[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23294-23336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05850]
[[Page 23293]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 65
April 3, 2024
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 3, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 23294]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-5919.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV82
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is finalizing amendments to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions. The amendments include: HAP from unmeasured fugitive and
intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources previously not regulated by the
NESHAP; previously unregulated HAP for sinter plants:; previously
unregulated pollutants for blast furnace (BF) stoves and basic oxygen
process furnaces (BOPFs) primary control devices; and previously
unregulated pollutants for BF primary control devices. We are also
finalizing an update to the technology review for this source category.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 3, 2024. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of material publications listed in the rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register (FR) beginning June 3, 2024.
The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain other material listed
in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register (FR)
as of July 13, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy. With the
exception of such materials, publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Katie Boaggio, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2223;
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ACI activated carbon injection
BF blast furnace
BOPF basic oxygen process furnace
BTF Beyond-the-Floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
COS Carbonyl Sulfide
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D/F dioxins and furans
EAV equivalent annualized value
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
HMTDS hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and skimming
ICR Information Collection Request
II&S Integrated Iron and Steel
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PM particulate matter
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TEQ toxic equivalency
tpy tons per year
UFIP unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
VOC volatile organic compound
WP work practice
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source
category?
A. Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources for Both
New and Existing Sources
B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review
C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?
D. Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New
and Existing Sources
E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter
Plants Under CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-
the-Floor Limit for Mercury
F. Other Major Comments and Issues
G. Severability of Standards
H. What are the effective and compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in
[[Page 23295]]
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order
14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The EPA set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities major source
category in 2003 (68 FR 27645) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF and
completed a residual risk and technology review final rule in July 2020
(85 FR 42074). The purpose of this rule is to (1) fulfill the EPA's
statutory obligations pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6); see Louisiana
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020)
(``LEAN''), and (2) improve the emissions standards for this source
category based on new information regarding developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
To comply with CAA section 112, we are finalizing: (1) new
emissions limits based on MACT for five currently unregulated HAP (COS,
CS2, Hg, HCl, and HF) from the sinter plants located at
integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities; and (2) new MACT
standards, in the form of opacity limits and work practice (WP)
standards, for five unregulated sources of UFIP emissions: Unplanned
Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag Pits,
Beaching, and Bell Leaks. In this context, opacity is a measure of the
amount of light that is blocked or absorbed by an air pollution plume.
The components of air pollution that block or absorb light are
primarily particulate matter (PM). An opacity level of 0 percent means
that plumes of air pollution do not block or absorb light and are fully
transparent (i.e., no visible emissions), while an opacity of 100
percent means that plumes are dense and block all light (i.e., the
trained observer or special camera cannot see any background behind the
plume). Observers are trained and certified using smoke generators
which produce known opacity levels, and periodic recertification is
required every six months. More details regarding the EPA approved
method for opacity readings by a trained observer are available at the
following website: https://www.epa.gov/emc/method-9-visual-opacity.
Alternatively, opacity can be observed with special cameras following a
specific method (known as the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT),
40 CFR 63.7823), and those images interpreted by trained individuals.
For the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing sector (and a number of
other metals processing and production sectors), a significant portion
of the emitted PM is composed of HAP metals (such as arsenic, lead,
manganese, and chromium) that are primarily emitted in particulate form
as demonstrated in the emissions tests available in the docket for this
action. Therefore, for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
sector, as well as several other industry sectors, PM and opacity serve
as surrogates for particulate HAP metals.
We are also finalizing new emissions limits for three unregulated
pollutants for BF stoves and BOPFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin
and non-furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F; and for two unregulated
pollutants for BFs: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-furan
organic HAP) and HCl. In this action, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are also finalizing: (1) work practice standards for the
basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops; (2) a requirement that
facilities conduct Method 9 readings two times per month at the BOPF
Shop and BF casthouse; (3) a fenceline monitoring requirement for
chromium to help ensure the work practices and opacity limits are
achieving the anticipated reductions; and (4) revised standards for D/F
and PAHs from sinter plants to reflect the installation and operation
of activated carbon injection (ACI) technology. At this time, we are
not finalizing the proposed revised opacity limits for the BOPF or the
BF casthouse, as explained later in this preamble.
3. Costs and Benefits
To meet the requirements of E.O. 12866, the EPA projected the
emissions reductions, costs, and benefits that may result from the
final rule. These results are presented in detail in the regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this final rule developed in
response to E.O. 12866. The final rule is significant under E.O. 12866
Section 3(f)(1), as amended by E.O. 14094, due to the monetized
benefits of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) reductions
likely to result from the UFIP emissions standards included in the
final rule. The RIA, which is available in the docket for this action,
focuses on the elements of the final rule that are likely to result in
quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to a baseline without
these regulatory requirements. We estimated the cost, emissions, and
benefit impacts for the 2026 to 2035 period, discounted to 2024. We
show the present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of
costs, benefits, and net benefits of this action in 2022 dollars. The
EAV represents a flow of constant annual values that would yield a sum
equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical cost or
benefit for each year of the analysis, consistent with the estimate of
the PV, in contrast to year-specific estimates.
The initial analysis year in the RIA is 2026 because we assume that
will be the first year of full implementation of the rule. We are
finalizing that facilities will have 1 year to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant standards following promulgation. This analysis
assumes that full compliance with the standards will occur in early
2025. Therefore, the first full year of impacts will occur in 2026. The
final analysis year is 2035, which allows us to provide ten years of
projected impacts after the rule takes effect.
The cost analysis presented in the RIA reflects a nationwide
engineering analysis of compliance cost and emissions reductions.
Impacts are calculated by setting parameters on how and when affected
facilities are assumed to respond to a particular regulatory regime,
calculating estimated cost and emissions impact estimates for each
facility, differencing from the baseline scenario, and then summing to
the desired level of aggregation.
The EPA expects health benefits due to the emissions reductions
projected from the rule. We expect that HAP emission reductions will
improve health and welfare associated with reduced exposure for those
affected by these emissions. In addition, the EPA expects that
PM2.5 emission reductions that will occur concurrent with
the reductions in HAP emissions will improve air quality and are likely
to improve health and welfare associated with exposure to
PM2.5 and HAP. For the RIA, the EPA monetized benefits
associated with premature mortality and morbidity from reduced exposure
to PM2.5. Discussion of both the monetized and non-monetized
benefits can be found in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
Table 1 presents the emission changes and the PV and EAV of the
projected monetized benefits, compliance costs, and net benefits over
the 2026 to 2035 period under the rule. All discounting
[[Page 23296]]
of impacts presented uses social discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
Table 1--Monetized Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Emissions Reductions of the Final NESHAP Subpart FFFFF
Amendments, 2026 Through 2035 \a\
[Dollar estimates in millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2024]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent discount rate 7 Percent discount rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV EAV PV EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits \b\................... $1,800 and $3,700 $200 and $420.... $1,200 and $2,600 $170 and $340.
Compliance Costs............... $45.............. $5.3............. $36.............. $5.1.
Net Benefits................... $1,800 and $3,700 $190 and $410.... $1,200 and $2,600 $160 and $330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Reductions (short 2026-2035 Total
tons).
HAP........................ 640
PM......................... 18,000
PM2.5...................... 4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits in this HAP benefits from reducing 640 short tons of HAP from 2026-2035.
Table.
Non-health benefits from reducing 18,000 tons of PM, of which 4,700 tons is
PM2.5, from 2026-2035.
Benefits from reducing HCl, HF, Hg, D/F TEQ, COS, and CS2.
Visibility benefits.
Reduced vegetation effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise
noted.
\b\ Monetized benefits include health benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 emissions. The monetized
health benefits are quantified using two alternative concentration-response relationships from the Di et al.
(2016) and Turner et al. (2017) studies and presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The two
benefits estimates are separated by the word ``and'' to signify that they are two separate estimates. Benefits
from HAP reductions remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Table 2 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this final rule.
Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities that this final action is likely to
affect. The final standards are directly applicable to the affected
sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal government entities are not
affected by this final action. As defined in the Initial List of
Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and Documentation
for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-
450/3-91-030; July 1992), the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category is any facility engaged in producing steel
from iron ore. Integrated iron and steel manufacturing includes the
following processes: sinter production, iron production, iron
preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel production. The iron
production process includes the production of iron in BFs by the
reduction of iron-bearing materials with a hot gas. The steel
production process occurs in the BOPFs where hot liquid iron from the
BF is loaded (i.e., charged) into the BOPF along with coke, lime,
alloys, and steel scrap, and includes blowing oxygen into the furnace
through a lance resulting in oxidation reactions to produce steel.
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Iron and Steel 40 CFR part 63, 331110
Manufacturing Facilities. subpart FFFFF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the final rule and key technical documents at this
same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) by June 3, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
[[Page 23297]]
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category. The statutory authority for
this action is provided by section 112 of the CAA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). In the first stage of the CAA section 112
standard-setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based
standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified
as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b).
Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and
CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for major source
standards and area source standards. ``Major sources'' are those that
emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a
single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. All other
sources are ``area sources.''
For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the
technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts.
These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section
112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards,
known as the MACT ``floor.'' In certain instances, as provided in CAA
section 112(h), if it is the judgment of the Administrator that it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, the EPA may
set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission standards.
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor, commonly referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF)
standards.
CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as necessary
(taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies)'' no less often than every eight years. While conducting
this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established during
earlier rulemakings. Nat. Resources Def. Council, et al. v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v.
EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in
deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6). However, costs may not be considered when setting the MACT
floor and may only be considered when determining whether beyond-the-
floor standards are appropriate. See CAA section 112(d)(3).
CAA section 112(f) requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. This review is known as the ``residual risk
review,'' and it must occur within eight years after promulgation of
the standards. When the EPA conducts the ``technology review'' together
with the ``residual risk review,'' the combined review is known as a
``risk and technology review'' or ``RTR.''
The EPA initially promulgated the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP on May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27645), codified
at title 40, part 63, subpart FFFFF (the NESHAP). The rule was amended
on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39579). The amendments added a new compliance
option, revised emission limitations, reduced the frequency of repeat
performance tests for certain emission units, added corrective action
requirements, and clarified monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
In 2015, a coalition of environmental advocacy groups filed a
lawsuit to compel the EPA to fulfill its statutory duty to conduct the
CAA sections 112(d) and 112(f)(2) reviews of 21 NESHAPs, including
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities. As a result of that
litigation, the EPA was required by court order to complete the RTR for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category
by May 5, 2020. California Communities Against Toxics v. Wheeler, No.
1:15-00512, Order (D.D.C. March 13, 2017, as modified Feb. 20, 2020).
The resulting RTR conducted for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP was signed on May 4, 2020. 85 FR 42074
(July 13, 2020).
In an April 2020 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, on a petition for review of the EPA's
NESHAP rulemaking for a different source category (pulp mill combustion
sources), the court held that the EPA has an obligation to address all
unregulated HAP emissions from a source category when the Agency
conducts the eight-year technology review required by CAA section
112(d)(6). Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d
1088, 1098-99 (``LEAN''). The parties in California Communities Against
Toxics thereafter filed a joint motion to extend those deadlines to
allow the EPA to revise the rules in accordance with the LEAN opinion.
The court granted the motion, setting a new deadline for this rule of
October 26, 2023. Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-
512 (D.D.C. April 14, 2021). Based on further negotiation between the
parties, the deadline for this final rule was changed to March 11,
2024. Minute Order, California Communities Against Toxics, No. 15-512
(D.D.C. Sept. 20, 2023).
In September 2021, industry and environmental advocacy groups filed
petitions for review of the 2020 Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities final rule, and these petitions have been
consolidated. American Iron and Steel Inst., et al. v. EPA, No. 20-1354
(D.C. Cir.); Clean Air Council, et al. v. EPA, No. 20-1355 (D.C. Cir.).
The consolidated case is being held in abeyance pending the
promulgation of this final rule. See EPA's Unopposed Mot. to Hold Cases
in Abeyance, No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir.), Dkt. No. 2028131
(reporting to the D.C. Circuit the March 11, 2024 final rule deadline);
Order, American Iron and Steel Inst., No. 20-1354 (consol.) (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 7, 2022).
In light of this litigation history, this final rule addresses
multiple issues, including: (1) new standards to address previously
unregulated emissions of HAP from the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category pursuant to the LEAN decision
and CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and, (2) revised
standards for a few currently regulated HAP, as well as fenceline
monitoring requirements, pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review.
[[Page 23298]]
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate
its HAP emissions?
As described above, the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities source category includes any facility engaged in producing
steel from refined iron ore (also known as taconite pellets). These
facilities first produce iron from iron ore taconite pellets, sinter,
coke, and other raw materials using blast furnaces (BFs), then produce
steel from the hot liquid iron produced from the blast furnaces, along
with coke, lime, alloys, steel scrap, and other raw materials using
basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPFs). Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter production, iron
production, iron preparation (hot metal desulfurization), and steel
production. The iron production process includes the production of iron
in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing materials with a very hot gas.
The steel production process includes BOPFs and ladle metallurgy
operations. Currently there are eight operating facilities in this
source category.
The main sources of HAP emissions from integrated iron and steel
manufacturing are the BF; BF stove; BOPF; hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and skimming (HMTDS) operations; ladle metallurgy
operations; sinter plant windbox; sinter plant discharge end; and
sinter cooler. All eight facilities have BFs, BF stoves, BOPFs, HMTDS
operations, and ladle metallurgy operations. However, only three
facilities have sinter plants and only two facilities with currently
operating sinter plants.
The following are descriptions of the BF, BOPF, and sinter plants:
The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore,
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite,
coal, coke, and alloys.
Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter
plants in 2003.
In addition to point sources, the EPA identified seven UFIP
emission sources for this source category, including BF bleeder valve
unplanned openings, BF bleeder valve planned openings, BF bell leaks,
BF casthouse fugitives, BF iron beaching, BF and BOPF slag handling and
storage operations, and BOPF shop fugitives. These UFIP emission
sources were identified by observation of visible plumes by EPA
regional staff during onsite source inspections and were subsequently
investigated to determine the causes and any possible methods for
reductions. These inspections are documented in numerous reports and
photographs between 2008 and the present.\1\ The NESHAP regulates two
of these sources--BF casthouse fugitives and BOPF shop fugitives--with
opacity limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., communications between B. Dickens and P. Miller,
U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, IL, with D.L. Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation,
2015-2018. See also Ample Margin of Safety for Nonpoint Sources in
the II&S Industry. Both documents are available in the docket to
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are descriptions of the main process units and the
seven UFIP sources:
The BF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where molten iron is produced from raw materials such as iron ore,
lime, sinter, coal and coke.
The BOPF is a key integrated iron and steel process unit
where steel is made from molten iron, scrap steel, lime, dolomite,
coal, coke, and alloys.
Sinter is derived from material formed in the bottom of
the blast furnace, composed of oily scale, blast furnace sludge, and
coke breeze, along with tarry material and oil absorbed from the sump
in which the sinter is recovered. The sinter plant processes the waste
that would otherwise be landfilled so that iron and other valuable
materials can be re-used in the blast furnace. Only three sources
covered by the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facility
category have sinter plants, down from nine facilities with sinter
plants in 2003.
The BOPF shop is the structure that houses the entire BOPF
and auxiliary activities, such as hot iron transfer, skimming, and
desulfurization of the iron and ladle metallurgy operations, which
generate fugitive emissions.
The BF casthouse is the structure that houses the lower
portion of the BF and encloses the tapping operation and the iron and
slag transport operations, which generate fugitive emissions.
The bleeder valve is a device at the top of the BF that,
when open, relieves BF internal pressure to the ambient air. The valve
can operate as both a self-actuating safety device to relieve excess
pressure and as an operator-initiated instrument for process control. A
bleeder valve opening means any opening of the BF bleeder valve, which
allows gas and/or PM to flow past the sealing seat. Multiple openings
and closings of a bleeder valve that occur within a 30-minute period
could be considered a single bleeder valve opening. There are two types
of openings, planned and unplanned.
A planned bleeder valve opening means an opening that is
initiated by an operator as part of a furnace startup, shutdown, or
temporary idling for maintenance action. Operators can prepare the
furnace for planned openings to minimize or eliminate emissions from
the bleeder valves.
An unplanned bleeder valve opening means an opening that
is not planned and is caused by excess pressure within the furnace. The
pressure buildup can occur when raw materials do not descend smoothly
after being charged at the top of the BF and accumulate in large masses
within the furnace. When the large masses finally dislodge (slip) due
to their weight, a pressure surge results.
Slag is a by-product containing impurities that is
released from the BF or BOPF along with molten iron when the BF or BOPF
is tapped from the bottom of the furnace. The slag is less dense than
iron and, therefore, floats on top of the iron. Slag is removed by
skimmers and then transported to open pits to cool to enable later
removal. Usually there is one slag pit for every BF or BOPF.
Iron beaching occurs when iron from a BF cannot be charged
to the BOPF because of problems in steelmaking units; the hot molten
iron from the BF is placed onto the ground, in some cases within a
three-sided structure.
The BF bells are part of the charging system on top of the
furnace that allows for materials to be loaded into the furnace or next
bell (as in the case of small bells) without letting BF gas escape. It
is a two-bell system, where a smaller bell is above a larger bell.
These bells must be tightly sealed to the blast furnace when not in use
for charging, so that BF gas and uncontrolled emissions do not escape
to the atmosphere. Over time, the surfaces that seal the bells wear
down and need to be repaired or replaced. If these seals are not
repaired or replaced in a timely manner, emissions of HAP and PM can
increase significantly.
In the 2020 final rule, the Agency found that risks due to
emissions of air toxics from this source category were
[[Page 23299]]
acceptable and concluded that the NESHAP provided an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Although the 2020 NESHAP found the
risks acceptable and no new requirements should be imposed, new data
was collected via a CAA section 114 request to industry after re-
opening the rule, due to the LEAN court decision. These new data
necessitated technology review updates, in addition to establishing new
MACT standards for unregulated HAPs pursuant to the LEAN court
decision. Under the technology review in the 2020 RTR, the EPA found no
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
necessitated revision of the standards at that time. However, in
response to a 2004 administrative petition for reconsideration of the
2003 NESHAP, the 2020 final rule promulgated a new MACT emissions limit
for mercury (0.00026 lbs mercury/ton scrap metal) with two compliance
options: (1) conduct annual compliance tests (to demonstrate compliance
with the MACT limit); or (2) confirm that the facility obtains their
auto scrap from suppliers that participate in the National Vehicle
Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMRP) or another approved mercury
switch removal program or that the facility only uses scrap that does
not contain mercury switches. We also removed exemptions for periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008); clarified that the emissions
standards apply at all times; added electronic reporting of performance
test results and compliance reports; and made minor corrections and
clarifications for a few other rule provisions. All documents used to
develop the previous 2003, 2006, and 2020 final rules can be found in
either the legacy docket, A-2000-44, or the electronic docket, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0083.
The NESHAP includes emissions limits for PM and opacity standards--
both of which are surrogates for non-mercury PM HAP metals--for
furnaces and sinter plants. To support the continued use of PM as a
surrogate for certain non-mercury HAP metals, we considered the holding
in National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In
considering whether the EPA may use PM, a criteria pollutant, as a
surrogate for metal HAP, the D.C. Circuit stated that the EPA ``may use
a surrogate to regulate hazardous pollutants if it is `reasonable' to
do so,'' id. at 637, establishing criteria for determining whether the
use of PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metal HAP was reasonable. The
court found that PM is a reasonable surrogate for HAP if: (1) ``HAP
metals are invariably present'' in the source's PM,'' id.; (2) the
``source's PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals
along with other particulates,'' id. at 639; and (3) ``PM control is
the only means by which facilities `achieve' reductions in HAP metal
emissions,'' id. If these criteria are satisfied and the PM emission
standards reflect what the best sources achieve in compliance with CAA
section 112(d)(3), then ``EPA is under no obligation to achieve a
particular numerical reduction in HAP metal emissions.'' Id. The EPA
has established and promulgated PM limits as a surrogate for
particulate HAP metals successfully in several NESHAP regulations,
including Ferroalloys Production (80 FR 37366, June 30, 2015), Taconite
Iron Ore Processing (68 FR 61868), and Primary Copper Smelting (67 FR
40478, June 12, 2002).
The NESHAP also includes an operating limit for the oil content of
the sinter plant feedstock or, as an alternative, an emissions limit
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the sinter plant windbox
exhaust stream. The oil limit, and the alternative VOC limit, serve as
surrogates for all organic HAP. Moreover, the NESHAP includes an
emissions limit for mercury emissions from the BOPF Group, which is the
collection of BOPF shop steelmaking operating units and their control
devices including the BOPF primary emission control system, BOPF
secondary control system, ladle metallurgy units, and hot metal
transfer, desulfurization and slag skimming units.
C. What changes did we propose for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Facilities source category?
On July 31, 2023, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal
Register to set standards to regulate HAP emissions from five UFIP
sources that were not previously regulated by the NESHAP: Bell Leaks,
Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings, Planned Bleeder Valve Openings, Slag
Pits, and Beaching. For sinter plants, we proposed standards for five
previously unregulated HAP: COS, CS2, Hg, HCl, and HF. For
BF stoves and BOPFs, we proposed standards for three previously
unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-dioxin and non-
furan organic HAP), HCl, and D/F. And for BFs, we proposed standards
for two previously unregulated pollutants: THC (as a surrogate for non-
dioxin and non-furan organic HAP) and HCl.
As an update to the technology review, we proposed to revise the
previous BOPF shop fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent
opacity limit and require specific work practices; revise the current
BF casthouse fugitive 20 percent opacity limit to a 5 percent opacity
limit; and revise the current standards for D/F and PAH for sinter
plants to reflect current control performance of sinter plants for
these HAP. We also proposed a fenceline monitoring requirement for Cr,
including a requirement that if a monitor exceeds the proposed Cr
action level, the facility would need to conduct a root cause analysis
and take corrective action to lower emissions.
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and
responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and
amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document, Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, which is available in the
docket for this action. This document is also referred to as the
Response to Comments (RTC) in subsequent sections of this preamble.
A. Standards To Address Five Unregulated UFIP Sources for Both New and
Existing Sources
1. What did we propose for the five previously unregulated UFIP
sources?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
Based on the data we received through the CAA section 114 requests,
the average number of unplanned openings of the best performing five
furnaces in the source category is 5 unplanned openings per year.
Therefore, we proposed an operational limit of five unplanned openings
per year per furnace for existing sources, which was an estimate of the
MACT floor level of performance for existing sources. For new sources,
we proposed an operational limit of zero unplanned openings per year
because the best performing single source in our database reported zero
unplanned openings for the most recent representative year.
[[Page 23300]]
Additionally, we proposed work practice standards that would
require facilities to do the following: (1) install and operate devices
(e.g., stockline monitors) to continuously measure/monitor material
levels in the furnace, at a minimum of three locations, using alarms to
inform operators of static conditions that indicate a slip may occur
and alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips
and unplanned openings from occurring; (2) install and operate
instruments such as a thermocouple and transducer on the furnace to
monitor temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip may
occur; (3) install a screen to remove fine particulates from raw
materials to ensure only properly-sized raw materials are charged into
the BF; and (4) develop, and submit to the EPA for approval, a plan
that explains how the facility will implement these requirements.
Additionally, we proposed that facilities would need to report the
unplanned openings (including the date, time, duration, and any
corrective actions taken) in their semiannual compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
Based on our evaluation of available information and pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), for existing sources we proposed a MACT
floor limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for
the BF planned bleeder valve openings. We did not propose the BTF
option of 5 percent opacity for existing sources because we determined
that 5 percent opacity may not be feasible for some sources on a
consistent basis. For new sources, we proposed an opacity of 0 percent
because based on the available data, the best performing single source
had opacity of 0 percent during the planned opening. We expect that new
sources will be able to configure their furnace design and operations
similarly to the best performing single source which, in combination
with utilizing the suggested work practices described in the document
Unmeasurable Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF, should allow them to achieve an opacity of 0 percent. We
did not propose any work practices under CAA section 112(h) for the BF
planned bleeder valve openings; facilities will have the flexibility to
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
Based on our analyses and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), for existing sources we proposed a BTF opacity limit of 5 percent
based on 6-minute averages for visible emissions from slag pits and
during slag handling, storage, and processing. Regarding new sources,
we proposed a MACT floor opacity limit of 2.5 percent based on 6-minute
averages for visible emissions from slag pits and during slag handling,
storage, and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
Based on our evaluation and pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3), we proposed 10 percent opacity as an action level, as described
below in this paragraph, for large bell leaks (not a MACT emissions
limit). Along with this action level, we also proposed that the BF top
will need to be observed monthly for visible emissions (VE) with EPA
Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, which determines the presence
or absence of a visible plume, to identify leaks, and if VE are
detected out of the interbell relief valve (indicating leaks from the
large bell), we proposed that the facility would then need to perform
EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, tests which determines the
opacity (i.e., degree to which a plume obscures the background),
monthly and if opacity is greater than 10 percent (based on a 3-minute
average), the large bell seals will need to be repaired or replaced
within 4 months. For the small bell, we proposed that facilities will
need to replace or repair seals prior to a metal throughput limit,
specified by the facility, that has been proven and documented to
produce no opacity from the small bells.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and CAA section 112(h),
we proposed a MACT standard that would require facilities to: (1) have
full or partial enclosures for the beaching process or use
CO2 to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the height, slope,
and speed of beaching.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed standards and, what are
our responses?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
Comment: Commenters stated that in developing the proposed limit on
the number of unplanned pressure release device (PRD) openings that
could occur within a year, the EPA treated all BFs alike by placing
them in a single category. Commenters stated that because larger BFs
are able to accommodate higher internal pressures before the need for
an unplanned opening, the EPA should create two separate subcategories
of blast furnaces. Commenters stated that in reviewing data for
unplanned PRD openings, they believed that subcategorization is
appropriate and necessary if an action level or limit of any type is to
be established for the number of events. In particular, commenters
noted that large BFs have significantly fewer unplanned openings, where
``Large BF'' is defined as a BF with a working volume greater than
2,500 cubic meters (m\3\). Commenters also stated that the EPA did not
account for variability across sources and asked EPA to apply an upper
prediction limit (UPL) if it were to finalize a limit on unplanned
openings. Commenters stated that a 99 percent UPL analysis of the data
supports limits of 52 unplanned openings for large BFs and 112
unplanned openings for small BFs.
Response: We agree with the commenter that larger BFs are able to
accommodate higher internal pressure and that subcategorization based
on BF size is appropriate. In this final rule, we define ``large BF''
as a BF with a working volume greater than 2,500 m\3\ and are
establishing separate limits on unplanned openings for large and small
BF.
EPA also agrees with commenters that it is important to account for
variability in the incidence of unplanned openings. Accordingly, in the
final rule the EPA has decided to base the limit on the highest number
of unplanned openings reported within the top five sources to ensure
that we adequately account for variability, rather than the proposed
approach of basing the limit on the average number of unplanned
openings within the top five sources.
EPA disagrees with commenters' suggestion that it should apply a 99
percent UPL to determine the limit on unplanned openings. The EPA
commonly uses the 99 percent UPL to calculate numerical emissions
limits based on stack test data (e.g., grams of HAP per cubic meter of
stack exhaust gases). The UPL method is not appropriate to evaluate a
count of unplanned openings because these are discrete events and are
therefore not analogous to emissions data or test runs. In the context
of this final rule, application of the UPL would therefore not
appropriately reflect variability and would lead to an exceedingly high
limit on unplanned openings that does not reflect the performance
achieved at top-
[[Page 23301]]
performing sources. As noted above, the EPA has instead accounted for
variability in this final rule by basing the limit on the highest
number of unplanned openings observed among the five top-performing
sources.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
Comment: Commenters agreed that these opacity limits will result in
HAP reductions. Accordingly, commenters supported these revisions and
additions and encouraged the EPA to not weaken any of the proposed
limits.
Response: EPA appreciates the support and agrees that these opacity
limits for planned bleeder valve openings will result in HAP
reductions.
Comment: EPA should not adopt the proposed 8% opacity limit and
weekly Method 9 testing for planned openings in addition to the new
work practice standards. PRD openings by operators are routinely
necessary and appropriate for proper BF operation. Emissions from
planned openings are exceedingly low, ranging from 1.6 tpy to 0.3 tpy,
with reductions projected between 0.4 and 0.08 tpy across the entire
industry. The work practice standards are expensive, with estimated
cost-effectiveness based upon the proposed rule having rates ranging
from $134,000/ton to $672,000/ton. No regulation of these small
contributors should occur. If EPA nonetheless moves forward, there
should be an action level at 15% (based on a more robust UPL analysis).
Response: Based on our evaluation of public comments and available
information, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) and the LEAN
court decision, for existing sources we are promulgating a MACT Floor
limit of 8 percent opacity for any 6-minute averaging period for the BF
planned bleeder valve openings. The MACT floor is the least stringent
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. For new sources,
we are promulgating an opacity of 0 percent because based on the
available data, the best performing single source had opacity of 0
percent during the planned opening, which we consider the MACT Floor
level for new sources pursuant to CAA section 112. As we explained in
the proposed rule, we determined based on evaluation of available
information that emissions can be minimized from bleeder valve planned
openings cost effectively by implementing various actions before the
valves are opened such as: (1) tapping as much liquid (iron and slag)
out of the furnace as possible; (2) removing fuel and/or stopping fuel
injection into the furnace; and (3) lowering bottom pressure. However,
as explained in the proposed rule preamble, we did not propose any
specific work practices for the BF planned bleeder valve openings and
we are maintaining the decision to not require any specific work
practices for the final rule. Facilities will have the flexibility to
choose an appropriate approach to meet the opacity limit.
We estimate that this standard will result in about 0.41 tpy
reduction in HAP metal emissions. The estimated cost is $54,600/yr for
the entire category and $6,800/yr per facility. The estimated cost
effectiveness is $134,000 per ton of HAP metals.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed 5 percent opacity
limit for slag handling operations should not be adopted. They contend
that it is virtually impossible to enclose the extremely hot slag
material or to universally apply water at all times to help suppress
emissions because of the volatile nature of the material and the
potential for a life-threatening hazardous explosion when the water
violently expands in the form of steam. Commenters stated that the EPA
had ignored these important safety concerns in proposing the 5 percent
opacity limit, and that the control measures the EPA had identified to
meet this limit could not be reasonably utilized. Commenters also
argued that even if EPA's suggested control measures were applied, a
UPL analysis would result in an opacity limit of 20 percent, far
exceeding the proposed 5 percent level. Commenters noted that the EPA
had improperly failed to account for variability in the performance of
sources by declining to apply a UPL or other statistical analysis.
Response: After considering these comments, we agree that a limit
of 5 percent opacity could result in higher cost impacts than we
estimated at proposal for some facilities. As described in the proposed
rule Federal Register notice published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402),
the proposed 5 percent opacity limit was a beyond-the-floor limit based
on the EPA's understanding at that time that emissions could be cost
effectively minimized from slag pits with the application of water
spray or fogging and/or other work practices such as installing wind
screens, dust suppression misters, and maintaining a high moisture
content of the slag during handling, storage, and processing. However,
at proposal we did not account for variability and certain other
factors such as weather conditions and possible safety issues. Although
we still conclude that these measures can help minimize emissions,
these measures might not be sufficient to consistently maintain opacity
below 5 percent.
In the proposed rule FR notice, we also described a potential MACT
floor opacity limit of 9 percent for existing sources which was based
on the straight average of the top five performing facilities. Based on
the comments submitted, the EPA is finalizing an opacity limit of 10
percent based on a MACT floor analysis for existing sources. This final
limit is based on the average opacity of 9 percent reported by the five
top performing facilities, but rounding up slightly to 10 percent to
account for variability. The EPA has historically used the UPL approach
to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of individual pollutants,
but has not historically determined opacity limits using a UPL
approach. The UPL calculation introduces a predictive element to the
statistics in order to account for variability. However, unlike typical
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 tests frequently result in values of
zero, which cannot be used in the UPL calculation so this approach for
accounting for variability was not used. The EPA determined that
rounding the opacity from 9 percent to 10 percent sufficiently accounts
for variability in this process. Therefore, in this final rule we are
promulgating a 10 percent opacity limit (based on six-minute averages)
for slag processing, handling, and storage. Because this 10 percent
opacity limit has been achieved in practice by top performing
facilities, we expect that all facilities will be able to achieve this
10 percent opacity limit by application of some or all of the work
practices described above and in the proposed rule Federal Register
notice (88 FR 49402). Other comments and responses on this issue are
provided in the RTC.
d. BF Bell Leaks
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the proposed triggers
for action for large bells are too low and that the repair and
replacement time should consider lead time and operational concerns.
Commenters suggested that with this in mind, the EPA could establish a
20 percent opacity action level (6-minute average) with quarterly EPA
Method 9 observation requirements. Under this approach, if a facility
observes opacity in excess of 20 percent, the facility should be
required to investigate, make operational changes, and conduct a
repair, followed by repeat testing using EPA Method 9 to confirm the
efficacy of the repair. If repairs are not successful, only then would
replacement obligations be triggered. Other
[[Page 23302]]
commenters stated that if the EPA moves forward with work practice
standards, the EPA should consider an alternative under which a
facility would need to initiate operational or other corrective actions
within five business days if an EPA Method 9 test identifies opacity of
20 percent or more. If the facility does not reduce opacity to less
than 20 percent with those actions, the facility would have another
five business days to initiate further operational or other corrective
actions to reduce opacity to less than 20 percent. Only if the second
attempt does not result in opacity of 20 percent or less would the test
result be deemed a deviation requiring reporting and corrective
actions, such as moving to the repair step or, if necessary,
replacement of the large bell.
Response: We agree with the commenter who suggested the two-step
approach for large bells is appropriate as well as the suggestion of
20% opacity instead of 10% opacity as a trigger. As discussed by the
commenter, the replacement of bells is costly and there are numerous
more cost-effective repair options available that can be achieved in a
shorter time period to avoid full repair and replacement. This would
help keep the bell repairs on a more organized schedule. Therefore, we
decided to finalize a 20 percent opacity action level (instead of the
proposed 10 percent opacity action level) and provide two five-business
day periods to investigate the opacity trigger, as suggested by the
commenter. Specifically, we changed the requirement to the following:
if EPA Method 9 identifies opacity greater than 20 percent, the
facility shall initiate corrective actions within five business days.
If the first attempt to correct fails and EPA Method 9 again identifies
that opacity is not reduced to 20 percent or lower, the facility would
have another five business days to initiate further corrective actions
to reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. Only if the second attempt
does not result in an opacity of 20 percent or less would it become a
deviation, requiring reporting and corrective actions that we included
in the proposed rule, such as moving to the repair step or, if
unsuccessful, replacement of the large bell.
e. Beaching of Iron From BF's
Comment: Commenters supported the proposal to require facilities
to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the beaching process or use
CO2 to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the height, slope,
and speed of beaching. Commenters supported the addition of monitoring
of vents from the partial enclosures to allow for additional
information and accountability for these sources.
Response: EPA appreciates the support for the beaching requirements
in the proposed rule.
Comment: Industry commenters stated that the proposed work practice
standards to address already low emissions from beaching events, which
the industry consistently works to minimize, would not provide
meaningful reductions and would be extremely costly. Industry
commenters estimated about 4 pounds per year of reduction from these
proposed measures, lower than the estimates EPA provided in the final
rule. Commenters also pointed out that EPA's estimated cost per ton of
removal would be $15.8 million/ton and argued that this amount is
unreasonable notwithstanding EPA's explanation that it must adhere to
the floor provisions of the statute. Commenters stated that if EPA were
to use the more accurate emissions and cost information provided by
industry, the cost-effectiveness rate estimate based upon the proposed
rule would be multiple times higher at $311 million/ton. Commenters
also argued that EPA could reasonably interpret Section 112(d) to avoid
this result.
Response: As EPA explained in the proposal preamble, as mandated by
the LEAN court decision and CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and
112(h), we proposed a MACT floor standard (which is the least stringent
standard allowed by section 112 of the Clean Air Act) that would
require facilities to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the
beaching process or use CO2 to suppress fumes; and (2)
minimize the height, slope, and speed of beaching. We expect this will
result in a small amount of unquantified emission reductions since
baseline emissions are already low (less than 1 tpy of HAP) and because
most facilities are already following some or all of these work
practices. Regarding costs, when EPA determines the MACT floor level of
control, per the section 112 of the CAA, the EPA is obligated to
determine the MACT floor level regardless of costs. It is only the
potential beyond-the-floor standards for which costs become an
important consideration. Nevertheless, as we mentioned in the proposal
preamble, the estimated costs are only $55,000 per year for the entire
category and an average annual cost of $6,800 per facility. More
information regarding the standards for unregulated UFIP sources is
available in the following document: Unmeasurable Fugitive and
Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron
and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which is
available in the docket for this action.
After considering public comments and available information,
pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and 112(h) and the LEAN
court decision, we are promulgating the same MACT Floor standard as
proposed.
3. What are the final MACT standards and how will compliance be
demonstrated?
a. BF Unplanned Bleeder Valve Openings
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), if it is
the judgment of the Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3),
the EPA may set work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in
lieu of numerical emission standards. For BF unplanned bleeder valve
openings, the Administrator has determined that since there is no
direct measurement of emissions, we are finalizing a work practice
standard. We are finalizing an operational limit for two subcategories
of blast furnaces: large furnaces with a working volume of equal to or
greater than 2,500 m\3\; and small furnaces with a working volume of
less than 2,500 m\3\. This is to account for variability in unplanned
opening occurrences between furnace size due to design elements that
allow higher operating pressure near the valve openings, which leads to
less openings per year for large furnaces. For the large blast
furnaces, we are finalizing an operational limit of four unplanned
openings per rolling year per furnace. For small blast furnaces, we are
finalizing an operational limit of 15 unplanned openings per rolling
year per furnace. Both are based on a qualitative approach of using the
highest number of unplanned openings from the top five performing
furnaces (top four for large furnaces as there are only four operating
large furnaces). For most MACT floor standards in NESHAP rules, we
typically have actual emissions test data for each of the top five
sources. To calculate the MACT floor limit we use all the data (all the
runs) from all 5 sources to calculate the 99th UPL to account for
variability. And, we conclude that this 99th value (which is higher
than the true average) represents the average performance of the top 5
sources with an adjustment to account for variability.
With unplanned openings, we do not have a UPL type tool. So, as an
alternative to a UPL, we considered all the data from the top five
performers,
[[Page 23303]]
and to ensure we account for variability among those top five
performers, in this particular situation, we conclude that using the
highest value (i.e., highest number of unplanned openings) from any one
source within the top five reflects our best estimate of an appropriate
limit that would reflect performance of the top five sources with an
adjustment to ensure we adequately account for the variability among
those top five sources.
This approach is appropriate because it accounts for variability
among the top five blast furnaces. For new sources, we are finalizing
our proposed operational limit of zero unplanned openings per rolling
year for both large and small furnaces because the best performing
single source large and small blast furnace in our database reported
zero unplanned openings for the most recent typical year.
Additionally, we are finalizing the work practice standards
proposed for both furnace subcategories that require facilities to do
the following: (1) install and operate devices (e.g., stockline
monitors) to continuously measure/monitor material levels in the
furnace, at a minimum of three locations, using alarms to inform
operators of static conditions that indicate a slip may occur, and
alert them that there is a need to take action to prevent the slips and
unplanned openings from occurring; (2) install and operate instruments
such as a thermocouple and transducer on the furnace to monitor
temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip may occur; (3)
install a screen to remove fine particulates from raw materials to
ensure only properly-sized raw materials are charged into the BF; and
(4) develop, and submit to the EPA for approval, a plan that explains
how the facility will implement these requirements. Additionally,
facilities shall report the unplanned openings (including the date,
time, duration, and any corrective actions taken) in their semiannual
compliance reports.
b. BF Planned Bleeder Valve Openings
We are finalizing what we proposed for planned bleeder valve
openings: a MACT floor limit of 8 percent opacity based on 6-minute
averages. For new sources, we are finalizing an opacity of 0 percent.
Facilities will have the flexibility to choose an appropriate approach
to meet these opacity limits.
c. BF and BOPF Slag Processing, Handling, and Storage
As discussed above, we are finalizing an opacity limit of 10
percent based on 6-minute averages for BF and BOPF slag processing,
handling, and storage, and slag pits. Regarding new sources, we are
finalizing an opacity limit of 3 percent based on 6-minute averages for
visible emissions from slag pits, and during slag handling, storage,
and processing.
d. BF Bell Leaks
For bell leaks, we are finalizing a 20 percent opacity action level
for large bell leaks as described below for new and existing large
bells. This is not a numerical MACT emissions standard; because the
Administrator has determined that it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard in this instance, pursuant to CAA section
112(h), the EPA is setting work practice standards in lieu of numerical
emission standards. We are also finalizing that the BF top must be
observed monthly for visible emissions (VE) with EPA Method 22, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, which determines the presence or absence of a
visible plume, to identify leaks from the interbell relief valve
(indicating leaks from the large bell). If VE are detected out of the
interbell relief valve (indicating leaks from the large bell), the
facility must perform EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, tests
which determines the opacity (i.e., degree to which a plume obscures
the background) monthly, and if opacity is greater than 20 percent
based on an average of three instantaneous and consecutive interbell
relief valve openings, the facility must initiate operational or other
corrective actions within five business days. After those five business
days, the facility must perform EPA Method 9 tests again and, if
opacity is greater than 20 percent, the facility will have another five
business days to initiate further operational or corrective actions to
reduce opacity to 20 percent or lower. After five additional business
days (10 business days in total), the facility must perform EPA Method
9 tests again and, if opacity is still greater than 20 percent, the
large bell seals must be repaired or replaced within four months. For
the new and existing small bells, we are finalizing what we proposed, a
requirement that facilities shall replace or repair seals prior to a
metal throughput limit, specified by the facility, that has been proven
and documented to produce no opacity from the small bells.
Additionally, the facility must conduct monthly visible emissions
testing for 15 minutes and amend the metal throughput limit in their
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan as needed.
e. Beaching of Iron From BFs
As provided in CAA section 112(h), it is the judgment of the
Administrator that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for emissions from the beaching process, therefore
the EPA is finalizing the proposed work practice standards in lieu of
numerical emission standards. This work practice standard requires
facilities to: (1) have full or partial enclosures for the beaching
process or use CO2 to suppress fumes; and (2) minimize the
height, slope, and speed of beaching. This standard applies to both
existing and new sources.
B. Reconsideration of BF Casthouse and BOPF Shop Standards for
Currently Regulated Fugitive Sources Under CAA Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review
1. What did we propose for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop?
a. BF Casthouse
We proposed a 5 percent opacity limit based on 6-minute averages as
an update to the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review and proposed
that facilities will need to measure opacity during the tapping
operations (at least two times per month). We did not propose specific
work practices for the BF casthouse, except that we proposed that the
facilities will need to keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed
during tapping and material transfer events (the only openings allowed
during these events are those that were present in the original design
of the casthouse).
b. BOPF Shop
Based on our review and analyses of the CAA section 114 information
request responses we received in 2022 and 2023, and further review of
the data the EPA assembled to support the 2020 RTR, we proposed that a
standard composed of a 5 percent opacity limit with several specific
work practices would be feasible and cost-effective for the BOPF shop.
For example, based on the data we received, in the proposal we found
that the maximum 3-minute opacity readings for the BOPF shops at four
facilities were less than 5 percent. Furthermore, the use of work
practices (described below) by the best performing facilities in the
industry led us to conclude for the proposal that these work practices
were feasible and, accordingly, we proposed a 5 percent opacity limit
based on 3-minute average and work practices.
Specifically, we proposed that facilities will need to do the
following: (1) keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and
other openings that
[[Page 23304]]
are part of the designed ventilation of the facility, closed during
tapping and material transfer events (the only openings that would be
allowed during these events are the roof vents and other openings or
vents that are part of the designed ventilation of the facility) to
allow for more representative opacity observations from a single
opening; (2) have operators conduct regular inspections of BOPF shop
structure for unintended openings and leaks; (3) optimize positioning
of hot metal ladles with respect to hood face and furnace mouth; (4)
monitor opacity twice per month from all openings, or from the one
opening known to have the highest opacity, for a full steel cycle,
which must include a tapping event; and (5) develop and operate
according to an Operating Plan to minimize fugitives and detect
openings and leaks. We proposed that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan shall
include:
An explanation regarding how the facility will address and
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
A maximum hot iron pour/charge rate (pounds/second) for
the first 20 seconds of hot metal charge (i.e., the process of adding
hot iron from the BF into the basic oxygen process furnace);
A description of operational conditions of the furnace and
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal
charge, including:
A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture
system during hot metal charge;
A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging:
and;
An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed revised BF casthouse
and BOPF shop standards, and what are our responses?
a. BF Casthouse
Comment: Commenters noted that the EPA did not apply UPL
calculations to the opacity data, even though the EPA's practice has
been to do so for other numerical standards established on limited data
sets. Commenters claim that the EPA's proposed opacity limit of 5
percent, without any adjustment for variability, lacked justification
or explanation and is therefore arbitrary and capricious. These
commenters argued that, when utilizing limited datasets, it is
appropriate for the EPA to account for variability, and there is no
technical basis for suggesting that some statistical methods should not
be applied to this data set. When the EPA set the 20 percent opacity
limits in 2003, the preamble included the EPA's statistical basis
supporting that the limits were achievable. Commenters also stated the
EPA should also include a one-time alternative limit per furnace cycle
similar to the new source standards in the 2003 NESHAP.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the specific approach of using UPL
calculations to develop opacity limits in the same manner that the UPL
is used to calculate emissions limits. The EPA has historically used
the UPL approach to develop MACT limits for stack emissions of
individual pollutants but has not historically determined opacity
limits using a UPL approach. The UPL calculation introduces a
predictive element to the statistics in order to account for
variability. However, as noted by the commenter, unlike typical
emissions testing, EPA Method 9 may result in values of zero, which
cannot be used in the UPL calculation. While the EPA has used the UPL
approach for floor determinations when setting MACT emissions limits,
the proposed changes to the BOPF Shop and BF casthouse opacity
standards were based on a proposed updating of the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review. Additionally, in the case of opacity
measured according to EPA Method 9, the data EPA reviewed to develop
the proposed standards were the maximum 6-minute (or 3-minute as
applicable) averages evaluated over the entire test period. Likewise,
compliance determinations are also based on the same approach.
Utilizing the maximum short-term average during each test period to
determine an appropriate standard, and to determine compliance,
inherently accounts for some variation in the data used to set the
standard.
However, with regard to the comments on variability, we acknowledge
that there are many opacity readings that occurred over the past 2 to 6
years at the Integrated Iron and Steel (II&S) manufacturing facilities
that show that there is a substantial amount of variability in opacity
measurements across time and across furnaces. For example, many opacity
tests for BOPF and BF furnace cycles that were completed over these 2-6
years reported maximum 3-minute and 6-minute opacity readings below 5
percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. In fact, for many
furnace cycles the maximum opacity was 0 percent. On the other hand,
the data show that during some BOPF or BF cycles, opacity is above 5
percent and sometimes well above 20 percent. The EPA has additionally
continued to receive opacity data and analyses since the close of the
public comment period on this rulemaking.
The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data
before the deadline for this final rule ordered by the court in
California Communities Against Toxics. Also, for most of the opacity
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 5 and 10 percent, the EPA
does not have any information that explains why the opacity readings
were higher than 5 percent on those particular days. In most cases, the
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the
data and information currently available. Until further revision, the
opacity limits in the NESHAP for existing BOPF Shops and existing BF
casthouses will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages for the
BOPF Shop and 6-minute averages for the BF casthouse.
The opacity data and further explanation of the opacity data and
related information can be found in the technical memo titled:
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF, which is in docket for this final rule.
b. BOPF Shop
Comment: Some commenters conducted their own assessment of what
measures would be needed to comply with the proposed opacity limit and
work practice standards, which is of course facility-specific, because
every BOPF shop is unique. Based on their assessments, these commenters
asserted that each BOPF shop--after applying all ``required'' work
practice standards and even other work practices that the EPA
suggested--would likely need to install full-shop controls to meet a 5
percent opacity limit at all times. The commenters represented that the
cost to apply this type of control would be high and would involve the
addition of at least one large fabric filter device to properly capture
fugitive emissions and allow for proper ventilation for the building.
The commenters asked EPA to take into account the significant changes
BOPF shops would have to make to meet a 5 percent opacity standard that
even the best performers cannot currently achieve on a regular basis.
They suggested that because of the exorbitantly and unreasonably
expensive measures that would need to be undertaken by this industry
sector, and the significant possibility that even facilities installing
such measures would not be able to consistently meet
[[Page 23305]]
the 5 percent opacity standard, the EPA should not move forward with
the proposed opacity limit, at least until the Agency undertakes a
robust engineering analysis to determine the technical and economic
feasibility of controls that would be needed for BOPF shops to meet
this lower standard.
Response: After considering public comments, the EPA now recognizes
some operations may need to make more significant changes than we
anticipated at proposal to meet the 5 percent opacity standard at all
times. We acknowledge that there are many opacity readings that
occurred over the past 2 to 6 years that indicate that there is a
substantial amount of variability across time and across furnaces. For
example, many opacity tests for BOPF cycles (i.e., steel cycles) that
were completed over these 2-6 years reported maximum 3-minute opacity
readings below 5 percent for a substantial amount of the cycles. On the
other hand, the data show that during some BOPF cycles, opacity is
above 5 percent and sometimes above 20 percent.
The EPA was not able to adequately analyze all the available data
before the court-ordered deadline for this final rule. Also, for those
tests that had maximum opacity readings above 10 or 20 percent, in most
cases, the EPA does not have any information that explains why the
opacity readings were high on those particular days. In most cases, the
EPA is unable to determine the cause of the higher values based on the
data and information we have. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing any
changes to the opacity limits for the BOPF Shop in this final action.
Instead, the EPA intends to continue reviewing and analyzing the
opacity data from both the BF casthouse and the BOPF shop that we have
and also collect additional data in the near future so that the EPA can
gain a better understanding of the achievability of various opacity
levels and the reasons why opacity levels are sometimes elevated. After
EPA completes this additional data gathering and analyses, the EPA
intends to consider potential revisions to the opacity limits in a
separate future action. Until further revision, the opacity limit in
the NESHAP for BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute
averages, and the opacity limit in the NESHAP for BF casthouses will
remain at 20 percent based on 6-minute averages, consistent with the
current regulation.
The EPA is still finalizing opacity testing requirements for BF
casthouse and BOPF shop fugitives as well as the proposed work practice
standards for BOPF shop fugitives which are expected to reduce HAP
emissions by 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's reliance on the
limited 2022 CAA section 114 testing results to determine that a 5
percent opacity standard would be achievable by BOPF shops for
relatively modest capital and annual operating costs was inappropriate
and has led the EPA to propose a standard that is technically and
economically infeasible to meet. In an appendix to their comments, the
commenters put forward alternative emission factors and cost estimates
that, in their view, indicate the proposed standards would cost $88
million per ton to reduce just 2.6 tpy of HAP emissions industrywide.
This conclusion is very different from the EPA's own analysis of its
proposed rule, which was based on an assumption that no capital
expenditures would be needed, and that for less than $500,000 per year
industry-wide, all 11 existing BOPF shops should be able to meet a 5
percent opacity standard and comply with the numerous proposed work
practice standards. Commenters also said that BOPF shops would not be
able to meet a 5 percent opacity standard based on 3-minute averages
from every opening at all times without significant capital
expenditures, and remain concerned that even with this level of
spending, there may be times when the shops would not be able to meet
that standard. Commenters stated that until the EPA can demonstrate
through a robust engineering study that the proposed opacity limit
would be achievable at a certain spending level and with certain
technology in place that is reasonable and cost-effective, the EPA
should not move forward to finalize the proposed standards.
Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. See previous responses to
comments in this preamble for further explanation.
Comment: Commenters stated that because the proposal establishing
an absolute 5 percent limit did not take into account the range of
operations or impacts resulting in variability, it is clear that some
periods of operation above 5 percent opacity will occur even with
proper operation. They believe that any proposal that includes an
opacity standard lower than 20 percent must provide that compliance is
achieved provided there are no more than a set number of excursions
above the revised limit in order to capture normal fluctuation events
that occur during normal operation. Specifically, the EPA should follow
the form of the current ``new source'' BOPF shop MACT opacity standard:
maintain the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary
emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other building
housing a BOPF or shop operation at or below 15 percent, except that 6-
minute averages greater than 15 percent but no more than 20 percent may
occur twice per steel production cycle. A steel production cycle is
defined in 40 CFR 63.7822.
Response: As stated in previous responses to comments in this
preamble, the EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits
for the BOPF Shop in this final action. The opacity limit for existing
BOPF Shops will remain at 20 percent based on 3-minute averages. See
previous responses to comments in this preamble for further
explanation.
3. What are the revised standards for the BF casthouse and BOPF shop
standards and how will compliance be demonstrated?
a. BF Casthouse
As stated in previous responses to comments in this preamble, the
EPA is not finalizing any changes to the opacity limits for the BF
casthouse in this final action. Facilities will need to comply with the
20 percent opacity limits that are already in the NESHAP. However, the
EPA is requiring more frequent Method 9 tests as explained elsewhere in
this preamble. See previous responses to comments in this preamble for
further explanation.
b. BOPF Shop
For the reasons discussed in the responses to comments above, we
are finalizing work practice standards for the BOPF. Specifically, in
this final rule, we are requiring facilities to do the following: (1)
keep all openings, except roof monitors (vents) and other openings that
are part of the designed ventilation of the facility, closed during
tapping and material transfer events (the only openings allowed during
these events are the roof vents and other openings or vents that are
part of the designed ventilation of the facility) to allow for more
representative opacity observations from a single opening; (2) have
operators conduct regular inspections of BOPF shop structure for
unintended openings and leaks; (3) optimize positioning of hot metal
ladles with respect to hood face and furnace mouth; (4) monitor opacity
twice per month from all openings, or from the one opening known to
have the highest
[[Page 23306]]
opacity, for a full steel cycle, which must include a tapping event;
and (5) develop and operate according to an Operating Plan to minimize
fugitives and detect openings and leaks.
The purpose of the Operating Plan is to address variability in unit
design and operations by creating an individualized strategy for
implementing work practice standards at each source. Owners and
operators can develop specific work practices that make sense for each
unit and that maximize emission reduction efficiency for each unit. We
require that the BOPF Shop Operating Plan include:
An explanation regarding how the facility will address and
implement the four specific work practices listed above;
A maximum hot iron pour/charge rate (pounds/second) for
the first 20 seconds of hot metal charge (i.e., the process of adding
hot iron from the BF into the basic oxygen process furnace);
A description of operational conditions of the furnace and
secondary emission capture system that must be met prior to hot metal
charge, including:
A minimum flowrate of the secondary emission capture
system during hot metal charge;
A minimum number of times, but at least once, the furnace
should be rocked between scrap charge and hot metal charge;
A maximum furnace tilt angle during hot metal charging:
and;
An outline of procedures to attempt to reduce slopping.
The BOPF shop work practice standards and Operating Plan are
expected to result in the same HAP emission reductions as the Proposed
Rule at 25 tpy. This accounts for 39% of the estimated emission
reductions from UFIP sources with this promulgation.
C. What are the decisions for fenceline monitoring?
1. What did we propose for fenceline monitoring?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed adding fenceline
monitoring for chromium. Fenceline monitoring refers to the placement
of monitors along the perimeter of a facility to measure pollutant
concentrations. Coupled with requirements for root cause analysis and
corrective action upon triggering an actionable level, this work
practice standard is a development in practices considered under CAA
section 112(d)(6) for the purposes of managing fugitive emissions. The
measurement of these pollutant concentrations and comparison to
concentrations estimated from mass emissions via dispersion modeling
can be used to ground-truth emission estimates from a facility's
emissions inventory. If concentrations at the fenceline are greater
than expected, the likely cause is that there are underreported or
unknown emission sources affecting the monitors. In addition to the
direct indication that emissions may be higher than inventories would
suggest, fenceline monitoring provides information on the location of
potential emissions sources. Further, when used with a mitigation
strategy, such as root cause analysis and corrective action upon
exceedance of an action level, fenceline monitoring can be effective in
reducing emissions and reducing the uncertainty associated with
emissions estimation and characterization. Finally, public reporting of
fenceline monitoring data provides public transparency and greater
visibility, leading to more focus and effort in reducing emissions.
Specifically, we proposed that facilities must install four ambient
air monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations around
the perimeter of the facility, regardless of facility size, based on a
site-specific plan approved by the EPA to collect and analyze samples
for total chromium every sixth day. In addition, we proposed that
facilities must implement the following work practice requirement: if
an installed fenceline monitor has a 12-month rolling average delta c
concentration--calculated as the annual average of the highest sample
value for a given sample period minus the lowest sample value measured
during that sample period--above the proposed action level of 0.1
[micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, the facility must conduct a root
cause analysis and take corrective action to prevent additional
exceedances. Data would be reported electronically to the EPA's
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on a
quarterly basis and subsequently available to the public via the Web
Factor Information Retrieval system (WebFIRE) website. Furthermore, we
proposed a sunset provision whereby if the annual average delta c
remain 50-percent or more below the action level (i.e., 0.05 [micro]g/
m\3\ or lower) for a 24-month period, then the facility can request to
terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the fenceline
monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities to meet all
other obligations under this subpart including the general duty to
minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d).
Because a method has not yet been proposed or promulgated for
fenceline monitoring of metals, we proposed that fenceline monitoring
would begin no later than one year after the EPA's promulgation of a
fenceline test method, or two years after the promulgation of the final
rule, whichever is later. The EPA is working as expeditiously as
possible to propose a new metals fenceline method. As part of the prior
CAA section 114 information collection effort, we relied on a common
ambient monitoring method \2\ for the collection of the metals samples
and associated analytical method \3\ for multi-metals for the analysis.
While these methods are robust and appropriate for ambient trends
applications, EPA needs to further investigate and revise these
approaches for a stationary source regulatory program to ensure
improved precision and accuracy in the method, in the same manner EPA
developed Method 327 \4\ from TO-15 in the recent Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry: Organic National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)--40 CFR 63 Subparts F,G,H,I
proposed rule, published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR 25080). The required
determinations of whether the action level has been exceeded and any
subsequent root cause investigation will begin once the first annual
rolling average is acquired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended
Particulates in the Atmosphere (High Volume Method), 40 CFR 50,
Appendix B.
\3\ Method IO-3, Determination of Metals in Ambient Particulate
Matter Using Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Spectroscopy.
\4\ Federal Register Notice published on April 25, 2023 (88 FR
25080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What comments did we receive on the monitoring requirements, and
what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed focus on chromium as a
``surrogate'' and the proposal to set an action level for only chromium
is demonstrably inadequate. Emission standards under CAA section 112(d)
must be ``comprehensive controls for each source category that must
include limits on each hazardous air pollutant the category emits.''
(LEAN, 955 F.3d at 1095-96.) As identified in several background
documents for this proposed rule, air pollutants from various facility
processes include multiple toxic metals in addition to chromium
including arsenic, mercury, and lead; toxic halogenated compounds
including carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen fluoride, D/F; and other toxic pollutants such as hydrocarbons
and PM. The CAA requires ``as many limits as needed to control all the
emitted air toxics of a
[[Page 23307]]
particular source category.'' (Id. at 1097.) Commenters stated that the
2023 Proposal is unlawful on its face for only requiring monitoring and
action level standards for chromium.
Response: The EPA disagrees that conducting fenceline monitoring
for only chromium is inadequate or unlawful. The EPA recognizes there
are multiple toxic metals emitted by various facility processes from
the iron and steel facilities. We reiterate that we did not intend to
measure all pollutants, especially pollutants that are emitted from
point sources that are directly measurable through source tests and
continuous monitoring systems. These emissions sources and pollutants
are subject to other standards under these MACT. We disagree that it is
necessary to conduct fenceline monitoring for every HAP emitted from
fugitive emission sources at integrated iron and steel facilities.
Integrated iron and steel emissions can contain many different HAP and
it is very difficult for any fenceline method to detect every HAP
potentially emitted from integrated iron and steel facilities. The
fenceline monitoring standard was proposed as part of the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review to improve management of fugitive emissions
of metal HAPs and not as a risk reduction measure. In order to meet
that goal of improved management of fugitive emissions, it is not
necessary to obtain an accurate picture of the level of all HAP
emitted. We chose to propose fenceline measurements only for chromium
because it was a risk driver in the 2020 RTR analyses and has been
determined to be a good surrogate for other HAP metals, especially
arsenic, which was the other HAP metal driving the risks in the 2020
RTR risk analyses. Additionally, at the fenceline, based on fenceline
monitoring conducted in 2022-23 at Integrated Iron and Steel facilities
in response to the section 114 request, the highest monitored lead
levels were found to be 5 times lower than the current air quality
health NAAQS value (last issued in 2015 to provide an ``adequate margin
of safety to protect public health''). However, based on a lack of
information on fugitive lead and other metal HAP emissions, the EPA
does agree with this commenter that there is a need for more data
gathering, both at the fenceline and from other sources on the
facilities. EPA did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a
requirement to monitor any metals other than chromium as part of the
fenceline requirement, but we intend to gather more fenceline
monitoring data for lead in 2024 at Integrated Iron and Steel
facilities to better characterize fugitive lead emissions.
Additionally, we intend to gather more data regarding HAP metals from
sinter plant stacks through the use of PM continuous monitoring systems
(PM CEMs). We intend to collect this data in a separate action under
CAA section 114 that will follow this final rule.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should require monitoring
and set action level standards for all HAP metals emitted by II&S
facilities. These commenters asserted that the incremental cost to
monitor for all metals is insignificant and would have outsized
benefits to the community by establishing multiple triggers for
assessment and corrective action. As an alternative to required
fenceline monitoring for all HAP metals, commenters stated the EPA
should consider implementing a fenceline standard for lead because most
communities surrounding II&S facilities are EJ communities exposed to
lead from multiple sources. Commenters also specifically supported a
fenceline monitoring requirement for arsenic.
Response: The EPA observes that it is technically feasible to
require further speciation of metal HAPs collected within a single
sample. Although increasing the analyte list does increase the
analytical costs because additional calibration standards are required,
the EPA agrees with commenters that the costs to monitor for additional
metals would be relatively low. However, the incremental cost of
monitoring for additional HAPs is not the only consideration in
determining the scope of a fenceline monitoring requirement for this
source category. The EPA must also consider the efficacy of instituting
a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAPs, as well as
practical implementation concerns. At this time, the EPA believes these
factors weigh in favor of requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium
while continuing to gather information on other metal HAPs.
As discussed above, the EPA previously determined in the 2020 RTR
that chromium is one of the two principal drivers of health risk in
this source category and is also an effective surrogate for arsenic,
which is the other most significant contributor to risk. Because the
principal purpose of fenceline monitoring in this source category is to
assure compliance with the emission standards that address fugitive
emissions of particulate HAP metals, implementing this development will
provide ``necessary'' protection against fugitive emissions of metal
HAPs (including those that pose greatest risks to public health).
Fenceline monitoring is a development in practices, for the purpose of
managing fugitive emissions. In sum, fenceline monitors will be placed
at or near the perimeter of the applicable facility to measure
pollutant concentrations; this measurement is coupled with the
requirement to conduct applicable root cause analyses and implement
corrective action upon triggering an actionable level. The utilization
of fenceline monitors will serve to manage fugitive emissions with the
intent to reduce emissions, as well as to reduce uncertainty associated
with initial emissions estimation. The use of fenceline monitors,
coupled with action levels, represents a development in work practices.
Therefore, focusing fenceline monitoring requirements on chromium is
appropriate as a development pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Requiring fenceline monitoring for chromium alone also facilitates
establishing an appropriate action level, reduces analytical costs, and
simplifies the determination of compliance for integrated iron and
steel owners and operators.
By contrast, including additional metal HAPs in the fenceline
monitoring program would require the EPA to resolve a number of
technical issues, including how an action level for additional HAPs
would be set, and whether each metal HAP would have its own action
level or instead a single action level for the sum of metal HAP
measured. The EPA was not able to develop the information needed to
address these issues within the timeframe for this rulemaking. Given
that the available information indicates that HAP metals emitted from
the integrated iron and steel facilities other than chromium and
arsenic do not contribute to significant ambient concentrations at or
near the facility boundaries (e.g., fenceline) at these facilities, we
have determined that at present the benefits of including other metal
HAPs in the scope of the fenceline monitoring requirement are also
unclear.
Although we did not propose nor are we prepared to promulgate a
fenceline monitoring requirement for any metals other than chromium at
this time, the EPA recognizes that further information on fugitive
emissions of lead and other HAP metals would be useful in informing
whether and how a fenceline monitoring requirement for additional HAP
metals as part of a future rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to gather
more data to better characterize fugitive lead and other HAP metals
through a separate action that will
[[Page 23308]]
follow this final rule as described in the previous response in this
preamble.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should not set an action
level that would be triggered if the UFIP sources were meeting all of
the proposed opacity limits and work practice standards, which is the
EPA's stated purpose for establishing the fenceline monitoring program.
Because the EPA did not consider or analyze whether II&S facilities
could maintain UFIP emissions at rates to ensure that the action level
would not be triggered or how much it would cost to maintain emissions
below the action level, the EPA should not entertain these lower values
of 0.08 and 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\. Commenters stated that for the EPA to
do so would be arbitrary and capricious per se.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the support and is finalizing the
action level at 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ as proposed.
Comment: Commenters stated that regardless of the numeric value
selected for the action level, the EPA should express the chromium
action level in [micro]g/m\3\ to at least two decimal places and
clarify that rounding occurs to the second decimal place (e.g., 0.11
[micro]g/m\3\ would not round down to 0.10 [micro]g/m\3\ and would
therefore exceed the action level). The EPA states that ``[b]ecause of
the variability and limitations in the data, to establish the proposed
action level we rounded[. . .]to one significant figure (i.e., 0.1
[micro]g/m\3\).'' Commenters stated that there are two issues with this
statement: (1) significant figures do not completely characterize
numerical precision, and (2) reporting chromium concentrations in
[micro]g/m\3\ to one decimal place does not reflect the precision of
modern sampling and analytical techniques. Commenters stated that in
response to the first point, consider two hypothetical reported
chromium concentrations: 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\. Both
have only one significant digit, but the second concentration is
reported with a greater level of precision. As for the second point,
Table 1 in EPA Compendium Method IO-3.5, which was the analytical
method used to determine fenceline chromium concentrations as part of
the EPA's CAA section 114 ICR, lists the estimated method detection
limit for chromium as 0.01 ng/m\3\ (0.00001 [micro]g/m\3\). This low
method detection limit demonstrates the sensitivity and precision of
modern sampling and analytical methods. As such, chromium
concentrations measured with these methods should be reported to at
least two decimal places (assuming units of [micro]g/m\3\).
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that more than one
decimal place should be used for the action level and further disagrees
with their definition of precision. Measurement precision relates to
the degree of variation in repeated measurements, and not what decimal
place a reading is. In the example proposed, 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.01
[micro]g/m\3\, these are merely two values of differing magnitude, and
not two values of different precision.
The EPA also disagrees that the detection limit of EPA Compendium
Method IO-3.5 has meaning in this context. The detection limit is the
lowest level at which a valid measurement can be collected, beyond
indicating that, in this case, the measured values are within the
measurable range, it has no practical impact upon the number of
significant digits appropriate.
While the analytical techniques may be able to determine the
concentration out to more than one significant figure, the setting of
the action level is based not just upon the measurement itself, but
upon projected gains under the newly required limits on UFIP and the
calculation of delta c, further complicating the determination of an
appropriate action level. The EPA is finalizing the action level at one
significant figure as proposed.
Comment: Commenters stated that even if the EPA can sufficiently
explain why an action level was set for chromium for II&S facilities
based on fenceline monitoring, the EPA should set the action level
below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ because fenceline data collected as part of
EPA's CAA section 114 collection request shows that a lower action
level is achievable. Because the EPA did not request that all eight
II&S facilities perform fenceline monitoring pursuant to the CAA
section 114 request, the EPA did not identify the top five best
performing facilities. However, two of the four facilities that
conducted fenceline monitoring (Cleveland Works and Burns Harbor) had
6-month chromium delta c averages below 0.08 [micro]g/m\3\, and a third
facility (Granite City) is projected to be at 0.09 [micro]g/m\3\ after
implementing provisions of the rulemaking. The EPA has failed to
explain why they are requiring an action level that constitutes the
lowest number (0.1 [micro]g/m\3\) instead of the level that three of
the four facilities that conducted fenceline monitoring are able to
meet (0.10 [micro]g/m\3\). Accordingly, the EPA should set the action
level below 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\.
Response: Consistent with refineries and all other proposed
fenceline monitoring standards, we are implementing the action level as
a single significant digit as discussed further in the response to the
previous comment of this section.
3. What are the revised standards for the fenceline monitoring
requirements and how will compliance be demonstrated?
We are finalizing what we proposed: facilities must install four
ambient air monitors at or near the fenceline at appropriate locations
around the perimeter of the facility based on a site-specific plan that
must be submitted to and approved by the EPA, regardless of facility
size. These monitors shall collect and analyze samples for total
chromium every sixth day. The facilities must also implement the
following work practice requirement: if an installed fenceline monitor
has a 12-month rolling average delta c concentration that is above the
action level of 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\ for total chromium, calculated as the
annual average of the delta c determined during each sample period over
the year (highest sample value for a given sample period minus the
lowest sample value measured during that sample period), the facility
must conduct a root cause analysis and take corrective action to
prevent additional exceedances.
A facility may request to terminate fenceline monitoring after 24
months of consecutive results 50 percent or more below the action
level. The EPA selected the monitoring locations and sampling frequency
as specified to maintain the same basis of monitoring as that used in
the derivation of the action level as discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (88 FR 49414). The use of four monitors was selected and
not expanded to the same number of monitoring sites as EPA Method 325A
because, unlike EPA Method 325A that uses passive samplers, the
methodology used for both the CAA section 114 request and the potential
candidate method for this rule requires power at each sampling
location, dramatically increasing the potential cost of each monitoring
site. The sampling frequency of every six days was selected to both
mimic that of the CAA section 114 request as well as to ensure
operations on each day of the week would be represented in the
calculation of the annual average delta c. Data will be reported
electronically to CEDRI on a quarterly basis and subsequently available
to the public via the WebFIRE website.
In response to many comments regarding fugitive emissions of lead
and other metals, we recognize the need to gather more data to
characterize these fugitive emissions at the fenceline and sinter
plants. We intend to take a separate action on this data collection
[[Page 23309]]
for lead and potentially other metals action under CAA section 114.
D. Standards To Address Unregulated Point Sources for Both New and
Existing Sources
1. What standards did we propose to address unregulated point sources?
In addition to the unregulated UFIP sources, we identified five
unregulated HAP from sinter plant point sources (CS2, COS,
HCl, HF, and Hg); three unregulated HAP from BF stove and BOPF point
sources (D/F, HCl and THC (as a surrogate for organic HAP other than D/
F)); and two unregulated HAP from BF point sources (HCl and THC (as a
surrogate for organic HAP other than D/F). The proposed MACT emission
limits for these unregulated point sources are in Table 3.
Table 3--Estimated HAP Emissions and Proposed MACT Limits for Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated source category
Process HAP emissions Proposed MACT limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants................. CS2................... 42 tpy..................... Existing and new sources:
0.028 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. COS................... 57 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.030 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HCl................... 11 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.0012 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HF.................... 1.2 tpy.................... Existing and new sources:
0.0011 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. Hg.................... 66 pounds/yr............... Existing sources: 3.5e-5 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
1.2e-5 lb/ton sinter.
BF casthouse control devices.. HCl................... 1.4 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0013 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
5.9e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF casthouse control devices.. THC................... 270 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.092 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.035 lb/ton iron.
BOPF.......................... D/F (TEQ \1\)......... 3.6 grams/yr............... Existing and new sources:
4.7e-8 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... HCl................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.078 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
1.9e-4 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... THC................... 13 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.04 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
0.0017 lb/ton steel.
BF Stove...................... D/F (TEQ)............. 0.076 grams/year........... Existing and new sources:
3.8e-10 lb/ton iron.
BF Stove...................... HCl................... 4.5 tpy.................... Existing sources: 5.2e-4 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
1.4e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF Stove...................... THC................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.1 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.0011 lb/ton iron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalency.
2. What comments did we receive on the unregulated point sources, and
what are our responses?
Comment: Commenters state that they submitted additional stack
tests in Appendix L that cover the EPA's proposed MACT standards for BF
Stoves, BF Casthouses, and BOPF Primary Control Devices. These
commenters do not represent that the additional data submitted in
Appendix L alone or in combination with data underlying the EPA's
proposed standards capture the full range of operating conditions for
these point sources; however, they believe these additional data
further indicate that the EPA's limited datasets do not sufficiently
account for variability and, therefore, are not representative of best
performing units in this source category. The same commenters state
that the EPA's 15 proposed HAP limits for new sources rely on
insufficient data and are unlikely to be technologically feasible. They
are also concerned that any new sources would also not be able to meet
the emission rates of the best performers given the lack of sufficient
data underlying the EPA's proposed new source limits for the 15 HAPs
that inherently do not capture process, operational, raw material, or
seasonal and measurement variability of the EPA-designated best
performing source. Achievability of the new source proposed limits is a
concern because it is also unlikely that it would be technologically
feasible for pollution control equipment to guarantee any degree of
control of such low or dilute concentrations of D/F, PAHs, COS,
CS2, Hg, THC, HF, and HCl, which fall below the lowest
target concentrations and capture limitations of such equipment.
Further, the sources of raw materials and their impact on emissions
variability cannot be reasonably predicted.
Response: The EPA has considered these additional data and, where
deemed valid, incorporated the data into updated UPL calculations for
the point sources and HAPs. The promulgated limits are based on MACT
floor calculations (UPL) using the available valid data, which
represents our best estimate of current average performance, accounting
for variability (i.e., UPL calculations), of the sources for which we
have valid data (for affected sources). Additionally, based on industry
comments, we: (1) used surrogate limits for some HAP; (2) changed the
format of some limits; and (3) established work practices for HAP where
majority of data were below detection.
Furthermore, based on the limited data we have, we estimate that
all facilities will be able to meet these limits without the need for
new add-on control devices (e.g., we have no data indicating a source
cannot currently comply with these limits). Nevertheless, we
acknowledge that there are uncertainties because of the limited data.
However, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA and the LEAN court
decision, we must promulgate MACT emissions limits based on available
data in order to fulfill our court ordered CAA section 112(d)(6)
obligations.
Comment: Commenters stated that if EPA nonetheless proceeds with BF
Stove limits, the form must be revised to lb/MMBtu, and that EPA
erroneously used iron, rather than steel, production rates. The
commenter said the agency should use contemporaneous iron production
rates instead, which were provided on May 25, 2023. Notwithstanding
these errors, emission limits for combustion units including BF stoves
would be most appropriately expressed as lb/MMBtu, as although stove
and blast furnace operations are interrelated, there are significant
site specific differences in operation which make blast furnace
production inappropriate to use when developing a limit for BF stoves.
Lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate because the emissions per amount of
heat released is more directly related to total quantity of emissions
generated. Further, gas flow can be directly measured to account for
varying BF stove operation. Iron production is intermittent with
tapping and plugging of the furnace, so using emissions per ton could
produce misleading results and should not be used.
Response: The EPA agrees that BF stove emission limits in the units
of lb/MMBtu would be more appropriate than
[[Page 23310]]
unis of lb/ton. We have recalculated UPLs for BF stove emissions in the
units of lb/MMBtu and are finalizing MACT floor limits for HCl and THC
emissions from BF stoves in the units of lb/MMBtu. No additional costs
are expected to meet these limits.
Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its
proposed D/F limit for BF Stoves because D/F is not present, or, if
present, is only in trace amounts. The EPA estimates that the 17 BF
Stoves in the source category collectively emit 0.076 grams per year of
D/F. Commentors said that basing the proposed D/F limit on only two
tests, with a total of only 6 data points (5 of which are BDL) is not
permissible. If the EPA nevertheless pursues D/F limits for BF Stoves,
the EPA should review and revise the limits to ones that are
representative of the emissions limitations being achieved by the best
performers. The EPA should consider work practices, such as good
combustion practices, in lieu of numerical limits.
Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3)
and the court order for the EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in
this final rule. The EPA collected emissions test data through the CAA
section 114 requests. For D/F from BF stoves, when we made a
determination of BDL according to the procedures outlined in
Determination of ``non-detect'' from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and
EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of
MACT floors versus work practice standards (Johnson 2014) (Johnson
memo) available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1082), two of the
six runs are determined to be non-detect. Though we disagree in the
number of non-detect values with the commenter, we agree that, as only
33 percent of test runs were detected values, a work practice under CAA
section 112(h) is appropriate for the control of D/F from BF Stoves.
The EPA generally considers a work practice to be justified if a
significant majority of emissions data available indicate that
emissions are so low that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more
than 55 percent of test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the
Johnson Memo. An appropriate work practice for D/F for the stoves, due
to their similarity in operation with boilers and other heaters, is
good combustion practices, represented for this source by the THC
standard being finalized in this rule. The numerical THC standard
provides assurance of good combustion practices, and a further tune-up
style work practice requirement is not necessary.
Comment: Commentors stated that the EPA should not finalize its
proposed CS2 and HF limits for sinter/recycling plants
because the available data demonstrates these pollutants are not
emitted. The EPA estimates sinter/recycling plants emit: a total 1.3
tpy of HF and 23 tpy of CS2 for the source category. The EPA
bases its CS2 estimate on a limited data set of six test
runs where the EPA flagged 83 percent (5 out of 6) of those results as
below detection limit (BDL). (2023 Data Memo at app. A) BDL means that
emissions are so low they are not able to be accurately read, measured,
or quantified. Similarly, 13 out of 14 (93 percent) of test runs for HF
from sinter/recycling plants were flagged BDL by the EPA, indicating
that HF is not emitted or emitted in trace amounts, and thus EPA should
not set a numerical standard for HF for sinter/recycling plants. The
commentor stated if the EPA nevertheless proceeds with such numerical
limits, it must revise its proposed limits upwards to help to account
for known data variability and limited datasets. Commentors stated that
data underlying the EPA's proposed CS2 and HF limits
includes a significant number of readings below the detection limit.
The EPA explains that ``greater than 50 percent of the data runs were
BDL'' for HF and CS2 from sinter/recycling plants. (2023
MACT Costs Memo at 19-21, tbl. 24.) The proposed limits for HF and
CS2 are not representative of current performance due to the
frequency of near or BDL. The EPA has noted that ``section 112(d)(2) of
the CAA specifically allows EPA to establish MACT standards based on
emission controls that rely on pollution prevention techniques.'' Where
a majority of BDL values exist, the EPA should instead consider
pollution control techniques, such as a work practice, rather than
individual limits for these HAPs. Thus, the EPA should rely on the oil-
content and VOC limit pollution control techniques that are already in
place for these pollutants.
Response: Pursuant to the LEAN decision, CAA section 112(d)(2)/(3)
and the court's Order for EPA to complete this final rule pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) by March 11, 2024, the EPA must establish
standards for previously unregulated HAP based on available data in
this final rule. The EPA reviewed the data in question and agrees with
the commenter's assessment of the number of non-detect results for
CS2 and HF. Further, the single test run for which HF was
detected was only slightly above the detection limit (0.09 ppmv
detected value versus the detection limit of 0.08 ppmv). The EPA
generally considers a work practice to be justified if a significant
majority of emissions data available indicate that emissions are so low
that they cannot be reliably measured (e.g., more than 55 percent of
test runs are non-detect) as discussed in the Johnson Memo. Due to the
extremely high percentage of non-detect values, 83 and 93 percent for
CS2 and HF respectively, it is appropriate for both of these
compounds at the sinter plant to be represented by a work practice
standard according to CAA section 112(h). For CS2, the work
practice being finalized consists of the existing requirement to
control the oil content in the sinter or the VOC emissions at the
windbox exhaust (40 CFR 63.7790(d)) to control the source of the
sulfur, combined with the new numerical standard for COS being
finalized in this rulemaking. For HF, where 93 percent of the values
were below the detection limit and the only detected value is only
slightly above, the numerical standard for HCl being finalized in this
rule shall act as a work practice (or surrogate) for HF, as control of
HCL will also control HF.
3. What are the revised standards for the unregulated point sources and
how will compliance be demonstrated?
We are finalizing the MACT Floor emission limits mostly as we
proposed, but with minor adjustments for some limits based on the
inclusion of additional valid data in the UPL calculations, the
revision of the format of BF Stove emission limits as advised in the
comments received, and the incorporation of work practices and
surrogates for CS2 and HF at sinter plants and D/F from the
BF Stove. These work practices are being finalized because under CAA
section 112(h), the Administrator has determined that it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard for these
unregulated point sources. Furthermore, based on consideration of
public comments and further analyses, for mercury emissions from
existing sinter plants, we are promulgating a BTF limit based on
installation and operation of activated carbon injection (ACI),
described in section III.E of this preamble. The emission limits, along
with estimated annual emissions, for the unregulated point sources for
the final rule are provided in Table 4.
[[Page 23311]]
Table 4--HAP Emissions and Final MACT Limits for Previously Unregulated Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promulgated MACT emissions
Process HAP Estimated source category limit (or other applicable
emissions standard as noted below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plants................. CS2................... 23 tpy..................... Meet applicable COS limit
and meet requirements of
40 CFR 63.7790(d).
Sinter Plants................. COS................... 72 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.064 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.030 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HCl................... 12 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.025 lb/
ton sinter. New sources:
0.0012 lb/ton sinter.
Sinter Plants................. HF.................... 1.3 tpy.................... Meet the applicable HCl
standard.
Sinter Plants................. Hg.................... 55 pounds/yr............... Existing sources: 1.8e-5 lb/
ton sinter.\2\ New
sources: 1.2e-5 lb/ton
sinter.
BF casthouse control devices.. HCl................... 1.4 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0056 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
5.9e-4 lb/ton iron.
BF casthouse control devices.. THC................... 270 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.48 lb/
ton iron. New sources:
0.035 lb/ton iron.
BOPF.......................... D/F (TEQ \1\)......... 3.6 grams/yr............... Existing and new sources:
9.2e-10 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... HCl................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.058 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
2.8e-4 lb/ton steel.
BOPF.......................... THC................... 13 tpy..................... Existing sources: 0.04 lb/
ton steel. New sources:
0.0017 lb/ton steel.
BF Stove...................... D/F (TEQ)............. 0.076 grams/year........... Good combustion practices
demonstrated by meeting
the THC limit.
BF Stove...................... HCl................... 4.5 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.0012 lb/
MMBtu. New sources: 4.2e-4
lb/MMBtu.
BF Stove...................... THC................... 200 tpy.................... Existing sources: 0.12 lb/
MMBtu. New sources: 0.0054
lb/MMBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Toxic equivalency.
\2\ See section III.E for description of the final mercury limit.
E. Reconsideration of Standards for D/F and PAH for Sinter Plants Under
CAA Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review, and Beyond-the-Floor Limit for
Mercury
1. What standards did we propose to address the reconsideration of the
D/F and PAH standards for sinter plants, and new mercury limits from
sinter plants?
We proposed emissions limits of 3.5E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F
toxic equivalency (TEQ) and 5.9E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for
existing sinter plant windboxes. These limits reflect the average
current performance of the four existing sinter plants for D/F and PAHs
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For mercury, we proposed a MACT
Floor limit of 3.5E-05 lbs/ton sinter for existing sources, as
described in section III.D of this preamble.
For new sources, we proposed emissions limits of 3.1E-09 lbs/ton of
sinter for D/F (TEQ), and 1.5E-03 lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs for new
sinter plant windboxes that reflect the current performance of the one
best performing sinter plant pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
Regarding mercury, we proposed a MACT floor limit of 1.2E-05 lbs/ton
sinter for new sinter plants.
2. What comments did we receive on the reconsideration of the D/F and
PAH standards for sinter plants, and mercury emissions, and what are
our responses?
Comment: Commenters stated that the Agency's review of ACI during
the 2020 RTR found that the ACI add-on control technology for sinter/
recycling plant windboxes would not be cost-effective. They said the
Agency's BTF analysis and evaluation of ACI as a potential control
option for sinter/recycling plants are flawed. Commenters said that
they are unaware of any application of ACI with a wet scrubber for
particulate control being sufficiently demonstrated in practice as a
control technology for D/F. Commenters also assert that the assumed
brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection rate of 1.7 lb/
MMacf based on 2012 test data from the Gerdau Sayreville, NJ electric
arc furnace baghouse is unproven in the II&S industry and that the
Agency may be underestimating the required injection rates.
Response: Based on our review of the available information and
analyses, we estimate the brominated powdered activated carbon (PAC)
can achieve 85 percent reduction of D/F when used with fabric filters.
Regarding wet scrubbers, based on a scientific article by H.Ruegg and
A. Sigg (See ``Dioxin Removal In a Wet Scrubber and Dry Particulate
Removal'', Chemosphere, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, p. 143-148), we estimate ACI
used with a wet scrubber will achieve 70 percent reduction. Given that
PAHs and dioxins are both semi-volatile organic compounds, we assume
the ACI with a wet scrubber will also achieve 70 percent reduction of
PAHs from sinter plants with a wet scrubber. We note that only one of
the 4 sinter plants is controlled with a wet venturi scrubber. The
other three have baghouses.
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's MACT limits for existing
sinter plants should be lower, arguing that the EPA's establishment of
separate MACT floors for COS, HCl, and mercury for new plants at less
than half of the limit for existing sources indicates how outdated the
50 plus year-old existing sinter plants are. Commenters argued that the
fact that only two integrated steel mills continue to operate sinter
plants, down from nine facilities twenty years ago, further suggests
that American sinter technology is outdated. In commenters' view, the
EPA should not give these outdated sinter plants a ``pass'' on reducing
their significant emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Commenters further stated that the EPA should reconsider rejecting
ACI as too expensive, arguing that steel mills can clearly afford this
control measure based on recent profit margins. The EPA should more
carefully consider an evaluation of the human health costs associated
with the HAP emissions and factor that into the Agency's cost estimate.
Alternatively, the commenters urged EPA to consider advanced or
additional pollution controls on sinter windboxes, the most significant
source of emissions from sinter plants. The proposed NESHAP does not
appear to have considered the use of wet electrostatic precipitators,
redundant baghouses, or other types of controls.
Response: To address the comments that sinter plants need more
controls to reduce emissions of hazardous pollutants, specifically the
addition of ACI controls, we are finalizing emissions limits pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6) for D/F and PAHs, and CAA section 112(d)(2)/
(3) BTF limits for mercury that reflect the installation and operation
of ACI controls. We conclude that the estimated costs for these ACI
controls (described below) are reasonable given that these controls
will achieve significant reductions of these three HAPs, which are
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) HAPs. For example, D/F are
highly toxic carcinogens that bioaccumulate in various food sources
such as beef and dairy products. Mercury, once it is converted to
methylmercury in aquatic
[[Page 23312]]
ecosystems, is also known to bioaccumulate in some food sources,
especially fish and marine mammals which are consumed by people,
especially people who rely on subsistence fishing as an important food
source. Methylmercury is a potent developmental neurotoxin, especially
for developing fetuses. The PAHs are a subset of the polycyclic organic
matter (POM), which are a group of HAP that EPA considers to be PB-HAP,
and includes some known or probable carcinogens such as benzo-a-pyrene.
3. What are the revised standards for the D/F, PAH and mercury for
sinter plants, and how will compliance be demonstrated?
Based on the comments received, we are finalizing emissions limits
that reflect the installation and operation of ACI controls, which are
emissions limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.8E-03
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.8E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for
existing sinter plant windboxes. Regarding new sources, we are
promulgating limits of 1.1E-08 lbs/ton of sinter for D/F (TEQ), 1.5E-03
lbs/ton of sinter for PAHs, and 1.2E-05 lbs/ton for mercury for new
sinter plant windboxes. The application of this ACI will achieve
significant reductions of mercury, D/F and PAH emissions, important
reductions given that all three HAP are highly toxic, persistent,
bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP), as described above. We estimate these
limits for the three separate HAP will result in total combined capital
costs of $950K, annualized costs of $2.3M, will achieve 8 grams per
year reductions of D/F TEQ emissions, 5.4 tpy reduction in PAHs, and 47
pounds of mercury. The estimated cost effectiveness (CE) for each HAP
individually are: CE of $287K per gram D/F TEQ, $426K per ton of PAHs,
and $49,000 per pound for mercury.
If the EPA evaluated these emissions limits individually (i.e.,
without consideration of the co-control of D/F, PAHs and mercury), the
EPA might have reached a different conclusion (e.g., maybe not
promulgated one or more of the individual final limits due to costs and
cost effectiveness). For example, historically, EPA has accepted cost
effectiveness for mercury up to about $32,000 per pound. Regarding the
D/F and PAHs, we have not identified cost effectiveness values that
have been accepted in the past as part of revising standards under
EPA's technology reviews pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
However, given that ACI is expected to be needed to achieve the
limits for all three HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described
previously in this section, we determined, similar to how we group non-
Hg HAP metals when evaluating cost effectiveness, that it is
appropriate to consider these three HAP as a group because they would
be controlled by the same technology. We note that the Hg cost-
effectiveness value is within a factor of 2 of values that we have
accepted, and that these three HAP are persistent and bioaccumulative
in the environment. Given that ACI is required to achieve the limits
for all three PB-HAP (D/F, PAHs and mercury), as described previously
in this section, we decided it was appropriate to establish these
limits for these three HAP that reflect application of ACI. Because
these three pollutants are PB-HAP, as described in more detail in
response above, we conclude the estimated costs are reasonable,
especially given that these annual costs are far less than 1 percent of
revenues for the parent companies, which is discussed further in the
economic impacts section of this preamble (see section IV.D).
F. Other Major Comments and Issues
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA's 2023 Proposal for II&S
facilities poses many challenges to the domestic iron and steel
manufacturing industries. They stated when taken in conjunction with
other onerous EPA regulations, including the proposed revisions to the
NAAQS for PM, the 2023 Taconite Risk and Technology Review proposal and
the 2023 Coke Ovens and Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Risk and
Technology Review proposal, the domestic II&S manufacturers will incur
significant cost and will struggle to meet these additional, infeasible
standards. They stated it is critical that the EPA understand this 2023
Proposal significantly jeopardizes the potential successes of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act
(IRA), and, as a result, undercut the decarbonization priorities of the
administration.
Commenters acknowledged the iron and steel industry faces
significant impacts from the 2023 Proposal along with other EPA
proposed rules including the Taconite MACT, the Coke MACT, the Good
Neighbor Rule, and the PM2.5 NAAQS. They stated their
customers, coworkers, suppliers and themselves are concerned for the
future of iron and steelmaking, an essential industry, in the U.S.
Commenters stated the regulations moving through the EPA at the
current time are going to materially impact the Iron Range of Minnesota
and the entire domestic steel industry. Commenters urged the EPA to be
prudent and use caution before placing a single new regulation on these
industries. Commenters asked the EPA to show favor in the Agency's
decision making to the domestic iron and steel industry.
Response: As explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and
in section IV.D of this preamble, the projected economic impacts of the
expected compliance costs of the rule are likely to be small. This
rulemaking is estimated to cost less than 1% of the annual revenues of
the parent companies. This rule should not be financially detrimental
to the source category. See sections IV.C and IV.D of this preamble,
and the RIA, for more details.
Comment: Commenters state that in 2020, the EPA conservatively
determined that II&S source category risk was well below the acceptable
levels established by the Congress and that existing standards are
protective of public health with an ample margin of safety, and the
proposal does not reopen or even question the EPA's conservative 2020
determination. As the proposal (briefly) recites, ``[i]n the 2020 final
rule, the Agency found that risks due to emissions of air toxics from
this source category were acceptable and concluded that the NESHAP
provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health.'' (2023
Proposal) The EPA's decision not to revisit that conclusion confirms
that the EPA supports the 2020 ample margin of safety determination and
sees no reason for amendment. In fact, detailed corrected emission and
modeling data show that the remaining risks are significantly smaller
than even the low levels the EPA estimated in 2020.
Response: The EPA is revising the 2020 final rule to satisfy the
LEAN decision, which requires the EPA to address any remaining
unregulated sources of emissions from the iron and steel facilities. In
meeting the requirements of this case law, the EPA collected more data
to revisit the standards in the 2020 final rule under a technology
review. Therefore, our revised standards are not based on assessment of
risk, but instead based on evaluation of additional data. All the
standards and other requirements in this final rule are being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(d)(6). The
EPA is not promulgating any new or revised standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) or revising its prior risk assessment results and
conclusions, but instead are finalizing these standards and other
requirements based on evaluation of additional data and applicable
112(d)
[[Page 23313]]
requirements that direct HAP emission reductions.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA's emissions estimates for
UFIP sources are flawed and must be corrected. The EPA has attempted to
estimate current HAP emission rates for all seven categories of UFIPs,
and to estimate emission reductions that it projects would occur if the
proposed opacity and work practice standards are achieved. The
commenter claims that EPA's emissions estimates are based, in part, on
the use of incorrect emission factors, which cause a significant
overstatement of emissions from UFIPs, and therefore significantly
overestimates risk from UFIPs. These errors result in significant
cascading and compounding effects that reveal that the current proposal
will be prohibitively expensive and cannot be justified, particularly
given the low-risk determination that the EPA has already made.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the UFIP emission factors led to a
significant overestimation of emissions from UFIP sources. The emission
factors for UFIP sources were developed from the literature, first
principles, discussions with the II&S industry, or a combination of all
three. The emission factors used for most UFIP sources are described in
the memorandum titled Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive
or Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk
Assessment (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0956). The emission
factor used for bell leaks was lower than the emission factor used in
2019 after incorporating previous feedback from industry that the 2019
emission factor for bell leaks was an overestimation. The emission
factor used for bell leaks is described in the memorandum titled
Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and Cost
Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447), this
document is also referred to as the ``UFIP memorandum'' elsewhere in
this preamble.
The PM emission factors for UFIP and capture and control
efficiencies for control devices were taken primarily from a relatively
recent (2006) EPA document. However, this document used as its primary
source of data the 1995 update of the EPA's AP-42 section for the II&S
manufacturing industry (section 12.5), which relied upon even older
(1970) data in some cases. However, because the 2006 EPA document was
developed by the EPA after the II&S manufacturing industry MACT was
promulgated and was based on an expert evaluation of the available
emission information, it is considered the most reliable source of
information about PM emissions for the II&S manufacturing industry
available to the EPA and, hence, the most reliable information to be
used for UFIP sources.
Other data that were used to estimate UFIP emissions not available
in the 2006 EPA document were taken from reliable sources in the
literature. In some cases, for the purposes of the II&S manufacturing
industry RTR, an emission factor from AP-42 for one II&S manufacturing
industry source was used for another II&S manufacturing industry source
based on good engineering judgment. For example, if EPA staff
determined that the two sources were similar (e.g., used similar
processes, equipment, input materials, control devices, etc.), then
staff used such a source to estimate emissions from another similar
source. If not, staff searched for other relevant information to
estimate emissions. Whenever possible, the original source of data
referenced by the documents was obtained and reviewed; these references
are cited in the ``Example Facility memorandum'' along with the 1995
EPA AP-42 document. Also, where available, AP-42 emission factor
quality ratings were provided. In some cases, none of the available
literature provided emission factors considered appropriate for today's
industry. In these cases, the EPA developed emission factors from basic
scientific principles, industry data and feedback, emission factors for
similar sources, and the EPA's knowledge of the process. Further
explanation and discussion of how emissions were estimated are
available in the Development of Emissions Estimates for Fugitive or
Intermittent HAP Emission Sources for an Example Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Industry Facility for Input to the RTR Risk
Assessment (Example facility memorandum) and/or the UFIP memorandum
cited previously in this preamble, which are available in the docket
for this action.
Comment: Commenters stated the EPA must consider additional data in
setting limits. Although the EPA collected data in 2022 from the eight
impacted facilities, the commenters urged the EPA to compile and
consider additional data before finalizing these 2023 amendments. The
limited data collection did not reflect the full range of variability
due to seasonal effects and variable operating scenarios. While much of
the industry meets the proposed limits at times, the variability may
require investment in controls that are currently excluded from the
cost estimates in the rules. The EPA must consider additional data and
revise the proposed limits to adjust them upwards, as appropriate to
account for variability, or eliminate the proposed limit where test
results were below detectable levels.
Response: The EPA has made use of all valid test data, both
received through the section 114 request in 2022 and submitted during
the comment period to establish the emissions limits for sinter plants,
BF stoves, BF Primary control devices and BOPF primary control devices.
These ``point source'' emissions limits were derived using the UPL
methodology using all the valid data. Regarding opacity limits for
planned openings and slag processing, we used all valid data for 2022
that we received though the section 114 request in electronic format
and that were gathered following the methods, instruction and
conditions described in the section 114 request and because these data
reflected the most current year. The fenceline monitoring requirements
are based on evaluation all the available fenceline monitoring data
that EPA received from 16 monitoring sites. EPA considered the
variability across all 16 sites to determine the appropriate action
level, which is described in detail in the proposed rule preamble
published on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49402). Regarding the work practice
standards for Bell Leaks, beaching and unplanned openings, those
standards wer developed using data collected through the section 114
requests along with additional data and information collected through
public comments. For more details, see the technical memos cited in
responses above.
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA should expand the proposed
standards to include best work practices that reduce toxic emissions
from steel mills at a minimum by 65% as was shown possible in 2019.
Commenters stated that the EPA should ensure air monitoring and testing
includes ALL 12 toxic emissions, not simply chromium, as currently
proposed.
Response: The change from the 65 percent emission reduction
estimated in 2019 to the emission reductions calculated for this rule
is primarily due to calculation improvements based on newly received
data rather than changes to the set of work practices published. The
EPA is finalizing many of the same UFIP work practices that were
published for comment in 2019. However, through the 2022 section 114
collection the EPA received information about work practices that are
currently being utilized by facilities. The data
[[Page 23314]]
showed that a subset of the facilities are already utilizing some of
the UFIP work practices that are being finalized, which was not taken
into account in the baseline emissions estimate conducted in 2019. In
the emissions estimate conducted for this rulemaking, baseline
emissions were adjusted based on facility-specific information on work
practices that are already in use, resulting in lower baseline
emissions. If a facility is already using a work practice that is being
finalized in this rulemaking, the percent reduction of emissions
estimated for that work practice was also removed from the total
estimated emission reduction for that facility. The estimated baseline
emissions and emission reductions are described in the memorandum
titled Unmeasured Fugitive and Intermittent Particulate Emissions and
Cost Impacts for Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities under 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-1447).
G. Severability of Standards
This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA
section 112(d)(2)-(3), as well as targeted updates to existing
standards and work practices promulgated under section 112(d)(6). We
intend each separate portion of this rule to operate independently of
and to be severable from the rest of the rule.
First, each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific
determinations that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of
the rule. For example, our judgments regarding the 112(d)(2)-(3) MACT
Standard for planned bleeder valve openings rest on the best performing
units' historical data, based on opacity values; in contrast, our
judgments regarding 112(d)(6) work practice standards for the basic
oxygen process furnace rest on different analyses, including updates to
industry standards in practices. Thus, our assessment that the
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards are feasible and appropriate is fully
independent of our judgments about the 112(d)(6) technology-review-
update standards, and vice versa.
Further, EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA
112(d)(2)-(3) MACT standards and each set of 112(d)(6) technology
updates, including monitoring requirements, is independent. For
example, there is nothing precluding a source from complying with its
unplanned bleeder-valve-opening MACT limit, even if that source does
not have any data from its fenceline monitors (which measure chromium),
and vice versa. Thus, each aspect of EPA's overall approach to this
source category could be implemented even in the absence of any one or
more of the other elements included in this final rule.
Accordingly, EPA finds that each set of standards in this final
rule is severable from and can operate independently of each other set
of standards, and at a minimum, that the MACT emissions standards, as a
group, are severable from the 112(d)(6) technology update standards
(which include the fenceline monitoring requirement).
H. What are the effective and compliance dates?
All affected facilities must continue to comply with the previous
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF until the applicable
compliance date of this final rule. This final action meets the
definition in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be 60 days after the promulgation date as specified in the
Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). The compliance
dates are in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, EPA revised compliance dates
for some of the final rule requirements. For explanation of revised
compliance dates, see section 6 of the RTC.
Table 5--Summary of Compliance Dates for the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed compliance
Source(s) Rule requirement date Final compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sinter plant windbox New emissions limits 6 months after the 3 years after the
sources that commence construction for mercury, HCl, COS, promulgation of the promulgation date of
or reconstruction on or before July D/F, and PAH. final rule. the final rule.
31, 2023.
All affected sources that commence Fenceline monitoring Begin 1 year after the Begin 1 year after the
construction or reconstruction on or requirements. promulgation of the promulgation of the
before July 31, 2023. fenceline method for fenceline method for
metals or 2 years metals or 2 years
after the promulgation after the promulgation
date of the final date of the final
rule, whichever is rule, whichever is
later. later.
All affected sources that commence Opacity limits for 12 months after the 12 months after the
construction or reconstruction on or Planned Openings, Work promulgation date of promulgation date of
before July 31, 2023. Practices for Bell the final rule. the final rule.
Leaks, and work
practices for BOPF
Shop.
All affected sources that commence Work Practices and 12 months after the 24 months after the
construction or reconstruction on or Limits for Unplanned promulgation date of promulgation date of
before July 31, 2023. Openings, Work the final rule. the final rule.
Practices for
Beaching, and Opacity
limit for Slag
Processing.
All affected BF and BOPF sources that New emissions limits 6 months after the 3 years after the
commence construction or for HCl, THC, and D/F promulgation date of promulgation date of
reconstruction on or before July 31, (see Table 4). the final rule. the final rule.
2023.
All affected sources that commence All new and revised Effective date of the Effective date of the
construction or reconstruction after provisions. final rule (or upon final rule (or upon
July 31, 2023. startup, whichever is startup, whichever is
later). later).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The affected sources are facilities in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category. This includes any
facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron and
steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes the
BOPF. Based on the data we have, there are eight operating integrated
iron and steel manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, and one
idle facility.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We project emissions reductions of about 64 tpy of HAP metals and
about 473 tpy of PM2.5 from UFIP sources in the Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category due to the new
and revised standards for UFIP sources.
[[Page 23315]]
C. What are the cost impacts?
The estimated capital costs are the same as the proposed estimate
at $5.4M and annualized costs are $2.8M per year for the source
category for the new UFIP control requirements. Also, compliance
testing for all the new standards is estimated to cost the same as the
proposed estimate at about $1.7M once every 5 years for the source
category (which equates to about an average of roughly $320,000 per
year). The estimated cost breakdown for the fenceline monitoring
requirement is the same as proposed at $25,000 capital cost and $41,100
annual operating costs per monitor, $100,000 capital costs and $164,000
annual operating costs per facility, and $800,000 capital costs and
$1.3M annual operating costs for the source category (assumes 8
operating facilities). Additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with the final rule are expected to
cost the same as the proposed estimate at $7,500 per facility per year
($60,000 for the source category per year, assuming eight facilities).
The cost estimates were primarily revised in response to modifications
of the rule requirements, with some BTF components being substituted
for MACT floor options, as well as in response to contractor revisions.
Additional adjustments were made to recategorize some annual costs that
were initially miscategorized as capital costs. Based on the comments
received, emission limits for sinter plants were revised to reflect the
installation of ACI controls. ACI controls on the sinter plants are
expected to cost $950,000 in total capital cost and $2.3 million in
total annual cost. The total estimated capital costs are $7.1 million
and total estimated annualized costs are $6.7 million for all the
requirements for the source category. However, annual costs could
decrease after facilities complete 2 years of fenceline monitoring
because we have included a sunset provision whereby if facilities
remain below the one half of the action level for 2 full years, they
can request to terminate the fenceline monitoring. Termination of the
fenceline monitoring in no way impacts the requirement for facilities
to meet all other obligations under this subpart including the general
duty to minimize emissions of 40 CFR 63.7810(d). There may be some
energy savings from reducing leaks of BF gas from bells, which is one
of the work practices described in this preamble, however those
potential savings have not been quantified.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for the final rule in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket
for this action. If the compliance costs, which are key inputs to an
economic impact analysis, are small relative to the receipts of the
affected industries, then the impact analysis may consist of a
calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for
affected parent companies. This type of analysis is often applied when
a partial equilibrium, or more complex economic impact analysis
approach, is deemed unnecessary, given the expected size of the
impacts. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the
maximum price increase in the affected product or service needed for
the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the
regulation. We conducted a cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the
economic impacts of this final action, given that the EAV of the
compliance costs over the period 2026-2035 are $5.1 million using a 7
percent or $5.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate in 2022
dollars, which is small relative to the revenues of the steel industry.
There are two parent companies directly affected by the rule:
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel. Each reported greater than $20
billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the annualized compliance
cost each firm is expected to incur and determined the estimated cost-
to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 0.02 percent. Therefore, the
projected economic impacts of the expected compliance costs of the rule
are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small business
screening to determine the possible impacts of the rule on small
businesses. Based on the Small Business Administration size standards
and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel employment information, this
source category has no small businesses.
E. What are the benefits?
The UFIP emissions work practices to reduce HAP emissions (with
concurrent control of PM2.5) are anticipated to improve air
quality and the health of persons living in surrounding communities.
The opacity limits and UFIP work practices are expected to reduce about
64 tpy of HAP metal emissions, including emissions of manganese, lead,
arsenic, and chromium. Due to methodology and data limitations, we did
not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in
this analysis. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of
the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the rule in section 4.2 of the RIA, available in the
docket for this action. The EPA remains committed to improving methods
for estimating HAP-reduction benefits by continuing to explore
additional aspects of HAP-related risk from the integrated iron and
steel manufacturing sector, including the distribution of that risk.
The opacity limits and UFIP work practices are also estimated to
reduce PM2.5 emissions by about 473 tpy for the source
category. The EPA estimated monetized benefits related to avoided
premature mortality and morbidity associated with reduced exposure to
PM2.5 for 2026-2035. The present-value (PV) of the short-
term benefits for the rule are estimated to be $1.8 billion at a 3
percent discount rate and $1.2 billion at a 7 percent discount rate
with an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $200 million and $170
million, respectively. The EAV represents a flow of constant annual
values that would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The PV of the long-
term benefits for the rule range are estimated to be $3.7 billion at a
3 percent discount rate and $2.6 billion at a 7 percent discount rate
with an EAV of $420 million and $340 million, respectively. All
estimates are reported in 2022 dollars. For the full set of underlying
calculations see the Integrated Iron and Steel Benefits workbook,
available in the docket for this action.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities sources, we
performed a proximity demographic assessment, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and 50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the
data from this assessment to the national average for each of the
demographic groups. This assessment did not inform and was not used to
develop the amended standards established in the final action. The
amended standards were established based on the technical and
scientific determinations described herein.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the just treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of income, race, color, national
origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making
and other Federal activities that affect human health and the
environment so that people: (i) are fully protected from
[[Page 23316]]
disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects
(including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate
change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and
the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (ii)
have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient
environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and
engage in cultural and subsistence practices.'' \5\ In recognizing that
communities with EJ concerns often bear an unequal burden of
environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it
could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns
through this action under development.
The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared
to the baseline?''[1]
The results of the proximity demographic analysis (see Table 6)
indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the nine integrated iron
and steel facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is
more than twice the national average (27 percent versus 12 percent). In
addition, the percentage of the population that is living below the
poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times the poverty level
(52 percent) is well above the national average (13 percent and 29
percent, respectively). Other demographics for the populations living
within 5 km are below or near their respective national averages.
Within 50 km of the nine sources within the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities category, the percent of the population
that is Black is above the national average (20 percent versus 12
percent). Within 50 km the income demographics are similar to the
national averages. Other demographics for the populations living within
50 km are below or near the respective national averages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
As discussed in other subsections of the impacts of this action, in
this action the EPA is adding requirements for facilities to improve
UFIP emission control resulting in reductions of both metal HAP and
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this rule, including the
facilities at which the percentage of the population living in close
proximity who are Black and below poverty level is greater than the
national average. The rule changes will have beneficial effects on air
quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions from
integrated iron and steel facilities.
Table 6--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population within
Demographic group Nationwide within 50 km of 9 5 km of 9
facilities facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................... 329,824,950 18,966,693 478,761
-----------------------------------------------------
Race and Ethnicity by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
White..................................................... 60 63 52
Black..................................................... 12 20 27
Native American........................................... 0.6 0.1 0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite).......... 19 10 16
Other and Multiracial..................................... 9 7 5
-----------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................... 13 13 29
Above Poverty Level....................................... 87 87 71
Below 2x Poverty Level.................................... 29 28 52
Above 2x Poverty Level.................................... 71 72 48
-----------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma................. 12 9 18
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................... 88 91 82
-----------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23317]]
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-----------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................... 5 3 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
block populations.
To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
have also identified as in the Census.
In addition to the analyses described above, the EPA completed a
risk-based demographics analysis for the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) proposed rule (84 FR 42704, August 16, 2019) and the 2020
RTR final rule (85 FR 42074, July 13, 2020). A description of the
demographic analyses and the results are provided in those two Federal
Register notices.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, EPA, submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Any
changes made in response to recommendations received as part of
Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final action have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information
collection request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2003.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
Estimated number of respondents: 8 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 30,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $3,950,000 per year, of which $3,140,000 per year is
for this final rule, and $803,000 is for other costs related to
continued compliance with the NESHAP including $108,000 for paperwork
associated with operation and maintenance requirements.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval
in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information
collection activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The Agency
confirmed through responses to a CAA section 114 information request
that there are only eight integrated iron and steel manufacturing
facilities currently operating in the United States and that these
plants are owned by two parent companies that do not meet the
definition of small businesses, as defined by the U.S. Small Business
Administration.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute
[[Page 23318]]
(ANSI). We also conducted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted
searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23,
25A, 26A, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 320 of 40 CFR part
63 appendix, and SW-846 Method 9071B. During the EPA's VCS search, if
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23, 25A, 26A, 29, 30B and SW-846 Method 9071B
not already incorporated by reference in this subpart. The search
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in
lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard, the EPA
determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency. The EPA incorporates by reference
VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is an extractive FTIR spectroscopy-
based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase
concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from
stationary sources. This field test method provides near real time
analysis of extracted gas samples. In the September 22, 2008, NTTAA
summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to EPA Method
320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) is a revised version of ASTM
D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from
direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks
the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version. We are finalizing
that the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), Annexes Al through A8 are mandatory; and in
ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We
are finalizing that, in order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be 70% > R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e.,
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.045
The ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) method is available at ASTM
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See
www.astm.org/.
The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements is an EPA developed
guidance manual for the installation, operation, maintenance and
calibration of meteorological systems including the wind speed and
direction using anemometers, temperature using thermistors, and
atmospheric pressure using aneroid barometers, as well as the
calculations for wind vector data for on-site meteorological
measurements. This VCS may be obtained from the EPA's National Service
Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep).
Additional information for the VCS search and determination can be
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this
action.
ASTM D7520-16 is already approved for the location in which it
appears in the amendatory text.
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with EJ concerns. For this action the EPA
conducted an assessment of the various demographic groups living near
Integrated Iron and Steel facilities (as described in section V.F of
this preamble) that might potentially be impacted by emissions from
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities. For populations living within 5
km of the nine integrated iron and steel facilities, the percent of the
population that is Black is more than twice the national average (27
percent versus 12 percent). Specifically, within 5 km of six of the
nine facilities, the percent of the population that is Black is more
than 1.5 times the national average (ranging between 1.5 times and 7
times the national average). The percentage of the population that is
living below the poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times
the poverty level (52 percent) is well above the national average (13
percent and 29 percent, respectively). Specifically, within 5 km of
seven of the nine facilities, the percent of the population that is
living below the poverty level is more than 1.5 times the national
average (ranging from 1.5 times and 3 times the national average).
Other demographics for the populations living within 5 km are below or
near the respective national averages.
The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns.
This
[[Page 23319]]
action requires facilities to improve UFIP emission control resulting
in reductions of about 64 tpy of metal HAP and about 473 tpy
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this rule, including the
facilities at which the percentage of the population living in close
proximity who are African American and below poverty level is greater
than the national average.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in sections IV and V of this preamble. The demographic analysis is
available in a document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. We have concluded that this action is
not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it contains no
regulatory requirements that will have an adverse impact on
productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit the rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Hydrogen chloride, Hydrogen fluoride, Incorporation by
reference, Mercury, Reorting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4701, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(88) and (110)
and paragraph (o) introductory text and adding paragraph (o)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(88) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR)
Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved December 1;
2020, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.365(b); 63.7825(g) and (h).
* * * * *
(110) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1,
2016; IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1625(b); table 3 to subpart LLLLL;
63.7823(c) through (f), 63.7833(g); 63.11423(c).
* * * * *
(o) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460; phone: (202) 272-0167; website: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contact-epa.
* * * * *
(3) EPA-454/B-08-002, Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems; Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version
2.0 (Final), Issued March 2008, IBR approved for Sec. 63.7792(b).
* * * * *
Subpart FFFFF--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.7782 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(c) This subpart covers emissions from the sinter plant windbox
exhaust, discharge end, and sinter cooler; the blast furnace casthouse;
the blast furnace stove; and the BOPF shop including each individual
BOPF and shop ancillary operations (hot metal transfer, hot metal
desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy). This subpart
also covers fugitive and intermittent particulate emissions from blast
furnace unplanned bleeder valve openings, blast furnace planned bleeder
valve openings, blast furnace and BOPF slag processing, handling, and
storage, blast furnace bell leaks, beaching of iron from blast
furnaces, blast furnace casthouse fugitives, and BOPF shop fugitives.
(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is
existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the
affected source before July 13, 2001.
(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, blast furnace stove, or BOPF
shop at your integrated iron and steel manufacturing facility is new if
you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source on
or after July 13, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets
the definition of reconstruction in Sec. 63.2.
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.7783 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7783 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. This paragraph does not
apply to the emission limitations for BOPF group: mercury (Hg); sinter
plant windbox: Hg, hydrochloric acid (HCl), carbonyl sulfide (COS);
Blast Furnace casthouse: HCl, total hydrocarbon (THC); Blast Furnace
stove: HCl and total hydrocarbon (THC); primary emission control system
for a BOPF: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic
equivalent (TEQ), HCl, THC; fugitive and intermittent particulate
sources.
* * * * *
(g) If you have an existing affected source or a new or
reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction
commenced on or before July 31, 2023, each sinter plant windbox, BF
casthouse, BF stove,
[[Page 23320]]
primary emission control system for a BOPF, and fugitive and
intermittent particulate source at your facility must be in compliance
with the applicable emission limits in table 1 of this subpart through
performance testing under Sec. 63.7825, April 3, 2025, except for the
following:
(1) All affected sinter plant windbox sources that commence
construction or reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023, must be in
compliance with Hg, HCl, COS, TEQ, and PAH emissions limits in table 1
to this subpart through performance testing by April 3, 2027.
(2) All affected BF and BOPF sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023, must be in compliance with
HCl, THC, and TEQ emissions limits in table 1 to this subpart through
performance testing by April 3, 2027.
(3) All affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before July 31, 2023 must be in compliance with
work practices and limits for unplanned openings, work practices for
beaching, and the opacity limit for slag processing in table 1 to this
subpart through performance testing (or through reporting of number of
unplanned openings for limits applicable to unplanned openings shown in
table 1) by April 3, 2026.
(4) All affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after July 31, 2023, must be in compliance with all new
and revised provisions in table 1 to this subpart through performance
testing by April 3, 2024 or upon startup, whichever is later.
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.7791 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7791 How do I comply with the requirements for the control of
mercury from BOPF Groups?
* * * * *
0
6. Add Sec. 63.7792 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7792 What fenceline monitoring requirements must I meet?
The owner or operator must conduct sampling along the facility
property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with paragraphs
(a) through (g) of this section.
(a) Beginning either 1 year after promulgation of the test method
for fenceline sampling of metals applicable to this subpart or April 3,
2026 whichever is later, the owner or operator must conduct sampling
along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in
accordance with the method and paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) The owner or operator must monitor for total chromium.
(2) The owner or operator must use a sampling period and sampling
frequency as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Sampling period. A 24-hour sampling period must be used. A
sampling period is defined as the period during active collection of a
sample and does not include the time required to analyze the sample.
(ii) Sampling frequency. The frequency of sample collection must be
samples at least every 6 calendar days, such that the beginning of each
sampling period begins no greater than approximately 144 hours (12 hours) from the end of the previous sample.
(iii) Sunset provision. When the annual rolling average [Delta]c
remains less than 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ for 24 months in succession, a test
waiver may be requested from the Administrator to remove or reduce
fenceline sampling requirements. If the annual rolling average [Delta]c
exceeds 0.05[mu]g/m\3\, the determination of 24 consecutive annual
average [Delta]c months restarts.
(3) The owner or operator must determine sample locations in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) The monitoring perimeter must be located between the property
boundary and the process unit(s), such that the monitoring perimeter
encompasses all potential sources of the target analyte(s) specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator must place a minimum of 4 samplers
around the monitoring perimeter.
(iii) To determine sampling locations, measure the length of the
monitoring perimeter.
(A) Locate the point downwind of the prevailing wind direction.
(B) Divide the monitoring perimeter equally into 4 evenly spaced
sampling points, with one located in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator must follow the procedures in of the
fenceline metals test method to determine the detection limit of the
target analyte(s) and requirements for quality assurance samples.
(b) The owner or operator must collect and record meteorological
data according to the applicable requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) If monitoring is conducted under paragraph (b) of this section,
if a near-field source correction is used as provided in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section, or if an alternative test method is used that
provides time-resolved measurements, the owner or operator must use an
on-site meteorological station in accordance with the metals fenceline
test method applicable to this subpart. Collect and record hourly
average meteorological data, including temperature, barometric
pressure, wind speed and wind direction and calculate daily unit vector
wind direction and daily sigma theta.
(2) For cases other than those specified in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section, the owner or operator must collect and record sampling
period average temperature and barometric pressure using either an on-
site meteorological station in accordance with the metals fenceline
test method of this part or, alternatively, using data from a National
Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station provided the NWS
meteorological station is within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of the
facility.
(3) If an on-site meteorological station is used, the owner or
operator must follow the calibration and standardization procedures for
meteorological measurements in EPA-454/B-08-002 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(c) Within 45 days of completion of each sampling period, the owner
or operator must determine whether the results are above or below the
action level as follows.
(1) The owner or operator must determine the facility impact on the
concentration ([Delta]c) for each sampling period according to either
paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) Except when near-field source correction is used as provided in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator must
determine the highest and lowest sample results individually from the
sample pool and calculate the [Delta]c as the difference in these
concentrations. Co-located samples must be averaged together for the
purposes of determining the concentration at a particular sampling
location, and, if applicable, for determining [Delta]c. The owner or
operator must adhere to the following procedures when one or more
samples for the sampling period are below the method detection limit
for a particular compound:
(A) If the lowest detected value is below detection, the owner or
operator must use zero as the lowest sample result when calculating
[Delta]c.
(B) If all sample results are below the method detection limit, the
owner or operator must use the highest method detection limit for the
sample set as the highest sample result and zero as the
[[Page 23321]]
lowest sample result when calculating [Delta]c.
(ii) When near-field source correction is used as provided in
paragraph (g) of this section, the owner or operator must determine
[Delta]c using the calculation protocols outlined in the approved site-
specific monitoring plan and in paragraph (g) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator must calculate the annual average
[Delta]c based on the average of the [Delta]c values for the 61 most
recent sampling periods. The owner or operator must update this annual
average value after receiving the results of each subsequent sampling
period.
(3) The action level for chromium is 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. If the annual
average [Delta]c value (rounded to 1 significant figure) is greater
than the action level, the concentration is above the action level, and
the owner or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and corrective
action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) Once any action level in paragraph (c)(3) of this section has
been exceeded, the owner or operator must take the following actions to
bring the annual average [Delta]c back below the action level(s).
(1) Within 5 days of updating the annual average value as required
in (c)(2) and determining that any action level in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section has been exceeded (i.e., in no case longer than 50 days
after completion of the sampling period), the owner or operator must
initiate a root cause analysis to determine appropriate corrective
action. A root cause analysis is an assessment conducted through a
process of investigation to determine the primary underlying cause and
all other contributing causes to an exceedance of the action level(s)
set forth in paragraph (c)(3).
(2) The initial root cause analysis may include, but is not limited
to:
(i) Visual inspection to determine the cause of the high emissions.
(ii) Operator knowledge of process changes (e.g., a malfunction or
release event).
(3) If the initial root cause cannot be identified using the type
of techniques described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the owner
or operator must employ more frequent sampling and analysis to
determine the root cause of the exceedance.
(i) The owner or operator may first employ additional monitoring
points or more frequent sampling to determine the root cause of the
exceedance.
(ii) If the owner or operator has not determined the root cause of
the exceedance within 30 days of determining that the action level has
been exceeded, the owner or operator must employ the appropriate more
time resolute sampling techniques (e.g., continuous multi metals
monitors) to locate the cause of the exceedance. If the root cause is
not identified after 28 days, either the more time resolute monitor
must be relocated or an additional more time resolute monitor must be
added. Relocation or addition of extra monitors must continue after
each 28-day period of nonidentification until the owner or operator can
identify the root cause of the exceedance.
(4) If the underlying primary and other contributing causes of the
exceedance are deemed to be under the control of the owner or operator,
the owner or operator must take appropriate corrective action as
expeditiously as possible to bring annual average fenceline
concentrations back below the action level(s) set forth in paragraph
(c)(2)(3) of this section. At a minimum, the corrective actions taken
must address the underlying primary and other contributing cause(s)
determined in the root cause analysis to prevent future exceedances
from the same underlying cause(s).
(5) The root cause analysis must be completed and initial
corrective actions taken no later than 45 days after determining there
is an exceedance of an action level.
(e) An owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if
the conditions in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section are
met. The corrective action plan must describe the corrective action(s)
completed to date, additional measures that the owner or operator
proposes to employ to expeditiously reduce annual average fenceline
concentrations below the action level set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section, and a schedule for completion of these measures. The
corrective action plan must identify actions to address the underlying
primary and other contributing cause(s) determined in the root cause
analysis to prevent future exceedances from the same underlying
cause(s). The corrective action plan does not need to be approved by
the Administrator. However, if upon review, the Administrator disagrees
with the additional measures outlined in the plan, the owner or
operator must revise and resubmit the plan within 7 calendar days of
receiving comments from the Administrator.
(1) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if,
upon completion of the root cause analysis and initial corrective
actions required in paragraph (d) of this section, the [Delta]c value
for the next sampling period, for which the sampling start time begins
after the completion of the initial corrective actions, is greater than
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\. The owner or operator must submit the corrective action
plan to the Administrator within 60 days after receiving the analytical
results indicating that the [Delta]c value for the sampling period
following the completion of the initial corrective action is greater
than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
(2) The owner or operator must develop a corrective action plan if
complete implementation of all corrective measures identified in the
root cause analysis required by paragraph (d) of this section will
require more than 45 days. The owner or operator must submit the
corrective action plan to the Administrator no later than 60 days
following the completion of the root cause analysis required in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) An owner or operator may request approval from the
Administrator for a site-specific monitoring plan to account for
offsite upwind sources according to the requirements in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator must prepare and submit a site-specific
monitoring plan and receive approval of the site-specific monitoring
plan prior to using the near-field source alternative calculation for
determining [Delta]c provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. The
site-specific monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the elements
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) of this section. The
procedures in section 12 of Method 325A of appendix A of this part are
not required, but may be used, if applicable, when determining near-
field source contributions.
(i) Identification of the near-field source or sources.
(ii) Location of the additional monitoring stations that must be
used to determine the uniform background concentration and the near-
field source concentration contribution. Modeling may not be used in
lieu of monitoring to identify uniform background concentration and
near-field sources.
(iii) Identification of the fenceline monitoring locations impacted
by the near-field source. If more than one near-field source is
present, identify the near-field source or sources that are expected to
contribute to the concentration at that monitoring location.
(iv) A description of (including sample calculations illustrating)
the planned data reduction including the treatment of invalid data,
data below detection limits, and data collected during calm wind
periods; and
[[Page 23322]]
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration
contribution for each monitoring location.
(v) A detailed description of the measurement technique,
measurement location(s), the standard operation procedure, measurement
frequency, recording frequency, measurement detection limit, and data
quality indicators to ensure accuracy, precision, and validity of the
data.
(2) When an approved site-specific monitoring plan is used, the
owner or operator must determine [Delta]c for comparison with the
action level using the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) For each monitoring location, calculate [Delta]ci
using the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.046
Where:
[Delta]ci = The fenceline concentration, corrected for
background, at measurement location i, micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\).
MFCi = The measured fenceline concentration at
measurement location i, [mu]g/m\3\.
NFSi = The near-field source contributing concentration
at measurement location i determined using the additional
measurements and calculation procedures included in the site-
specific monitoring plan, [mu]g/m\3\. For monitoring locations that
are not included in the site-specific monitoring plan as impacted by
a near-field source, use NFSi = 0 [mu]g/m\3\.
(ii) When one or more samples for the sampling period are below the
method detection limit, adhere to the following procedures:
(A) If the concentration at the monitoring location(s) used to
determine the near-field source contributing concentration is below the
method detection limit, the owner or operator must use zero for the
monitoring location concentration when calculating NFSi for
that monitoring period.
(B) If a fenceline monitoring location sample result is below the
method detection limit, the owner or operator must use the method
detection limit as the sample result.
(iii) Determine [Delta]c for the monitoring period as the maximum
value of [Delta]ci from all of the fenceline monitoring
locations for that monitoring period.
(3) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted and
approved as described in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) The site-specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the
Administrator for approval.
(ii) The site-specific monitoring plan must also be submitted to
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, U.S. EPA Mailroom (E143-01), Attention: Integrated Iron and
Steel Sector Lead, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. Electronic copies in lieu of hard copies may also be submitted
to [email protected].
(iii) The Administrator will approve or disapprove the plan in 90
days. The plan is considered approved if the Administrator either
approves the plan in writing or fails to disapprove the plan in
writing. The 90-day period begins when the Administrator receives the
plan.
(iv) If the Administrator finds any deficiencies in the site-
specific monitoring plan and disapproves the plan in writing, the owner
or operator may revise and resubmit the site-specific monitoring plan
following the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section. The 90-day period starts over with the resubmission of the
revised monitoring plan.
(4) The approval by the Administrator of a site-specific monitoring
plan will be based on the completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness of
the request for a site-specific monitoring plan. Factors that the
Administrator will consider in reviewing the request for a site-
specific monitoring plan include, but are not limited to, those
described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) The identification of the near-field source or sources and
evidence of how the sources impact the fenceline concentrations.
(ii) The monitoring location selected to determine the uniform
background concentration or an indication that no uniform background
concentration monitor will be used.
(iii) The location(s) selected for additional monitoring to
determine the near-field source concentration contribution.
(iv) The identification of the fenceline monitoring locations
impacted by the near-field source or sources.
(v) The appropriateness of the planned data reduction and
calculations to determine the near-field source concentration
contribution for each monitoring location, including the handling of
invalid data, data below the detection limit, and data during calm
periods.
(vi) If more frequent monitoring is proposed, the adequacy of the
description of and rationale for the measurement technique, measurement
location(s), the standard operation procedure, measurement frequency,
recording frequency, measurement detection limit, and data quality
indicators to ensure accuracy, precision, and validity of the data.
(g) The owner or operator must comply with the applicable
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 63.7841 and Sec.
63.7842.
(1) As outlined in Sec. 63.7(f), the owner or operator may submit
a request for an alternative test method. At a minimum, the request
must follow the requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
(i) The alternative method may be used in lieu of all or a partial
number of the sampling locations required under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(ii) The alternative method must be validated according to Method
301 in appendix A of this part or contain performance-based procedures
and indicators to ensure self-validation.
(iii) The method detection limit must nominally be at least three
times below the action level. The alternate test method must describe
the procedures used to provide field verification of the detection
limit.
(iv) If the alternative test method will be used to replace some or
all samplers required under paragraph (a) of this section, the spatial
coverage must be equal to or better than the spatial coverage provided
under paragraph (a).
(v) For alternative test methods capable of real time measurements
(less than a 5-minute sampling and analysis cycle), the alternative
test method may allow for elimination of data points corresponding to
outside emission sources for purpose of calculation of the high point
for the two week average. The alternative test method approach must
have wind speed, direction, and stability class of the same time
resolution and within the footprint of the instrument.
(vi) For purposes of averaging data points to determine the
[Delta]c for the individual sampling period, all results measured under
the method detection limit must use the method detection limit. For
purposes of averaging data points for the individual sampling period
low sample result, all results measured under the method detection
limit must use zero.
0
7. Add Sec. 63.7793 to read as follows:
[[Page 23323]]
Sec. 63.7793 What work practice standards must I meet?
(a) You must meet each work practice limit in table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) For unplanned bleeder valve openings on a new and existing
blast furnace, you must meet each work practice standard listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Develop and operate according to a ``Slip Avoidance Plan'' to
minimize slips and submit it to EPA for approval;
(2) Install devices to continuously measure/monitor material levels
in the furnace (i.e., stockline), at a minimum of three locations, with
alarms to inform operators of static (i.e., not moving) stockline
conditions which increase the likelihood of slips; and
(3) Install and use instruments on the furnace to monitor
temperature and pressure to help determine when a slip is likely to
occur.
(c) For each large bell on a new and existing blast furnace, you
must meet each work practice standard listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Maintain metal seats to minimize wear on seals and emissions;
and
(2) Replace or repair large bell seals according to Sec.
63.7833(j).
(d) For each small bell on a new and existing blast furnace, you
must meet each work practice standard listed in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Maintain metal seats to minimize wear on seals; and
(2) You must repair or replace small bell seals prior to the time
period or metal throughput limit that has been proven and documented to
produce no opacity from the small bell.
(e) For each iron beaching operation, you must meet each work
practice standard listed in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Minimize the drop height of molten metal to the ground, the
slope or grade of the area where beaching occurs, and the rate at which
molten metal is poured onto the ground; and
(2) Use carbon dioxide shielding during beaching event; and/or use
full or partial (hoods) enclosures around beached iron.
(f) For each BOPF at a new or existing shop, you must develop and
operate according to a ``BOPF Shop Operating Plan'' to minimize
fugitive emissions and detect openings and leaks and submit it to EPA
for approval. Your BOPF Shop Operating Plan may include, but is not
limited to, any of the items listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (8) of
this section.
(1) List all events that generate VE, including slopping and other
steps company will take to reduce incidence rate. State the specific
actions that operators will take when slag foaming approaches the mouth
of the vessel in order to prevent slopping;
(2) Minimize hot iron pour/charge rate (minutes) and set a maximum
pour rate in tons/second;
(3) Schedule of regular inspections of BOPF shop structure for
openings and leaks to the atmosphere;
(4) Optimize positioning of hot metal ladles with respect to hood
face and furnace mouth;
(5) Optimize furnace tilt angle during charging and set a maximum
tilt angle during charging;
(6) Keep all openings, except roof monitors, closed, especially
during transfer, to extent feasible and safe. All openings shall be
closed unless the opening was in the original design of the Shop;
(7) Use higher draft velocities to capture more fugitives at a
given distance from hood, if possible; and
(8) Monitor opacity periodically (e.g., once per month) from all
openings with EPA Method Alt-082 (camera) or with EPA Method 9 in
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter.
0
8. Amend Sec. 63.7800 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and
adding paragraphs (b)(8) and (9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7800 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system or
control device subject to an operating limit in Sec. 63.7790(b). Each
plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) of this
section.
* * * * *
(8) Small Bell repair or replacement period, in weeks, or mass of
material throughput, in tons, and the specific begin date and end date
for the chosen repair or replacement period or throughput over which
there were no visible emissions observed.
(9) Building drawings of the BF Casthouse and BOPF shop that show
and list by number the openings, including doors and vents, that are
part of the original design of the building.
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.7820 by revising 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 BOPF Group mercury emission limit set
forth in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) in this section.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec. 63.7821 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
(m) of this section.
(b) For each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and each
emissions unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse,
you must conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance
tests no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and renewal) during
each term of your title V operating permit.
(c) For each emissions unit equipped with a baghouse, you must
conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests no
less frequently than once during each term of your title V operating
permit.
(d) For sources without a title V operating permit, you must
conduct subsequent particulate matter and opacity performance tests
every 2.5 years.
(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.
(f) For each sinter plant windbox, you must conduct subsequent
mercury, hydrogen chloride, carbonyl sulfide, dioxin/furan, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon performance tests every 5 years.
(g) For each blast furnace stove and BOPF shop primary emission
control device, you must conduct subsequent hydrogen chloride and total
hydrocarbon testing every 5 years. For the BOPF shop primary emission
control device, you must also conduct subsequent dioxin/furan testing
every 5 years.
(h) For each blast furnace casthouse and BOPF shop, you must
conduct subsequent opacity tests two times per
[[Page 23324]]
month during a cast, or during a full heat cycle, as appropriate.
(i) For planned bleeder valve openings on each blast furnace, you
must conduct opacity tests according to Sec. 63.7823(f) for each
planned opening.
(j) For slag processing, handling, and storage operations for each
blast furnace or BOPF, you must conduct subsequent opacity tests once
per week for a minimum of 18 minutes for each: BF pit filling; BOPF
slag pit filling; BF pit digging; BOPF slag pit digging; and one slag
handling (either truck loading or dumping slag to slag piles).
(k) For large bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible
emissions testing on the interbell relief valve according to EPA Method
22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter, unless specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section. Testing must be
conducted monthly, for 15 minutes.
(1) If visible emissions are detected for a large bell during the
monthly visible emissions testing, you must conduct EPA Method 9 (in
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter) opacity tests in place of EPA
Method 22 testing on that bell once per month, taking 3-minute averages
for 15 minutes, until the large bell seal is repaired or replaced.
(2) If the average of 3 instantaneous visible emission readings
taken while the interbell relief valve is exhausting exceeds 20
percent, you must initiate corrective action within five business days.
(3) Ten business days after the initial opacity exceedance of 20
percent, you must conduct an EPA Method 9 opacity test, taking 3-minute
averages for 15 minutes. If the average of 3 instantaneous visible
emissions readings from this test exceeds 20 percent, you must repair
or replace that bell seal within 4 months.
(l) For small bells on each blast furnace, you must conduct visible
emissions testing according to EPA Method 22 in appendix A-7 to part 60
of this chapter. Testing must be conducted monthly for 15 minutes. If
visible emissions are observed, you must compare the period between the
visible emissions being present and the most recent bell seal repair or
replacement. If this time period or throughput is shorter or lower than
the period or throughput stated in the O&M plan required by 63.7800,
this new shorter period or lower limit shall be placed in the O&M plan
as the work practice limit.
(m) For each blast furnace casthouse, you must conduct subsequent
hydrogen chloride and total hydrocarbon testing every 5 years.
0
11. Amend Sec. 63.7823 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs
(c)(3), (d)(6), and (f) through (h) 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) For each discharge end of a sinter plant, sinter plant cooler,
blast furnace casthouse, BOPF shop, and large bell on a blast furnace,
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) * * *
(3) For the blast furnace casthouse, make observations at each
opening:
(i) If EPA Method 9 is used, observations should be made separately
at each opening.
(ii) If ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14)
is used, observations may be read for more than one opening at the same
time.
(d) * * *
(6) Make observations at each opening:
(i) If EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter is
used, observations should be made separately at each opening.
(ii) If ASTM D7520-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14)
is used, observations may be read for more than one opening at the same
time.
* * * * *
(f) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
table 1 to this subpart for planned bleeder valve openings at a blast
furnace:
(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 be 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 any one 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.
(2) Conduct opacity observations in 6-minute block averages
starting as soon as event begins or sunrise whichever is later and
ending either when the bleeder valve closes, sunset, or after the first
6-minute block average where all readings are zero percent opacity, but
in no case shall the opacity observation period be less than 6 minutes.
(g) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in
table 1 to this subpart for slag processing, handling, and storage
operations for a blast furnace or BOPF:
(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.
(2) Conduct opacity observations in 6-minute blocks for 30 minutes
at each: slag dumping to BF pit; BOPF slag dumping to pit; BF pit
digging, BOPF pit digging; slag dumping to a pile, slag
[[Page 23325]]
dumping to a piece of slag handling equipment such as crusher.
(h) To determine compliance with the work practice trigger for
large bells on a blast furnace:
(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.
(2) Conduct opacity observations of 15 instantaneous interbell
relief valve emissions.
0
12. Amend Sec. 63.7825 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, paragraph (a) introductory text, and
paragraphs (b)(1)(v), (b)(2), and (c); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.7825 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for hazardous
air pollutants?
(a) If demonstrating compliance with the emission limits 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 (k) 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).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) EPA Method 29 or 30B in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter
to determine the concentration of mercury from the exhaust stream stack
of each unit. 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 unit in table 1 to this subpart as applicable. If the
performance testing results for any of the emission points yields a
non-detect value, then the method 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 or pounds of mercury per ton of product sinter)
for all 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).
* * * * *
(c) Calculate the 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 to this paragraph (c) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.047
Where:
E = Mass emissions of pollutant, pounds (lb);
Cs = Concentration of pollutant 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.
* * * * *
(g) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for hydrogen
chloride in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of hydrogen chloride according to
the following test methods:
(i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section, and
(ii) EPA Method 26A in appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of hydrogen chloride from the exhaust
stream stack of each unit, with the following conditions; or
(A) Collect a minimum sample volume of 70 dscf (2 dscm) of gas
during each run.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) EPA Method 320 in appendix A to this part to determine the
concentration of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride from the
exhaust stream stack of each unit. Alternatively, ASTM D6348-12(R2020),
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used with the
following conditions:
(A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12(R2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
(B) In ASTM D6348-12(R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the equation 2 o to this
paragraph (g)(1)(iii)(B) as follows:
[[Page 23326]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.048
Where
cs = measured concentration in stack.
(2) At least three valid test runs are needed to comprise a
performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. If the
performance testing results for any of the emission points yields a
non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the mass
emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the
emissions rate (lb/ton of product sinter, lb/ton of iron, or lb/ton of
steel).
(3) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of hydrogen chloride per ton of throughput processed
or unit of energy (tons of product sinter, tons of iron, tons of steel,
or MMBtu) to determine initial compliance with the emission limits in
table 1 to this subpart.
(h) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for carbonyl
sulfide in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of carbonyl sulfide according to
the following test methods:
(i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section, and
(ii) EPA Method 15 in appendix A-5 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of carbonyl sulfide from the exhaust stream
stack of each unit; or
(iii) EPA Method 320 in appendix A to this part to determine the
concentration of carbon disulfide and carbonyl sulfide from the exhaust
stream stack of each unit. Alternatively, ASTM D6348-12 (R2020),
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used with the
following conditions:
(A) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12 (R2020), Annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
(B) In ASTM D6348-12 (R2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the Equation 2 of this
section.
(2) Three valid test runs at least one hour in duration are needed
to comprise a performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart.
If the performance testing results for any of the emission points
yields a non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the
mass emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the
emissions rate (lb/ton of product sinter).
(3) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of carbonyl sulfide per ton of product sinter to
determine initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 to
this subpart .
(i) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for total
hydrocarbons in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing,
follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5)
of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons according to
the following test methods:
(i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section, and
(ii) EPA Method 25A in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of total hydrocarbons as propane from the
exhaust stream stack of each unit.
(2) Three valid test runs at least one hour in duration are needed
to comprise a performance test of each unit in table 1 to this subpart.
If the performance testing results for any of the emission points
yields a non-detect value, then the MDL must be used to calculate the
mass emissions (lb) for that unit and, in turn, for calculating the
emissions rate (lb/ton of iron or lb/ton of steel).
(3) For BOPF tests, the test runs must include at least one full
production cycle (from scrap charge to 3 minutes after slag is emptied
from the vessel) for each run, except for BOPF with closed hood
systems, where sampling should be performed only during the primary
oxygen blow and only for 20 heat cycles.
(4) For blast furnaces, each test run duration must be a minimum of
1 hour.
(5) Calculate the emissions from each new and existing affected
source in pounds of total hydrocarbons as propane per ton of throughput
processed or unit of energy (tons of iron, tons of steel, or MMBtu) to
determine initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 to
this subpart.
(j) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for D/F TEQ
in table 1 to this subpart through performance testing, follow the test
methods and procedures in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) Determine the concentration of each dioxin and furan listed in
table 5 to this subpart according to the following test methods:
(i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section, and
(ii) EPA Method 23 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of each dioxin and furan listed in table 5
to this subpart from the exhaust stream stack of each unit. You must
collect a minimum sample volume of 105 dscf (3 dscm) of gas during each
test run.
(2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test
of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. For determination of TEQ, zero
may be used in subsequent calculations for values less than the
estimated detection limit (EDL). For estimated maximum pollutant
concentration (EMPC) results, when the value is greater than the EDL,
the EMPC value must be used in determination of TEQ, when the EMPC is
less than the EDL, zero may be used.
(3) For BOPF tests, the test runs must include at least one full
production cycle (from scrap charge to 3 minutes after slag is emptied
from the vessel) for each run, except for BOPF with closed hood
systems, where sampling should be performed only during the primary
oxygen blow and only for 20 heat cycles or the collection of 105 dscf
(3 dscm) sample volume, whichever is less.
(4) Calculate the sum of the D/F TEQ per ton of throughput
processed (tons of product sinter or tons of steel) to determine
initial compliance with the emission limits in table 1 using equation 3
to this paragraph (j)(4) as follows:
[[Page 23327]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.049
Where:
TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, lb/ton of throughput processed
Mi = mass of dioxin or furan cogener i during performance
test run, lbs
TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for
cogener i, as provided in Table 5 of this subpart
n = number of cogeners included in TEQ
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, tons of throughput
processed per hour.
(k) To demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in table 1 to this subpart through
performance testing, follow the test methods and procedures in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration of each polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon listed in table 6 to this subpart according to the
following test methods:
(i) The methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv) of
this section, and
(ii) EPA Method 23 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter to
determine the concentration of each polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
listed in table 6 to this subpart from the exhaust stream stack of each
unit. You must collect a minimum sample volume of 105 dscf (3 dscm) of
gas during each test run.
(2) Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test
of each unit in table 1 to this subpart. If the performance testing
results for any of the emission points yields a non-detect value, then
the EDL must be used to calculate the mass emissions (lb) for that unit
and, in turn, for calculating the emissions rate (lb/ton of product
sinter).
(3) Calculate the sum of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons per ton
of product sinter to determine initial compliance with the emission
limits in table 1 to this subpart using equation 4 to this paragraph
(k)(3) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AP24.050
Where:
E = emission rate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lb/ton of
sinter
Mi = mass of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon i, as
provided in Table 6 to this subpart, during performance test run,
lbs
n = number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons included in emissions
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, tons of product
sinter per hour.
0
13. Amend Sec. 63.7830 by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.7830 What are my monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the volatile
organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day
using the procedures in Sec. 63.7824(e).
0
14. Amend Sec. 63.7833 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
* * * * *
* * * * *
(j) For large bells on each blast furnace, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by following the requirements specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section if a bell seal exceeds a 20
percent average of 3 instantaneous opacity readings of the interbell
relief valve emissions.
(1) Initiate corrective action within five business days.
(2) Ten business days after the initial opacity exceedance of 20
percent, if the average of 3 instantaneous visible emissions readings
from this test exceeds 20 percent, you must repair or replace that bell
seal within 4 months.
0
15. Amend Sec. 63.7840 by removing paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(3) and
adding paragraph (i).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 63.7840 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(i) Confidential business information (CBI): For notifications and
reports required to be submitted to CEDRI:
(1) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI
available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI
to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information submitted under paragraph (h) of this section,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA.
(2) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(3) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public
release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
(4) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(5) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection
[[Page 23328]]
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be
double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show
through the outer envelope.
(6) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(7) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with
the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in paragraphs
(g) or (h) of this section.
0
16. Amend Sec. 63.7841 by adding paragraph (b)(14), revising paragraph
(d), and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7841 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(14) For each unplanned bleeder valve opening for each blast
furnace, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(14)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) The date and time of the event.
(ii) The duration of the event.
(iii) Any corrective actions taken in response to the event.
* * * * *
(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. Do not use CEDRI to submit
information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to
assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of
the information in the report, you must submit a complete file,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.
Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All
CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything
submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under
CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential
treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to
the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will
be made publicly available. You must submit the same file submitted to
the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings and be flagged to the attention of the Integrated Iron and
Steel Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Integrated Iron and Steel Sector Lead. The mailed CBI
material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings
should not show through the outer envelope.
* * * * *
(h) Fenceline monitoring reports. For fenceline monitoring systems
subject to Sec. 63.7792, each owner or operator must submit Fenceline
Monitoring Reports on a quarterly basis using the appropriate
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri) for this subpart and
following the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The
first quarterly report must be submitted once the owner or operator has
obtained 12 months of data. The first quarterly report must cover the
period beginning on the date one year after the promulgation of the
metals fenceline method and ending on March 31, June 30, September 30
or December 31, whichever date is the first date that occurs after the
owner or operator has obtained 12 months of data (i.e., the first
quarterly report will contain between 12 and 15 months of data). Each
subsequent quarterly report must cover one of the following reporting
periods: Quarter 1 from January 1 through March 31; Quarter 2 from
April 1 through June 30; Quarter 3 from July 1 through September 30;
and Quarter 4 from October 1 through December 31. Each quarterly report
must be electronically submitted no later than 45 calendar days
following the end of the reporting period.
(1) Facility name and address.
(2) Year and reporting quarter (i.e., Quarter 1, Quarter 2, Quarter
3, or Quarter 4).
(3) For each sampler: The latitude and longitude location
coordinates; the sampler name; and identification of the type of
sampler (e.g., regular monitor, extra monitor, duplicate, field blank,
inactive). Coordinates shall be in decimal degrees with at least five
decimal places.
(4) The beginning and ending dates for each sampling period.
(5) Individual sample results for each monitored compound, reported
in units of [micro]g/m\3\, for each monitor for each sampling period
that ends during the reporting period. Results below the method
detection limit shall be flagged as below the detection limit and
reported at the method detection limit.
(6) Data flags for each outlier determined in accordance with the
fenceline metals method. For each outlier, the owner or operator must
submit the individual sample result of the outlier, as well as the
evidence used to conclude that the result is an outlier.
(7) The biweekly concentration difference ([Delta]c) for each
sampling period and the annual average [Delta]c for each sampling
period.
(8) Indication of whether the owner or operator was required to
develop a corrective action plan under Sec. 63.7792(e).
0
17. Amend Sec. 63.7842 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraphs
(f) and (g) to read as follows.
Sec. 63.7842 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(d) You must keep the records required in Sec. Sec. 63.7823,
63.7833, and 63.7834 to show continuous compliance with each emission
limitation and operation and maintenance requirement that applies to
you. This includes a record of each large and small bell repair and
replacement, a record of the date on which the large bell opacity has
[[Page 23329]]
exceeded 20 percent, and the most current time period or throughput
over which no opacity was observed from the small bell.
* * * * *
(f) For fenceline monitoring systems subject to Sec. 63.7792 of
this subpart, each owner or operator must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Coordinates of samplers, including co-located samplers and
field blanks, and if applicable, the meteorological station. The owner
or operator shall determine the coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 3 meters. The coordinates shall be in decimal
degrees with at least five decimal places.
(2) The start and stop times and dates for each sample, as well as
the sample identifying information.
(3) Sampling period average temperature and barometric pressure
measurements.
(4) For each outlier determined in accordance with the procedures
specified in the fenceline metals method, the sampler location and the
concentration of the outlier and the evidence used to conclude that the
result is an outlier.
(5) For samples that will be adjusted for uniform background, the
location of and the concentration measured simultaneously by the
background sampler, and the perimeter samplers to which it applies.
(6) Individual sample results, the calculated [Delta]c for each
sampling period and the two samples used to determine it, whether
background correction was used, and the annual average [Delta]c
calculated after each sampling period.
(7) Method detection limit for each sample, including co-located
samples and blanks.
(8) Documentation of the root cause analysis and any resulting
corrective action taken each time an action level is exceeded,
including the dates the root cause analysis was initiated and the
resulting correction action(s) were taken.
(9) Any corrective action plan developed under Sec. 63.7792(e).
(10) Other records as required by the sampling method.
(11) If a near-field source correction is used as provided in Sec.
63.7792(f), or if an alternative test method is used that provides
time-resolved measurements, records of hourly meteorological data,
including temperature, barometric pressure, wind speed and wind
direction, calculated daily unit vector wind direction, and daily sigma
theta, and other records specified in the site-specific monitoring
plan.
(g) For each unplanned bleeder valve opening for each blast
furnace, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) The start date and start time of the event.
(2) The duration of the event in minutes.
(3) Any corrective actions taken in response to the event.
0
18. Amend Sec. 63.7852 by adding definitions for ``Iron beaching
operation'', Large blast furnace'', ``Planned bleeder valve opening'',
``Slip'', ``Small blast furnace'', ``Total hydrocarbons (THC)'', and
``Unplanned bleeder valve opening'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7852 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Iron beaching operation means pouring hot molten iron from a
torpedo car onto the ground when the iron from the blast furnace cannot
be charged to the basic oxygen process furnace.
* * * * *
Large blast furnace means a blast furnace with a working volume of
greater than 2,500 m\3\.
* * * * *
Planned bleeder valve opening means the opening of a blast furnace
pressure relief safety valve that is initiated by an operator.
* * * * *
Slip means when raw materials loaded in the top of the furnace fail
to descend smoothly in the furnace and bind together to form a
``bridge'' which than ``hangs'' (i.e., accumulates) in one position in
the furnace. When a ``hang'' eventually falls, or ``slips,'' it creates
a pressure surge that may open the bleeder valves, releasing emissions
in the form of a large dust cloud.
Small blast furnace means a blast furnace with a working volume of
less than 2,500 m\3\.
* * * * *
Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the sum of organic compounds
measured as carbon using EPA Method 25A (appendix A-7 to part 60 of
this chapter).
Unplanned bleeder valve opening means the opening of a blast
furnace pressure relief safety valve that is not a planned bleeder
valve opening.
* * * * *
0
19. Revise tables 1 through 4 to subpart FFFFF to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Emission, Opacity, and Work
Practice Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7790(a), you must comply with each
applicable emission, opacity, and work practice limit in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with each of the
For . . . following . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. You must not cause to be
an existing sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.4 lb/ton of
product sinter;
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain mercury in
excess of 0.000018 lb/ton of
product sinter;
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain hydrogen
chloride in excess of 0.025 lb/ton
of product sinter;
d. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain carbonyl sulfide
in excess of 0.064 lb/ton of
product sinter;
e. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain D/F TEQs in
excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product
sinter; and
f. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of
0.0018 lb/ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. You must not cause to be
a new sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.3 lb/ton of
product sinter;
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain mercury in
excess of 0.000012 lb/ton of
product sinter;
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain hydrogen
chloride in excess of 0.0012 lb/ton
of product sinter;
d. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain carbonyl sulfide
in excess of 0.030 lb/ton of
product sinter;
e. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain D/F TEQs in
excess of 1.1E-08 lb/ton of product
sinter; and
[[Page 23330]]
f. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that contain polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in excess of
0.0015 lb/ton of product sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. You must not cause to be
existing sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow-weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf;
\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 new a. You must not cause to be
sinter plant. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from one or more
control devices that contain, on a
flow weighted basis, particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an You must not cause to be discharged
existing sinter plant. to the atmosphere any emissions
that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new You must not cause to be discharged
sinter plant. to the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. You must not cause to be
blast furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf;
\2\
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);
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain hydrogen
chloride in excess of 0.0056 lb/ton
of iron;
d. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain total
hydrocarbons as propane in excess
of 0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
e. You must not cause unplanned
bleeder valve openings in excess of
4 events per year for large blast
furnaces or 15 events per year for
small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. You must not cause to be
furnace. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.003 gr/dscf;
and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit all
openings in the casthouse or
structure housing the blast furnace
that exhibit opacity greater than
15 percent (6-minute average);
c. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain hydrogen
chloride in excess of 0.00059 lb/
ton of iron;
d. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain total
hydrocarbons as propane in excess
of 0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
e. You must not cause unplanned
bleeder valve openings in excess of
zero events per year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. You must not cause to be
shop. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
with a closed hood system at a new
or existing BOPF shop that contain,
on a flow-weighted basis,
particulate matter in excess of
0.03 gr/dscf during the primary
oxygen blow; \2\ \3\
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\
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;
d. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
that contain hydrogen chloride in
excess of 0.058 lb/ton of steel for
existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton
steel for new sources;
e. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
that contain THC as propane in
excess of 0.04 lb/ton of steel for
existing sources and 0.0017 lb/ton
of steel for new sources; and
f. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a primary
emission control system for a BOPF
that contain D/F TEQs in excess of
9.2E-10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer, You must not cause to be discharged
skimming, and desulfurization to the atmosphere any gases that
operation at a new or existing exit from a control device that
BOPF shop. contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.003 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy You must not cause to be discharged
operation at a new or existing to the atmosphere any gases that
BOPF shop. exit from a control device that
contain particulate matter in
excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an
existing BOPF shop \2\ or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... You must not cause to be discharged
to the atmosphere any secondary
emissions that exit any opening in
the BOPF shop or any other building
housing the BOPF or BOPF shop
operation that exhibit opacity
greater than 20 percent (3-minute
average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 6-minute
period not to exceed 20 percent may
occur once per steel production
cycle; or
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or BOPF shop operations that
exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-
minute averages) greater than 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing You must not cause to be discharged
BOPF shop. to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from the collection of BOPF
Group control devices that contain
mercury in excess of 0.00026 lb/ton
of steel scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF You must not cause to be discharged
shop. to the atmosphere any gases that
exit from the collection of BOPF
Group control devices that contain
mercury in excess of 0.000081 lb/
ton of steel scrap input to the
BOPF.
16. Each planned bleeder valve You must not cause to be discharged
opening at a new or existing to the atmosphere any emissions
blast furnace. that exhibit opacity greater than 8
percent (6-minute average).
17. Each slag processing, handling You must not cause to be discharged
and storage operation for a new to the atmosphere any emissions
or existing blast furnace or BOPF. that exhibit opacity greater than
10 percent (6-minute average).
18. Each existing blast furnace a. You must not cause to be
stove. discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain HCl in excess
of 0.0012 lb/MMBtu; and
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain THC in excess
of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stove.. a. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain HCl in excess
of 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu; and
[[Page 23331]]
b. You must not cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any
gases that exit from a control
device that contain THC in excess
of 0.0054 lb/MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7826(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have demonstrated initial
For . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. The process-weighted mass rate of
an existing sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.4 lb/ton of product
sinter;
b. The process-weighted mass rate of
mercury from a windbox exhaust
stream, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.000018
lb/ton of product sinter;
c. The process-weighted mass rate of
hydrogen chloride from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.025 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of
carbonyl sulfide from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.064 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of
D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
stream, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08
lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.0018 lb/
ton of product sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. The process-weighted mass rate of
a new sinter plant. particulate matter from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(c), did not
exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product
sinter;
b. The process-weighted mass rate of
mercury from a windbox exhaust
stream, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.000012
lb/ton of product sinter;
c. The process-weighted mass rate of
hydrogen chloride from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.0012 lb/ton of product sinter;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of
carbonyl sulfide from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.030 lb/ton of product sinter;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of
D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
stream, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 1.1E-08
lb/ton of product sinter; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.0015 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 new a. The flow-weighted average
sinter plant. concentration of particulate matter
from one or more control devices
applied to emissions from a
discharge end, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(d), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each discharge end,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 10
percent (6-minute average).
5. Each sinter cooler at an The opacity of emissions, determined
existing sinter plant. according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(e),
did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new The average concentration of
sinter plant. particulate matter, measured
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7822(b),
did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. The average concentration of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.01 gr/dscf;
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);
c. The process-weighted mass rate of
hydrogen chloride from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.0056 lb/ton of iron;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of
total hydrocarbons from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.48 lb/ton of iron; and
e. The number of unplanned bleeder
valve openings in one year, as
reported according to the
specifications in Sec.
63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed 4
events for large blast furnaces or
15 events for small blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. The average concentration of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device applied to emissions from a
casthouse, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(e), did not exceed
0.003 gr/dscf; and
b. The opacity of secondary
emissions from each casthouse,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(c), did not exceed 15
percent (6-minute average);
c. The process-weighted mass rate of
hydrogen chloride from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.00059 lb/ton of iron;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of
total hydrocarbons from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.035 lb/ton of iron; and
e. The number of unplanned bleeder
valve openings in one year, as
reported according to the
specifications in Sec.
63.7841(b)(14), did not exceed zero
events.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. The average concentration of
BOPF shop. particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with a closed
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(f), did not exceed
0.03 gr/dscf for a new or existing
BOPF shop;
b. The average concentration of
particulate matter from a primary
emission control system applied to
emissions from a BOPF with an open
hood system, measured according to
the performance test procedures in
Sec. 63.7822(g), did not exceed
0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF
shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop;
[[Page 23332]]
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;
d. The process-weighted mass rate of
hydrogen chloride from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.058 lb/ton of steel for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.00028 lb/
ton of steel for a new BOPF shop;
e. The process-weighted mass rate of
total hydrocarbons from a windbox
exhaust stream, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7825, did not exceed
0.04 lb/ton of steel for an
existing BOPF shop or 0.0017 lb/ton
of steel for a new BOPF shop; and
f. The process-weighted mass rate of
D/F TEQs from a windbox exhaust
stream, measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 9.2e-10
lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer The average concentration of
skimming, and desulfurization at particulate matter from a control
a new or existing BOPF shop. device applied to emissions from
hot metal transfer, skimming, or
desulfurization, measured according
to the performance test procedures
in Sec. 63.7822(h), did not
exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing
BOPF shop or 0.003 gr/dscf for a
new BOPF shop.
11. Each ladle metallurgy The average concentration of
operation at a new or existing particulate matter from a control
BOPF shop. device applied to emissions from a
ladle metallurgy operation,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.01
gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop
or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF
shop.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... The opacity of secondary emissions
from each BOPF shop, determined
according to the performance test
procedures in Sec. 63.7823(d),
did not exceed 20 percent (3-minute
average).
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. The opacity of the highest set of
6-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
percent and the second highest set
of 6-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent; or
b. The opacity of the highest set of
3-minute averages from each BOPF
shop housing a top-blown BOPF,
determined according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7823(d), did not exceed 20
percent and the second highest set
of 3-minute averages did not exceed
10 percent.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing 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 0.00026 lb/ton steel
scrap input to the BOPF.
15. Each BOPF Group at a new BOPF If demonstrating compliance through
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.
16. Each planned bleeder valve The opacity of emissions, determined
opening at a new or existing according to the performance test
blast furnace. procedures in Sec. 63.7823(f),
did not exceed 8 percent (6-minute
average).
17. Each slag processing, handling The opacity of emissions, determined
and storage operation for a new according to the performance test
or existing blast furnace or BOPF. procedures in Sec. 63.7823(g),
did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute
average).
18. Each existing blast furnace a. The process-weighted mass rate of
stove. HCl from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.0012 lb/
MMBtu; and
b. The process-weighted mass rate of
THC from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.12 lb/
MMBtu.
19. Each new blast furnace stove.. a. The process-weighted mass rate of
HCl from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 4.2e-4 lb/
MMBtu; and
b. The process-weighted mass rate of
THC from a windbox exhaust stream,
measured according to the
performance test procedures in Sec.
63.7825, did not exceed 0.0054 lb/
MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
Emission and Opacity Limits
As required in Sec. 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate continuous
For . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. Maintaining emissions of
an existing sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.4
lb/ton of product sinter;
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821;
c. Maintaining emissions of mercury
at or below 0.000018 lb/ton of
product sinter;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
chloride at or below 0.025 lb/ton
of product sinter;
e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl
sulfide at or below 0.064 lb/ton of
product sinter;
f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of
product sinter; and
g. Maintaining emissions of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at
or below 0.0018 lb/ton of product
sinter.
2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a. Maintaining emissions of
a new sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.3
lb/ton of product sinter;
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821;
c. Maintaining emissions of mercury
at or below 0.000012 lb/ton of
product sinter;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
chloride at or below 0.0012 lb/ton
of product sinter;
e. Maintaining emissions of carbonyl
sulfide at or below 0.030 lb/ton of
product sinter;
f. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
at or below 1.1E-08 lb/ton of
product sinter; and
g. Maintaining emissions of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at
or below 0.0015 lb/ton of product
sinter.
3. Each discharge end at an a. Maintaining emissions of
existing sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.02 gr/
dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 20 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
4. Each discharge end at a new a. Maintaining emissions of
sinter plant. particulate matter from one or more
control devices at or below 0.01 gr/
dscf; and
b. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the building or
structure housing the discharge end
at or below 10 percent (6-minute
average); and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
5. Each sinter cooler at an a. Maintaining the opacity of
existing sinter plant. emissions that exit any sinter
cooler at or below 10 percent (6-
minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
6. Each sinter cooler at a new a. Maintaining emissions of
sinter plant. particulate matter at or below 0.1
gr/dscf; and
[[Page 23333]]
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
7. Each casthouse at an existing a. Maintaining emissions of
blast furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf;
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);
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
chloride at or below 0.0056 lb/ton
of iron;
e. Maintaining emissions of total
hydrocarbons at or below 0.48 lb/
ton of iron; and
f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder
valve openings at or below 4 events
per year for large blast furnaces
or 15 events per year for small
blast furnaces.
8. Each casthouse at a new blast a. Maintaining emissions of
furnace. particulate matter from a control
device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf;
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);
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821;
d. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
chloride at or below 0.00059 lb/ton
of iron;
e. Maintaining emissions of total
hydrocarbons at or below 0.035 lb/
ton of iron; and
f. Maintaining unplanned bleeder
valve openings at zero events per
year.
9. Each BOPF at a new or existing a. Maintaining emissions of
BOPF shop. particulate matter from the primary
control system for a BOPF with a
closed hood system at or below 0.03
gr/dscf;
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;
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;
d. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821;
e. Maintaining emissions of hydrogen
chloride from a primary emission
control system for a BOPF at or
below 0.058 lb/ton of steel for
existing sources and 2.8E-04 lb/ton
steel for new sources;
f. Maintaining emissions of THC from
a primary emission control system
for a BOPF at or below 0.04 lb/ton
of steel for existing sources and
0.0017 lb/ton of steel for new
sources; and
g. Maintaining emissions of D/F TEQs
from a primary emission control
system for a BOPF at or below 9.2E-
10 lb/ton of steel.
10. Each hot metal transfer, a. Maintaining emissions of
skimming, and desulfurization particulate matter from a control
operation at a new or existing device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
BOPF shop. an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf
for a new BOPF; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
11. Each ladle metallurgy a. Maintaining emissions of
operation at a new or existing particulate matter from a control
BOPF shop. device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at
an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/
dscf for a new BOPF shop; and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
12. Each existing BOPF shop....... a. Maintaining the opacity of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing the BOPF shop or
shop operation at or below 20
percent (3-minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
13. Each new BOPF shop............ a. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 6-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a bottom-blown
BOPF or shop operation at or below
10 percent, except that one 6-
minute period greater than 10
percent but no more than 20 percent
may occur once per steel production
cycle;
b. Maintaining the opacity (for any
set of 3-minute averages) of
secondary emissions that exit any
opening in the BOPF shop or other
building housing a top-blown BOPF
or shop operation at or below 10
percent, except that one 3-minute
period greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
14. Each BOPF Group at an existing a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
BOPF shop. from the collection of BOPF Group
control devices at or below 0.00026
lb/ton steel scrap input to the
BOPF; and
b. 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 BOPF a. Maintaining emissions of mercury
shop. from 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
c. If demonstrating compliance
through Sec. 63.7791(c), (d), or
(e), maintaining records pursuant
to Sec. 63.7842(e).
16. Each planned bleeder valve a. Maintaining the opacity of
opening at a new or existing emissions that exit any bleeder
blast furnace. valve as a result of a planned
opening at or below 8 percent (6-
minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
17. Each slag processing, handling a. Maintaining the opacity of
and storage operation for a new emissions that exit any slag
or existing blast furnace or BOPF. processing, handling, or storage
operation at or below 10 percent (6-
minute average); and
b. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
18. Each existing blast furnace a. Maintaining emissions of HCl at
stove. or below 0.0012 lb/MMBtu;
b. Maintaining emissions of THC at
or below 0.12 lb/MMBtu; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
19. Each new blast furnace stove.. a. Maintaining emissions of HCl at
or below 4.2e-4 lb/MMBtu;
b. Maintaining emissions of THC at
or below 0.0054 lb/MMBtu; and
c. Conducting subsequent performance
tests at the frequencies specified
in Sec. 63.7821.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart FFFFF
As required in Sec. 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements
of the NESHAP General Provisions (subpart A of this part) shown in the
following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject FFFFF Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.......................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions............ Yes....................
Sec. 63.3.......................... Units and Abbreviations Yes....................
[[Page 23334]]
Sec. 63.4.......................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes....................
Sec. 63.5.......................... Construction/ Yes....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), Compliance with Yes....................
(e)(1)(iii), (f)(2)-(3), (g), Standards and
(h)(2)(ii)-(h)(9). Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)................. General Duty to No, for new or See Sec. 63.7810(d)
Minimize 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 No..................... See Sec. 63.7810(a).
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................... Compliance except No..................... See Sec. 63.7810(a).
during 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 Yes....................
Compliance 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), (e)(2)- Performance Testing Yes....................
(4), (f)-(h). Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Performance Testing.... No, for new or See Sec. Sec.
reconstructed sources 63.7822(a),
which commenced 63.7823(a), and
construction or 63.7825(a).
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
(c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)-(3), (c)(4)(i)- Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-
(ii), (c)(5)-(6), (c)(7)-(8), (d)(1)- (ii), (c)(5)-(6),
(2), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g)(1)-(4). (d)(1)-(2), and (e)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Additional Monitoring No..................... Subpart FFFFF does not
Requirements for require flares.
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)................. General Duty to No, for new or .......................
Minimize Emissions and reconstructed sources
CMS 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 Yes.................... Additional
Requirements. notifications for CMS
in Sec. 63.9(g)
apply only to COMS.
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(x), Recordkeeping and Yes.................... Additional records for
(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)-(6), Reporting Requirements. CMS in Sec.
(c)(9)-(14), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1)-(2), 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-
(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 reconstructed sources
Duration of Startups which commenced
and Shutdowns. construction or
reconstruction after
August 16, 2019. For
all other affected
sources, Yes on or
before January 11,
2021, and No
thereafter.
[[Page 23335]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... Recordkeeping of No, for new or See Sec.
Failures to Meet a reconstructed sources 63.7842(a)(2)-(4) for
Standard. which commenced recordkeeping of (1)
construction or date, time, and
reconstruction after duration of failure to
August 16, 2019. For meet the standard; (2)
all other affected listing of affected
sources, Yes on or source or equipment,
before January 11, and an estimate of the
2021, and No quantity of each
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 No, for new or See Sec.
Minimize Emissions reconstructed sources 63.7842(a)(4) for
During SSM. which commenced records of actions
construction or taken to minimize
reconstruction after emissions.
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 No, for new or See Sec.
Minimize Emissions reconstructed sources 63.7842(a)(4) for
During SSM. which commenced records of actions
construction or taken to minimize
reconstruction after emissions.
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.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............... Records of Excess No..................... Subpart FFFFF specifies
Emissions and record requirements;
Parameter Monitoring see Sec. 63.7842.
Exceedances 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.
reconstructed sources 63.7841(b)(4) for
which commenced malfunction reporting
construction or requirements.
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, Yes....................
Incorporations by
Reference,
Availability of
Information and
Confidentiality,
Performance Track
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Add tables 5 and 6 to subpart FFFFF to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
As stated in Sec. 63.7825(u), you must demonstrate compliance with
each dioxin/furan emission limit that applies to you by calculating the
sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs using the 2005 World Health Organization
(WHO) toxicity equivalence factors (TEF) presented in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must calculate its 2,3,7,8-
For each dioxin/furan congener . . . TCDD TEQ using the following TEF .
. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. 1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p- 1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p- 0.1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p- 0.1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p- 0.1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p- 0.01
dioxin.............................
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.......... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran..... 0.1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran... 0.03
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran... 0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.. 0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.. 0.1
[[Page 23336]]
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran.. 0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.. 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 0.01
heptachlorodibenzofuran............
1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 0.01
heptachlorodibenzofuran............
Octachlorodibenzofuran.............. 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63--List of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
As stated in Sec. 63.7825(x), you must demonstrate compliance with
each polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission limit that applies to you
by calculating the sum of the emissions of each polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthene............................................ 83-32-9
Acenaphthylene.......................................... 208-96-8
Anthracene.............................................. 120-12-7
Benz[a]anthracene....................................... 56-55-3
Benzo[a]pyrene.......................................... 50-32-8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene.................................... 205-99-2
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene.................................... 191-24-2
Benzo[k]fluoranthene.................................... 207-08-9
Chrysene................................................ 218-01-9
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene................................... 53-70-3
Fluoranthene............................................ 206-44-0
Fluorene................................................ 86-73-7
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene................................ 193-39-5
Naphthalene............................................. 91-20-3
Phenanthrene............................................ 85-01-8
Perylene................................................ 198-55-0
Pyrene.................................................. 129-00-0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-05850 Filed 4-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P