to HAP, the EPA examined a wider range of acute health
metrics, where available, including the California Reference Exposure
Levels (RELs) and emergency response levels, such as Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines. This is in
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
uncertainties in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. The maximum acute HQ is estimated to be no more than
3 from arsenic emissions, based on the acute REL. However, for arsenic,
the only available acute health metric is the REL. By definition, the
acute REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with
effects not anticipated below those levels, even for repeated
exposures; however, the level of exposure that would cause health
effects is not specifically known. As the exposure concentration
increases above the acute REL, the potential for effects increases. In
addition, the acute screening assessment includes the conservative
(health protective) assumptions that every process releases its peak
hourly emissions at the same hour, that the near worst-case dispersion
conditions occur at that same hour, and that an individual is present
at the location of maximum concentration for that hour. Further, the HQ
value was not refined to an off-site location, which, in many cases,
may be significantly lower than that estimated at an on-site receptor.
Thus, because of the conservative nature of the acute inhalation
screening assessment as well as the conservative bias in the UFIP
emission estimates, the EPA anticipates that emissions from the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category pose
minimal risk of adverse acute health effects.
As part of the ample margin of safety analysis performed for the
proposal, we
[[Page 42084]]
evaluated additional potential technologies for controlling point
source emissions to further reduce risk from these sources, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors. We
evaluated the installation of a wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP) on
the exhaust of the current air pollution control devices for the BF
casthouse primary units to reduce chromium VI and arsenic emissions,
respectively. We also evaluated the installation of activated carbon
injection (ACI) systems onto current control devices for the sinter
plant windbox to reduce emissions of dioxins/furans. Details of the
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with these control
measures can be found in the memorandum titled Ample Margin of Safety
for Point Sources in the II&S Industry (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0952).
We estimated the MIR could be reduced by 95, 95, and 98 percent,
respectively, from 10-in-1 million, 70-in-1 million, and 40-in-1
million for BF chromium actual emissions, BOPF arsenic allowable
emissions, and sinter plant dioxins/furans actual emissions as toxic
equivalents, respectively. However, we did not propose any of these
control scenarios because of the relatively high capital and annualized
costs compared to a relatively low amount of emissions reduced. Cost-
effectiveness estimates were determined to be $1.9 billion/ton
($940,000/lb), $46 million/ton ($23,000/lb), and $188 billion/ton ($94
million/lb) for BF chromium, BOPF arsenic, and sinter plant dioxins/
furans, respectively. None of these options were considered cost
effective.
We also considered potential work practices to reduce UFIP
emissions as part of the ample margin of safety analysis. The EPA
identified work practices that could achieve HAP reductions from the
seven UFIP sources, such as more frequent measurements (e.g., opacity,
internal furnace conditions) to identify problems earlier, increased
maintenance, applying covers on equipment, developing operating plans
to minimize emissions, optimizing positioning of ladles with respect to
hood faces, and earlier repair of equipment. We estimated these work
practices would achieve a range of 50- to 90-percent reduction in UFIP
emissions (i.e., control efficiency) from these sources, based on EPA
staff judgment as to the potential effectiveness of the work practices.
In analyzing post-control scenarios, we assumed the work practices
would achieve 70-percent reduction in emissions (the midpoint between
50 and 90 percent), corresponding to an estimate of 185 tpy of HAP
reduced, assuming work practices were required for all seven UFIP
sources. A description of the uncontrolled UFIP emissions and an
estimate of emissions after implementation of work practices are
provided in the Example Facility memorandum cited above.
To estimate the risk reductions that could be achieved from the
UFIP sources via work practices, we developed a model input file to
reflect the estimated emissions reductions that would be achieved under
two control options and modeled two post-control scenarios for the
example facility to estimate risk reductions. We analyzed two options:
Option 1 would establish work practice standards for two of the UFIP
sources (BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives), which
contribute about 70 percent of the MIR and are currently regulated via
opacity standards; Option 2 would establish work practice standards for
all seven of the UFIP sources. Potential work practices for the two
UFIP sources in Option 1 were the same in Option 2. We assumed a
control efficiency of 70 percent for the work practices as the average
of an assumed range of 50-percent to 90-percent control efficiency for
the work practices. Details of the work practices for UFIP and
estimated costs of the work practices can be found in the memorandum
titled Ample Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in the II&S Industry
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0953).
Based on this modeling assessment, we estimated Option 1 would
reduce the MIR from 20-in-1 million to about 10-in-1 million for the
example facility, the estimated population with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million would decrease from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000, and
the estimated population with risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1
million would decrease from 9,000 to 800. In addition, the maximum
acute HQ would decrease from 3 to 2. This option also would achieve
reductions in PM with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
(PM2.5). For Option 2, we estimated the work practices would
reduce the MIR from 20-in-1 million to about 9-in-1 million for the
example facility, the estimated population with risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million would decrease from 4,000,000 to 800,000, and
the estimated population with risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1
million would decrease from 9,000 to 0. Also, the maximum acute HQ
would decrease from 3 to 0.9. This option would also achieve reductions
in PM2.5.
We estimated the total capital costs of Option 1 for the source
category would be approximately $1.4 million, annualized costs would be
approximately $1.7 million per year, and HAP reductions would be
approximately 173 tpy of HAP, which corresponds to a cost-effectiveness
value of approximately $10,000/ton. This estimate was based on cost
estimates for individual emission units that were projected to the
entire industry based on the number of units of each type at each
facility. For Option 2 for the source category, we estimated the total
capital costs would be approximately $8.7 million, annualized costs
would be approximately $3 million per year, and HAP reductions would be
approximately 185 tpy, which corresponds to a cost-effectiveness value
of approximately $16,000/ton HAP.
Considering all of the health and environmental risk information
and factors discussed above, including the substantial uncertainties
regarding our estimates of UFIP emissions, and the costs and cost
effectiveness of the work practices, the EPA proposed that risks from
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category
are acceptable and that revision of the standards is not required in
order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or
to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
No changes were made to the risk review in the final rule. As
mentioned above, we received new arsenic performance test data and an
industry conducted risk assessment for the example facility from
industry shortly before proposal suggesting arsenic emissions and risks
are about 60 percent lower than our estimates.\3\ (See 84 FR 42720
(August 16, 2019) for more discussion). However, we did not rerun the
risk model after proposal because of the court-ordered schedule to
complete the final rule \4\ and because it would not affect the outcome
of the final rule. We proposed risks were acceptable and the NESHAP
provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on
[[Page 42085]]
consideration of comments and information received through the comment
period, we continue to conclude risks are acceptable and that the
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Letter and attachment from P. Balserak, AISI, Washington,
DC, to C. French, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. 34 pages.
February 4, 2019. (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1014).
\4\ The EPA is required by court order to complete the RTR for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category by May 5, 2020. Calif. Communities Against Toxics v.
Wheeler, No. 1:15-cv-00512, Order (D.D.C. March 13, 2017, as
modified February 20, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
This section provides a summary of key comments and responses
regarding the risk review. A summary of all other public comments on
the proposal related to the risk review and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the document, Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083). With regard to UFIP emissions and potential work practices, key
comments and responses in regard to risk are discussed below. Other key
comments and responses are discussed under the sections in this
preamble on technology review (Section IV.B of this preamble) and UFIP
(Section IV.F). The remainder of the UFIP comments and responses are
discussed in the response to comment document cited above.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA has failed to provide an
ample margin of safety. The commenter stated at the ample margin stage,
the EPA refuses to address the fact that the health risks are quite
high. The EPA must consider how to assure an ample margin of safety to
protect public health from the systemic harm implied by this risk
value. Yet, the EPA does not discuss or find that it is providing any
margin, much less an ample one, to protect people from the emissions
causing the carcinogenic, chronic noncancer, and acute risks it also
found.
In contrast, a different commenter stated the conservative residual
risk estimates in the proposal are already well below the presumptively
acceptable risk threshold, despite being artificially inflated due to
inaccurate emissions inputs and modeling parameters. Thus, the Agency's
proposed determination that no additional regulatory requirements are
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse
environmental effect in light of relevant factors including safety and
costs is unquestionably reasonable and appropriate.
Response: We acknowledge the comments supporting the EPA's ample
margin of safety analysis and the determination that risks are
acceptable and no additional regulatory requirements are necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental
effect. A summary of the EPA's ample margin of safety analysis is
provided in section IV.A.1 of this preamble and in the proposal
preamble (84 FR 42704). Further details are provided in the memorandum
titled Ample Margin of Safety Analysis for Point Sources in the
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-0952). In this memorandum, we estimate the remaining risk after
implementation of potential control technologies and work practices
along with the costs of these controls and work practices.
The EPA disagrees with the comments that the EPA failed to satisfy
the CAA requirement to provide an ample margin of safety and only
addressed whether cost-effective measures were identified for reducing
HAP emissions. The EPA uses ``a two-step standard-setting approach,
with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that
considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand,'' as stated in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38045),
followed by a second step to set a standard that provides an ``ample
margin of safety,'' in which the EPA considers whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health in
consideration of all health information, including the number of
persons at risk levels higher than, approximately, 1-in-1 million, as
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each
particular decision.
As explained above, we determined, based on our risk analysis, the
risks from the source category are acceptable and that no additional
regulatory requirements are necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
Regarding potential controls for point sources (described in
section IV.A.1 of this preamble), we determined these controls would
reduce risks, but were not cost effective. The calculated cost-
effectiveness values were $940,000/lb, $23,000/lb, and $94 million/lb
for HAP removed from BF (chromium VI), BOPF (arsenic), and sinter
plants (dioxins/furans), respectively.
With regard to the UFIP and potential work practices, consistent
with our explanation in the proposed rule (see 84 FR 42704), based on
consideration of all our analyses and related information, including
the risk results, costs, and uncertainties, we have determined that no
additional standards are required under CAA section 112(f) and that the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. This decision is based largely on the substantial uncertainties
in the estimates of the baseline HAP emissions from UFIP emission
sources, costs of the work practices, HAP risk reductions that would be
achieved by the work practices, and uncertainties raised by industry in
their comments regarding potential effects of the work practices on the
facilities' operations, safety, and economics.
Comment: One commenter stated the multipathway risk did not include
UFIP sources. Since the EPA only considered UFIP emissions from the one
facility, the commenter inquired about the population that resides in
the area impacted by all four mills along a short 20 mile stretch of
northwest Indiana. The commenter questioned whether the cumulative risk
from inhalation from total point, and UFIP sources for people who live
within the impacted areas from all of these mills together was
addressed because it does not appear to have been assessed in this
proposal. The commenter asserted the EPA has significantly
underestimated the exposure for people who live near more than one of
the four mills in an approximately 20-mile area of northwest Indiana.
The commenter stated the EPA's risk model results, when UFIP emissions
are included for the example facility alone, increase by an order of
magnitude. The commenter asserted that by itself this should have made
it imperative that the EPA consider UFIP sources as important as point
sources in quantifying emissions and risks and considering control
measures in the final rule.
Another commenter stated documents in the rule docket show serious,
harmful, and major releases of pollution, demonstrated in photographs
and in high opacity or visible smoke, and in inspections and
communications with enforcement officials. The commenter asserted that
this information shows the need for stronger standards under each
provision of the CAA. The commenter concluded that by not including
UFIP emissions in its multipathway assessment, the EPA has
underestimated health risks and the already high health threats
communities are facing. The commenter stated the EPA has recognized
that its residual risk assessment fails to account for several types of
pollution that the EPA calls UFIP emissions. The commenter stated the
EPA is also refusing to complete a risk assessment for all sources,
including the UFIP emission points, and
[[Page 42086]]
this is unlawful. The commenter asserted the EPA needs to complete a
new risk assessment study, where they include all of the risk factors,
to protect the health of Americans that are living around these steel
facilities.
Response: The commenter is correct that the UFIP emissions were
considered later in the process of developing the RTR and, therefore,
were not included in the quantitative multipathway analysis. The EPA
would not have been able to meet the RTR court-ordered deadline if the
multipathway analysis was repeated to include UFIP emissions or if the
risk assessment was repeated to include UFIP emissions from all
facilities. However, we qualitatively considered the potential impact
of UFIP emissions on the multipathway analysis and concluded that
including UFIP emissions would not have affected the results or
conclusions of the analysis. Specifically, the HAP driving the risks in
the multipathway analysis were dioxins/furans from sinter plants (with
a cancer risk estimate for the highest exposed individual of 40-in-1
million from the fisher scenario). In contrast, the UFIP HAP emissions
are particulate HAP metals (such as arsenic) from the BF and BOPF
related sources, and do not include dioxins/furans. The combined metal
HAP from all point sources at the three facilities in the multipathway
analysis showed a significantly lower risk (with a cancer risk estimate
of 2-in-1 million from arsenic emissions from the gardener scenario) as
compared to the risk estimated from dioxins/furans noted above.
Therefore, even if we took estimated arsenic emissions from UFIP
sources into account in the multipathway analysis, the multipathway
risks from the gardener scenario would almost certainly remain lower
than the dioxins/furans risk from the fisher scenario. Thus, we have no
reason to believe that including arsenic emissions from UFIP sources in
the multipathway analysis would alter our conclusion from the
multipathway analysis.
Obtaining measurements of UFIP emissions via source testing to
combine with the point source emissions was not possible due to the
court-ordered deadline and, more importantly, because measurement of
UFIP sources would be very difficult, if not impossible, for some
sources. To balance the difficulty of obtaining reasonably accurate
information on HAP emissions from UFIP sources with the importance of
gaining some understanding of the potential risk from UFIP, we modeled
a very large facility with the highest expected UFIP (and HAP)
emissions, which is also close to a large urban area to estimate the
potential upper-end risks due to such emissions. Using the example
facility analysis was also a time-saving measure in lieu of estimating
UFIP emissions for the entire industry via emission factors.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA found that a list of
effective controls, work practices, and monitoring methods for UFIP
sources could achieve HAP reductions from the seven UFIP sources. The
commenter stated the EPA's findings are extensive, and are noted as
being available, with emissions ``preventable,'' with many practices
identified as ``having no or minimal cost'' (ample margin of safety
memorandum at 7), and that some facilities are actually using
currently. See, e.g., Id. at 7-15. The commenter further stated the EPA
found that the experience of its regional staff provided the reason for
consideration of these controls. The commenter continued that the EPA
recognized some iron and steel sources have had serious compliance
problems in the past and highlighted some provisions, like stronger
monitoring, that would reduce and prevent those problems. The commenter
stated the EPA also provided photographs (at undisclosed locations)
that show huge visual releases of HAP metals and other pollution into
the air from bell leaks, beaching, and BF slips. The commenter noted
that the care the EPA staff took to research, compile, and discuss the
important pollution control methods is appreciated.
The commenter stated the Ferroalloys and Secondary Lead Smelting
NESHAP each include a number of methods or variations on the methods
described in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities RTR
proposal to reduce metal HAP emissions from UFIP--such as requiring
total or partial building enclosure with negative pressure. In
addition, the commenter asserted the EPA has recognized the need to
prohibit uncontrolled releases of HAP to the atmosphere from planned or
unplanned openings at other kinds of facilities. For example, the
commenter noted that the EPA, in a long list of CAA section 112
rulemakings in recent years, has repeatedly prohibited uncontrolled HAP
releases that vented directly to the atmosphere rather than being
routed to a control device.
The commenter stated the EPA ultimately proposes not to require any
of the work practices, referring to ``uncertainties regarding the
effect the work practice standards would have on facility operations,
economics, and safety.'' The commenter stated the EPA's own analyses
and direct observations all support better characterizing UFIP
emissions and implementing the basic cost-effective control measures
and work practices the EPA has already explored to some extent. To not
do so, the commenter asserted, would be to ignore the EPA's own
analyses of the impacts to human health and the environment of the UFIP
emissions from the mills in these highly affected areas, and miss the
opportunity to implement easy cost and industry-friendly actions that
would go far to reduce impacts to the nearby communities, land, and
waterways. The commenter asserted the EPA may not lawfully or
rationally refuse to set emission standards that reflect the emission
reduction methods available.
Response: We agree with the commenter that work practices to reduce
UFIP emissions are available. However, due to the substantial
uncertainties regarding the emissions estimates, the uncertainties
regarding the costs and effectiveness of the work practices, and
potential negative effects of the work practices on facility
operations, economics, and safety that were asserted by industry
representatives (see below in their detailed comments), the EPA is not
promulgating any work practice requirements for UFIP sources in this
final rule at this time. Because we conducted a risk assessment for the
largest facility in the source category to examine a worst-case
scenario for UFIP sources in the industry (as described in detail in
section IV.A of this preamble) and determined that risks posed by
emissions from the source category were acceptable, and due to the
uncertainties and other factors described above, we conclude that the
NESHAP provides an amply margin of safety and additional standards,
such as work practices described above, are not necessary. In addition,
because of the same uncertainties and potential impacts described above
for the UFIP sources and work practices, we also are not promulgating
any work practice standards under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the two
regulated UFIP sources in this action.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA is right to conclude that
additional control technologies, including wet ESPs for BF casthouses
and BOPF shops and ACI systems for sinter plant windboxes would not
provide cost-effective emissions reductions, given the extremely high
costs associated with small incremental additional reductions of HAP.
The commenter asserted that the EPA's ``very high'' cost estimates
are
[[Page 42087]]
actually low, i.e., underestimated, and that the removal rate estimates
are high, i.e., overestimated. The values that the EPA calculated are
so clearly not cost effective, however, that further analysis of these
costs and reduction levels is unnecessary to reject them under an ample
margin of safety analysis. The EPA's proposed determination is, thus,
well within the substantial discretion afforded to it under the Court's
Vinyl Chloride decision and should be finalized.
Response: We acknowledge the comments supporting the EPA's proposed
determination that no new standards are required to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and that the costs of the
control technologies evaluated and emission reductions estimated in the
ample margin of safety analysis were not in the range generally
determined to be cost effective by the EPA. The costs of additional
controls are disproportionately high considering the reductions in risk
that are achievable.
Comment: One commenter stated it is arbitrary for the EPA to find
risk acceptable in view of additional evidence of uncertainty in the
record. The EPA should find the current health risks to be unacceptable
because of the omissions, underestimates, and uncertainties its own
risk assessment contains. The EPA has failed to show, based on evidence
in the record, that the risks are not significantly higher than the
values it has presented. The EPA has failed to justify its
acceptability determination when such major gaps are present.
Response: As stated in the proposal rulemaking, the estimated
combined worst-case, upper-end risks (point and UFIP) are below the
presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1-million and the
noncancer results indicate there is minimal likelihood of adverse
noncancer health effects due to HAP emissions from this source
category. As we explained in the proposal preamble, the EPA's risk
results indicate that the inhalation cancer risks to the individual
most exposed are less than 90-in-1 million, as a worst case,
considering the highest allowable risk due to point sources among the
industry facilities plus the conservative estimate of risk from UFIP
emissions due, in part, to the use of the largest facility as the
example facility. Furthermore, we conclude that by using the UFIP
emissions estimate from the example facility plus the highest allowable
point source risk to represent the worst case risk scenario for the
industry mitigates any potential concerns regarding the lack of UFIP
emissions estimates and associated UFIP associated risks for each
individual facility. Furthermore, we did not receive any data or
information through the public comment process that would change our
proposed determination that risks are acceptable.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA's ICR did not collect
emissions data information on UFIP sources or all HAP emitted,
controlled and uncontrolled. The EPA assessed additional particulate
and metal HAP emissions from UFIP sources not addressed in the ICR
through estimates based on ``literature values for PM from these or
other similar emission points and ratios of HAP to PM developed from
the ICR data.'' The commenter also stated the EPA's ``actual'' analysis
of risk is based on an emission inventory that is largely calculated
from emission factors and engineering judgment. The commenter asserted
that it is well-documented that emission factors underestimate
emissions for a variety of reasons including inherent bias in the
factors themselves and the inability to account for equipment
malfunctions and environmental conditions. The commenter stated the EPA
cannot rationally base emission estimates or risk assessments on data
it has strong reason to doubt. The commenter stated the EPA must
collect actual emissions data to support its emissions estimates. The
commenter argues that, to the extent actual data is not collected, the
Agency must adjust the emissions inventory using these same conclusions
from the technology review and the large body of scientific evidence
that show emissions factors underestimate emissions, in order to ensure
that the inventory better represents reality and reflects actual
emissions.
One commenter stated that the proposal's UFIP source analysis
(i.e., effort to quantify UFIP emissions) is based on no sampling or
engineering analysis, but on very dated studies and emission factors
that are poorly rated. While it is more difficult to characterize the
emissions from UFIP sources, the commenter asserted that methods do
exist that can help in properly characterizing UFIP emissions. The
commenter stated these include grab sampling followed by HAP
characterization, use of process knowledge, and engineering assessment/
modeling. The commenter asserted that each of these methods could have
been used by the EPA to better characterize potential HAP emissions
from UFIP.
Response: The commenter is correct that EPA did not require HAP
testing from these UFIP sources in the ICR in 2011. The EPA did not
have a good understanding of the UFIP sources at the time of the ICR in
2011. Furthermore, it would have been quite difficult to reliably
measure the UFIP emissions at that time due to the nature of such
emissions and lack of test methods to reliably quantify emissions from
these sources for use in the RTR. However, note that we did not use an
inventory for any analyses in this RTR, for UFIP or otherwise.
The HAP to PM ratios that were used along with the estimates of PM
emissions from UFIP to calculate HAP emissions estimates for UFIP
sources for the risk assessment for this action were obtained from ICR
source tests and are as good, in terms of quality and, therefore,
accuracy, if not better than the grab samples that the commenter
suggests because the ICR stack tests were performed continuously over a
period of hours providing a composite profile of HAP emissions, whereas
grab samples would have been instantaneous and only reflect a discrete
moment in time. The EPA used all of the other methods recommended by
the commenter to estimate emissions from UFIP sources, specifically:
HAP characterization, use of process knowledge, and engineering
assessment/modeling, as described in the technical memorandum titled
Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP
Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Facility for
Input to the RTR Risk Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-0956), hereafter called the ``Example Facility'' memorandum.
The emission factors used in the example facility analysis were, in
most cases, from a number of test reports from various and different
facilities that were evaluated and combined into one overall emission
factor for each of the seven UFIP sources. Environmental conditions and
malfunctions are not included in data used to develop EPA emission
factors and the latter are never included in any part of an emission
factor analysis. In addition, we have no evidence that based on current
industry operation the EPA's emission factors are biased low, in
general, i.e., for typical or average conditions. Engineering judgment
was used when portions of the emission estimates were missing and was
conservative in nature. An analysis using limited ambient emission data
previously obtained by the EPA in the vicinity of the example facility,
included in the ``Example Facility'' memorandum (Section 7 and Appendix
G), indicates the EPA's emissions estimates for UFIP at the example
facility are plausible.
[[Page 42088]]
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
Based on consideration of comments, and all of the health risk
information, factors, results, and uncertainties discussed above and in
the proposal (84 FR 42704), we conclude the risks due to HAP emissions
from this source category acceptable. Furthermore, based on the
analyses described in the proposal and elsewhere in this preamble,
including the evaluation of potential controls and work practices to
reduce emissions and risks, and the costs, effectiveness, and
uncertainties of those controls and work practices, and after
evaluating comments, we conclude the NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Finally, based on our evaluation of
environmental risks, we conclude that more stringent standards are not
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not promulgating any additional control requirements pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2), but instead are readopting the existing
standards.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Court upheld this approach to CAA section 112(f)(2) in
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008): ``If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an
`ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt those
standards during the residual risk rulemaking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Technology Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
In the proposed technology review, we evaluated the cost
effectiveness of upgrading fume/flame suppressants used for control of
fugitive PM and HAP metal emissions from BF to use of baghouses as
control devices. We also evaluated process modifications found in
European literature to further reduce dioxins/furans emissions from
sinter plants; these potential process controls for dioxins/furans
emissions were in addition to the add-on control devices considered for
sinter plants under the ample margin of safety analysis for point
sources described above. The technology reviews for these two emissions
sources were discussed in detail in the proposal (84 FR 42704) and the
technical memorandum titled Technology Review for the Integrated Iron
and Steel NESHAP (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0964).
In the proposed technology review, the EPA also evaluated potential
work practices to reduce nonpoint source emissions from the BF
casthouse and BOPF shop (84 FR 42704). However, the EPA did not propose
any of these work practices primarily because there are significant
uncertainties in the technical assessment of UFIP emissions that
includes estimates of the baseline UFIP emissions, the estimated HAP
reductions that would be achieved by the work practices, and the costs
of the work practices. In addition, there also are uncertainties in the
effect the work practices would have on facility operations, economics,
and safety. Based on all our analyses and uncertainties described
above, the EPA proposed to find that there are no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate revising
the standards for these two UFIP sources under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Considering all the information evaluated in our technology reviews
for upgrading fume/flame suppressants control on BFs, sinter plant
process modifications, and the potential work practices to reduce UFIP
emissions from BF casthouse and BOP shop, we did not identify any
developments in practices, processes, or technologies that warrant
revision of the NESHAP for the currently regulated point or nonpoint
sources under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA and, therefore, did not
propose any changes to the NESHAP pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the
CAA.
a. Upgrading Fume/Flame Suppressants at BFs to Baghouses
Emissions from BFs are controlled in the integrated iron and steel
industry in one of two fundamentally different ways: (1) Fume and flame
suppression techniques or (2) conventional ventilation practices that
route exhaust air to control devices such as baghouses. Fume
suppression consists of blowing natural gas over the open equipment
which retards vaporization and prevents emissions. With flame
suppression, the natural gas is ignited with accompanying oxygen
consumption that suppresses the formation of metal oxide emissions. The
use of fume/flame suppressants for control of fugitive BF casthouse
emissions is estimated to have 75-percent control, whereas control with
baghouses is estimated to have 95-percent control.
There are a total of eight BFs with fume/flame suppressants
distributed at four facilities among the 21 BFs total at 11 integrated
iron and steel facilities. Per-unit capital costs for converting from
fume/flame suppressant control to baghouses was estimated to be $18
million with $2.7 million in annual unit costs, where some facilities
have two or three units. Total industry costs are estimated to be $140
million in capital costs and $22 million in annual costs. The estimated
cost effectiveness of upgrading the fume/flame suppressant control to
ventilation and baghouses at all eight BFs is $7 million/ton of metal
HAP with 3 tpy of HAP removed, and $160,000/ton PM with 120 tpy of PM
removed. We concluded these controls were not cost effective and,
therefore, we did not propose to require baghouses to be installed on
BFs as a result of the technology review.
b. Process Modifications To Control Dioxins/Furans at Sinter Plants
There are three facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category that have sinter plants. The
sinter plants are currently regulated by PM and opacity limits on the
windbox exhaust stream, sinter cooler, and discharge end of sinter
plants. In addition, the sinter plant windbox is regulated for organic
HAP with compliance demonstrated by either meeting a VOC limit or a
limit on oil content of the sinter feed. Dioxins/furans are components
of the organic HAP but because of their higher toxicity, they often are
evaluated separately under control scenarios. Therefore, our technology
review included exploration of potential control measures that could
further reduce dioxins/furans from sinter plants.
For the proposal, we conducted a literature search and reviewed
various technical publications (largely from Europe and other countries
in the Stockholm Convention \6\) regarding potential control
technologies and practices to reduce dioxins/furans from sinter plants
and found a number of potential options that could potentially be
applied at sinter plants in the U.S.7 8 9 These options
include urea injection to inhibit dioxins/furans formation; partial
[[Page 42089]]
windbox exhaust gas recirculation; post-exhaust windbox chemical spray
(monoethanolamine and triethanolamine dissolved in water and sprayed
onto exhaust); and elimination of certain inputs (e.g., no ESP dust).
The European Union also included these measures in their 2013 Best
Available Technology evaluation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(Pops), Texts and Annexes. Revised in 2017. Published by the
Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, Geneva, Switzerland. May
2018. Available at: http://www.pops.int.
\7\ Ooi, T. C. and L. Lu. Formation and mitigation of PCDD/Fs in
iron ore sintering. Chemosphere 85 291-299. 2011.
\8\ Boscolo, M.E., Padoano, and S. Tommasi. Identification of
possible dioxin emission reduction strategies in preexisting iron
ore sinter plants. Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute. Ironmaking and
Steelmaking. 15:35:11.The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield, UK. October
19, 2007.
\9\ Lanzerstorfer, C. State of the Art in Air Pollution Control
for Sinter Plants. Chapter 18, in Ironmaking and Steelmaking
Processes. P. Cavaliere, Ed. Springer International Publishing,
Springer Nature, Switzerland AG. 2016.
\10\ Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Iron
and Steel Production. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
(Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). R. Remus, M. A.
Aguado-Monsonet, S. Roudier, and L. D. Sancho. European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies. European IPPC Bureau, Seville, Spain. Luxembourg
Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/97469. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as we knew at proposal, none of these technologies or
practices were currently used at sinter plants in the U.S. However,
based on the literature cited above, we believe some of these
technologies or measures may be used to control dioxins/furans in other
countries (such as in Europe and other countries complying with the
Stockholm Convention).
We were not able to estimate the costs of these control methods due
to lack of cost information in the literature, nor were we able to
estimate the feasibility for U.S. facilities. Based on the analysis set
forth in the proposal, we did not propose to require process
modifications to control dioxins/furans at sinter plants as a result of
the technology review.
c. Work Practices as a Potential Measure To Reduce UFIP Emissions From
BF Casthouses and BOPF Shops
As described in the proposal, we evaluated potential work practices
to reduce uncaptured fugitive emissions from BF casthouses and BOPF
shops under our technology review. The estimated capital costs for work
practices for these two nonpoint sources were $1.4 million and
annualized costs were $1.7 million. We estimated these work practices
would achieve about 173 tpy reduction in metal HAP, at an average
combined cost effectiveness of $10,000 per ton.
After considering all the information and analyses, we proposed to
find that there were no developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies that necessitate revising the standards for these
two UFIP sources under CAA section 112(d)(6). This decision was based
largely on the considerable uncertainties in the technical assessment
of UFIP emissions that includes estimates of the baseline UFIP
emissions, the HAP emission reductions that would be achieved by the
work practices, and the costs of the work practices. In addition, as
indicated by the industry in their comments, there are also
uncertainties with regard to the effect the work practices would have
on facility operations, economics, and safety.
2. How did the technology review change for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
No changes were made to the technology review in the final rule
from that proposed for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category (84 FR 42704).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
This section provides a summary of key comments and responses
regarding the technology review. Related comments and responses in
regard to UFIP emissions are discussed in sections IV.A.3 and IV.F.3 of
this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal
and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
Comment: One commenter stated the record contradicts the EPA's
conclusion of no developments for point sources. The evidence shows,
``that there are many techniques to control dioxins/furans emissions
from sinter plants,'' through process modifications controls such as
windbox gas recirculation or chemical treatment of windbox exhaust, and
these are in use at European facilities. Tech. Review Memo at 21. The
commenter said that the EPA found chemical treatment could achieve 40-
to 90-percent control and that the EPA concluded that the cost
effectiveness and success of application of these techniques in the
U.S. is not known. Id. at 19-20. The commenter stated that the EPA gave
no justification for why the application should be different in the
U.S., however, nor any evidence showing that these could not be applied
or should not be applied in the U.S. The commenter also claimed that
the European Union actually requires BAT for control of dioxins/furans
emissions and stated that the EPA has no lawful or rational basis to
refuse to revise the emission standards to ``tak[e] into account''
these techniques when they are plainly ``developments'' within the
meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6). Id. at 20.
The commenter stated the EPA's claims about the cost effectiveness
of ACI in the proposal were made in the context of its separate CAA
section 112(f) analysis (84 FR at 42725) and that the EPA did not
evaluate ACI in the context of its CAA section 112(d)(6) analysis. Id.
at 42729. The commenter also claimed that the EPA's findings under CAA
section 112(f)(2) cannot possibly satisfy the Agency's obligations
under the separate and different requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6).
Stating what the EPA believes ACI costs does not show that ACI is not
cost effective and is irrelevant under CAA section 112(d)(6). Equally
irrelevant is whether or not ACI would reduce health risks. The focus
under CAA section 112(d)(6), is how much reduction is achievable and
not the EPA's views about risk or the value of reducing it.
The commenter stated moreover, the Agency grossly underestimates
this technology's cost effectiveness by considering it only for one HAP
at a time, as if iron and steel sources would have to purchase and
install ACI once to control dioxins/furans, and again to control other
pollutants. 84 FR 42726 (August 16, 2019). The commenter stated the
EPA's irrational failure to recognize the actual benefits of ACI on
multiple HAP is arbitrary and unlawful.
In addition, the commenter asserted that the Agency pretends that
cost effectiveness must be measured in dollars per ton even for
pollutants like mercury and dioxins/furans for which such a measure is
``ridiculous.'' The commenter explained that dioxins/furans are
measured in millionths of a gram, and they are toxic in the millionths
of a gram. Further, the commenter elaborated that all the industries in
the nation do not emit a single ton of dioxins/furans in a year. The
commenter posited that giving the cost effectiveness for ACI in dollars
per ton of dioxins/furans is meaningless and that by doing so the EPA
is simply obscuring the facts by using absurdly irrelevant units to
make ACI look as though it is not cost effective to support its
rejection of an extremely effective and cost-effective technology.
The commenter stated failing to present all of the underlying
information the EPA relied on for its CAA section 112(d)(6)
determination--including, e.g., the title V permits to which it
refers--makes it impossible for the public and for a reviewing court to
evaluate the EPA's conclusory determination that there are ``no
developments'' requiring revision.
In contrast, a different commenter stated as part of the technology
review, the EPA considered a number of process
[[Page 42090]]
modifications to provide additional reductions of dioxins/furans
emissions from sinter plants but appropriately chose not to propose to
require them based on inadequate information. The commenter stated that
the EPA reasonably determined not to focus on additional control
technologies for sinter plants during the technology review, which are
already subject to limits on organic HAP emissions (through either a
VOC limit or an oil content limit for the sinter feed). Based on the
incredibly high estimated cost-effectiveness numbers, the commenter
stated that the EPA proposes that these additional control technologies
would not be cost effective and proposes not to require them. Although
the commenter stated that the EPA's cost estimates appear
unrealistically low and the estimated emissions reductions too high,
even with those flawed assumptions the commenter stated that the EPA
calculated such staggeringly high cost-effectiveness values that
further analysis is unnecessary to establish that these controls are
not appropriate to impose pursuant to the technology review. The
commenter stated the process modifications the EPA evaluated are not
used at any facility in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category but, rather, were identified during the
EPA's literature review from primarily European sources. Sinter plant
emissions are already regulated by PM and opacity limits, as well as a
VOC limit or limit on sinter feed oil content to regulate organic HAP
emissions, including dioxins/furans. The commenter stated that the EPA
nonetheless looked to identify the potential process changes in its
literature review to yield further dioxins/furans emission reductions.
The commenter stated that none of the process changes that the EPA
identified warrant revision of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF
standards for sinter plants. The industry reviewed the materials from
the EPA's literature review described in the proposal; however, the
commenter stated that the EPA did not provide adequate information to
properly evaluate the potential effectiveness, costs, or other issues
associated with the process changes discussed therein. Because there
has not been a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on any
potential requirement the EPA could impose on the basis of that
insufficiently clear literature, the commenter stated that none should
be adopted in the final rule.
Response: At proposal, we evaluated ACI as a means of reducing
dioxins/furans emissions from sinter plants and used the information
and data we collected to inform both our ample margin of safety
analysis under CAA section 112(f) and our technology review under CAA
section 112(d)(6). In addition, we investigated potential process
modifications to reduce emissions for the sinter plants under CAA
section 112(d)(6). None of the process technologies or practices
identified to control dioxins/furans in European sinter plants are
currently used at sinter plants in the U.S. Therefore, we were not able
to estimate the costs of these control methods due to lack of cost
information in the literature, nor were we able to determine the
feasibility for U.S. facilities or whether the European facilities that
are applying these process modifications are similar enough to U.S.
facilities to enable adoption of the same control techniques.
Considering all the information in our technology reviews, we did not
identify any developments in practices, processes, or technologies that
warrant revision of the NESHAP for sinter plants.
We agree with the first commenter that dioxins/furans are commonly
expressed in grams. However, in the RTR proposal (84 FR 42704), we
provided the emissions for dioxins/furans in measurement units
typically used for most other HAP (i.e., tons and lbs) for consistency
purposes. Changing measurement units does not change the relative
impact of this analysis compared to previous EPA analyses for dioxins/
furans.
We agree with the first commenter that we did not specifically
discuss ACI for dioxins/furans in the technology review sections of our
RTR proposal preamble. However, in the memorandum titled Technology
Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP (Docket ID Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0964), we explained (on page 17 of 22) that
although add-on controls are available, the focus for the technology
review was on process modifications because add-on controls (i.e., ACI)
for dioxins/furans emissions were shown not to be cost effective at
sinter plants at integrated iron and steel facilities in the ample
margin of safety analysis. For details of this analysis, see the
memorandum titled Ample Margin of Safety Analysis for Point Sources in
the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0952).
In terms of multiple pollutant control, for the purpose of this
comment, because dioxins/furans are quite different than other HAP, we
typically would not add together the mass of other individual HAP
together with dioxins/furans to generate a cost effectiveness value for
the sum of HAP, such as in units of dollars per ton of total HAP or lbs
per ton of total HAP. Nevertheless, in response to the comment, we
estimated the cost effectiveness to control VOC, such as benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), and carbonyl sulfide (COS)
with ACI. Using the same annual costs for ACI described for control of
dioxins/furans (see 84 FR 42725 (August 16, 2019) and also Docket ID
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0952), at $1,849,781 per year, and
assuming 85-percent control of BTEX and COS with ACI (average of vendor
estimate of 80 to 90 percent),\11\ the estimated cost effectiveness for
BTEX and COS co-control is approximately $14,000/ton, which is above
the range that the EPA has typically considered cost effective for
volatile HAP. Consequently, we continue to conclude that ACI is not
cost effective for sinter plants, whether we consider ACI for only
dioxins/furans controls or if we consider costs and cost effectiveness
of the other HAP as well, and we are not promulgating any new or
revised standards for sinter plants under the technology review
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Telecommunication. Raymond, G., RTI International, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, with C. Allen, Carbon Activated
Corporation, Blasdell, New York. January 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the comment that claims the EPA did not provide
the underlying information the EPA relied on for its CAA section
112(d)(6) determination. The EPA provided all the relevant supporting
information in the proposal preamble or technical memoranda, including
the Technology Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel NESHAP (Docket
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0964) and Ample Margin of Safety
Analysis for Point Sources in the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0952). Regarding the title V
permits, we made no reference to title V permits in this rule package
or any of the supporting materials and technical memoranda; therefore,
we cannot address the commenter's points on this issue.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA cannot justify leaving other
non-mercury emissions completely uncontrolled. Refusing to set limits
on all uncontrolled pollutants that iron and steel sources emit is both
unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated that the EPA's emission
standards for iron and
[[Page 42091]]
steel plants lack any limits at all for certain HAP, such as
hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and COS, either direct
or through a surrogate. Specifically, the iron and steel plants emit 12
tpy HCl, 4 tpy HCN, and 72 tpy COS. Although the EPA has set certain
requirements that purport to be limits on VOC, it has not set any limit
for iron and steel plants' emissions of COS. Indeed, when the EPA
promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
standards, it did not even recognize that they emit COS. Instead, the
EPA claimed that iron and steel plants emit only ``trace amounts of
other organic HAP (such as polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and
carbon disulfide).'' Moreover, the EPA claimed that these ``trace''
emissions come entirely from oil used in the sintering process, and its
only limit on them is to ``establish limits on the amount of organic
HAP precursor material (specifically oil and grease) that may be in the
sinter feed . . .'' The commenter stated because the EPA does not claim
that COS emissions either come from organic HAP precursor material in
sinter feed or can be reduced by limits on such material, its current
standards do not limit emissions of COS. In addition, the extremely
dangerous neurotoxicant HCN appears not to be currently restricted at
all.
The commenter stated it is well-established that, under CAA section
112(d) of the CAA, the EPA's emission standards for a source category
must include limits for each HAP that a source category emits. As the
Court held in National Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
the Agency has a ``clear statutory obligation to set emission standards
for each listed HAP.'' In subsequent decisions, the Court has
repeatedly confirmed that the EPA has this obligation, that it is
unambiguous, and that the EPA's failure or refusal to set limits for
each listed HAP that a category emits is flatly unlawful. See, e.g.,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Despite the
plain language of the CAA and the Court precedent, the existing
standards do not currently contain any limit at all on certain HAP.
The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to
review and revise ``as necessary'' the emission standards for
integrated iron and steel facilities. This includes ensuring standards
apply to all emitted HAPs and satisfying all currently applicable
requirements. As part of its review rulemaking under CAA section
112(d)(6) of existing standards to determine whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the standards, EPA must ensure that standards
for Iron & Steel facilities meet the requirements of CAA section
112(d), consistent with its responsibility under the CAA and applicable
case law.
The commenter stated while the EPA has been ignoring its statutory
obligations to control these sources' toxic pollution, people in
communities near these sources suffer as a result of their exposure to
uncontrolled HAP emissions. The commenter stated as communities
currently have no protection at all from these emitted HAP, it is both
unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA not to set a limit in this
rulemaking. If it fails to do so, it will fail to complete the review
and revision rulemaking as CAA section 122(d)(6) requires, will violate
the Court's Order in California Communities Against Toxics v. Pruitt,
241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.D.C. 2017), and will also issue a final rule
that is unlawful and inadequate.
Response: Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to review
and revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards
promulgated under this section. We do not agree with the commenter's
assertion that the EPA must establish new standards for unregulated
emission points or pollutants as part of a technology review of the
existing standards.\12\ The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a
limited provision requiring the Agency to, at least every 8 years,
review the emission standards already promulgated in the NESHAP and to
revise those standards as necessary taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies. Nothing in CAA section
112(d)(6) directs the Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the
mandatory 8-year technology review, to develop new emission standards
to address HAP or emission points for which standards were not
previously promulgated. As shown by the statutory text and the
structure of CAA section 112, CAA section 112(d)(6) does not impose
upon the Agency any obligation to promulgate emission standards for
previously unregulated emissions. Establishing emissions standards for
unregulated emission points or pollutants involves a different
analytical approach from reviewing emissions standards under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ On April 21, 2020, shortly before this rule was signed, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in LEAN
v. EPA (No. 17-1257) in which the court held that the EPA has an
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the EPA has discretion to develop standards under CAA
section 112(d)(2) through (4) and CAA section 112(h) for previously
unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency completes the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, any such action is not part of the CAA
section 112(d)(6) review, and there is no obligation to undertake such
actions at the same time as the CAA section 112(d)(6) review.\12\ In
the case of mercury, as described in sections III.C and IV.C of this
preamble, the EPA has decided to promulgate new standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) to address an outstanding petition for
reconsideration. However, the EPA is not establishing new standards for
the other HAP described above (i.e., HCl, HCN, and COS) as part of this
rulemaking, partly due to the fact that the EPA has insufficient time
to gather the information to complete the necessary analyses and review
in order to develop such additional standards before the court-ordered
deadline of May 5, 2020. Nevertheless, the Agency may address these
additional HAP in a future action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identified such developments, we analyzed their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also considered the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informed our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards.
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 42704) and in
this final rule preamble (section IV.B), we determined that there are
no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
warrant revisions to the standards. We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA's technology review and we determined no changes to the review
are needed. Consequently, the EPA is not promulgating any new or
revised standards in this action for the Integrated Iron and Steel
NESHAP under CAA section 112 (d)(6) of the CAA.\12\ More information
concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled Technology
Review for the Integrated Iron and Steel
[[Page 42092]]
NESHAP (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0964).
C. Mercury Emission Limits
1. What did we propose for mercury emissions for the Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
On August 16, 2019, the EPA proposed emissions standards for
mercury for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3) in part to address a
petition for reconsideration received by the EPA in 2004 from the
Sierra Club. The proposed MACT floor limit was 0.00026 lbs of mercury
per ton of scrap processed as an input-based limit for all existing
BOPFs and related units at existing integrated iron and steel
facilities. We proposed two options to demonstrate compliance with the
input-based limit of 0.00026 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed
for existing facilities. These options were: (1) Conduct an annual
performance test at all BOPF-related units and convert the sum of the
results to input-based units (i.e., lbs of mercury per ton of scrap
input) and document the results in a test report that can be submitted
electronically to the delegated authority with the results (see section
IV.E below); or (2) certify that the facility obtains all of their
scrap from NVMSRP participants (or similar program as approved by the
delegated authority), or establish that their scrap is not likely to
contain mercury switches. We proposed that existing sources would be
required to comply with these requirements within 1 year of
promulgation of the final rule. We also proposed that for facilities
demonstrating compliance with the mercury limits through performance
testing, subsequent performance testing would be required annually. In
addition, we proposed that facilities demonstrating compliance through
the scrap selection options, would be required to report their status
with the appropriate required information in their semiannual
compliance reports beginning 1 year after promulgation of final rule.
For new sources, we proposed a MACT limit of 0.00008 lbs of mercury
per ton of scrap processed as an input-based limit for any new BOPF and
related units, and new integrated iron and steel facility, pursuant to
the CAA section 112(d)(3) requirements for new sources that the
standard for new sources shall not be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source. With regard to compliance, the EPA proposed that new sources
would have the same options to demonstrate compliance as the existing
sources. A new BOPF and new integrated iron and steel facility was
defined, with respect to the mercury standard, to be any BOPF or
facility constructed or reconstructed on or after August 16, 2019.
2. How did the mercury emissions standards change for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For the final rule, in response to comments, we changed the mercury
testing frequency after the initial performance test to twice per
permit cycle, i.e., every 2.5 years in a 5-year title V permit cycle or
every 2.5 years for facilities without a permit (where the initial
performance test is performed within 1 year from the effective date of
the rule); changed definitions for motor vehicle scrap; changed 40 CFR
63.7825 Equation 1 to reflect the correct calculation for mass
emissions; and changed minor aspects of provisions that allow sources
to demonstrate compliance through participation in the NVMSRP and other
provisions related to compliance with the mercury limits. These changes
are described in sections III.C, IV.C.4, and IV.C.5 of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the mercury emissions standards,
and what are our responses?
This section provides a summary of key comments and responses
regarding the mercury standard. A summary of all other public comments
on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available
in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and
Technology Review for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA has appropriately proposed a
measure to reduce mercury emissions, which the emission standards
currently do not control, by (proposing to) set standards for the first
time pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). (84 FR 42730). The
commenter urged the EPA to finalize this measure, but also asserted
that it does not satisfy CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter added, as
the EPA acknowledges, the EPA also has a pending petition for
reconsideration asking the EPA to set mercury limits. (Id. at 42,731).
The EPA granted the petition on the issue of the mercury limits. The
commenter opined that the EPA should not have waited 15 years to
propose measures to reduce iron and steel plants' mercury emissions,
and its current proposal falls short of the CAA's requirements. (Id.).
The commenter stated the EPA's proposed practices for the removal
of mercury switches from the scrap metal used by iron and steel plants
are not numeric emission limits. At best, the commenter stated, they
constitute a work practice requirement the EPA has not even claimed,
let alone shown, as it must under CAA section 112(h), that the
statutory preconditions for setting work practice requirements instead
of numeric emission limits have been satisfied. For this reason alone,
the commenter asserted that the EPA's proposed mercury requirements are
unlawful and arbitrary.
The commenter asserted that the limits fail to satisfy the
stringency requirements under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
Specifically, the commenter argues that the EPA has not demonstrated
with substantial evidence, as it must, that these requirements reflect
the mercury emissions levels actually achieved by the plants that are
best-performing with respect to mercury and contravene CAA section
112(d)(3). Further, the commenter stated that the EPA has neither
claimed nor demonstrated that its mercury requirements require the
``maximum'' degree of reduction in mercury emissions that is
``achievable'' through the full range of reduction measures enumerated
in CAA section 112(d)(2) and, therefore, this violates CAA section
112(d)(2).
The commenter affirmed that the mercury switch requirements the EPA
has proposed should be included in the Agency's final mercury emission
limits. The commenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority to
set limits for mercury that reflect, among other things, the
application of operational measures, such as the proposed mercury
switch requirements. However, they questioned whether such measures are
sufficient and asserted that, if not, the EPA must set numeric limits
for mercury that satisfy the stringency requirements in CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3).
The commenter stated that the proposed limits for mercury are
unlawfully and arbitrarily weak, because they simply codify what the
majority of sources are already doing--instead of ensuring the
``maximum achievable degree of emission reduction.'' (42 U.S.C.
7412(d)(2) and (3); see 84 FR 42730-32, August 16, 2019). The commenter
stated that the EPA does not claim that this satisfies CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), or determine that numerical emission limits are not
feasible.
[[Page 42093]]
Response: We acknowledge the support for our proposal to set
mercury standards. This is the first time the EPA is promulgating a
mercury emissions standard for this source category. Therefore, CAA
section 112(d)(6) does not apply. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA only
applies to existing standards and requires that the EPA review existing
standards within 8 years, and revise them as necessary, taking into
account developments in practices, processes, or technologies.\12\
Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and based on data from
all facilities, we proposed MACT floor limits for new and existing
sources in terms of lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed as an
input-based limit for all BOPFs and related units (HMTDS and ladles) at
integrated iron and steel facilities. These limits, which are in units
of mass of mercury emissions from all BOPFs and related units at each
facility (hereafter called the ``BOPF Group'' \13\) per mass of scrap
processed by each facility in their BOPFs, were derived using
performance test data and data on amount of metal scrap processed
obtained through an ICR sent to the industry in 2011, and are based in
part on the assumption that the mass of mercury emitted from all BOPFs
and related units is equivalent to the mass of mercury in the scrap
input. Mercury is neither created nor destroyed in the BOPF and, based
on our understanding of the steelmaking process, the primary source of
mercury emissions is mercury contained in the scrap feedstock. Thus,
the EPA determined it was reasonable to set a standard that limits the
amount of mercury that may be emitted per ton of scrap processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Basic oxygen process furnace group is defined to be the
collection of BOPF shop steelmaking operating units including the
BOPF primary units (BOPF emissions from oxygen blow for iron
refining); BOPF secondary units (secondary fugitive emissions in the
shop from iron charging, steel tapping, and auxiliary processes not
elsewhere controlled); ladle metallurgy units; and HMTDS and slag
skimming units that are operating at the time of each mercury test
sequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we collected test data from BOPF Groups at all facilities
in the industry, we necessarily collected test data from the best
performing sources. We then used the test data to develop mercury-to-
scrap input ratios for the facilities' BOPF Groups and used the best
performing five facilities out of all 11 integrated iron and steel
facilities in the source category to develop the data set to derive the
input-based MACT floor for existing sources for mercury, pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, we established a standard no
less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the
best controlled source, as determined by the Administrator, pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(3).
Once we established the MACT floor data set, we then determined an
upper prediction limit (UPL) \14\ to develop the mercury MACT standard
that incorporates the potential variability in future measurements. The
EPA's MACT analyses use the UPL approach to identify the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing sources to
determine the MACT level of performance, or MACT emission limit, as
described in the EPA memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and
Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0958). The EPA uses this approach because it
incorporates the average performance of the best performing sources as
well as the variability of the performance during testing conditions.
The UPL estimates what the upper bound of future values will be based
upon present or past background data. The UPL approach encompasses all
the data point-to-data point variability in the collected data, as
derived from the dataset to which it is applied. We then took the
mercury mass-to-scrap input ratio from the lowest-emitting facility in
regard to mercury and used this value to establish the new source
standard, after applying the same UPL procedure. Details of this
procedure also are described in the technical memorandum cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Westlin, P., and R. Merrill. Data and procedure for
handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant
emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits. U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 13, 2011 (revised
April 5, 2012) (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0857).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After calculating the MACT floor, the EPA evaluated and considered
a beyond-the-floor option pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) based on
ACI. However, for the reasons explained in the proposal preamble,
including the relatively high capital and annualized cost of ACI with
baghouses, and poor cost effectiveness, the EPA did not propose a
beyond-the-floor option and instead proposed the MACT floor emission
limits for new and existing sources as described above in this
preamble. Additional details of the development of the proposed mercury
emission limits and beyond-the-floor analyses are available in the
proposed rule preamble and technical document titled Mercury Emissions,
Controls, and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0958).
With regard to compliance with the proposed mercury emission
limits, we proposed that facilities would have two options to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed input-based MACT emission
limit: (1) Conduct a performance test annually at all BOPF-related
units and convert the sum of the results to input-based units (i.e.,
lbs of mercury per ton of scrap input) and document the results in a
test report that can be submitted electronically to the delegated
authority with the results; or (2) certify that the facility obtains
all of their scrap from NVMSRP participants (or similar program as
approved by the delegated authority), or establish that the facility's
scrap is not likely to contain mercury switches.
In the proposal preamble (84 FR 42704), we explained that although
we did not know exactly what type of scrap was used when the integrated
iron and steel facilities performed the ICR testing for mercury, we
assumed the scrap was either NVMSRP scrap or scrap with higher amounts
of mercury per ton of scrap than NVMSRP scrap. In response to the
proposal, industry (AISI and one facility, U.S. Steel) submitted
comments \15\ stating that the performance tests conducted to establish
the MACT floor limits and, thus, the MACT for mercury in the proposal
were based on facilities participating in the NVMSRP. We expect NVMSRP
scrap in the future will contain similar levels of mercury or, more
likely, less mercury than the scrap used to develop the MACT floor
limits because the amount of mercury in scrap is declining overall due
to the ban on the use of mercury in switches in U.S. automobiles after
2002, the expected continual retirement of older vehicles, and success
of the NVMSRP. Based on the EPA's understanding of the NVMSRP and the
commitments made by the parties in the memoranda of understanding, the
NVMSRP scrap constitutes some of the cleanest, if not the cleanest,
scrap available in terms of mercury content. Therefore, if a facility
chooses to comply with the mercury emission limit by certifying that
all their scrap is from NVMSRP participants (or a similarly-approved
program) or establishes that their scrap does not contain mercury
switches, it is also reasonable to conclude that the amount of mercury
left in the scrap due to the removal of mercury switches by the
[[Page 42094]]
NVMSRP achieves at least the same level of mercury reduction or likely
better reduction compared to the numeric MACT floor limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Comments of the American Iron and Steel Institute and
United States Steel Corporation on Proposed National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review 84 FR
42,704 (Aug. 16, 2019) and Notice of Comment Period Reopening 84 FR
53,662 (Oct. 8, 2019).'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083.
Submitted November 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By finalizing this emissions standard for mercury and two options
to demonstrate compliance, the EPA has fulfilled its legal obligations
under CAA sections 112 (d)(2) and (d)(3).
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to continue to
rely on the NVMSRP as an effective and efficient means of reducing
mercury emissions in the steel industry. The commenter stated mercury
is not an ingredient in steel, nor is it intentionally added in the
steelmaking process; however, mercury is a contaminant sometimes
present in scrap metal feedstock. The commenter acknowledges that the
EPA correctly stated in the proposal that the primary source of mercury
contamination in scrap metal is mercury-containing convenience switches
that were used in automobiles until their use was phased out in model
year 2002.
The commenter stated the NVMSRP has been a component of the NESHAP
for Area Source Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) Steelmaking Facilities in
40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY (``subpart YYYYY'') for over a decade. As
evidenced by the EPA's own data, the commenter noted that the program
has been highly effective in removing mercury from scrap feedstock and
reducing mercury emissions from EAF mills. The commenter stated as EAF
steel production uses a feedstock of nearly 100-percent steel scrap,
Steel Manufacturers Association and its members have gone to great
lengths to prevent mercury switches and other sources of mercury
contamination from entering the scrap metal recycling stream. Foremost
among those efforts, the commenter stated, is the development of the
NVMSRP in 2006. Since that time, the commenter noted that the NVMSRP
and its participants have removed and safely diverted from the scrap
supply and environment over seven million mercury convenience light
switches containing nearly 7.8 tons of mercury. By removing these
switches from scrap feedstock, the commenter stated, the steel industry
prevented that mercury from being charged into its furnaces and
released into the atmosphere.
The commenter agreed with the EPA that the amount of mercury
emitted from steel manufacturers using scrap metal as feedstock has
declined significantly due to the elimination of mercury-containing
switches in cars in 2002 and the steel industry's efforts through the
NVMSRP to ensure that those remaining mercury switches are not charged
into steelmaking furnaces. Critically, the commenter stated, the
removal of mercury from convenience switches in cars is only one part--
albeit, an important part--of a larger trend toward removing mercury
from products. The commenter stated that all available data show the
downward trend in mercury emissions is continuing and will continue
until there are so few remaining pre-2003 vehicles reaching the end of
their useful lives that mercury emissions will cease to be an issue for
the steel manufacturing industry.
The commenter stated that the facilities in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category that use automotive
shredded scrap inputs obtain automotive shredded scrap solely from
suppliers participating in the NVMSRP.\15\ Furthermore, the commenter
stated, the performance tests conducted to establish the MACT floor
limits and, thus, the MACT limits for mercury in this rule were based
on these very facilities participating in the program. The commenter
stated the NVMSRP seeks to ensure that mercury switches are removed
from scrap used in integrated iron and steel and other industries'
production processes; this approach allows for responsible recycling of
vehicles while minimizing the likelihood of mercury emissions from
companies using this scrap to make new products. Based on this, the
commenter asserted the EPA has appropriately proposed to account for
the NVMSRP.
Response: We agree with the commenter that mercury is not
intentionally added to the steelmaking process, that the NVMSRP works
to remove mercury from the scrap supply, and that the level of mercury
in steel scrap should continue to decline in the future because, based
on available information and our analyses, the overwhelming majority of
the mercury originates from mercury-containing convenience switches
that were used in automobiles until their use was banned in the U.S.
after model year 2002.
Comment: One commenter stated that because mercury emissions from
scrap consuming facilities are caused by contamination in the scrap
feedstock, mercury emissions are necessarily random and episodic. The
commenter stated the intermittence of these emissions--and the
widespread reduction in sources of mercury contamination--strongly
weigh against the imposition of specific numerical limits. The
commenter recognized that the EPA believes the Agency is legally
compelled to promulgate numerical mercury limits, and the commenter
takes no position on whether the Agency is compelled to do so in this
rulemaking. The commenter viewed these limits as inappropriate given
the nature of mercury emissions in scrap-consuming facilities. The
commenter asserted the NVMSRP remains a highly protective and effective
surrogate for numerical limits and recommended that the EPA continue to
rely on it as such.
Response: As explained above, the EPA has decided to promulgate a
mercury emission limit for the BOPF and related processes pursuant to
section 112(d) of the CAA in part, to address a 2004 petition for
reconsideration. The steel-making units, although by definition a batch
process, operate on a cycle where one batch starts as soon as the
previous one ends so that the furnace remains operating almost all the
time (except for occasional maintenance or repair activities) to
prevent cooling and the need to reheat. Three test runs are required
for a performance test. The steelmaking process cycle, although a batch
process, is sufficiently long enough to allow at least one test run in
each cycle. Because the scrap content and amount of mercury in each
batch may change from batch to batch, using an average of three runs to
develop the standard that the facilities will use to determine
compliance (or for any other testing purpose) contributes to the
accuracy of the data and, therefore, is to the benefit of both steel
facilities as well as the EPA. The final three-run test average, then,
is considered representative of typical operations and not just one
``batch.'' Therefore, the EPA determined it was feasible and reasonable
to develop a numerical emission limit based on the data we had.
However, as explained above, the EPA is including two options to
demonstrate compliance: (1) Conduct performance testing; or (2) certify
scrap is obtained from suppliers who participate in the NVMSRP or
similar program, or is free of mercury switches. With this final rule,
the EPA has fulfilled its legal obligations under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) to set emission standards for mercury.
Comment: The commenter stated that the use of a 99-percent UPL to
develop the MACT floor for mercury is appropriate and consistent with
the EPA's approach in other rulemakings. The commenter stated the
ability of the UPL, however, to properly account for variability here
is in question, given that 80 percent of the sampling results included
at least one mass fraction below the detection limit (non-detect), and
8 percent of total runs included all
[[Page 42095]]
non-detect values. In sum, the commenter stated only 12 percent of runs
included all detected results, severely limiting the above-detection-
limit dataset on which the UPL calculation was based.
Response: In the procedure the EPA uses to develop the MACT
standards, the calculated UPL is compared to three times the HAP and
method-specific ``representative detection level'' (RDL) developed by
the EPA, and the higher value of the two (UPL v. 3xRDL) is used as the
MACT standard. This step ensures that the final MACT floor values will
be a measurable above-detection-limit value. (See Westlin and Merrill,
2011\14\). When multiplying RDL by a factor of 3, the measurement
imprecision is decreased to around 10 to 15 percent. Using the larger
value for the MACT standard ensures that measurement variability is
adequately addressed.
In regard to the number of below detection limit (BDL) values, see
the procedure from the EPA memorandum titled 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
Establishing Work Practice Standards (S. Johnson, U.S. EPA, June 5,
2014) located in the docket to this final rule. In the memorandum (page
8, item 3), there is a discussion of a procedure for data
classification for mercury and nonmercury metals obtained via EPA
Method 29. According to the procedure: ``Where test results for any
single analyte are detection level limited (DLL) or above detection
limit (ADL), we assume detection (i.e., ADL) for that test run data for
that specific analyte.'' Therefore, the integrated iron and steel
mercury data classified as DLL, at 80 percent, are considered ADL and
consequently, the number of runs considered ADL is 92 percent, a clear
majority of the data set. See summary table of the MACT floor run data
below.
Table 4--Integrated Iron and Steel Source Mercury MACT Floor Run Data Classifications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of runs Percentage of total runs
Source Data ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BDL DLL ADL Total BDL DLL ADL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOPF Group................................. Before reclassification \1\... 7 73 11 91 8 80 12
After reclassification \2\.... 7 0 84 91 8 0 92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From the memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-
0958).
\2\ As per the procedures described in the memorandum titled 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 Establishing Work Practice Standards. S. Johnson, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. June 5, 2014.
Comment: A commenter stated the EPA's equating of hourly mercury
test results with annual mercury rates and use of annual scrap usage to
determine lbs of mercury per ton of scrap value is problematic for
several reasons. The commenter stated that hourly mercury tests only
account for the amount of mercury in the scrap at the time of the test
and are not normalized for fluctuations in the short-term scrap usage
rates, short-term scrap/iron ratios, or scrap and lime mercury
concentration. The commenter asserted the differences in the mercury
emissions rates between facilities and their respective operations are
not appropriately accounted for in the EPA's calculations, based on the
amount of scrap and mercury concentration in the scrap during the time
of the test, which could add variability not properly factored into the
EPA's calculations. The commenter stated it is inappropriate to assume
that the type of scrap, scrap usage, and scrap-to-molten iron ratio at
the time of the test were indicative of the long-term averages. Thus,
the commenter stated, this critical element of the proposal's analysis
is unjustified and cannot support standard-setting. In addition, the
commenter stated that although the proposed standards in 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF, Table 1 are intended to be set at the CAA section
112(d) floor level, they fail to account for the degree of variability
present in steelmaking inputs and, thus, go beyond the floor without
proper justification.
The commenter also stated the EPA's annualized approach (lbs/yr
mercury / ton scrap/yr) resulted in the skewness and kurtosis data
analyses being represented as a lognormal distribution, whereas the
output-based steel production approach (that accounts for short-term
production rates) is skewed non-normal distribution, according to the
prescribed MACT floor methodology. The commenter stated that since the
mercury emissions data sets are the same between the two input- and
output-based approaches, one could properly conclude that the
annualized approach is not adequately accounting for the short-term
production rate variability and, thus, it may be comparatively less
representative of actual variability in mercury emissions during
operations.
The commenter stated the EPA's analysis appears not to have
accounted properly for the scrap mercury content variability and, thus,
does not adequately apply the UPL concept of ensuring that sources
controlled to the level of the best performing five sources would
achieve the limit 99 percent of the time. The commenter stated that, as
proposed, the UPL calculation does account for some degree of
variability. However, the commenter stated the EPA needs to revisit the
associated MACT floor calculations to better represent the variability
among individual loads of scrap in terms of the variability in mercury
content and the associated long-term emission performance in assessing
the emission limit that is achieved by the top five performing sources
or UPL.
The commenter asserted that the EPA should calculate the
variability using all viable mercury emissions stack testing results in
the UPL analysis and then apply that variability factor to the five
best performing sources. Particularly when there is a small dataset for
which the raw material content is indicative of emissions, the
commenter asserted that the EPA needs to determine the variability that
can reasonably be expected from the top performers. Given that the
facilities in question were all accepting scrap from suppliers in the
NVMSRP, the commenter said the variability in scrap obtained from such
suppliers is reflected in all of the test results, not just the top
five performers.
The commenter noted that in the NESHAP for the EAF source, which
used similar scrap inputs as the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category but at much greater volumes
and proportions, the EPA recognized that an additional scrap
variability factor would be needed to account for variation in mercury
emissions if an emission limit was to be developed. Therefore, the
commenter
[[Page 42096]]
stated, although the EPA did not ultimately establish a numeric mercury
emission limit, working documents from development of the EAF rule show
a ``scrap (mercury) variability'' factor was applied in an attempt to
develop a mercury limit. The commenter stated that the EPA cited the
variability of mercury in scrap metal as the reason why performance
test averages varied by over 2 orders of magnitude at a single EAF
plant. (72 FR 53817). The commenter stated that if the EPA decides to
proceed, it needs to seek additional data regarding scrap mercury
content and variability similar to the approach the EPA considered with
the EAF NESHAP so that the UPL can account for that variability using
standard and accepted methods.
The commenter stated rather than the approach the EPA took in the
proposal of calculating the mercury per ton of scrap values by using a
source's annual total scrap input tonnage, the EPA should refine its
approach by comparing the scrap tonnage used in the individual heats
when the ICR stack test results were obtained. Moreover, the commenter
stated the EPA should look not only at the total scrap used for those
heats, but also to the extent possible based on available records, the
proportion of automotive shredded scrap used in those heats. The
commenter stated this approach would be far more accurate than the one
reflected in the proposal, which fails to account for any relation
between the stack test data and the scrap used at the time those
results were obtained. The commenter stated that failure to take this
critical factor into account renders the standard not rationally
related to the performance of the top performing sources and, thus,
arbitrary and capricious.
Response: Because scrap varied from unit to unit and facility to
facility, the variability in the scrap was already accounted for in the
data used to develop the MACT floor. We used data for the mercury
content of scrap from all units in the BOPF Group \13\ at the top five
best performing facilities from five locations in three states that
stretched from Chicago, Illinois, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Over 100
runs of data were used to develop the facility lbs mercury/ton steel
scrap values used to calculate the UPL. The variability in the scrap in
the over 100 runs was almost certainly captured by the UPL calculation
for the MACT floor.
In addition, the procedure the EPA uses to develop the MACT
standards allows for variability in future emission measurements. To
determine the MACT standard, an initially calculated UPL is compared to
3 times the HAP- and method-specific representative detection level
(RDL) developed by the EPA, and the higher value is used as the MACT
standard. This step ensures that the final MACT floor values will be
measurable ADL values. (See Westlin and Merrill, 2011.\14\)
As explained at the following website, a lognormal distribution is
a type of skewed distribution (see https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/lognormal-distribution/;
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/skewness.asp). A lognormal
distribution leans toward the right because all values are above zero,
by definition of a log. ``Skew'' refers to distortion or asymmetry as
compared to a symmetrical bell curve, or normal distribution, in a set
of data. If the curve leans towards the left or to the right, it is
said to be skewed. Skewness can be quantified as a representation of
the extent to which a given distribution varies from a normal
distribution. A normal distribution has a skew of zero, while a
lognormal distribution has some degree of right-skew. Both the input-
and output-based approaches to calculate a mercury MACT limit are
skewed because they are both lognormally distributed.
With regard to the mercury MACT calculations, when data from the
same facilities were compared, the variability of the lbs mercury/ton
scrap input dataset had more variability than the lbs mercury/ton steel
output variability. Consequently, more variability is incorporated into
the UPL calculation for the input-based standard than for an output-
based.
Not every facility reported run-by-run scrap tonnage values to the
EPA in the ICR, whereas every facility reported an annual scrap tonnage
value. In addition, almost all facilities did not report percent
automotive scrap use during testing or annually. Most facilities left
this ICR answer field blank, said it was confidential, or was unknown.
Therefore, the annual approach was the only option available to the EPA
based on the data provided to the EPA by the integrated iron and steel
facilities.
Comment: One commenter stated although the EPA's MACT floor
calculation includes a mass concentration value for mercury content in
lime, as is discussed in an attached engineering report providing
independent evaluation by Barr Engineering Co. commissioned by AISI/
U.S. Steel, the MACT floor calculation fails to account for potential
mercury variability in lime inputs as the EPA has appropriately done in
other contexts. The commenter stated this approach fails to account for
variability in a manner that is appropriate for the source category.
Response: We agree with the commenter's Barr evaluation that some
mercury emissions can be attributed to the other inputs to the BOPF,
which include lime. However, the stack performance test data the EPA
collected through the 2011 ICR would account for the lime portion of
the mercury emissions and include some of the variability in emissions
as well. Variability is accounted for both by the number and length of
the source test runs and the fact that multiple sources were tested.
Our MACT floor calculation relied on this data and, thus, accounted for
variability in lime inputs. At this time, we do not have additional
data regarding variability in lime inputs. The Barr evaluation cites
the Portland Cement UPL calculation as an example of the EPA accounting
for mercury variability in lime inputs in the UPL MACT floor
calculation. The commenter pointed to the ``Intra-quarry Variability
Estimate for Mercury'' memorandum for the Portland Cement NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart LLL) memorandum (Docket ID item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0051-3323), and stated that, in that rulemaking, the EPA had 30
daily mercury concentrations, parts per million (ppm) in limestone by
quarry values for three kilns that were in the MACT floor pool or used
the same quarry as MACT floor pool kilns. The commenter also stated
that those values were used to calculate temporal correlation between
the quarries and calculate intra-quarry variability. That information,
the commenter asserts, was then incorporated into the Portland Cement
UPL MACT floor calculation. The commenter is correct that the EPA does
not have direct data regarding mercury content of the lime used at the
integrated iron and steel industry. For the integrated iron and steel
ICR, facilities had to report the amount of lime used annually, but not
the mercury content of that lime.
As shown in the memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and
Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0958), Table 4, the mercury from lime was estimated to
comprise less than 15 percent of the total mercury inputs to the BOPF,
on average. The value for mercury content of lime, at 0.03035 ppm, was
developed from the average of data from two reference sources. One
reference source was the information (Limestone Mercury Concentrations
(ppb) with Revised Data from Buzzi. July 21, 2009) gathered for
[[Page 42097]]
the Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL; Docket ID Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3400) and the other source was from a Portland
Cement Association research report (Hills and Stevenson, 2006; Docket
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0872).
The EPA estimated that mercury in the scrap accounts for over 85
percent of the total mercury inputs to the BOPF and constitutes the
vast majority of mercury content; therefore, regulating the scrap input
is sufficiently correlated to the numeric emission limitation for
mercury to enable setting a standard for mercury from scrap. And, as
noted above, as a result of the robustness of the mercury emission data
used and the calculations performed to develop the MACT standard (UPL,
etc.), we have accounted for the variability of mercury in both the
scrap and lime. The mercury emission limitations are based on the best
data available to the Agency and satisfies our obligation under CAA
section 112(d) to establish a standard for mercury emissions from the
BOPF. For information on the data used to develop the MACT floor, see
the memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls, and Costs at
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0958).
Comment: One commenter stated that with a small source category,
and, thus, small number of sources setting the floor, a proper UPL
analysis is essential to a technically defensible standard that is
consistent with the statute. The commenter stated the EPA's technical
memorandum regarding its mercury floor calculations acknowledges,
however, that its dataset including just five data points is small and,
in fact, below the minimum of seven data points that the EPA considers
the threshold for a ``limited dataset.'' The commenter stated that this
limited dataset is the result of calculating a mercury emissions per
ton of steel scrap value for only the top five sources in the source
category and then running the UPL calculation based only on those five
sources.
Response: The BOPF Group existing source MACT floor pool dataset
(five data points) is based on fewer than seven data points. Therefore,
the EPA used the protocol for developing MACT floors for small
datasets. (See technical memorandum titled Mercury Emissions, Controls,
and Costs at Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities (Docket ID Item No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0958)). For limited datasets, the EPA can further
evaluate each individual dataset in order to ensure that the
uncertainty associated with a limited dataset does not cause the
calculated emission limit to be so high that it does not reflect the
average performance of the units upon which the limit is based after
accounting for variability in the emissions of those units. The EPA
evaluated this specific integrated iron and steel mercury dataset to
determine whether it is appropriate to make any modifications to the
approach used to calculate MACT floors for each of these datasets. The
EPA ensured that the selected data distribution best represents each
dataset; ensured that the correct equation for the distribution was
then applied to the data; and compared individual components of each
limited dataset to determine if the standards based on limited datasets
reasonably represent the performance of the units included in the
dataset. Based on an evaluation of the limited datasets, the EPA
determined that no changes to the standard floor calculation procedure
were warranted.
For new sources, in the EPA's experience from the past, limited
datasets warranted close scrutiny because sources with the lowest
average emissions, but with a relatively high variance, could be
identified mistakenly as the best performing source. In the mercury
emission limit for new integrated iron and steel sources, the best
performing source identified had 28 data points in the MACT floor pool,
so it is not a limited dataset, nor does it have relatively high
variance. Therefore, we conclude that further inspection of the
existing emissions datasets is not warranted.
Comment: One commenter stated given the need to finalize this RTR
in March 2020 and given that any data collection and analysis needed to
generate a sound mercury emission limit would take at least a year, the
EPA should not finalize the mercury emission limit at this time but
instead should withdraw it and defer action to a later date to allow
the EPA to address the flaws in the proposed standard. The commenter
stated the proposed mercury emission limit should be withdrawn and, if
the Agency ultimately determines a standard must be set, the EPA should
issue a new, separate proposal because the changes necessary to both
the dataset and the floor setting methodologies are sufficiently great
that interested persons will need an opportunity to comment on the
EPA's efforts to address them. In short, the commenter stated any
mercury gap-filling should proceed on an independent track from the
RTR, and it would be arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to finalize a
mercury emission limit in reliance on the limited data it has and
particularly using the flawed methodologies reflected in the proposal.
The commenter stated the EPA can and should determine that it
currently lacks adequate data to establish a mercury emission limit, in
light of the limited timeframe allowed under the judicial deadline to
complete this rulemaking. The commenter stated such a decision would be
afforded an ``extreme degree of deference'' by the Court on review. The
commenter stated the EPA's obligation under the court order is to
complete the RTR. The commenter stated filling a perceived gap in the
original standard is not mandated under CAA section 112 generally and
certainly is not compelled to be part of the RTR. Accordingly, the
commenter stated the EPA need not finalize the mercury proposal by the
March 2020 RTR deadline. The commenter stated if the EPA promulgates
now, the standard will necessarily lack adequate data and a record to
support it and, thus, would not only be ill-advised, but also arbitrary
and capricious.
Response: The EPA opted to promulgate these mercury emission limits
at the same time we conducted the RTR in part to address an outstanding
petition for reconsideration asking the Agency to set a mercury
emissions standard. The data used for the mercury emission limit were
stack test data obtained using typical mercury testing methodology and
the procedures we followed to develop the MACT limits were typical MACT
standard development procedures. The mercury data are not flawed, as
explained elsewhere in this preamble in responses to commenters'
specific allegations. All alleged flaws have been addressed above in
responses to comments received, and we have shown that the allegations
were unfounded and/or lacking scientific basis and that the EPA data
and data handling procedures were performed correctly to develop the
numeric emission limitation. Thus, we did not make any changes to the
mercury emission limit in response to comments received. The mercury
emission limitation promulgated in this rule is based on the best data
available to the Agency and satisfies our obligation under CAA section
112(d) to establish a standard for mercury emissions from the BOPF.
Comment: One commenter stated if the EPA proceeds with a mercury
emission limit, the proposal to allow facilities to satisfy the mercury
requirements by certifying that their scrap is ``not likely to contain
motor vehicle scrap'' in the proposed rule, e.g., proposed 40 CFR
63.7791(b) (final 40 CFR 63.7791(d)), is reasonable but needs
[[Page 42098]]
to be revised to better match the requirements in 40 CFR 63.10685(b) in
40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY. For example, the commenter stated the
EPA needs to clarify that the option applies to ``scrap not likely to
contain automotive shredded scrap,'' rather than all ``motor vehicle
scrap'' as it is currently proposed; regulatory language changes should
be made to reflect this clarification. This is because mercury
switches, the commenter stated, the driver of mercury emissions, are
not present in all motor vehicle scrap; rather, mercury switches are
typically only present in shredded automotive scrap. The commenter
stated facilities should, thus, be able to comply by certifying that
scrap inputs are not likely to contain automotive shredded scrap. The
commenter recommended the EPA modify proposed 40 CFR 63.7791(a)(1),
63.7791(a)(2), 63.7791(b)(1), 63.7791(b)(2), 63.7791(c), 63.7840(f)(1),
and 63.7852 (final 40 CFR 63.7791(c)(1), 63.7791(c)(2), 63.7791(d)(1)
through (d)(3), 63.7791(e), 63.7840(f)(1), and 63.7852, respectively)
definitions for motor vehicle scrap, scrap provider, and steel scrap
accordingly.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the clarification requested by the
commenter and has incorporated these suggestions as much as appropriate
into the final rule. We agree with the commenter that given today's
automobile fleet, where motor vehicles from 2003 production and earlier
still contain mercury switches, the scrap containing mercury switches
is typically shredded automotive scrap. We have revised the proposed
option that would have allowed facilities to comply by certifying that
the facility's scrap is ``not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap.''
As finalized, this option has been changed to allow facilities to
comply by certifying that the facility's scrap ``does not contain
mercury switches.'' This approach allows facilities to establish the
absence of mercury switches in their scrap, as appropriate for their
facility, i.e., their scrap is recovered for its specialty alloy
content, their scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap, or their
scrap does not contain shredded motor vehicle scrap.
Comment: One commenter stated facilities that use small amounts of
automotive shredded scrap relative to other inputs per ton of steel
produced, even from non-NVMSRP suppliers, would not be expected to emit
mercury at levels exceeding the emission limitations reflected in the
proposed rule. As the proposal acknowledges, the commenter stated that
the mercury content associated with mercury switches in older, end-of-
life vehicles is the basis for the mercury emission limit. The
commenter stated mercury switches are not present in all scrap, and not
even in all automotive scrap; rather, mercury switches are only
potentially present in shredded automotive scrap. Because of this, the
commenter stated, facilities using small amounts of automotive shredded
scrap would not be expected to have mercury emissions in excess of the
proposed standard. Thus, the commenter stated, sources using minimal
amounts of automotive shredded scrap should not be burdened with the
costs of testing or documenting participation in the switch recovery
programs, particularly given the low risk modeled for the source
category.
The commenter stated the EPA should modify the proposed 40 CFR
63.7791(b) to allow facilities to instead certify that they use only
minimal amounts of automotive shredded scrap inputs, such as 10-percent
automotive shredded scrap per ton of steel produced. So long as a
facility does not use more automotive shredded scrap than the
threshold, the commenter stated that certification should constitute
its compliance demonstration; this would enable facilities that use
very minimal amounts of automotive shredded scrap or that use
automotive shredded scrap only occasionally based on the scrap supply
market, and are, thus, unlikely to exceed the mercury emission limit,
to be deemed compliant, as well.
The commenter added the EPA should acknowledge that when the NVMSRP
ends this event will, in essence, establish compliance with the
proposed mercury emission limit because it will signal achievement of
substantial elimination of mercury switches from automotive scrap.
Consistent with the compliance option for the proposed mercury
requirements of allowing purchase of scrap from NVMSRP participants,
the commenter stated the EPA should include in any final rule a
provision that when the NVMSRP ends, sources would be deemed compliant
with the mercury emission limit (because the commenter stated the EPA
would have deemed that the NVMSRP is no longer needed to reduce mercury
switches from automotive scrap).
The commenter stated the EPA should revise proposed 40 CFR
63.7791(c) or add a new 40 CFR 63.7791(d) to allow sources to otherwise
show that their shredded motor vehicle scrap is unlikely to contain
mercury. For example, the commenter stated, if the NVMSRP has ended
with a finding that the mercury switches remaining in vehicles on the
road are minimal, the fact that there is no need for such a program
establishes the diminished presence of mercury. Or, the commenter
stated, if a scrap dealer uses only recycled post-2003 vehicles, the
use of this automotive scrap should not contain any appreciable
mercury. In other words, the commenter stated, at some point the number
of recycled vehicles containing mercury switches will diminish to the
extent that mercury in automotive scrap is no longer a concern. At this
point, the commenter stated, facilities should be able to rely on some
provision in 40 CFR 63.7791 to conclude that their scrap is unlikely to
contain mercury switches. The commenter stated such an approach is
reasonable because the standard is driven by the use of automotive
shredded scrap at BOPF shops and the mercury content in that scrap, and
the NVMSRP is aimed at removing mercury switches from automotive
shredded scrap. The commenter stated meeting the NVMSRP's program
goals, which should be the rationale for ending the program, will occur
when mercury switches are sufficiently removed from automotive scrap.
When that has occurred, the commenter stated, it will mean that the
remaining automotive scrap inputs available to integrated iron and
steel facilities will in effect satisfy the NVMSRP criteria, and
facilities should be considered to be in compliance with the mercury
emissions standard. In that case, the commenter stated, it would not
add value to require further compliance with the administrative burdens
associated with complying with the standard, since the source will have
been effectively eliminated.
Response: The commenter appears to be asking the EPA to create an
exemption from the requirements for certain sources and to not regulate
the mercury emissions from those sources. In other words, the commenter
is asking the EPA to read a de minimis exemption into the requirement
that the EPA regulate all HAP emitted by major sources. The court,
however, has previously upheld the EPA's rejection of this argument on
the grounds that the statute does not provide for de minimis exemptions
where a MACT floor exists. See Nat'l Lime Assn. v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625,
640 (D.C. Cir. 2000). For this reason, the EPA is not making any
changes to the proposed rule to create an exemption for de minimis
mercury emissions as per this comment.
However, in the final rule, the compliance option in 40 CFR
63.7791(d) ``Use of scrap that does not contain mercury switches'' can
be used by a source if the facility can establish that
[[Page 42099]]
their scrap does not include mercury switches. This option is available
regardless of whether or not the NVMSRP is in operation. If the NVMSRP
were to be discontinued, however, the fact that the program had been
discontinued would not establish the mercury level, or lack thereof, in
the scrap. Thus, the potential scenario of NVMSRP discontinuation could
not be relied upon to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission
limit.
Comment: One commenter stated the proposed standards for the
integrated iron and steel source category are very similar to the
requirements for facilities in the EAF area source standards to obtain
scrap from participants in the NVMSRP and therefore the EPA should
reconcile this rule with the EAF rule. The commenter stated the rule
language should be revised to maintain consistency with the existing
EAF NVMSRP regulatory language.
As background, the commenter explained that some companies with
facilities subject to the subpart FFFFF standards for integrated iron
and steel sources also operate EAF facilities subject to the subpart
YYYYY standards, and they purchase and manage scrap that is charged
both into BOPF vessels and the EAF at a corporate level, using the same
policies and management methods to obtain scrap for both source
categories. Since these companies have area source EAF facilities that
must comply with the mercury switch program requirements in subpart
YYYYY, the commenter stated their entire scrap management system is
already compliant with the motor vehicle scrap management requirements
in those standards. The commenter stated the language differences
between subpart YYYYY and the proposed subpart FFFFF motor vehicle
scrap management requirements could cause issues in managing these
companies' scrap supply chains and ensuring compliance with both
regulations. The commenter stated the proposal does not explain why
these differently worded requirements are being imposed on integrated
iron and steel facilities, particularly given that EAF sources use a
greater proportion of scrap inputs than integrated iron and steel BOPF
sources and that doing so would impose burdens on facilities, including
the need to modify contracts and additional administrative costs.
Because of the identical supply chain for BOPF shops and EAFs, the
commenter stated there should be no differentiation in the
requirements. The commenter suggested revisions to the proposed
language 40 CFR 63.7791(b) (final 40 CFR 63.7791(d)) and to add
allowance for specialty metal scrap from motor vehicles.
Response: The EPA agrees with the rationale for the suggested
changes and we have made revisions to the rule to make this rule more
similar to 40 CFR part 63, subpart YYYYY, as described below in section
IV.C.5. In terms of NVMSRP participation, the proposed rule was
identical to subpart YYYYY except for the scrap plan requirement; we
have removed the scrap plan requirement in the final rule. As discussed
above in a previous comment, in the final rule, we have revised the
proposed option that allowed sources to comply by certifying that the
facility's scrap is ``not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap.'' As
finalized, the facility can establish compliance with the mercury
emission limit by certifying the absence of mercury switches in their
scrap, as appropriate for their facility: By either certifying that
their scrap is recovered for its specialty alloy content, or their
scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap, or their scrap does not
contain shredded motor vehicle scrap.
Comment: One commenter stated the proposed annual testing for
sources opting to comply under subpart FFFFF Table 1 should be revised
to once per five-year title V permit term, which is consistent with
frequencies for other title V testing requirements for the sources,
such as for secondary BOPF baghouses. The commenter stated more
frequent testing is unnecessary given that emissions are steadily
declining among the source category in conjunction with the depletion
of mercury switches in automotive scrap. If the EPA believes that more
frequent than once-per-term testing is needed, the commenter stated EPA
then should adopt a twice per five-year permit term, similar to the
testing frequency for primary BOPF controls, given the high cost of
testing. The commenter stated requiring annual testing would be
excessive, costly, without basis, and inconsistent with any other
requirements in the subpart FFFFF standards. In the event that EPA
retains the annual testing requirement, the commenter stated revisions
to the proposed language regarding time between performance tests
should be made to clarify the point at which facilities should begin to
calculate these dates.
Response: The EPA agrees with a reduction in testing frequency to
coincide with tests for PM already promulgated in the rule (40 CFR
63.7821(b)) for units equipped with control devices other than a
baghouse (which includes all of the primary BOPF control devices),
which will reduce the testing burden on the industry. The change is as
follows (for testing compliance option, only): Change from annual
testing to twice per permit cycle (initial/final and mid-term) for
facilities with title V permits, and every 2.5 years for facilities
without a title V permit, to match the PM testing frequency in 40 CFR
63.7821. Testing would then take place after the initial performance
test at the next specified point in the permit cycle, either at
initial, final, or mid-term of the permit (for facilities with
permits), whichever comes first after the initial performance test,
which is one year after the effective date of the rule, or within 2.5
years after promulgation (for facilities without permits).
Comment: One commenter stated in any final rule, and consistent
with the approach the EPA took in the ICR testing, the EPA should
explicitly provide for similar units at a source to rely on the testing
of one of those units for subpart FFFFF Table 1 compliance
demonstration purposes, where the units are exhausted to the same type
of control device, processed the same types of materials, were similar
size and design, and have similar operating conditions.
Response: We understand the economic benefit associated with
reducing the testing burden where possible. The EPA allows testing of
representative units on a case-by-case basis as described in the 2009
EPA guidance document, Clean Air Act National Stack Test Guidance,\16\
pursuant to the EPA's authority cited in the General Provisions to part
63 at 40 CFR 63.7(h). Similar to the requirements to establish
similarity that was used in the integrated iron and steel ICR for this
RTR, the stack test guidance requires submission of design and
operating parameters to establish the case of identical units, as
described further in the guidance, with the final decision to be
determined by the Administrator or delegated authority. The EPA thus
provides options for reducing testing burden and no addition to or
modification of the rule is needed to provide this testing option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Clean Air Act National Stack Test Guidance. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April 27, 2009.
(Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0061). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/stacktesting_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One commenter stated the proposed 40 CFR 63.7825(a)(2)
provision requires either a single compliance test with all affected
units in operation or separate compliance tests on each emission unit
in the BOPF Group. The commenter stated most facilities have multiple
stacks that
[[Page 42100]]
would need to be tested under the current Proposed Rule; simultaneously
testing all stacks during a single compliance testing event would be
difficult or impossible. The commenter stated this leaves the option of
performing separate compliance testing on each emission unit. The
commenter stated proposed 40 CFR 63.7825(a)(2) requires that when units
are tested separately, they must be tested ``as soon as is
practicable,'' which is not defined. The commenter stated the EPA
should allow a three-month period for all stacks to be tested. To
implement this, the commenter stated the EPA should create a new
subparagraph, e.g., 63.7825(a)(3), as follows: ``Testing of related
BOPF Group units shall be conducted within a 3-month period.''
The commenter stated since the BOPF Group mercury limit applies to
all BOPF shop steelmaking operation units, the compliance demonstration
for performance testing requires mercury emissions from all BOPF Group
stacks to be added up to demonstrate compliance. The commenter stated
this calculation cannot be made until all BOPF Group sources have been
tested. Under proposed 40 CFR 63.7840(e)(2), the commenter stated
facilities are required to submit a notification of compliance status
within 60 days of completion of the performance test. The commenter
requested that EPA allow for one notification of compliance status to
be submitted 60 days after the final performance test. The commenter
also stated that in the proposal, facilities are required to provide a
60-day notification of intent to conduct performance testing.
Therefore, the commenter requested that the rule also provide that the
60-day notice be submitted at least 60 days prior to the first BOPF
Group unit control device test; then the initial testing notification
can be required to include a schedule of when testing of other BOPF
Group unit control devices will be tested, rather than require
additional notification for subsequently tested sources.
Response: The EPA has decided that it is not appropriate to allow a
three-month window for testing because this time period likely would
include very different batches of scrap and possibly wide variation in
levels of mercury. However, we discuss in the previous comment and
response that EPA provides for facilities to be able to apply for a
waiver of testing in the case of multiple and identical units via stack
test guidance \16\ pursuant to EPA's authority in 40 CFR 63.7(h). For
the final rule, the EPA changed the requirement for a 60-day
notification of the start of ``mercury compliance testing'' to
``notification of the first compliance test in the BOPF Group with a
schedule of all subsequent tests in the BOPF Group.'' The final rule
also differs from the proposed rule in that it states that ``for the
purposes of submitting the notification of compliance status, the
performance test shall be considered complete when the final BOPF Group
unit control device is tested.'' These changes eliminate multiple start
notices for testing of the BOPF Group and clarify that only one notice
of compliance status is needed to show compliance with the mercury
emission limit. Because all units in the BOPF Group must be tested
before the mercury emissions can be calculated and compared to the
emission limit in the rule, it is logical to require one notice of
compliance status after the last BOPF Group unit is tested. See section
IV.C.5 below for details of the rule changes.
Comment: One commenter stated mercury testing samples were
collected during the ICR process following sampling procedures in 40
CFR 63.7822(f), (g), and (h), which dictate when sampling begins and
ends during specific process BOPF operations for PM testing. The
commenter stated the same procedures should apply to mercury testing
and should be incorporated by reference in the mercury testing
requirements. Accordingly, the commenter stated proposed 40 CFR 63.7825
should be modified to include the procedures in 40 CFR 63.7822(f), (g),
and (h) as applicable.
Response: The EPA agrees that mercury testing samples were
collected during the ICR process following sampling procedures in 40
CFR 63.7822(f), (g), and (h). Therefore, we have added these procedures
to the final rule. See section IV.C.5 for details of the rule changes.
Comment: One commenter stated the 40 CFR 63.7825(b)(2) provision
requires a minimum sample volume of 60 dscf of gas during each mercury
test run. The commenter stated it is inappropriate to collect 60 dscf
when using EPA Method 30B because the method itself contains guidelines
for selecting proper sampling rates. The commenter stated the
collection of 60 dscf should be clarified to only apply to EPA Method
29 or other isokinetic sampling methods.
Response: We agree with the commenter that EPA Method 30B has a
method-specific volume requirement tied to the detection limit of the
method, so we do not need to identify a minimum volume for EPA Method
30B in the rule. However, a sample volume of 60 dscf is appropriate for
EPA Method 29. The rule text has been revised to specify that the 60
dscf minimum sample volume applies to Method 29 only. See section
IV.C.5 for details of the rule changes.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA should also include EPA
Method 101A, Determination of Particulate and Gaseous Mercury Emissions
From Sewage Sludge Incinerators, which is a viable alternative to both
EPA Methods 29 and 30B.
Response: The EPA does not consider EPA Method 101A to be
equivalent to EPA Method 29 for mercury measurement for all purposes.
However, the EPA is willing to consider EPA Method 101A as an
alternative test method under the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63
(40 CFR 63.7(f)) on a case-by-case basis, provided the petitioner can
provide adequate information demonstrating that this candidate method
is equivalent to the standards (i.e., EPA Methods 29 and/or 30B). The
proposed rule text has been revised to elaborate on EPA's ability to
allow alternative test methods to be considered on a case-by-case
basis. See section IV.C.5 for details of the rule changes.
Comment: One commenter stated in order to use the NVMSRP or
equivalent program option, the EPA lists in proposed 40 CFR 63.7791(a)
and (c) a host of requirements that companies will need to meet. The
commenter stated a key purpose of the NVMSRP was to have suppliers
register and participate so that companies could rely on that
participation to prevent mercury from entering their feedstocks in the
form of automotive shredded scrap. The commenter stated since its
initiation, the NVMSRP has proven to be a success. As recognition of
that success, in 2017, the commenter stated that the EPA, along with
the original parties to the 2006 agreement, came together to extend the
program through 2021. The commenter stated unfortunately, the proposed
language fails to recognize that the industry has substantially
invested to make the program a success and instead would put individual
companies in the role of policing the program. The commenter stated
companies need to be able to rely on the program and that its suppliers
are participants therein. The commenter stated nothing more should be
required.
The commenter said specifically that the EPA should delete 40 CFR
63.7791(a)(3)-(5) and (c)(3)-(5). The commenter stated these provisions
are inconsistent with the requirements that apply to the NVMSRP as it
is considered an ``approved mercury program'' in 40 CFR 63.10685 in 40
CFR part 63,
[[Page 42101]]
subpart YYYYY. The commenter stated companies are not in a position to
renegotiate supplier contracts to allow them to enter and inspect
suppliers. Moreover, the commenter stated the EPA is unclear about what
``other corroboration'' even means in the context of the program; the
participation of the suppliers in the program should be sufficient.
Finally, the commenter stated any broker contracts would provide that
the scrap needs to be from NVMSRP-participating suppliers and it is
entirely unclear how the EPA expects companies to ensure that suppliers
are ``implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.'' The commenter stated that
this assurance is implicitly made by contracting for scrap from
suppliers participating in the program.
The commenter stated while the EPA correctly states that companies
are already participating in the NVMSRP, the requirements in the
proposed rule take the verification process to a more burdensome level,
which will impose significant additional costs. The commenter stated
creating the plans required in the proposed rule is likely to far
exceed the proposed approximate $1,000 estimate, given the labor and
supervision required, not to mention ongoing plan updates. Moreover,
the commenter stated the proposed cost estimate entirely excludes
consideration of the massive costs that would be required to satisfy
the due diligence obligations the proposed regulatory language would
create. For example, according to the commenter, the proposed
requirement to ``conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers are aware of
the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles'' would impose
an obligation on integrated iron and steel facilities that would be
both onerous and expensive. The commenter stated it also would be
potentially impossible to satisfy because existing contracts are in
place that do not provide authority for the purchaser to inspect
suppliers or otherwise ensure their ``appropriate'' implementation of
mercury removal practices. If the plan is not removed, and a mercury
emission limit is issued, the commenter said the EPA should revise the
cost-effectiveness analysis to better account for the costs of the
NVMSRP (or equivalent) program. Specifically, the commenter stated the
proposal needs to better account for the cost of the NVMSRP option,
which is estimated at $1,058 per facility and $11,638 across the
industry, with similar costs assumed for certifying compliance not
likely to contain automotive scrap.
The commenter stated instead of these requirements, as explained
above, the EPA should simply require that the company to purchase from
suppliers that state they are participating in the NVMSRP (which may be
reflected on invoices or in contracts). The commenter stated additional
obligations need not be imposed because the EPA's record for this
rulemaking establishes that the NVMSRP is an effective program for
removing mercury switches from shredded automobile scrap. The commenter
stated the EPA can reasonably rely on that record.
The commenter stated similarly, just as the NVMSRP is an EPA
approved program, any alternative ``approved mercury program''
contemplated in the proposal would have the same level of approval as
the NVMSRP, and integrated iron and steel facilities should be able to
rely on the stipulation in contracts with their scrap suppliers that
any shredded automotive scrap received is from NVMSRP or similar EPA-
approved program participants and is compliant with the program's
standards.
Response: The EPA has considered the commenter's request and
rationale, and has eliminated the proposed plan requirement in the
final rule and instead is requiring facilities to both identify their
scrap dealers or brokers and certify that these dealers and brokers
participate in the NVMSRP or other EPA-approved program. See section
IV.C.5 of this preamble for details of the rule changes.
Comment: One commenter stated the EPA proposes to require
compliance with the proposed mercury emission limits within 1 year of
publication of the final rule, and that all other amendments to the 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF standards will become effective 180 days
after publication of the final rule. The commenter stated these
proposed compliance dates are inadequate to allow facilities to
undertake all the necessary planning and operational adjustments needed
to ensure compliance with the Proposed Rule. The commenter stated the
EPA should not proceed to finalize the proposed mercury provisions with
this RTR rulemaking, however, if the Agency proceeds to do so
nonetheless, the EPA must provide a 3-year compliance period to allow
facilities to comply. The commenter stated because the proposed mercury
requirement constitutes new standard setting under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), more time is needed for facilities to ensure
compliance. The commenter stated the remaining proposed amendments to
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF standards will likewise require
additional time for facilities to conform their existing practices. The
commenter stated the EPA should, thus, extend the proposed effective
date of 180 days after promulgation of the final rule to 1 year after
that date.
Response: It is our understanding that all facilities are already
participating in the NVMSRP and facilities have the option of complying
with the mercury emission limit by certifying that all their scrap is
from NVMSRP participants (or a similarly-approved program). Further, we
determined 1 year after promulgation is sufficient for facilities to
familiarize themselves with the new reporting requirements in the
amended rule for this compliance option. For these reasons, we have
concluded that it is reasonable to require existing sources to comply
with the mercury requirements within 1 year. Existing sources will be
given 180 days to comply with the changes to the SSM provisions in 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and all other new or revised requirements in
this final rule, except the requirements for mercury. We have
determined that there are no other compliance requirements as a result
of this rule that require more than 180 days except for those for
complying with the mercury emission limit and potentially for
electronic reporting. Regarding the electronic reporting requirement,
because we are revising the spreadsheet template for integrated iron
and steel facilities as a result of comments discussed in section IV.E
of this preamble, we are allowing the beginning of electronic reporting
of compliance reports to begin 180 days after the new template is
available in CEDRI if later than 180 days after promulgation of the
final rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the mercury
emission limits?
The mercury MACT limit for existing sources (i.e., 0.00026 lbs of
mercury per ton of scrap processed, as an input-based limit) was
derived using data obtained from source tests performed to fulfill an
EPA ICR to determine the mass of mercury emissions from the BOPF Groups
\13\ at each facility per mass of scrap used in their BOPFs. The format
of this standard is based, in part, on the assumption that the mass of
mercury emitted from all BOPFs and related units was substantially
equivalent to the mass of mercury in the input materials
[[Page 42102]]
because mercury is neither created nor destroyed in the BOPF.
Furthermore, based on available data and information, we conclude that
the primary source of mercury in the input materials are mercury
switches. Therefore, we used mercury-to-scrap input ratios from the
best performing five facilities out of all 11 integrated iron and steel
facilities in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category to develop an input-based MACT floor limit for mercury.
To establish the limit, we calculated a UPL that incorporates the
potential variability in future measurements. Because there are fewer
than 30 sources in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category, as described below, we evaluated the best
performing five sources in the category to establish a standard for
existing sources, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3)(B).
The EPA's MACT analyses used the UPL approach to identify the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources. The EPA uses this approach because it incorporates the average
performance of the best performing sources as well as the variability
of the performance during testing conditions. The UPL represents the
value which one can expect the mean of a specified number of future
observations (e.g., three-run average) to fall below for the specified
level of confidence (99 percent), based upon the results from the same
population. In other words, the UPL estimates what the upper bound of
future values will be based upon present or past background data. The
UPL approach encompasses all the data point-to-data point variability
in the collected data, as derived from the dataset to which it is
applied. For more details regarding how this limit was derived, see the
technical memorandum on the mercury emission limits, referenced above.
The steel industry submitted comments \15\ on the proposed rule
indicating that the scrap currently used by all facilities is NVMSRP
scrap. Furthermore, industry stated \15\ that the performance tests
conducted to establish the MACT floor limits and, thus, the MACT for
mercury in the proposal were based on facilities participating in the
NVMSRP. Because of the projected decline in the number of mercury
switches in the automobile fleet over time due to the ban of such
switches after 2002, and with the continuing implementation of the
NVMSRP, it is reasonable for the EPA to conclude that NVMSRP scrap in
the future will contain similar mercury, or more likely less mercury,
than the scrap used to develop the MACT floor limits. This rule relies,
in part, on that conclusion. Therefore, if a facility chooses to comply
with the emission limit by certifying that all their scrap is from
NVMSRP participants (or a similarly-approved program) or certify that
their scrap does not contain mercury switches, it is also reasonable to
conclude that such certification achieves the same level of mercury
reduction or more reduction as the numeric MACT floor limits.
The mercury emission limit for new sources in the final rule, at
0.000081 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed, was derived using
ICR test data of the mass of mercury emissions from all BOPF and
related units (HMTDS and ladles) per mass of scrap used by the lowest-
emitting facility, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). For the final
rule, we are correcting the mercury limit from proposal to include two
significant figures, from 0.00008 to 0.000081 lbs of mercury per ton of
scrap processed, as in the standard for existing sources and as
typically done in EPA regulations.
Following the same reasoning discussed above in connection with the
existing source standard, we assumed and industry confirmed \15\ that
the scrap used by the best performing source was either NVMSRP scrap or
scrap with higher amounts of mercury per ton of scrap than NVMSRP
scrap. Furthermore, industry stated \15\ that the performance tests
conducted to establish the MACT floor limits and, thus, the MACT for
mercury in the proposal were based on facilities participating in the
NVMSRP.
As described above, we expect mercury levels in scrap to continue
to decline over time due to the switch ban and success of the NVMSRP.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the EPA to conclude that scrap subject
to the NVMSRP or other approved scrap program in the future will
contain similar levels of mercury or, more likely, less mercury than
the scrap used to develop the new source limit. Because mercury levels
in scrap in the NVMSRP have decreased since 2011 and continue to
decrease, it is reasonable to assume that mercury emissions from
sources that obtain their metal scrap from participants of that program
(or similar program) will be equal to, or more likely lower than, the
MACT floor limits for both new and existing sources.
Similar to existing sources above, for new BOPFs and new
facilities, we are finalizing provisions in the NESHAP that allow two
options to demonstrate compliance with the input-based limit of
0.000081 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed, as follows: (1)
Conduct performance test twice per permit cycle, i.e., mid-term and at
initial or end term for facilities with permits or every 2.5 years for
facilities without permits, after the initial performance testing,
which is required to be performed within 180 days of July 13, 2020 or
within 180 days of initial startup of the new BOPF or new facility,
whichever is later, convert the sum of the results to input-based units
(i.e., lbs of mercury per ton of scrap input) and document the results
in a test report created using the ERT and submitted electronically to
the delegated authority through CEDRI (see section IV.E below); or (2)
certify in their semiannual compliance reports, with the first
semiannual compliance report required after July 13, 2021 or after
initial startup of your BOPF Group, whichever is later, that the
facility obtains all of their scrap from NVMSRP participants (or
similar program as approved by the delegated authority) or certify that
their scrap does not contain mercury switches. However, based on
consideration of comments, in this final rule the EPA has eliminated
the proposed requirement to develop and maintain onsite a scrap plan
demonstrating the manner through which facilities are participating in
the NVMSRP or similar approved program. Facilities complying via the
performance testing option and facilities complying via the NVMSRP or
similarly-approved program, or facilities that use scrap that does not
contain mercury switches will have 1 year to comply. New facilities
must be in compliance with the rule upon startup.
5. What rule changes did we make to the final rule for the mercury
emissions standards from proposal?
In response to comments submitted in regard to the proposed mercury
emissions standards, we made the following changes for the final rule:
Added 40 CFR 63.7783(f) to establish the deadline for
existing and new affected sources to comply with the emission
limitations for mercury;
Revised proposed 40 CFR 63.7791 title to ``How do I comply
with the requirements for the control of mercury?'';
Revised proposed 40 CFR 63.7791 opening paragraph to start
with the letter (a); renamed ``Compliance deadlines''; created new
subsections 40 CFR 63.7791(a)(1), 63.7791(a)(2), 63.7791(b)(1) through
(3); re-lettered the subsections that followed: 63.7791(c)(1) through
(4); 63.7791(d)(1) through (3); and 63.7791(e)(1) through (4); and
updated citations throughout the remaining rule text to reflect new
organization;
[[Page 42103]]
Revised 40 CFR 63.7791(c)(2) (proposed as (a)(2)) to
specify the notification of compliance requirement to identify all
scrap providers in semiannual compliance report;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7791(c)(3) (proposed as (a)(3)) to
specify the requirement to identify all scrap providers used by all
scrap brokers in semiannual compliance report;
Removed proposed 40 CFR 63.7791 (a)(4) scrap plan
requirement to develop and maintain onsite plan demonstrating the
manner through which facilities are participating in the NVMSRP (or
other EPA-approved program);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7791(d) (proposed as (b)(1)) to delete
the scrap plan features to obtain information from scrap suppliers or
other entities with established knowledge of scrap content that the
steel scrap used is not likely to contain motor vehicle scrap and
maintain records of this information, and reassigning proposed 40 CFR
63.7791(b)(2) as new, revised 40 CFR 63.7791(d);
Added 40 CFR 63.7791(d)(1) through (3) regarding
compliance by certification of the use of scrap that does not contain
mercury switches or is recovered for the specialty alloy content;
Removed proposed 40 CFR 63.7791 (c)(1)(i) through (iii),
limitations on future approved programs;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7791(e)(2) (proposed as (c)(2)) to
specify the notification of compliance requirement to identify all
scrap providers in semiannual compliance report;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7791(e)(3) (proposed as (c)(3)) to
specify the requirement to identify all scrap providers used by all
scrap brokers in semiannual compliance report;
Removed proposed 40 CFR 63.7791(c)(4) scrap plan
requirement to prevent limitations on future approved plan, and
reassigned proposed 40 CFR 63.7791(c)(5) as new, revised 40 CFR
63.7791(e)(4);
Added 40 CFR 63.7820(e)(1) through (4) to establish the
deadlines for conducting initial performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the mercury emission limitations;
Added and revised 40 CFR 63.7821(e) to require performance
tests to be conducted twice per permit cycle for sources with title V
operating permits and every 2.5 years for sources without a title V
operating permit;
Added 40 CFR 63.7825 for test methods and other procedures
to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit for mercury;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7825(a) to clarify that initial
compliance tests must be conducted by the deadlines in 40 CFR 63.7820;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7825(b)(1)(v) to clarify that the
minimum sample volume of 1.7 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) (60 dry
standard cubic feet (dscf)) is for EPA Method 29 only and to clarify
alternative test methods can be considered on a case-by-case basis per
40 CFR 63.7(f);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7825(b)(2) to remove requirement of
minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm (60 dscf);
Added to 40 CFR 63.7825(b)(3), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), and
(b)(5) to make sampling procedures consistent with 40 CFR 63.7822(f),
(g), and (h) in regard to when sampling should start and stop for BOPF
operations;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7825(c) Equation 1 to correctly
calculate the mass emissions and revised units to those typically used
in the measurement of metals;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7833(h) to clarify requirements for
demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limits in Table 1
through mercury performance testing;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7833(i) to clarify requirement for
demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limits in Table 1 by
certifying participation in the NVMSRP or another EPA-approved mercury
program, or by using scrap that does not contain mercury switches;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7840(e) requirement for notification of
mercury compliance testing for BOPF Group units to include notification
of the first mercury compliance test in the BOPF Group along with a
schedule of all subsequent tests in the BOPF Group, and that testing is
considered complete when the final unit or control device in the BOPF
Group is tested;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7840(f) to include citation to 40 CFR
63.7791(c), (d), and (e) (proposed as (a), (b), and (c));
Revised 40 CFR 63.7840(f)(1) to remove requirements
regarding preparing a plan per proposed 40 CFR 63.7791 (a)(4) or
(c)(4);
Added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(11) to clarify the reporting
statements required per 40 CFR 63.7791(c), (d) or (e);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7852 to add or change definitions for
``basic oxygen process furnace group,'' ``mercury switch,'' ``motor
vehicle,'' ``motor vehicle scrap,'' ``opening,'' ``post-consumer steel
scrap,'' ``pre-consumer steel scrap,'' ``steel scrap,'' ``scrap
provider;'' ``shredded motor vehicle scrap,'' and ``specialty metal
scrap;'' and
Revised the mercury emission limits in Tables 1, 2, and 3
from 0.00008 to 0.000081 lbs of mercury per ton of scrap processed to
include two significant figures.
D. Changes to SSM Provisions
1. What did we propose for SSM?
On August 16, 2019, we proposed to eliminate the SSM exemption in
this rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.7810(a). We also proposed to
revise the references in Table 4 (the General Provisions table) of 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, including the references to 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), which were vacated by the Court in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we proposed that the standards in this rule would apply at all
times. We also proposed several additional revisions to Table 4 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF. For example, we proposed to eliminate the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source
develop an SSM plan. We also proposed to eliminate or revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption.
We aimed to ensure that the provisions we proposed to eliminate were
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption.
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
We did not make any major changes to the proposed SSM provisions
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category. We made minor edits to the proposed SSM provisions in
response to comments that are shown in section IV.D.5, below.
3. What key comments did we receive on SSM, and what are our responses?
This section provides a summary of key comments and responses
regarding SSM. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal
and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and Technology Review for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
Comment: One commenter stated certain aspects of the Proposed Rule,
including the proposed elimination of the SSM exemption, are not based
on the EPA's authority to conduct RTR rulemakings under CAA sections
112(f)(2) and (d)(6) but, instead, invoke the EPA's discretion to
exercise its other statutory authorities in the same rulemaking. The
commenter stated the
[[Page 42104]]
proposed elimination of the SSM exemption would bring the 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF standards in line with relevant Court decisions by
the D.C. Circuit. The commenter stated in certain cases, the EPA's
proposed language would create redundancies and pose problems for
compliance that should be addressed.
The commenter stated the EPA should not finalize the additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in the proposal under
40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841, and 63.7842 that would add regulatory burden
without adding apparent value.
The commenter stated the preamble explains that the requirement
would ``ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.'' The commenter stated the
preamble provides no information or examples of how or why the absence
of this information has created any issues for the EPA or those subject
to the regulation. As a practical matter, the commenter stated, it may
not be possible to estimate the quantity of ``each regulated
pollutant'' emitted over any emission limit.
The commenter stated the NESHAP provides for work practices and
involves regulation of HAP emissions with the use of surrogates. Given
that SSM or deviation reports may be due to a permitting authority in
relatively short order, the commenter stated it could be very difficult
to meet this requirement even where an estimate could be generated. The
commenter stated minimizing regulatory burden and avoiding information
``creep'' that tends to institutionalize higher costs are important
concerns for regulated entities; it is unclear why this information
needs to be supplied on an ongoing basis, rather than providing it in
response to an expected, infrequent request from a regulatory
authority. Thus, the commenter stated the EPA should remove the
proposed requirements to provide estimates quantifying emission limit
exceedances or methods used to estimate those emissions in the proposed
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841,
and 63.7842.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements add burden without value. As stated in the
proposed rule, recordkeeping and reporting of the information specified
in 40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841, and 63.7842 ensure that there is adequate
information to determine compliance, allow the EPA to determine the
severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard, and to provide
data that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
The procedure for estimating the quantity of pollutant emitted
during the deviation is left open because we recognize that precise or
direct measurement is not likely unless the failure to meet the
applicable standard happens to occur during a performance test. The
estimate of emissions is not for each HAP emitted, but for the
regulated pollutant, which in the case of a surrogate such as PM, is
the surrogate pollutant (PM) itself. A facility has the flexibility to
employ any reasonable means to estimate the emissions from a deviation
(e.g., mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or
engineering judgment based on known process parameters or the effects
of a work practice). The estimation of the quantity of pollutant
emitted, as the product of the mass emission rate (determined from
emissions concentration and gas flow) and the duration of the
deviation, are direct indicators of the severity of an issue.
Therefore, we maintain that it is appropriate and feasible for
facilities to estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant over
the emission limit.
The SSM reports are no longer required by this rule with the
removal of the SSM provisions, and the deviation reports are part of
the semiannual compliance report, occurring on a known schedule, and
have a fixed reporting deadline of 31 days after the end of the
reporting period. This deadline provides sufficient time for reporting
a deviation that may have occurred on the final day of the reporting
period. The EPA is retaining the additional recordkeeping and reporting
elements in the final rule, with the exception of the number of
deviations, which is unnecessary in light of all deviations being
reported.
We agree with the commenter that one of the proposed new SSM
requirements, the inclusion of compliance procedures and emissions
calculations in the Operations and Maintenance Plan, was not consistent
with required content or use of an Operation and Maintenance Plan. To
address this inconsistency, we removed certain SSM provisions,
described below in section IV.D.5. In addition, see other related rule
changes included under electronic reporting, in section IV.E.5 of this
preamble.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
In finalizing the SSM standards in this rule, the EPA has taken
into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons
explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods. The integrated iron and steel industry has not identified (and
there are no data indicating) any specific problems with removing the
SSM exemption. We solicited comment on whether any situations exist
where separate standards, such as work practices, would be more
appropriate during periods of startup and shutdown rather than the
current standard. We did not receive any comments on this topic.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, ``sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
failures of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment.'' (40
CFR 63.2) (definition of malfunction).
The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 112 standards and this reading has been upheld as
reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-
610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the
best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing
in CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of sources'' says nothing about how the performance of the best
units is to be calculated. Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA,
734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112
requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis.
The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same manner as
the type of variation in performance that occurs during routine
operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of
[[Page 42105]]
the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.''). As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an Agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'''), See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties', such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, when the EPA conducted the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the
EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunctions that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine
that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to
the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December. 1, 2015). The EPA
will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. In the event that a
source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards
as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an
appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith
efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods,
including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause
analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also
consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section
112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable,'' and was not caused (in any way) by poor maintenance or
careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
We are requiring compliance with the SSM changes for existing
sources 180 days from publication of the final rule. This period of
time will allow facilities to read and understand the amended rule
requirements, to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the
rule and make any necessary adjustments, and to convert reporting
mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software. The EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable for these source categories and, thus, all affected
sources must comply with the revisions to the SSM provisions and
electronic reporting requirements no later than 180 days from the
effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
5. What rule changes did we make for the final rule for the SSM
Provisions?
In response to comments submitted in regard to the SSM provisions,
we made the following changes for the final rule:
Removed proposed 40 CFR 63.7800(b)(8), ``The compliance
procedures within the operation and maintenance plan shall not include
any periods of startup or shutdown in emissions calculations.''
E. Electronic Reporting
1. What did we propose for electronic reporting for the Integrated Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
On August 16, 2019, the EPA proposed the requirement that owners
and operators of integrated iron and steel facilities submit the
required electronic copies of summaries of performance test and
performance evaluation results and semiannual reports through the EPA's
CDX using the CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules (Docket
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0909). The proposed rule required
performance test results to be collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA's ERT, as listed on the ERT website
[[Page 42106]]
at the time of the test, be submitted in the format generated through
the use of the ERT, and that other performance test results be
submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly,
performance evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems
measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by
the ERT at the time of the test would be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
For semiannual compliance reports, the proposed rule required
owners and operators to use the appropriate spreadsheet template to
submit information to CEDRI. A draft template for these reports was
included in the docket for this rulemaking, and the final template will
be available on the CEDRI homepage (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri). Additionally, the EPA identified two
broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be
provided. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of
needing additional time to report would be within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and operators
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control.
The situation where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the
EPA's CDX or CEDRI that preclude an owner or operator from accessing
the system and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR
63.7841(e). The situation where an extension may be warranted due to a
force majeure event, which is defined as an event that would be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents an owner or operator from complying with the
requirement to submit a report electronically as required by this rule
is addressed in 40 CFR 63.7841(f). Examples of such events are acts of
nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazards beyond the control of the facility.
2. How did electronic reporting change for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
There were no major changes to the final rule for electronic
reporting for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
source category. Minor rule edits were made to the proposed
requirements in response to comments and are shown in section IV.E.5
below.
3. What key comments did we receive on electronic reporting, and what
are our responses?
This section provides a summary of key comments and responses
regarding electronic reporting. A summary of all other public comments
on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available
in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and
Technology Review for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
Comment: A commenter requested minor technical corrections to the
compliance reporting template.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the thorough review of the template
by the commenter. Updates to the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category compliance template have been
made accordingly to better reflect the provisions of the final rule and
address industry comments. These corrections are shown in detail in the
response to comment document with responses to specific elements of the
comments.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for electronic
reporting?
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements, and by facilitating the ability of delegated state,
local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan to implement
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide
policy developed in response to the White House's Digital Government
Strategy. For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting,
see the memorandum titled Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083-0909).
5. What rule changes did we make for the final rule for electronic
reporting?
In response to comments submitted in regard to electronic
reporting, we made the following changes for the final rule:
Revised 40 CFR 63.7835 to remove requirement to record
number of failures to eliminate redundancy with the spreadsheet
template that requires the inclusion of every failure;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(4) to remove requirement to
report number of failures to eliminate redundancy with the spreadsheet
template that requires the inclusion of every failure;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(7) to include citation to newly
added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(13);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(7)(i) to remove the requirement
to report the ``number'' of deviations;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(8) to include citation to newly
added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(13);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(8)(ii) to add ``and duration'',
as in (iii);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(9) to include citation to newly
added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(13);
Added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(13) to provide 180 days after
publication in the Federal Register for all sources that failed to meet
an applicable standard to include in the compliance report for each
failure the start date, start time and duration of each failure and a
list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity
of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(c) to specify the beginning of
electronic reporting to begin either 180 days after promulgation of the
final rule or 180 days after the template is available in CEDRI,
whichever is later; and
Removed proposed 40 CFR 63.7843(d) to eliminate redundancy
with existing language in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1).
F. Other Issues Regarding UFIP Sources of HAP Emissions
In this section we address other issues related to UFIP emissions
sources that are not addressed above in section IV.A of this preamble.
[[Page 42107]]
1. How were other relevant issues regarding UFIP sources of HAP
emissions addressed in the proposed rule for the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
As described in Section IV.A of this preamble, in the August 16,
2019, proposal, we discussed seven UFIP HAP emission sources (84 FR at
42708) and requested comments on all aspects of the UFIP analyses. We
did not propose any standards for these sources.
The UFIP emission sources described in the proposal included BF
bleeder valve unplanned openings (also known as slips), BF bleeder
valve planned openings, BF bell leaks, BF casthouse fugitives, BF iron
beaching, BF slag handling and storage operations, and BOPF shop
fugitives. These UFIP emission sources were identified by observation
of visible plumes of fugitives and intermittent emissions being emitted
from the seven UFIP sources during inspections by EPA Regional staff
\17\ and discussed in the technical memorandum titled Development of
Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources
for an Example Integrated Iron and Steel Facility for Input to the RTR
Risk Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0956). The
NESHAP already contains opacity limits for two of these sources--BF
casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the report, EPA Region V Enforcement Summary--UFIP
Opacity from Integrated Iron and Steel Facility Violation Reports--
2007 through 2014. (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0997.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions from these UFIP sources were included in the risk
assessment in an example facility analysis to assess the potential risk
contributed by UFIP and the effect that omission of these sources has
on the estimated risks for the source category as a whole. (See section
IV.A.1 and Table 2 of this preamble for the risk estimated for the
source category).
As explained in section IV.A in regard to the UFIP and potential
work practices, and consistent with our explanation in the proposed
rule (see 84 FR 42704) that was based on consideration of all our
analyses and related information including the risk analysis results,
costs, and uncertainties, we determined in the proposal that the
current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and that no additional standards are required under CAA section
112(f). This decision was based largely on the substantial
uncertainties in the estimates of the baseline HAP emissions from UFIP
emission sources, costs of the work practices, HAP risk reductions that
would be achieved by the work practices, and uncertainties raised by
industry in their comments regarding potential effects of the work
practices on the facilities' operations, safety, and economics.
Furthermore, as described in section IV.B, for most of the same
reasons discussed above in regard to ample margin of safety analysis
for UFIP emissions, no new standards were proposed for the two
regulated UFIP sources under the technology review pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the final rule change based on the comments received about
UFIP sources?
We are not promulgating any new standards for UFIP emissions
sources under the risk or technology reviews, as described in sections
IV.A and IV.B. We also are not taking final action to establish
additional emission standards for any of the UFIP emissions sources
under any other CAA authority at this time. Although we received many
comments on UFIP sources, both supporting and opposing additional
standards, we did not receive any additional data on UFIP emissions or
on the effectiveness of the work practices. We did receive some limited
additional information on costs that suggested we may have
underestimated the costs for some of the work practices discussed in
the proposal, but no citations or documentation were provided to
validate the new cost information. We also received comments that
suggested we may have overestimated UFIP emissions and control-
effectiveness of the work practices, but, again, without any citations
of documentation for other emission estimates or control efficiencies
of the work practices. For these reasons, and because we do not have
adequate information to resolve the substantial uncertainty that
remains for the UFIP emissions estimates, control efficiency of the
work practices, costs, and other factors, we are not promulgating any
new requirements for UFIP sources in this action.
3. What key comments did we receive about UFIP sources that were not
already addressed under the risk review section of this preamble and
what are our responses?
This section provides a summary of some of the key comments and
responses regarding UFIP sources not addressed above in section IV.A.3.
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal in regard to
UFIP and the EPA's responses to those comments are available in the
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for the Risk and
Technology Review for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities, located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083).
Comment: One commenter recognized that the EPA identified the work
practice information as uncertain, and in fact, too uncertain to be
relied upon in this rulemaking. The commenter appreciated the EPA's
recognition of these issues and supported the Agency's conclusions. The
commenter is pleased that the EPA is not proposing to rely on
unsupported conclusions as part of a final rule.
Another commenter stated the EPA created the ``UFIP'' designation
to refer to emissions that facilities generally try to prevent from
occurring in the first place. In other words, facilities are already
naturally incentivized to prevent many UFIP emissions as they reflect
nonoptimal operation. Thus, the commenter says, facilities operate to
minimize these emissions without additional regulatory requirements;
imposing a regulatory overlay would be problematic from an operational
perspective and would not lead to reduced emissions. The commenter
stated regulating these sources would dictate how facilities operate--
effectively freezing approaches in time when they should be evolving as
part of the continuous improvement process. Second, the commenter
stated regulation would impose a one-size-fits-all approach for sources
that make products in different ways and have different configurations.
Third, the commenter stated regulation of UFIP would create a micro-
managerial structure that would be costly--even if not from a capital
investment perspective--because of the operational nature of many of
the approaches the EPA considered. This micro-managerial structure, the
commenter stated, would lead to only ``paperwork'' deviations, by
imposing onerous recordkeeping requirements, which will mean that
operators' and inspectors' attention will be taken away from critical
aspects of plant operations, even when a plant is not causing increased
emissions. Thus, the commenter concluded the emission reduction
practices presented by the EPA for UFIP sources provide no risk
reduction benefit despite the cost and effort they entail. Finally, the
commenter stated that, given the intense competition in this industry,
which stretches well beyond U.S. borders, these requirements would put
U.S. facilities at a cost disadvantage--and
[[Page 42108]]
would do so without generating commensurate emissions and risk
reductions.
The commenter stated the EPA appropriately acknowledges that there
are significant uncertainties in costs, effectiveness, and feasibility
of the work practice options on which it seeks comment. The commenter
stated the estimates in the proposal drastically understate the costs
and likewise overstate any emission reductions that would be achieved,
since companies already work to prevent these emissions and are
incentivized to do so to maintain their operations in the most
efficient and safe manner. Although the EPA estimates the specific
costs for each of the work practices discussed in the proposal
preamble, the commenter stated the EPA fails to attribute potential HAP
emissions reductions individually, and, thus, does not appropriately
estimate cost effectiveness. The commenter stated that, even without
these additional considerations, the EPA is right not to require them,
and that with an accurate view of the costs and benefits of this
regulatory overlay, the EPA decision is unquestionably correct.
The commenter stated given the risk modeling, the work practice
options discussed are not necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety. The commenter stated the various compliance and enforcement
documents related to the so-called UFIP sources in the rulemaking
docket are not to the contrary. Moreover, the commenter stated it would
be unreasonable to require the potential work practices as doing so
would codify practices that already occur voluntarily or pursuant to
current federal or state requirements and drive up costs of compliance
without resulting in any risk reduction. The commenter stated adding a
substantial administrative burden to an important economic sector,
particularly without clear benefit, is contrary to Congress' purpose
under the CAA and with reasoned decision-making. The commenter stated
the focus should be on maximizing environmentally beneficial results,
not paperwork. The commenter stated codifying work practices that
already take place on a case-by-case basis would result in a
misdirection of resources not only from the steel industry to comply
with added monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, but
also from the EPA by having to assure compliance with details that
ultimately have little bearing on air quality and public health.
The commenter stated many of the work practices are practically
infeasible as applied to particular plants or, generally, not cost
effective and, in some instances, could even be contrary to practices
established to assure facility safety, such as what would result from
reducing natural ventilation and other effects of closing the openings
and air holes in the BF casthouse and BOP shop. These effects include
cost to the facility to otherwise increase breathing space ventilation
for workers; the wear and tear on control equipment due to higher-than-
design air flowrates; the cost to document opening and closing of
doors, windows, etc., to accommodate large equipment and vehicle
traffic into buildings; difficulty in accessing some openings that may
be hundreds of feet off the ground, requiring significant precautions
due to the height alone; and prevent the opening of pressure relief
panels, which would badly damage building exteriors during high-
pressure events, etc. Therefore, the commenter stated the EPA should,
thus, finalize its proposal not to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF
to require additional work practices for UFIP sources.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the support by the commenter for the
proposed conclusions, which are being finalized in this document. The
EPA also acknowledges, as the commenter points out, the complexities in
controlling emissions from UFIP sources. The EPA also is pleased to
know that the industry is already attempting to minimize these
emissions.
We do not agree with the commenter that many of the work practices
are ``practically infeasible'' at all plants, but we cannot adequately
assess the effectiveness or impacts of the work practices without more
specific descriptions of actual facility experience with, or analyses
of, the impacts of the work practices, including potential changes in
air flow into and out of the buildings beyond the extreme consequences
hypothesized by the commenter, which mostly only concern BF casthouse
and BOP shop operations. With the understanding that the work practices
could be more difficult to implement at some facilities than others, we
sought specific comments on the general feasibility of the work
practices, with the hope that commenters could have described ways to
improve or modify the work practice so as to be amenable to their use
at all facilities. Unfortunately, we received very little information
through the public comments to improve our understanding of which work
practices would be generally feasible and appropriate across the
industry.
In regard to calculating cost effectiveness, since the HAP being
evaluated are all various PM HAP metals, we conclude that it would
neither be appropriate nor logical to apportion control costs of a work
practice or control device to each metal HAP in this case, mainly
because the intent of the control methods we analyzed is to minimize
emissions of the mix of PM HAP metals. Nevertheless, as described
elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is not promulgating any new or
revised standards for UFIP sources in this action.
Comment: One commenter stated, based on the record, it is unclear
how or why the EPA ended its staff's consideration of the work practice
standards for the proposal, or on what basis it did so. In addition,
the commenter noted that the EPA contacted Michigan and Indiana and
provided ``draft work practice standards,'' as shown by email
communications with these states in 2018. The commenter continued that
there was some material in the bodies of the emails that the EPA has
disclosed showing these would likely have been important and achieved
significant emission reductions. It is clear to the commenter that the
EPA staff long planned to propose significant emission reduction
requirements, based on the evidence they have in the record, and that
the state air quality inspectors and regulators also supported these
requirements.
The commenter stated the EPA has failed to show how it can lawfully
or rationally not follow what its own regulatory staff initially
provided to stakeholders, what its enforcement staff apparently support
(EPA Region V), and what state regulators in Michigan and Indiana have
also supported as needed to reduce UFIP emissions and protect public
health. The commenter stated the EPA's ``about-face'' from its staff's
and state air regulators' recommendations, and its ultimate refusal to
follow the evidence in the record illustrate that this proposal, if
finalized, would be unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter stated it
appears that the EPA Administrator has not acted with the requisite
open mind to consider the relevant statutory requirements, record, or
staff recommendations which would have led to a stronger proposal and a
stronger final rule. The commenter stated the EPA will violate the CAA
and engage in the ultimate in capricious decision making if it attempts
to finalize this proposed rule which lacks the necessary statutory
requirements as well as the required rational connection to the facts
shown in the record.
Response: While the EPA agrees with the commenter that the UFIP HAP
emissions issue and related information
[[Page 42109]]
available to the EPA were worthy of bringing forth to the public and
asking for comment in the proposal, no additional technical information
was received to improve our understanding or quantification of the UFIP
emissions or our understanding of the effectiveness of using work
practices to control UFIP emissions. We received some new cost
information that suggests that we underestimated the costs of the work
practices, but that new information was not documented or cited. We
also received comments that we overestimated UFIP emissions and
overestimated the effectiveness of the work practices, which combined
with information suggesting we underestimated costs, if accurate, would
make control of UFIP emissions substantially less cost-effective than
the values we presented in the proposal preamble. In addition, although
environmental groups submitted comments in general support of UFIP
regulations, no comments were received from citizens or community
groups living in the areas of the integrated iron and steel facilities
supporting the UFIP emission regulations, or on the impact to local
residents of not requiring work practices to reduce emissions from
these sources, or any other claims as such. Therefore, because of the
uncertainty in the UFIP emission estimates, cost estimates, and control
efficiencies of the work practices; and the lack of complete
information about the impact of UFIP emissions at all facilities (as
described above in previous comments), the EPA is not promulgating any
work practice standards for UFIP emissions at this time. See above
section IV.A for a more detailed discussion of the estimated risk from
UFIP emissions.
4. What is our rationale for our final approach for the UFIP sources?
The decision not to promulgate any new standards for UFIP sources
at this time is based largely on the uncertainties in the UFIP
assessment in terms of the emission estimates, costs of the work
practices, how much emission reduction the work practices could
achieve, and the potential negative effects of the work practices on
the facilities' operations, safety, and economics. For five of the UFIP
sources not currently regulated,\18\ we would need to promulgate
standards for these sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),
which would necessitate an analysis of the top performers under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The lack of quantitative emissions data
(and the time and techniques to obtain such data) for UFIP sources and/
or the lack of other relevant information (such as reliable information
regarding the effectiveness of each of the work practices), which is
needed to establish the top performing facilities and the MACT floor
level of control, prevents us from establishing appropriate emissions
standards for the five UFIP sources at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The five currently unregulated UFIP sources are BF bleeder
valve unplanned openings (also known as slips), BF bleeder valve
planned openings, BF bell leaks, BF iron beaching, and BF slag
handling and storage operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the other two UFIP sources currently regulated
(i.e., BF casthouse and BOPF shop), since we have concluded that risks
due to emissions from the source category are acceptable, we would need
to promulgate standards for these two UFIP sources pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) or under the ample margin of safety analysis phase of
our section 112(f) review, both of which include considerations of
costs and other factors. As explained previously in this preamble, the
EPA has decided to not promulgate any of the work practices for these
two UFIP sources at this time mainly because of the substantial
uncertainties in the UFIP assessment in terms of baseline emissions,
costs of the work practices, how much emission reduction the work
practices could achieve; and, the potential negative effects of the
work practices on the facilities' operations, safety, and economics.
G. Other Items
Other items in this final rule are IBR, compliance dates, and other
rule changes not discussed elsewhere in this preamble. These issues are
discussed below.
1. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
On August 16, 2019, the EPA proposed regulatory text that includes
IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to
incorporate by reference the following documents and to amend 40 CFR
63.14 to identify the provisions for which these documents are IBR
approved for this rule:
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), and 63.7825(b). This method
determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts
resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases addressed in
the method are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen,
sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. The method is approved for this
rule with caveats described in section VI.J of this preamble.
EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7831(f). This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, setup,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.
For the final rule, in response to comments, we have added the
following voluntary consensus standard (VCS) approved as an alternate
method to measure opacity under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, with
caveats described in section VI.J of this preamble; we will incorporate
the method by reference in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
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 40 CFR 63.7823(c), 63.7823(d), 63.7823(e), and
63.7833(g). This method describes procedures to determine the opacity
of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and software,
where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point source in
the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is determined
by the application of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera,
analysis software, and the output function's content to obtain and
interpret digital images to determine and report plume opacity. The
method is approved for this rule with caveats described in section VI.J
of this preamble.
The ANSI/ASME document is available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-
2763. The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number: (610) 832-9555, or email: [email protected]. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, the EPA document generally
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ and at
the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES
[[Page 42110]]
section of this preamble for more information).
2. Compliance Dates
On August 16, 2019, we proposed to provide existing sources with
180 days after the effective date of the final rule to comply with the
changes to the SSM provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and all
other new or revised requirements in this rule except for the mercury
emission limits, for which we proposed to require compliance within 1
year. We proposed that new sources, defined as BOPFs, BOPF shops, or
facilities constructed or reconstructed after August 16, 2019, would be
required to comply with all requirements on the effective date of the
final rule, or upon startup, whichever is later.
In the final rule, for the SSM provisions and all other new or
revised requirements in this rule except for those related to the
mercury standards, we are finalizing the compliance times as proposed
(180 days) for existing sources, and new sources will need to comply
upon the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is
later. Regarding the mercury standards and associated requirements, we
are providing for existing sources the same deadlines as proposed
(i.e., 1 year to comply). An additional year may be provided for
compliance via the states as per 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions (40
CFR 63.6(i)) for facilities needing to make process changes or install
control equipment. As proposed and consistent with the CAA, new sources
must comply upon the effective date of the final rule or upon startup,
whichever is later.
For electronic reporting, the final rule provides that facilities
must comply with the electronic reporting requirements for semiannual
compliance reports either 180 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register of the final rule or 180 days after the electronic
reporting template for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities is available in CEDRI, whichever is later, to allow for EPA
revisions to the template in response to comments.
3. What other rule changes did we make in the final rule?
In the final rule, we made the following technical and editorial
corrections and clarifications:
Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(a) to provide sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
180 days after publication in the Federal Register for all sources to
comply with emission limitations during periods of SSM;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(c) to remove the SSM plan
requirement 180 days after publication in the Federal Register for
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
August 16, 2019 and to remove the SSM plan requirement upon publication
in the Federal Register for all sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after August 16, 2019;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7810(d) to provide sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019
with 180 days to comply with the general duty requirement in 40 CFR
63.7810(d). Prior to the expiration of the 180 days, such sources must
comply with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822(a) to provide 180 days after
publication in the Federal Register for all sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019 comply with
the revised requirement to conduct each performance test under
conditions representative of normal operations, excluding periods of
startup and shutdown and malfunction. Prior to the expiration of 180
days, such sources must comply with the pre-existing requirement to
conduct performance tests based on representative performance;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822 and 63.7823 to specify the
conditions for conducting performance tests;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822(b)(1)(iii), 63.7824(e)(1)(iii), and
63.7825(b)(1)(iii) to IBR ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7822, 63.7823, 63.7824, and 63.7833 to
clarify the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7823(a) to specify initial compliance
with the opacity limits should be based on representative performance
which excludes periods of startup and shutdown and malfunction;
Added to 40 CFR 63.7823(c)(1), (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i),
(e)(1) and 63.7833(g)(3) to IBR the ASTM D7520-16 method as an
alternative VCS to EPA Method 9 opacity observations; added ``For
Method 9'' to 40 CFR 63.7823(e)(3) to clarify that using an observer is
only for EPA Method 9;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(4) to clarify that sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
and, therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until
after 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject
during that 180 day period to the requirements in 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and (c)(8);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(5) to clarify that sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
and, therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until
after 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject
during that 180 day period to the requirements related to SSM plans
referenced in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(a)(6) to provide sources
constructed or reconstructed on or before August 16, 2019, and,
therefore, are not required to comply during periods of SSM until after
180 days after publication in the Federal Register, are subject during
that 180 day period to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through
(c)(14), and (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i);
Revised 40 CFR 63.7831(f)(4) to IBR for EPA-454/R-98-015;
Added 40 CFR 63.7835(d) to specify that for sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 the
exemptions for deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction no longer apply 180 days after publication in
the Federal Register, and for all other sources the exemptions no
longer apply as of the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7835, 63.7841, and 63.7842 to include
the requirements to record and report information on failures to meet
the applicable standard;
Added 40 CFR 63.7840 and 63.7841 electronic reporting
requirements of required summaries of performance test results and
semiannual reports;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(4) to specify that for sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 a
SSM plan and the information in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) are no longer
required 180 days after publication in the Federal Register;
Added 40 CFR 63.7841(b)(12) to specify that for sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction after August 16, 2019 a
SSM report is no longer required 180 days after publication in the
Federal Register;
Revised 40 CFR 63.7842(a)(2) to specify records related to
SSM to be kept;
Revised Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF to add a
mercury emission limit, revised Table 2 to add demonstration of initial
compliance with the mercury emission limit, and revised Table 3 to add
demonstration of continuous compliance with the mercury emission limit;
[[Page 42111]]
Revised Tables 1 and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF to
clarify that opacity observations be made at all openings to the BF
casthouse;
Revised Tables 1, 2, and 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFF to clarify that the affected source is each BOPF shop; and
Eliminated the SSM exemption with revisions to Table 4
(the General Provisions table) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and
updated citations throughout the remaining rule text.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
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 BOPF.
Based on the data we have, there are eleven integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, but one of these
facilities is idle.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are promulgating standards for mercury that may result in
unquantified reductions of mercury emissions and consequently improve
air quality to some degree.
C. What are the cost impacts?
In this final rule, we require control of mercury emissions and
allow sources to demonstrate compliance through performance testing or
scrap selection requirements. We expect that facilities that choose
scrap selection as their method of demonstrating compliance likely will
not incur operational costs to comply with this requirement because we
understand that most, if not all, facilities are already purchasing all
their auto scrap from providers who participate in the NVMSRP.
Therefore, we estimate a cost of $1,058 per year per facility and
$11,639 per year for all 11 facilities in the industry, for
recordkeeping and reporting of compliance with the standards.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Negligible economic impacts are expected to be incurred by
integrated iron and steel facilities due to the mercury emission limit
because the information available to the EPA indicates that most, if
not all, facilities are already purchasing scrap from providers who
participate in the NVMSRP.
E. What are the benefits?
These promulgated amendments may result in some unquantified
reductions in emissions of mercury, depending on the extent of current
limitation of mercury input or participation in the scrap selection
program by integrated iron and steel facilities. While the industry has
reported to the EPA that most, or all, facilities are already meeting
the proposed mercury emission limit, to the extent that additional
reductions may be achieved, this rule may result in improved health in
surrounding populations, especially protection of children from the
negative health impacts of mercury exposure.
The requirements to submit reports and test results electronically
will reduce paperwork and improve monitoring, compliance, and
implementation of the rule.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
For this action, we examined the potential for any environmental
justice issues that might be associated with the source category
through a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometer (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks
from point sources in the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category across different demographic groups within
the populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 5
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions from point sources for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 5--Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 Population with chronic
million due to HI at or above 1 due to
Item Nationwide integrated iron and integrated iron and
steel manufacturing steel manufacturing
facilities facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..................... 317,746,049 64,158 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................ 62% 63% 0%
Minority............................. 38% 37% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American..................... 12% 29% 0%
Native American...................... 0.8% 0.1% 0%
Hispanic or Latino includes white and 18% 4% 0%
nonwhite)...........................
Other and Multiracial................ 7% 4% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................. 14% 23% 0%
Above Poverty Level.................. 86% 77% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School 14% 12% 0%
Diploma.............................
[[Page 42112]]
Over 25 and with a High School 86% 88% 0%
Diploma.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.............. 6% 0.6% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category demographic analysis indicate that point
source emissions from the source category expose approximately 64,000
people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero people to a
chronic noncancer HI greater than or equal to 1. The percentages of the
at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African
American and Below Poverty Level) are similar to or lower than their
respective nationwide percentages. The African American population with
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category emissions is more than 3 times
the national average. Likewise, populations living ``Below Poverty
Level'' exposed to cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million is nearly
twice the national average. However, the risks to all demographic
groups is less than 100-in-1 million.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0083-1060).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2003.09. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
These amendments require electronic reporting; remove the SSM
exemptions; and impose other revisions that affect reporting and
recordkeeping for integrated iron and steel facilities. We are also
promulgating standards for mercury that require facilities to certify
the type of steel scrap they use or conduct a performance test. This
information is collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF.
Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
Estimated number of respondents: 11 facilities.
Frequency of Response: One time.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 6,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $800,000 (per year), of which $20,000 (per year) is
for this rule, and $780,000 is for other costs related to continued
compliance with the NESHAP including $50,300 for paperwork associated
with operation and maintenance requirements. The total rule costs
reflect a savings of $210,000 (per year) from the previous ICR due to
the transition to electronic reporting.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 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.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. No small
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
[[Page 42113]]
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in sections III and IV of
this preamble and further documented in the document titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2020 Final Rule, in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0083).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also
contacted 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, 25, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and SW-846
Method 9071B Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods, EPA Publications SW-846 third edition. 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 reference method, the EPA 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 reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information
is available for a particular VCS. No applicable VCS were identified
for EPA Methods 1A, 2F, 2G, 5D, 30B, and SW-846 Method 9071B.
The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' We are revising 40 CFR
63.7822(b), 40 CFR 63.7824(e), and 40 CFR 63.7825(b) to provide that
the manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 may be used as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B.The manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of
VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference--see
40 CFR 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This
standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is
available from ASME at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763.
This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of
exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases
covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use
in this rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
In the final rule, the EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS
ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 9 with the following caveats:
During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in
Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, the facility or the DCOT vendor must
present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and
contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as
blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree
stand).
The facility must also have standard operating procedures
in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure
the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in
Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
The facility must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
The facility or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
This approval does not provide or imply a certification or
validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain
and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera,
software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 is on the
facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method describes
procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery
and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM
emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient
environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application
of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software,
and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital
images to determine and report plume opacity. The ASTM D7520-16
document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or 1100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number: (610)
832-9500, fax number: (610) 8329555 at [email protected].
The EPA is finalizing the use of the guidance document, Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1997. This
document provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as
fabric filter bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter
and monitoring system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection,
installation, setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance
procedures. The document is available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDF.
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be
found
[[Page 42114]]
in the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this final
rule.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is included in sections III.A and IV.A
of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, available in the
docket for this final rule.
We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category by performing a
demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and
noncancer risks from the NESHAP source category across different
social, demographic, and economic groups within the populations living
near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology
and the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical
report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors for Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083).
The results of the source category demographic analysis for the
NESHAP (point sources only) indicate that emissions expose
approximately 60 people to a cancer risk at or above 10-in-1 million
and none exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than or equal to
1. The specific demographic results indicate that the overall
percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is less
than its corresponding national percentage for the minority population
(37 percent for the source category compared to 38-percent nationwide).
However, the ``African American'' population (29 percent for the source
category compared to 12-percent nationwide) and the population ``Below
the Poverty Level'' are greater than their corresponding national
percentages. The proximity results (irrespective of risk) indicate that
the population percentages for certain demographic categories within 5
km of source category emissions are greater than the corresponding
national percentage for certain demographic groups including: ``African
American,'' ``Ages 0 to 17,'' ``Over age 25 without a high school
diploma,'' and ``Below the poverty level.''
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are
acceptable for all populations. Furthermore, we do not expect this rule
to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, we
conclude that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided
to human health or the environment. However, this final rule will
provide additional benefits to these demographic groups by improving
the compliance, monitoring, and implementation of the NESHAP.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(106),
and (n)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE,
63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a),
63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, table3 to
subpart YYYY, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b), 63.9307(c),
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g),
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart
DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and
5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart
JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(106) 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 (e), and 63.7833(g).
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.pdf, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7525(j), 63.7831(f),
63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *
Subpart FFFFF--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.7783 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (b), and (c) and adding paragraph (f) 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 mercury.
* * * * *
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before May 20, 2003, then you must comply with each emission
limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this
subpart that applies to you by May 20, 2003. This paragraph does not
apply to the emission limitations for mercury.
[[Page 42115]]
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after May 20, 2003, you must comply with each emission limitation,
standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart
that applies to you upon initial startup. This paragraph does not apply
to the emission limitations for mercury.
* * * * *
(f) With regard to the mercury emission limitations, if you have a
new or existing affected source, you must comply with each emission
limitation for mercury that applies to you by the deadlines set forth
in Sec. 63.7791.
0
4. The undesignated center heading before Sec. 63.7790 is revised to
read:
Emission Limitations and Standards
0
5. Section 63.7791 is added before the undesignated center heading
``Operation and Maintenance Requirements'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7791 How do I comply with the requirements for the control of
mercury?
(a) Compliance deadlines. (1) If you have an existing affected
source or a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction
or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, each BOPF
Group at your facility must be in compliance with the applicable
mercury emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart through performance
testing under Sec. Sec. 63.7825 and 63.7833, or through procurement of
steel scrap pursuant to the compliance options in Sec. 63.7791(c),
(d), or (e) beginning July 13, 2021.
(2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which
construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, each
BOPF Group at that source must be in compliance with the applicable
mercury emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart beginning July 13,
2020 or upon initial startup of your affected source, whichever is
later.
(b) Alternative compliance demonstration. (1) As an alternative to
demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 by
conducting performance tests pursuant to Sec. Sec. 63.7825 and
63.7833(h), you may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in
Table 1 by procuring scrap pursuant to the requirements in paragraph
(c), (d), or (e) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment. It is not necessary to use the same BOPF scrap compliance
provision for all scrap providers, contracts, or shipments. You may
procure some scrap through providers, contracts, or shipments pursuant
to one BOPF scrap compliance provision and other scrap through
providers, contracts, or shipments pursuant to other BOPF scrap
compliance provisions.
(2) To utilize the alternative compliance options established in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must submit an initial
certification of compliance and semiannual compliance reports
consistent with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.7840(f) and
63.7841(b)(9) through (11), and (13), and comply with the recordkeeping
requirements in Sec. 63.7842(e) and all other applicable provisions
related to demonstrating compliance through participating in an
approved mercury program or through the use of scrap that does not
contain mercury switches.
(3) For any facility that initially elects to utilize the
alternative compliance options established in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, but subsequently stops using scrap that meets the requirements
of paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment, within 180 days of the change you must, for that
BOPF Group, demonstrate compliance through performance testing pursuant
to the requirements of Sec. Sec. 63.7825 and 63.7833(h), and submit a
revised notice of compliance status in your next semiannual compliance
report described in this section. You must also comply with the
requirements for conducting subsequent performance tests in Sec. Sec.
63.7821(e) and 63.7840(g), and all other applicable requirements
related to demonstrating compliance with the emission limits through
performance testing.
(c) Participation in the NVMSRP. (1) You must obtain all post-
consumer scrap that contains motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers
who participate in the NVMSRP. The NVMSRP is an EPA-approved program
under this section unless and until the Administrator disapproves the
program (in part or in whole);
(2) You must certify in your initial notification of compliance
status required by Sec. 63.7840(f) and semiannual compliance report
required by Sec. 63.7841(a) that you purchased post-consumer steel
scrap containing motor vehicle scrap according to paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, and identify all your scrap providers in your semiannual
compliance report;
(3) If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must certify that all
scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers
who participate in the NVMSRP and identify all scrap providers used by
all your scrap brokers in your semiannual compliance report; and
(4) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers participate in
the NVMSRP and, therefore, are aware of the need for and are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury in
scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
(d) Use of scrap that does not contain mercury switches. For BOPF
scrap not complying with the requirements in paragraph (c) or (e) of
this section, you must certify in your initial notification of
compliance report required by Sec. 63.7840(f) and semiannual
compliance report required by Sec. 63.7841(a) and maintain records of
documentation required by Sec. 63.7842(e) establishing that the scrap
does not contain mercury switches. You may satisfy this requirement by
certifying and documenting that:
(1) The scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap; or
(2) The scrap does not contain shredded motor vehicle scrap; or
(3) The only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap are
materials recovered for their specialty alloy content (including, but
not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys);
therefore, based on the type of the scrap and purchase specifications,
the scrap does not contain mercury switches.
(e) Use of an EPA-approved mercury removal program. (1) You must
obtain all post-consumer scrap containing motor vehicle scrap from
scrap providers who participate in a program for the removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the Administrator;
(2) You must certify in your initial notification of compliance
status required by Sec. 63.7840(f) and semiannual compliance report
required by Sec. 63.7841(a) that you purchase post-consumer steel
scrap containing motor vehicle scrap according to paragraph (e)(1) of
this section and identify all your scrap providers in your semiannual
compliance report;
(3) If you purchase scrap from a broker, you must certify that all
scrap received from that broker was obtained from other scrap providers
who participate in a program for the removal of mercury switches that
has been approved by the Administrator and identify all scrap providers
used by all your scrap brokers in your semiannual compliance report;
and
(4) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and brokers are complying
with the approved mercury removal
[[Page 42116]]
program and, therefore, are aware of the need for and are implementing
appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from
end-of-life vehicles.
0
6. Section 63.7800 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.7810(d).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.7810 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7810 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limitations, standards, and operation and
maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 11, 2021,
for each such source you must be in compliance with the emission
limitations in this subpart at all times. For new and reconstructed
sources for which construction or reconstruction commenced after August
16, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in
this subpart at all times.
* * * * *
(c) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must develop
a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). For each such source, a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after January 11, 2021.
No startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is required for any new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after August 16, 2019.
(d) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must always
operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). After January 11, 2021for each such source, and after
July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction
or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, at all times, you
must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not
require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels
required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination
of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and
maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
0
8. Section 63.7820 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7820 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(e) Notwithstanding the deadlines in this section, existing and new
affected sources must comply with the deadlines for making the initial
compliance demonstrations for the mercury emission limit set forth in
(e)(1) through (4) in this section.
(1) If you have an existing affected BOPF Group or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating
compliance with the emission limit in Table 1 through performance
testing, you must conduct the initial performance test at your BOPF
Group to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limit in
Table 1 no later than July 13, 2021.
(2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected BOPF Group for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
and you are demonstrating compliance with the emission limit in Table 1
through performance testing, you must conduct the initial performance
test at your BOPF Group to demonstrate compliance with the mercury
emission limit in Table 1 within 180 days of July 13, 2020 or within
180 days of initial startup of your affected source, whichever is
later.
(3) If you have an existing affected BOPF Group or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 through the
requirements in Sec. 63.7791(c) through (e), you must certify
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.7840(f) in your notification of
compliance and in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(b)(11) in your first
semiannual compliance report after July 13, 2021.
(4) If you have a new affected BOPF Group or a new or reconstructed
affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after August 16, 2019, and you are demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 through the requirements in Sec.
63.7791(b) through (d), you must certify compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.7840(f) in your initial notification of compliance and in
accordance with Sec. 63.7841(b)(11) in your first semiannual
compliance report after July 13, 2021 or after initial startup of your
BOPF Group, whichever is later.
0
9. Section 63.7821 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
(a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable emission and opacity limits in Table 1
to this subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) For each BOPF Group, if demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart through performance
testing under Sec. Sec. 63.7825 and 63.7833, you must conduct
subsequent performance tests twice per permit cycle (i.e., mid-term and
initial/final) for sources with title V operating permits, and every
2.5 years for sources without a title V operating permit, at the outlet
of the control devices for the BOPF Group.
0
10. Section 63.7822 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7822 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate
matter?
(a) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, you must conduct
each performance test that applies to your
[[Page 42117]]
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (i) of this section. After January 11, 2021 for each such
source, and after July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
you must conduct each performance test under conditions representative
of normal operations. The owner or operator must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or
operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You
shall not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You
must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance
tests.
(b) * * *
(1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to
the following test methods:
(i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
(iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) EPA Method 5 or 5D in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 17 in appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter, as
applicable, to determine the concentration of particulate matter (front
half filterable catch only).
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1),
(d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e)(1) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7823 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
(a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested, according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section. Representative conditions exclude
periods of startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance
tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make
available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
(i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT)
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), the owner or operator or
the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds
of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field
use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a
sparse tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
(iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
(v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter
except as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
(A) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
(D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification
[[Page 42118]]
plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent
opacity of anyone reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5-
percent opacity.
(E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
(A) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(B) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(C) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping procedures
outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance
report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and
certification determination.
(D) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of
four independent technology users apply the software to determine the
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
(E) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions
according to EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
Alternatively, ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
(i) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
(iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
(v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(3) Make visible emission observations of uncovered portions of
sinter plant coolers with the line of sight generally in the direction
of the center of the cooler.
0
12. Section 63.7824 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) introductory
text and (e)(1) and (2) and the defined term ``Mc'' in
Equation 1 in paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7824 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?
* * * * *
(e) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec. 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section. You must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source based on representative performance (i.e., performance
based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source for the
period being tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of
startup and shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(1) Determine the volatile organic compound emissions according to
the following test methods:
(i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
(iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) EPA Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the mass concentration of volatile organic compound emissions
(total gaseous nonmethane organics as carbon) from the sinter plant
windbox exhaust stream stack.
[[Page 42119]]
(2) Determine volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions every 24
hours (from at least three samples taken at 8-hour intervals) using EPA
Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter. Record the
sampling date and time, sampling results, and sinter produced (tons/
day).
(3) * * *
Mc = Average concentration of total gaseous nonmethane
organics as carbon by EPA Method 25 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this
chapter, milligrams per dry standard cubic meters (mg/dscm) for each
day;
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 63.7825 and 63.7826 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 63.7826
and 63.7827]
0
13. Sections 63.7825 and 63.7826 are redesignated as Sec. Sec. 63.7826
and 63.7827, respectively, and a new Sec. 63.7825 is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7825 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit for mercury?
(a) If demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limits
for each BOPF Group in Table 1 to this subpart through performance
testing, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limit. If demonstrating compliance with
the emission limit through performance testing, you must conduct each
performance test that applies to your affected source based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating
conditions) of the affected source for the period being tested,
according to the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) through (f) of
this section. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. You shall not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. Initial compliance tests must be conducted by the
deadlines in Sec. 63.7820(e).
(1) You must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the Administrator
such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(2) For sources with multiple emission units ducted to a common
control device and stack, compliance testing must be performed either
by conducting a single compliance test with all affected emissions
units in operation or by conducting a separate compliance test on each
emissions unit. Alternatively, the owner or operator may request
approval from the permit authority for an alternative testing approach.
If the units are tested separately, any emissions unit that is not
tested initially must be tested as soon as is practicable.
(b) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for mercury
in Table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of mercury according to the
following test methods:
(i) EPA Method 1 in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter to
select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points.
Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) EPA Method 2 or 2F in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter
or EPA Method 2G in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. The
manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of voluntary
consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method
3B.
(iv) EPA Method 4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) EPA Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter
to determine the concentration of mercury from each unit of the BOPF
Group exhaust stream stack. If performing measurements using EPA Method
29, you must collect a minimum sample volume of 1.7 dscm (60 dscf).
Alternative test methods may be considered on a case-by-case basis per
Sec. 63.7(f).
(2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test
of each BOPF Group unit. If the performance testing results for any of
the emission points yields a non-detect value, then the minimum
detection limit (MDL) must be used to calculate the mass emissions (lb)
for that emission unit and, in turn, for calculating the sum of the
emissions (in units of pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap) for
all BOPF Group units subject to the emission standard for determining
compliance. If the resulting mercury emissions are greater than the
MACT emission standard, the owner or operator may use procedures that
produce lower MDL results and repeat the mercury performance testing
one additional time for any emission point for which the measured
result was below the MDL. If this additional testing is performed, the
results from that testing must be used to determine compliance (i.e.,
there are no additional opportunities allowed to lower the MDL).
(3) For a primary emission control device applied to emissions from
a BOPF with a closed hood system, sample only during the primary oxygen
blow and do not sample during any subsequent reblows. Continue sampling
for each run for an integral number of primary oxygen blows.
(4) For a primary emission control system applied to emissions from
a BOPF with an open hood system and for a control device applied solely
to secondary emissions from a BOPF, you must complete the requirements
of paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) Sample only during the steel production cycle. Conduct sampling
under conditions that are representative of normal operation. Record
the start and end time of each steel production cycle and each period
of abnormal operation; and
(ii) Sample for an integral number of steel production cycles. The
steel production cycle begins when the scrap is charged to the furnace
and ends 3 minutes after the slag is emptied from the vessel into the
slag pot.
(5) For a control device applied to emissions from BOPF shop
ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or
ladle metallurgy), sample only when the operation(s) is being
conducted.
(c) Calculate the mercury mass emissions, based on the average of
three test run values, for each BOPF Group unit (or combination of
units that are ducted to a common stack and are tested when all
affected sources are operating pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section) using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JY20.000
Where:
E = Mass emissions of mercury, pounds (lb);
Cs = Concentration of mercury in stack gas, mg/dscm;
454,000 = Conversion factor (mg/lb);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/min;
35.31 = Conversion factor (dscf/dscm); and
t = Duration of test, minutes.
(d) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate an
appropriate
[[Page 42120]]
weight measurement device, to measure the tons of steel scrap input to
the BOPF cycle simultaneous with each BOPF Group unit's stack test.
(e) You must maintain the systems for measuring weight within
5 percent accuracy. You must describe the specific
equipment used to make measurements at your facility and how that
equipment is periodically calibrated. You must also explain, document,
and maintain written procedures for determining the accuracy of the
measurements and make these written procedures available to your
permitting authority upon request. You must determine, record, and
maintain a record of the accuracy of the measuring systems before the
beginning of your initial compliance test and during each subsequent
quarter of affected source operation.
(f) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of mercury per ton of steel scrap to determine initial
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1. Sum the mercury
mass emissions (in pounds) from all BOPF Group units calculated using
Equation 1 of this section. Divide that sum by the sum of the total
amount of steel scrap charged to the BOPFs (in tons).
0
14. Section 63.7831 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) through
(6) and (f)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7831 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitors?
(a) * * *
(4) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing
operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7)
and (8). After January 11, 2021 for each such source, and after July
13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after August 16, ongoing operation and
maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8);
(5) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing data
quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. 63.8(d). After January 11, 2021 for each such
source, and after July 13, 2020 for new and reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019,
ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the
general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d) except for the requirements
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans referenced in Sec.
63.8(d)(3). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures
on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2);
(6) On or before January 11, 2021, for each existing source, and
for each new or reconstructed source for which construction or
reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2019, ongoing
recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general
requirements of Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
After January 11, 2021 for each such source, and after July 13, 2020
for new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2019, ongoing recordkeeping
and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of
Sec. 63.10(c)(1) through (14), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i);
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). You may
install, operate, and maintain other types of bag leak detection
systems in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.7833 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, in
the case of an exceedance of the hourly average opacity operating limit
for an electrostatic precipitator, measurements of the hourly average
opacity based on visible emission observations in accordance with EPA
Method 9 (in appendix A-4 to part 60) may be taken to evaluate the
effectiveness of corrective action. ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used with the following conditions:
(i) During the DCOT certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2
of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), the
owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front
of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions
anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed
backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
(ii) The owner or operator must also have standard operating
procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks
to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as
outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping
procedures outlined in Sec. 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification,
compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for
opacity and certification determination.
(iv) The owner or operator or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum
of four independent technology users apply the software to determine
the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25
plumes, the user may not exceed 15-percent opacity of anyone reading
and the average error must not exceed 7.5-percent opacity.
(v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the
DCOT camera, software, and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) and these requirements is
on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
(h) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limits in Table 1 of this section for your BOPF Groups through
performance testing, you must conduct mercury performance tests in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 63.7821(e) and 63.7825 and calculate
[[Page 42121]]
the emissions from each new and existing affected source in pounds of
mercury per ton of steel scrap to determine compliance with the mercury
emission limits in Table 1. Sum the mercury mass emissions (in pounds)
from all BOPF Group units calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.7825.
Divide that sum by the sum of the total amount of steel scrap charged
to the BOPFs (in tons).
(i) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limits in Table 1 of this section for your BOPF Groups by certifying
participation in the NVMSRP or another EPA-approved mercury program, or
by using scrap that does not contain mercury switches, you must obtain
and certify your use of steel scrap per Sec. 63.7791(c), (d), or (e),
as applicable, and Sec. 63.7841(b)(11) to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the standard.
0
16. Section 63.7835 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7835 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
Except as provided in Sec. 63.7833(g), you must report each
instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation in Sec.
63.7790 that applies to you. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each instance in which
you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in Sec.
63.7800 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the
emission limitations and operation and maintenance requirements in this
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7841.
(a) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(b) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(c) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.7810(d), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(d) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
before January 11, 2021, consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
Sec. 63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e). After January
11, 2021 for such sources, and after July 13, 2020 for new and
reconstructed sources which commence construction or reconstruction
after August 16, 2019, the exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction in Sec. 63.6(e) no longer apply.
0
17. Section 63.7840 is amended by revising paragraphs (d), (e)
introductory text, and (e)(2) and adding paragraphs (f) through (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1). For the first mercury compliance test in
the BOPF Group for anyone sequence of tests, you must include a
schedule of all subsequent tests in the BOPF Group in the test series.
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit
a notification of compliance according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii), except
that for the purposes of submitting the notification of compliance
status for BOPF Group mercury testing, the performance test shall be
considered complete when the final unit or control device in the BOPF
Group in the sequence is tested.
* * * * *
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance
status, including the summary of performance test results, before the
close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of
the performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(f) The notification of compliance status required by Sec. Sec.
63.9(b) and (h) and 63.7826(c) must include each applicable
certification of compliance, signed by a responsible official, in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, regarding the mercury
requirements, as applicable, in Sec. 63.7791(c) through (e).
(1) ``This facility participates in and purchases scrap only from
scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the EPA Administrator, in accordance
with Sec. 63.7791(c) or (e)''; or
(2) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
does not contain mercury switches, in accordance with Sec.
63.7791(d).''
(g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the results
of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you
may assert a claim of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec.
63.7841(e), or force majeure, in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(f), for
failure to timely comply with this requirement.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly
mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD
C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (g) of this section.
[[Page 42122]]
(h) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each
continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined
in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation following the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (3) of this section. Where applicable, you may assert a claim
of EPA system outage, in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(e), or force
majeure, in accordance with Sec. 63.7841(f), for failure to timely
comply with this requirement.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (h) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described in this
paragraph (h).
0
18. Section 63.7841 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(7)
introductory text, (b)(7)(ii), (b)(8) introductory text, and
(b)(8)(ii), (iv), and (vi);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(9) through (13);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (g) and revising it; and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (d) and paragraphs (e) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section and,
as applicable, paragraphs (b)(4) through (13) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources for
which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16,
2019, before January 11, 2021, if you had a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent
with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance
report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i). A startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan and the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) is not required after January 11, 2021.
* * * * *
(7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Sec. 63.7790
that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous
monitoring system (including a CPMS, COMS, or CEMS) to comply with an
emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, the
information in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, and the
information in (b)(13) of this section. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
(ii) Information on the duration and cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the corrective action
taken.
* * * * *
(8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section, the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section, and the information in (b)(13) of this
section. This includes periods of malfunction.
* * * * *
(ii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring
was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a malfunction or during another
period.
* * * * *
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes.
* * * * *
(9) Any deviation from the requirements in Sec. 63.7791 and the
corrective action taken. For each deviation, you must include the
information in (b)(13) of this section.
(10) If there were no deviations from the requirements in Sec.
63.7791, a statement that there were no deviations from the
requirements during the reporting period.
(11) If the facility demonstrates compliance with the mercury
emission limits in Table 1 through the compliance options in Sec.
63.7791(c), (d), or (e), the report must contain the applicable
statement in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) and (ii) of this section, as
applicable.
(i) ``This facility participates in and purchases scrap only from
scrap providers who participate in a program for removal of mercury
switches that has been approved by the EPA Administrator, in accordance
with Sec. 63.7791(c) or (e)''; or
(ii) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
does not contain mercury switches, in accordance with Sec.
63.7791(d).''
(12) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources
which commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16,
2019, before January 11, 2021, for each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan you must submit an
immediate startup, shutdown and malfunction report. Unless the
Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of
reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report according to
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. An immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report is not required after January 11,
2021.
(13) Beginning on January 11, 2021 if you failed to meet an
applicable standard, the compliance report must
[[Page 42123]]
include the start date, start time, and duration of each failure. For
each failure, the compliance report must include a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(c) Use of CEDRI template. Beginning on January 11, 2021 or 180
days after the date the reporting template becomes available in CEDRI,
whichever is later, submit all subsequent reports following the
procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) CEDRI submission. If you are required to submit reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit
reports to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report
template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become
available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a
complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA.
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(e) CDX outage. If you are required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements
outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) Claim of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(g) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to part 70 or 71 of
this chapter, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart
in the semiannual monitoring report required by Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter. If you
submit a compliance report for an affected source along with, or as
part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by Sec.
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, and the
compliance report includes all the required information concerning
deviations from any emission limitation, standard, or operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance
report satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report
deviations from permit requirements for an affected source to your
permitting authority.
0
19. Section 63.7842 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(3) and paragraph (a)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7842 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) For existing sources and for new or reconstructed sources which
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before August 16, 2019,
before January 11, 2021, the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for a period of five
years. A
[[Page 42124]]
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan is not required after January
11, 2021.
(3) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(4) Records of the actions taken to minimize emissions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7810(d), and any corrective actions taken to
return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Previous (that is, superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2), with the program of
corrective action included in the plan.
* * * * *
(e) If you are demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission
limit in Table 1 through Sec. 63.7791(c), you must keep records to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for mercury in Sec.
63.7791(c) as applicable. If you are demonstrating compliance with the
mercury emission limit in Table 1 through Sec. 63.7791(d), you must
keep records documenting compliance with Sec. 63.7791(d) for scrap
that does not contain mercury switches. If you are demonstrating
compliance with the mercury emission limit in Table 1 through Sec.
63.7791(e), you must maintain records identifying each scrap provider
and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an approved
mercury switch removal program. If you purchase scrap from a broker,
you must maintain records identifying each broker and documentation
that all scrap provided by the broker was obtained from other scrap
providers who participate in an approved mercury switch removal
program.
0
20. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7851 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
21. Section 63.7852 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``basic oxygen process
furnace group'';
0
b. Revising the definition of ``deviation''; and
0
c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``mercury switch'',
``motor vehicle'', ``motor vehicle scrap'', ``opening'', ``post-
consumer steel scrap'', ``pre-consumer steel scrap'', ``scrap
provider'', ``shredded motor vehicle scrap'', ``specialty metal
scrap'', and ``steel scrap''.
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Basic oxygen process furnace group means 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 that are operating at the time of each mercury
test sequence. In the case of duplicate units in the BOPF Group, the
BOPF Group for purposes of this rule means only those units operating
at the time of the test sequence. See related definitions in this
section for ``primary emissions,'' ``primary emission control system,''
``secondary emissions,'' and ``secondary emission control system.''
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including operating limits), standard, or operation and maintenance
requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed
in a motor vehicle.
Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and
usually operated with rubber tires for use on roads and highways.
Motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from discarded
automotive vehicles, in whole or in part, including automobile body
hulks that have been processed through a shredder. Motor vehicle scrap
does not include automobile manufacturing bundles or miscellaneous
vehicle parts, such as wheels and bumpers, which do not contain mercury
switches.
Opening means any roof monitor, vent, door, window, hole, crack or
other conduit that allows gas to escape to the atmosphere from a blast
furnace casthouse or BOPF shop.
Post-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is composed of
materials made of steel that were purchased by households or by
commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in their role as
end-users of the product and which can no longer be used for its
intended purpose.
Pre-consumer steel scrap means steel scrap that is left over from
industrial or manufacturing processes and which is subsequently
recycled as scrap. Other terms used to describe this scrap are new,
home, run-around, prompt-industrial, and return scrap.
* * * * *
Scrap provider means the company or person (including a broker) who
contracts directly with an integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facility to provide steel scrap. Scrap processors, such as shredder
operators or vehicle dismantlers, who do not sell scrap directly to an
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility are not scrap
providers.
* * * * *
Shredded motor vehicle scrap means post-consumer scrap from
discarded automotive vehicles that has been processed through a
shredder.
* * * * *
Specialty metal scrap means scrap where the only materials from
motor vehicles in the scrap are materials (such as certain exhaust
systems) recovered for their specialty alloy content (including, but
not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other alloys), and,
based on the nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, the scrap
is not expected to contain mercury switches.
* * * * *
Steel scrap means pre-consumer and post-consumer discarded steel
that is processed by scrap providers for resale (post-consumer) or used
on-site (pre-consumer or run-around scrap from within a facility or
company). Post-consumer steel scrap may or may not
[[Page 42125]]
contain motor vehicle scrap, depending on the type of scrap.
* * * * *
0
22. Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each
applicable emission and opacity limit in the following table:
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission and Opacity Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with each of the
For . . . following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust You must not cause to be discharged to
stream at an existing sinter the atmosphere any gases that contain
plant. particulate matter in excess of 0.4 lb/
ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust You must not cause to be discharged to
stream at a new sinter plant. the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.3 lb/
ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. You must not cause to be discharged to
existing sinter plant. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
one or more control devices that
contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/
dscf 1 2; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit any opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end that
exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent
(6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a a. You must not cause to be discharged to
new sinter plant. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
one or more control devices that
contain, on a flow weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/
dscf; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit any opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end that
exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent
(6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an You must not cause to be discharged to
existing sinter plant. the atmosphere any emissions that
exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent
(6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a You must not cause to be discharged to
new sinter plant. the atmosphere any gases that contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/
dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an a. You must not cause to be discharged to
existing blast furnace. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
a control device that contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/
dscf \2\; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit all openings in the casthouse
or structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than 20
percent (6-minute average).
8. Each casthouse at a new a. You must not cause to be discharged to
blast furnace. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
a control device that contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.003 gr/
dscf; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit all openings in the casthouse
or structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than 15
percent (6-minute average).
9. Each BOPF at a new or a. You must not cause to be discharged to
existing shop. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
a primary emission control system for a
BOPF with a closed hood system at a new
or existing BOPF shop that contain, on a
flow-weighted basis, particulate matter
in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf during the
primary oxygen blow 2 3; and
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any gases that exit from
a primary emission control system for a
BOPF with an open hood system that
contain, on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/
dscf during the steel production cycle
for an existing BOPF shop 2 3 or 0.01 gr/
dscf during the steel production cycle
for a new BOPF shop \3\; and
c. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any gases that exit from
a control device used solely for the
collection of secondary emissions from
the BOPF that contain particulate matter
in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.0052 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer, You must not cause to be discharged to
skimming, and the atmosphere any gases that exit from
desulfurization operation at a control device that contain
a new or existing BOPF shop. particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/
dscf for an existing BOPF shop \2\ or
0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy You must not cause to be discharged to
operation at a new or the atmosphere any gases that exit from
existing BOPF shop. a control device that contain
particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/
dscf for an existing BOPF shop \2\ or
0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit any opening in the BOPF shop
or any other building housing the BOPF
or BOPF shop operation that exhibit
opacity greater than 20 percent (3-
minute average).
13. Each new BOPF shop....... a. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit any opening in the BOPF shop
or other building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-minute
averages) greater than 10 percent,
except that one 6-minute period not to
exceed 20 percent may occur once per
steel production cycle; or
b. You must not cause to be discharged to
the atmosphere any secondary emissions
that exit any opening in the BOPF shop
or other building housing a top-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-minute
averages) greater than 10 percent,
except that one 3-minute period greater
than 10 percent but less than 20 percent
may occur once per steel production
cycle.
14. Each BOPF Group at an You must not cause to be discharged to
existing BOPF shop. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
the collection of BOPF Group control
devices that contain mercury in excess
of 0.00026 lb/ton of steel scrap input
to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new You must not cause to be discharged to
BOPF shop. the atmosphere any gases that exit from
the collection of BOPF Group control
devices that contain mercury in excess
of 0.000081 lb/ton of steel scrap input
to the BOPF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control
device as the discharge end.
\2\ This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not
apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the
discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an
existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop if the control
device was installed before August 30, 2005.
\3\ This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a
single BOPF during the oxygen blow.
[[Page 42126]]
0
23. Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.7826(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial compliance
For . . . if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust The process-weighted mass rate of
stream at an existing sinter particulate matter from a windbox
plant. exhaust stream, measured according to
the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(c), did not exceed 0.4 lb/ton
of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust The process-weighted mass rate of
stream at a new sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according to
the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(c), did not exceed 0.3 lb/ton
of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. The flow-weighted average
existing sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter from
one or more control devices applied to
emissions from a discharge end, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not
exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions
from each discharge end, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(c), did not
exceed 20 percent (6-minute average).
4. Each discharge end at a a. The flow-weighted average
new sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter from
one or more control devices applied to
emissions from a discharge end, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions
from each discharge end, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(c), did not
exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an The opacity of emissions, determined
existing sinter plant. according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(e), did not
exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a The average concentration of particulate
new sinter plant. matter, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an a. The average concentration of
existing blast furnace. particulate matter from a control device
applied to emissions from a casthouse,
measured according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7822(e),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions
from each casthouse, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(c), did not
exceed 20 percent (6-minute average).
8. Each casthouse at a new a. The average concentration of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control device
applied to emissions from a casthouse,
measured according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7822(e),
did not exceed 0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary emissions
from each casthouse, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(c), did not
exceed 15 percent (6-minute average).
9. Each BOPF at a new or a. The average concentration of
existing BOPF shop. particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with a closed hood
system, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(f), did not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf
for a new or existing BOPF shop;
b. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with an open hood
system, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf
for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
c. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a control device
applied solely to secondary emissions
from a BOPF, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf
for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
10. Each hot metal transfer The average concentration of particulate
skimming, and matter from a control device applied to
desulfurization at a new or emissions from hot metal transfer,
existing BOPF shop. skimming, or desulfurization, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(h), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy The average concentration of particulate
operation at a new or matter from a control device applied to
existing BOPF shop. emissions from a ladle metallurgy
operation, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf
for an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.. The opacity of secondary emissions from
each BOPF shop, determined according to
the performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20 percent
(3-minute average).
13. Each new BOPF shop....... a. The opacity of the highest set of 6-
minute averages from each BOPF shop
housing a bottom-blown BOPF, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d), did not
exceed 20 percent and the second highest
set of 6-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent; or
b. The opacity of the highest set of 3-
minute averages from each BOPF shop
housing a top-blown BOPF, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d), did not
exceed 20 percent and the second highest
set of 3-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent.
14. Each BOPF Group at an If demonstrating compliance through
existing BOPF shop. performance testing, the average
emissions of mercury from the collection
of BOPF Group control devices applied to
the emissions from the BOPF Group,
measured according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7825, did
not exceed 0.00026 lb/ton steel scrap
input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new If demonstrating compliance through
BOPF shop. performance testing, the average
emissions of mercury from the collection
of BOPF Group control devices applied to
the emissions from the BOPF Group,
measured according to the performance
test procedures in Sec. 63.7825, did
not exceed 0.000081 lb/ton steel scrap
input to the BOPF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
24. Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
[[Page 42127]]
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
stream at an existing sinter matter at or below 0.4 lb/ton of product
plant. sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
2. Each windbox exhaust a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
stream at a new sinter plant. matter at or below 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
3. Each discharge end at an a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
existing sinter plant. matter from one or more control devices
at or below 0.02 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the
building or structure housing the
discharge end at or below 20 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
new sinter plant. matter from one or more control devices
at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the
building or structure housing the
discharge end at or below 10 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an a. Maintaining the opacity of emissions
existing sinter plant. that exit any sinter cooler at or below
10 percent (6-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
new sinter plant. matter at or below 0.1 gr/dscf; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
existing blast furnace. matter from a control device at or below
0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary
emissions that exit all openings in the
casthouse or structure housing the
casthouse at or below 20 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
8. Each casthouse at a new a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
blast furnace. matter from a control device at or below
0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary
emissions that exit all openings in the
casthouse or structure housing the
casthouse at or below 15 percent (6-
minute average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
9. Each BOPF at a new or a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
existing BOPF shop. matter from the primary control system
for a BOPF with a closed hood system at
or below 0.03 gr/dscf; and
b. Maintaining emissions of particulate
matter from the primary control system
for a BOPF with an open hood system at
or below 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing
BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop; and
c. Maintaining emissions of particulate
matter from a control device applied
solely to secondary emissions from a
BOPF at or below 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for
a new BOPF shop; and
d. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
10. Each hot metal transfer, a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
skimming, and matter from a control device at or below
desulfurization operation at 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF or
a new or existing BOPF shop. 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy a. Maintaining emissions of particulate
operation at a new or matter from a control device at or below
existing BOPF shop. 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF shop or
0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
12. Each existing BOPF shop.. a. Maintaining the opacity of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the
BOPF shop or other building housing the
BOPF shop or shop operation at or below
20 percent (3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
13. Each new BOPF shop....... a. Maintaining the opacity (for any set
of 6-minute averages) of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the
BOPF shop or other building housing a
bottom-blown BOPF or shop operation at
or below 10 percent, except that one 6-
minute period greater than 10 percent
but no more than 20 percent may occur
once per steel production cycle; and
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set
of 3-minute averages) of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the
BOPF shop or other building housing a
top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or
below 10 percent, except that one 3-
minute period greater than 10 percent
but less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified in
Sec. 63.7821.
14. Each BOPF Group at an a. Maintaining emissions of mercury from
existing BOPF shop. the collection of BOPF Group control
devices at or below 0.00026 lb/ton steel
scrap input to the BOPF; and
b. If demonstrating compliance through
performance testing, conducting
subsequent performance tests at the
frequencies specified in Sec. 63.7821;
and
c. If demonstrating compliance through
Sec. 63.7791(c), (d), or (e),
maintaining records pursuant to Sec.
63.7842(e).
15. Each BOPF Group at a new a. Maintaining emissions of mercury from
BOPF shop. the collection of BOPF Group control
devices at or below 0.000081 lb/ton
steel scrap input to the BOPF; and
b. If demonstrating compliance through
performance testing, conducting
subsequent performance tests at the
frequencies specified in Sec. 63.7821;
and
[[Page 42128]]
c. If demonstrating compliance through
Sec. 63.7791(c), (d), or (e),
maintaining records pursuant to Sec.
63.7842(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
25. Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in
the following table:
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to Subpart FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1...................... Applicability............ Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.2...................... Definitions.............. Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.3...................... Units and Abbreviations.. Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.4...................... Prohibited Activities.... Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.5...................... Construction/ Yes..................... ........................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), Compliance with Standards Yes..................... ........................
(e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g), and Maintenance
(h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9). Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. General Duty to Minimize No, for new or See Sec. 63.7810(d)
Emissions. reconstructed sources for general duty
which commenced requirement.
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Requirement to Correct No, for new or ........................
Malfunctions ASAP. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes, on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ SSM Plan Requirements.... No, for new or See Sec. 63.7810(c)
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Compliance except during No...................... See Sec. 63.7810(a).
SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................ Compliance except during No...................... See Sec. 63.7810(a).
SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)............. Determining Compliance No...................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
with Opacity and VE methods and procedures
Standards. for determining
compliance with opacity
emission and operating
limits.
Sec. 63.6(i)................... Extension of Compliance Yes..................... ........................
with Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(j)................... Exemption from Compliance Yes..................... ........................
with Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............ Applicability and No...................... Subpart FFFFF and
Performance Test Dates. specifies performance
test applicability and
dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3), (b)-(d), Performance Testing Yes..................... ........................
(e)(2)-(4), (f)-(h). Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Performance Testing...... No, for new or See Sec. Sec.
reconstructed sources 63.7822(a), 63.7823(a),
which commenced and 63.7825(a).
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), Monitoring Requirements.. Yes..................... CMS requirements in Sec.
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii),
(c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5)-(6), (c)(5)-(6), (d)(1)-(2),
(c)(7)-(8), (d)(1)-(2), (e), and (e) apply only to
(f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4). COMS.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No...................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for Control require flares.
Devices in Sec. 63.11.
[[Page 42129]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............. General Duty to Minimize No, for new or ........................
Emissions and CMS reconstructed sources
Operation. which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........... Requirement to Develop No, for new or ........................
SSM Plan for CMS. reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ Continuous Monitoring No...................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
System Requirements. requirements for
operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................ Written procedures for No, for new or See Sec.
CMS. reconstructed sources 63.7842(b)(3).
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ RATA Alternative......... No...................... ........................
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................ Data Reduction........... No...................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9...................... Notification Requirements Yes..................... Additional notifications
for CMS in Sec.
63.9(g) apply only to
COMS.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), Recordkeeping and Yes..................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(x), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(1)-(6), (c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)- 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(4), (e)(1)-(2), (e)(4), (f). (14), and reports in
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............ Recordkeeping of No, for new or ........................
Occurrence and Duration reconstructed sources
of Startups and which commenced
Shutdowns. construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures No, for new or See Sec. 63.7842(a)(2)-
to Meet a Standard. reconstructed sources (4) for recordkeeping
which commenced of (1) date, time, and
construction or duration of failure to
reconstruction after meet the standard; (2)
August 16, 2019. For listing of affected
all other affected source or equipment,
sources, Yes on or and an estimate of the
before January 11, 2021 quantity of each
and No thereafter. regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Maintenance Records...... Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)........... Actions Taken to Minimize No, for new or See Sec. 63.7842(a)(4)
Emissions During SSM. reconstructed sources for records of actions
which commenced taken to minimize
construction or emissions.
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v)............ Actions Taken to Minimize No, for new or See Sec. 63.7842(a)(4)
Emissions During SSM. reconstructed sources for records of actions
which commenced taken to minimize
construction or emissions.
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)........... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes..................... ........................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)..... Other CMS Requirements... Yes..................... ........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... CMS Records for RATA No...................... ........................
Alternative.
[[Page 42130]]
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Records of Excess No...................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and Parameter record requirements;
Monitoring Exceedances see Sec. 63.7842.
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).............. Use of SSM Plan.......... No, for new or ........................
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)............ Periodic SSM Reports..... No, for new or See Sec. 63.7841(b)(4)
reconstructed sources for malfunction
which commenced reporting requirements.
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)........... Immediate SSM Reports.... No, for new or ........................
reconstructed sources
which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11, 2021
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Excess Emission Reports.. No...................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
reporting requirements;
see Sec. 63.7841.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device No...................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12..................... State Authority and Yes..................... ........................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13-Sec. 63.16........ Addresses, Incorporations Yes..................... ........................
by Reference,
Availability of
Information and
Confidentiality,
Performance Track
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-09753 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P