Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3079 

Black Production source category and 

would not be affected by this action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 

III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, 

and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed 

in sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of 

this preamble, we performed a 

demographic analysis for each source 

category, which is an assessment of 

risks to individual demographic groups, 

of the population close to the facilities 

(within 50 km and within 5 km). In our 

analysis, we evaluated the distribution 

of HAP-related cancer risks and 

noncancer hazards from the Carbon 

Black Production source category across 

different social, demographic, and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near operations identified as 

having the highest risks. 

Results of the demographic analysis 

performed for the Carbon Black 

Production source category indicate 

that, for four of the 11 demographic 

groups, African American, people age 

65 and up, people living below the 

poverty level, and adults over 25 

without a high school diploma that 

reside within 5 km of facilities in the 

source category is greater than the 

corresponding national percentage for 

the same demographic groups. When 

examining the risk levels of those 

exposed to emissions from carbon black 

production facilities, we find nobody is 

exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1- 

in-1 million and nobody is exposed to 

a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 

1. For additional information see the 

memorandum, Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Demographic 

Factors For Populations Living Near 

Carbon Black Production Source 

Category Operations, available in the 

docket for this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00233 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148; FRL–10018–66– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU67 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Refractory 

Products Manufacturing Residual Risk 

and Technology Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

amendments to address the results of 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) that the EPA is required to 

conduct in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) with regard to the 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Refractory Products Manufacturing. The 

EPA is proposing to find the risks due 

to emissions of air toxics from this 

source category under the current 

standards to be acceptable and that the 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. We are 

proposing no revisions to the existing 

numerical emission limits based on 

these analyses; however, we are 

proposing new provisions for certain 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The 

EPA is also proposing to amend 

provisions addressing emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and provisions 

addressing emissions during periods of 

scheduled maintenance; to amend 

provisions regarding electronic 

reporting of performance test results; 

and to make miscellaneous clarifying 

and technical corrections. 

DATES: Comments. 

Comments must be received on or 

before March 1, 2021. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 16, 2021. 

Public hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

January 19, 2021, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0148 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3080 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are closed to the public, 

with limited exceptions, to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there 

may be a delay in processing mail and 

faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may 

be received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information on EPA 

Docket Center services and the current 

status, please visit us online at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Minerals and 

Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (D243–04), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2618; fax number: 

(919) 541–4991; and email address: 

hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Mr. Chris 

Sarsony, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

4843; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. Please note that the EPA is 

deviating from its typical approach for 

public hearings because the President 

has declared a national emergency. Due 

to the current Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

recommendations, as well as state and 

local orders for social distancing to limit 

the spread of COVID–19, the EPA 

cannot hold in-person public meetings 

at this time. 

To request a virtual public hearing, 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on January 29, 2021. The hearing 

will convene at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. The 

EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards. 

Upon publication of this document in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will begin 

pre-registering speakers for the hearing, 

if a public hearing is requested. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards or contact 

the public hearing team at (888) 372– 

8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be January 26, 2021. Prior 

to the hearing, the EPA will post a 

general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

order at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 5 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to hirtz.paula@epa.gov. The EPA also 

recommends submitting the text of your 

oral testimony as written comments to 

the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards. While the 

EPA expects the hearing to go forward 

as set forth above, please monitor our 

website or contact the public hearing 

team at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or a special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by January 21, 2021. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking. Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148 has been 

established for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SSSSS, Refractory Products 

Manufacturing. All documents in the 

docket are listed in https://

www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statue. This type of 

information should be submitted by 

mail as discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3081 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA is temporarily suspending 

its Docket Center and Reading Room for 

public visitors, with limited exceptions, 

to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will 

continue to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a 

delay in processing mail and faxes. 

Hand deliveries or couriers will be 

received by scheduled appointment 

only. For further information and 

updates on EPA Docket Center services, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

The EPA continues to carefully and 

continuously monitor information from 

the CDC, local area health departments, 

and our Federal partners so that we can 

respond rapidly as conditions change 

regarding COVID–19. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/ or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

mark the outside of the digital storage 

media as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the digital storage 

media the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comments that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 2. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0148. Note that written 

comments containing CBI and 

submitted by mail may be delayed and 

no hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

AEGL acute exposure guideline level 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

ECHO Enforcement and Compliance 

History Online 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG emergency response planning 

guideline 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HCl hydrochloric acid 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.1.0 

HF hydrogen fluoride 

HI hazard index 

HQ hazard quotient 

HQREL hazard quotient recommended 

exposure limit 

IBR incorporation by reference 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

kg kilogram 

km kilometer 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NEI National Emission Inventory 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PDF portable document format 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RBLC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission 

Rate Clearinghouse 

REL reference exposure level 

RfC reference concentration 

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

UF uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

URE unit risk estimate 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures and DecisionMaking 

A. How do we consider risk in our 

decision-making? 

B. How do we perform the technology 

review? 

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk 

posed by the source category? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety, and adverse 

environmental effect? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1 In addition, section 301 of the CAA provides 

general authority for the Administrator to 

‘‘prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry 

out his functions’’ under the CAA. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Refractory Products Manufacturing, 

the source category that is the subject of 

this proposal, is regulated under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SSSSS. The North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes for the refractory 

products industry are 327124 (clay) and 

327125 (nonclay). We estimate that 

three major source facilities engaged in 

refractory products manufacturing 

would be affected by this proposal. The 

proposed standards, once promulgated, 

will be directly applicable to the 

affected sources. Federal, state, local, 

and tribal government entities would 

not be affected by this proposed action. 

The Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category was revised since 1992 

when it originally appeared 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). At that time the source category 

was listed as Chromium Refractories 

Production and it was defined to 

include any facility engaged in 

producing chromium-containing 

refractories. Refractories were defined as 

heat-resistant materials used to build or 

line high-temperature industrial 

furnaces, and chromium-containing 

refractories were defined as refractories 

produced from chrome ore or chromic 

oxide along with other raw materials 

such as alumina, zirconia, silica, and 

magnesia. The category included, but 

was not limited to, facilities that 

manufacture magnesia-chrome, chromemagnesite, chrome alumina, and 

chromic oxide refractories. Also 

included were facilities that 

manufactured either formed (bricks) or 

unformed (mortar, castables) chromiumcontaining refractories. 

The source category was renamed in 

1999 to Refractories Manufacturing in 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): 

Revision of Source Category List and 

Schedule for Standards Under Section 

112 of the Clean Air Act (see 64 FR 

3025, November 18, 1999). By that time 

the EPA had obtained information from 

nonchromium refractory manufacturing 

plants that confirmed they were major 

sources of HAP emissions. Because the 

production of nonchromium refractories 

at those facilities would not be covered 

by other source categories on the source 

category list, the EPA decided to expand 

the scope of the source category to 

include the nonchromium refractory 

manufacturing sources. 

The source category was subsequently 

renamed in 2002 to Refractory Products 

Manufacturing in the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Refractory Products 

Manufacturing, proposed rule preamble 

(67 FR 42108, June 20, 2002). In this 

proposed action, the EPA revised and 

further clarified the source category as 

provided by section 112(c) of the CAA. 

The source category is defined to 

include, but is not limited to, any 

facility that manufactures refractory 

bricks and shapes that are produced 

using an organic HAP compound, pitchimpregnated refractory products, 

chromium refractory products, and fired 

clay refractory products. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at these same 

websites. Information on the overall 

RTR program is available at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-reviewnational-emissions-standardshazardous. 

The proposed changes to the CFR that 

would be necessary to incorporate the 

changes proposed in this action are set 

out in an attachment to the 

memorandum titled Proposed 

Regulation Edits for 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SSSSS, available in the docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148). The document 

includes the specific proposed 

amendatory language for revising the 

CFR and, for the convenience of 

interested parties, a redline version of 

the regulation. Following signature by 

the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

also post a copy of this memorandum 

and the attachments to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/refractory-productsmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.).1 Section 112 of the CAA 

establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to develop standards for 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. Generally, the first stage 

involves establishing technology-based 

standards and the second stage involves 

evaluating those standards that are 

based on maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) to determine 

whether additional standards are 

needed to address any remaining risk 

associated with HAP emissions. This 

second stage is commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In addition 

to the residual risk review, the CAA also 

requires the EPA to review standards set 

under CAA section 112 every 8 years 

and revise the standards as necessary 

taking into account any ‘‘developments 

in practices, processes, or control 

technologies.’’ This review is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’ 

When the two reviews are combined 

into a single rulemaking, it is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology 

review.’’ The discussion that follows 

identifies the most relevant statutory 

sections and briefly explains the 

contours of the methodology used to 

implement these statutory requirements. 

A more comprehensive discussion 

appears in the document titled CAA 

Section 112 Risk and Technology 

Reviews: Statutory Authority and 

Methodology, in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148). 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3083 

2Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

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), 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. Standards more stringent than the 

floor are commonly referred to as 

beyond-the-floor standards. For area 

sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the 

EPA discretion to set standards based on 

generally available control technologies 

or management practices (GACT 

standards) in lieu of MACT standards. 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on identifying and addressing 

any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk 

pursuant to CAA section 112(f). For 

source categories subject to MACT 

standards, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to determine whether 

promulgation of additional standards is 

needed to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health or to 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA 

provides that this residual risk review is 

not required for categories of area 

sources subject to GACT standards. 

Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further 

expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the 

two-step approach for developing 

standards to address any residual risk 

and the Agency’s interpretation of 

‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in 

the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 

Emissions from Maleic Anhydride 

Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 

Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene 

Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 

Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 

FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The 

EPA notified Congress in the Residual 

Risk Report that the Agency intended to 

use the Benzene NESHAP approach in 

making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted 

this approach in its residual risk 

determinations and the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the court) upheld the 

EPA’s interpretation that CAA section 

112(f)(2) incorporates the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP. 

See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(DC Cir. 2008). 

The approach incorporated into the 

CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate 

residual risk and to develop standards 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 1- 

in-10 thousand.’’ (54 FR at 38045). If 

risks are unacceptable, the EPA must 

determine the emissions standards 

necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the approach, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 

million, as well as other relevant factors, 

including costs and economic impacts, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. The EPA must promulgate 

emission standards necessary to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health or determine that the 

standards being reviewed provide an 

ample margin of safety without any 

revisions. After conducting the ample 

margin of safety analysis, we consider 

whether a more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

The CAA section 112(d)(6) separately 

requires the EPA to review standards 

promulgated under CAA section 112 

and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking 

into account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less often than every 8 years. In 

conducting this review, which we call 

the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not 

required to recalculate the MACT floor. 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 

(DC Cir. 2008). Association of Battery 

Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC 

Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost 

in deciding whether to revise the 

standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6). The EPA is required to 

address regulatory gaps, such as missing 

standards for listed air toxics known to 

be emitted from the source category. 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 

(DC Cir. 2020). 

B. What is the source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

1. Source Category Description 

The NESHAP for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source category 

was promulgated on April 16, 2003 (68 

FR 18730), and is codified at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SSSSS. Minor 

amendments were made to the NESHAP 

related to the SSM provisions on April 

20, 2006 (71 FR 20471). The Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP 

applies to each new, reconstructed, and 

existing affected source located at a 

refractory products manufacturing 

facility that is a major source of HAP 

emissions, is located at a major source 

of HAP emissions, or is part of a major 

source of HAP emissions. The affected 

sources include the following: shape 

dryers, curing ovens, and kilns that are 

used to manufacture refractory products 

that use organic HAP; shape preheaters, 

pitch working tanks, defumers, and 

coking ovens that are used to produce 

pitch-impregnated refractory products; 

kilns that are used to manufacture 

chromium refractory products; and kilns 

that are used to manufacture clay 

refractory products. A refractory 

products manufacturing facility is a 

plant site that manufactures refractory 

products, such as refractory bricks, 

refractory shapes, monolithics, kiln 

furniture, crucibles, and other materials 

used for lining furnaces and other high 

temperature process units. Refractory 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw material by 

crushing, grinding, and screening; 

mixing the processed raw materials with 

binders and other additives; forming the 

refractory mix into shapes; and drying 

and firing the shapes. 

Based on our search of the 2017 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) 

(www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/national-emissionsinventory-nei) and the EPA’s 

Enforcement and Compliance History 

Online (ECHO) database (echo.epa.gov) 

and a review of active air emissions 

permits, we estimate that three major 

source facilities are subject to the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3084 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

NESHAP. The three facilities that are 

subject to the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP are listed in 

Appendix 1 to the memorandum titled 

Technology Review for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing Source 

Category, in the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148). 

2. HAP Emission Sources 

The EPA estimated that a total of 167 

refractory products manufacturing 

plants were operating in the U.S. in 

2002. As a result of a comprehensive 

information collection request (ICR) that 

was sent out to the refractory products 

manufacturing industry at that time, the 

EPA found only eight of the 167 plants 

to be major sources of HAP and subject 

to the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP (67 FR 42130, 

June 20, 2002). At that time, the EPA 

identified the primary sources of HAP 

emissions at most refractory products 

manufacturing plants to be the thermal 

process units used to manufacture the 

refractory products (67 FR 42130, June 

20, 2002). These included the following: 

• Shape dryers, curing ovens, and 

kilns used to produce clay and nonclay 

(organic resin-bonded) refractory 

products; and 

• shape preheaters, pitch working 

tanks, defumers, and coking ovens used 

to produce pitch-bonded and pitchimpregnated refractory products. 

In addition to these types of thermal 

process units at major sources, we 

identified other types of thermal process 

units at area source refractory products 

manufacturing plants not subject to the 

NESHAP. These area sources included 

those plants that manufactured 

refractory products from refractory 

ceramic fiber using a melting furnace 

and plants that manufactured refractory 

products with a fused-cast process using 

an electric arc furnace. (67 FR 42112, 

June 20, 2002) 

Both HAP and criteria pollutants were 

identified as emissions from the thermal 

process units. The primary HAP emitted 

from refractory products manufacturing 

operations were identified as polycylic 

organic matter (POM), phenol, 

hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrofluoric 

acid (HF), and ethylene glycol. POM 

emissions accounted for about 60 

percent of the total annual HAP 

emissions, phenol accounted for 13 

percent, HF for 10 percent, HCl for 7 

percent and ethylene glycol for 7 

percent. (68 FR 18744, April 16, 2003). 

The HAP emissions vary and depend on 

the raw materials used, the type of resin 

or additives used, and the type of 

thermal process unit used. The criteria 

pollutants emitted from refractory 

products manufacturing facilities 

include particulate matter (PM), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 

compounds. 

The NESHAP groups refractory 

product manufacturing processes into 

four subcategories: Clay refractories, 

nonclay refractories, chromium 

refractories (nonclay), and pitchimpregnated refractories (nonclay). 

A clay refractory product is defined as 

a refractory product that contains at 

least 10 percent uncalcined clay by 

weight prior to firing in a kiln. In this 

definition, the term ‘‘clay’’ means any of 

the following six classifications of clay 

defined by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS): Ball clay, bentonite, common 

clay and shale, fire clay, fuller’s earth, 

and kaolin. When clay is used as a raw 

material, HF and HCl emissions are 

emitted from kilns during firing due to 

the presence of chlorides and fluorides 

in the clay. 

Nonclay refractories use raw materials 

such as alumina, magnesium oxide, and 

silicon carbide and typically require 

phenolic resins and other additives to 

hold the raw materials together. The 

phenolic resins and additives are 

needed to bind the raw materials and 

can result in organic HAP emissions 

from the curing ovens and kilns. 

Kilns that are used to fire chromium 

refractory products can emit particulate 

chromium and other HAP metals. A 

chromium refractory product is a 

refractory product that contains at least 

1 percent chromium by weight. The 

2002 proposal (67 FR 42122) also 

identified inorganic HAP emissions 

from chromium refractory products 

kilns, which included hexavalent 

chromium, other chromium 

compounds, and other nonvolatile HAP 

metals. 

Pitch-bonded and pitch-impregnated 

processes employ the use of coal tar and 

petroleum pitch, resulting in the 

emissions of POM from the curing and 

coking ovens, kilns, defumers, pitch 

working tanks, and shape preheaters. 

In this action, the EPA estimates that 

a total of approximately 120 refractory 

products manufacturing plants are 

currently operating in the U.S. and three 

are major sources subject to the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

NESHAP. The three major sources 

manufacture clay and nonclay refractory 

products and can be grouped into the 

clay and nonclay subcategories. We also 

identified the same primary sources of 

HAP emissions at these refractory 

products manufacturing plants as the 

thermal process units used to 

manufacture the refractory products, 

including the shape dryers, curing 

ovens, and kilns used to produce clay 

and nonclay (organic resin-bonded) 

refractory products. The three major 

sources currently operating in the U.S. 

do not produce chromium, pitchbonded, or pitch-impregnated products. 

Consequently, the thermal process units 

associated with these types of 

refractories (i.e., shape preheaters, pitch 

working tanks, defumers, and coking 

ovens used to produce pitch-bonded 

and pitch-impregnated refractory 

products) are not used in the production 

of refractory products by the three major 

source facilities, and the HAP associated 

with these thermal process units are not 

emitted by the three major source 

facilities, except for trace amounts of 

POM. The primary HAP identified for 

the three major source facilities in this 

action are HCl and HF. Trace amounts 

of benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 

POM, and phenol are also reported to be 

emitted by these facilities from the 

phenolic resins and additives. 

3. NESHAP Requirements for Control of 

HAP 

The EPA estimated that the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP 

requirements would reduce the 

emissions of HAP from the source 

category by 137 tpy (68 FR 18730, April 

16, 2003). The Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP specifies 

emission limits, operating limits, and 

work practice standards for existing 

affected thermal process sources and for 

new and reconstructed affected thermal 

process sources that emit organic HAP 

according to refractory product type. 

Existing and new nonclay refractories 

thermal process sources have two 

options for meeting a total hydrocarbon 

(THC) limit, to either (1) meet a THC 

concentration limit of 20 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), 

corrected to 18 percent oxygen, or (2) 

reduce the THC mass emissions by at 

least 95 percent. Compliance with the 

THC emission limit is calculated 

differently for continuous and batch 

thermal process sources. For continuous 

process sources of organic HAP, 

compliance is based on meeting the 

THC emission limit as a 3-hour block 

average, and for batch process sources, 

compliance is based on meeting the 

THC emission limit as the average of 3- 

hour peak THC emission periods over 

two test runs. 

Existing clay refractories and existing 

and new chromium refractory products 

kilns are required to use natural gas or 

equivalent fuel to limit metal HAP. 

Existing clay refractory product kilns 

must use natural gas to limit HF and 

HCl emissions. Natural gas or equivalent 

fuel must be used as the kiln fuel at all 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3085 

times except during periods of natural 

gas curtailment or other times when 

natural gas is not available. 

New clay refractory product kilns are 

required to meet numeric limits for HF 

and HCl. For new continuous clay 

refractory product kilns, the HF limit is 

0.038 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of 

uncalcined clay processed or a 

reduction in HF mass emissions by at 

least 90 percent and an HCl limit of 0.18 

lb/ton of product or a reduction of 

uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 

30 percent. For new batch clay 

refractory product kilns, the NESHAP 

requires a reduction in HF emissions by 

at least 90 percent and a reduction in 

HCl emissions by at least 30 percent. 

The NESHAP also establishes 

operating limits for thermal process 

sources and control devices, which are 

based on operating parameters 

established during performance testing. 

For thermal process sources emitting 

organic HAP, the NESHAP requires 

operating limits on the organic HAP 

processing rate and the operating 

temperature of the control devices 

(thermal and catalytic oxidizers). For 

new clay refractory products kilns, 

operating limits are specified for control 

devices, such as dry limestone absorber, 

dry lime injection fabric filters, dry lime 

scrubber/fabric filters, and wet 

scrubbers. The NESHAP also requires an 

operation, maintenance and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan for each continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS). 

The NESHAP also establishes work 

practice standards for thermal process 

sources associated with pitch-bonded 

and pitch-impregnated refractory 

product operations. As stated above, 

these refractory products are not 

manufactured by the three major 

sources currently operating in the U.S. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

For the risk modeling portion of this 

RTR, the EPA used industry-supplied 

data and data from the 2017 NEI. The 

NEI is a database that contains 

information about sources that emit 

criteria air pollutants, their precursors, 

and HAP. The database includes 

estimates of annual air pollutant 

emissions from point, nonpoint, and 

mobile sources in the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. The EPA 

collects this information and releases an 

updated version of the NEI database 

every 3 years. The NEI includes the data 

necessary for conducting risk modeling, 

including annual HAP emissions 

estimates from individual emission 

points at facilities and the associated 

emission release parameters. We used 

NEI emissions and data supplied by the 

three major source facilities as the 

primary data to develop the model input 

files for the risk assessment for this 

source category. Detailed information on 

the development of the modeling file for 

the Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category can be found in the 

memorandum titled Emissions Data 

Used to Develop the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) Risk Modeling Input Files, 

in Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Source Category in 

Support of the 2020 Risk and 

Technology Review Proposed Rule 

(hereafter referred to as the Refractory 

Products Risk Assessment Report), in 

the Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0148). 

For both the risk modeling and 

technology review portions of this RTR, 

we gathered additional data from the 

facilities, including stack test reports 

and operating permits regarding 

emission points, air pollution control 

devices, and process operations. We 

collected permits and supporting 

documentation directly from state 

permitting authorities or through statemaintained online databases. We 

contacted facility representatives 

directly to confirm and clarify the 

sources of emissions that were reported 

in the NEI. No formal ICR was 

conducted for this action. 

The EPA’s ECHO database was used 

to identify facilities that were 

potentially subject to the NESHAP. The 

ECHO database provides integrated 

compliance and enforcement 

information for approximately 800,000 

regulated facilities nationwide. Using 

the search feature in ECHO, the EPA 

identified facilities that could 

potentially be subject to the NESHAP. 

We then reviewed operating permits for 

these facilities to confirm that they were 

major sources of HAP with emission 

sources subject to the NESHAP that is 

the subject of this action. 

For the technology review, we 

reviewed various information sources 

regarding emission sources that are 

currently regulated by the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP to 

support the technology review. The 

information sources included the 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC); 

state regulations; facility operating 

permits; regulatory actions, including 

technology reviews promulgated for 

other similar NESHAP subsequent to the 

Surface Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP; 

and discussions with individual 

refractory product manufacturing 

facilities. As a result of the technology 

review, we are proposing additional 

control measures based on the best 

practices of one facility in the source 

category. Additional information about 

the data collection activities for the 

technology review and the technology 

review results are discussed in section 

IV.D of this preamble and in the 

technology review memorandum titled 

Technology Review for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing Source 

Category, July 2020 (hereafter referred to 

as the Refractory Products Technology 

Review Memo), available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

We also reviewed the NESHAP for 

other similar source categories that were 

promulgated after the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP as 

part of the technology review for this 

source category. We reviewed the 

regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these 

later regulatory actions to identify any 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies considered in those 

rulemakings that could be applied to 

emission sources in the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source 

category, as well as the costs, non-air 

impacts, and energy implications 

associated with the use of those 

technologies. We also reviewed 

information available in industry trade 

publications such as the Refractories 

World Forum. These publications 

provided information on trends in 

refractory technologies that can affect 

emissions from the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category. This 

literature review did not identify 

industry trends that would affect 

emissions from the sources subject to 

this NESHAP. Additional details 

regarding our review of these 

information sources are contained in the 

memorandum, Technology Review for 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

NESHAP, available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0148. 

III. Analytical Procedures and 

Decision-Making 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTRs and 

other issues addressed in this proposal. 

A. How do we consider risk in our 

decision-making? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP, 

in evaluating and developing standards 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3086 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated 

with a lifetime of exposure at the highest 

concentration of HAP where people are likely to 

live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP 

exposure concentration to the noncancer doseresponse value; the HI is the sum of HQs for HAP 

that affect the same target organ or organ system. 

4Recommendations of the SAB Risk and 

Technology Review Methods Panel are provided in 

their report, which is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply 

a two-step approach to determine 

whether or not risks are acceptable and 

to determine if the standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on 

acceptability cannot be reduced to any 

single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he 

Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under section 112 is 

best judged on the basis of a broad set 

of health risk measures and 

information.’’ (54 FR 38046). Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety determination, ‘‘the Agency again 

considers all of the health risk and other 

health information considered in the 

first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Benzene NESHAP approach 

provides flexibility regarding factors the 

EPA may consider in making 

determinations and how the EPA may 

weigh those factors for each source 

category. The EPA conducts a risk 

assessment that provides estimates of 

the MIR posed by emissions of HAP that 

are carcinogens from each source in the 

source category, the hazard index (HI) 

for chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for 

acute exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause noncancer health 

effects.3 The assessment also provides 

estimates of the distribution of cancer 

risk within the exposed populations, 

cancer incidence, and an evaluation of 

the potential for an adverse 

environmental effect. The scope of the 

EPA’s risk analysis is consistent with 

the explanation in EPA’s response to 

comments on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP: 

The policy chosen by the Administrator 

permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure 

be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 

way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

impact on the general public. These factors 

can then be weighed in each individual case. 

This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator 

ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing his expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which 

did not exclude the use of any particular 

measure of public health risk from the EPA’s 

consideration with respect to CAA section 

112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 

permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in his judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will 

‘‘protect the public health.’’ 

(54 FR at 38057). Thus, the level of the 

MIR is only one factor to be weighed in 

determining acceptability of risk. The 

Benzene NESHAP explained that ‘‘an 

MIR of approximately one in 10 

thousand should ordinarily be the upper 

end of the range of acceptability. As 

risks increase above this benchmark, 

they become presumptively less 

acceptable under CAA section 112, and 

would be weighed with the other health 

risk measures and information in 

making an overall judgment on 

acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, 

in a particular case, that a risk that 

includes an MIR less than the 

presumptively acceptable level is 

unacceptable in the light of other health 

risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. In other 

words, risks that include an MIR above 

100-in-1 million may be determined to 

be acceptable, and risks with an MIR 

below that level may be determined to 

be unacceptable, depending on all of the 

available health information. Similarly, 

with regard to the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 

Benzene NESHAP that the: ‘‘EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify the HAP risk that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source category under review, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution, or atmospheric 

transformation in the vicinity of the 

sources in the category. 

The EPA understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. We recognize that such 

consideration may be particularly 

important when assessing noncancer 

risk, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., reference 

concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for 

adverse health effects. For example, the 

EPA recognizes that, although exposures 

attributable to emissions from a source 

category or facility alone may not 

indicate the potential for increased risk 

of adverse noncancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in an increased risk 

of adverse noncancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR 

assessments will be most useful to 

decision makers and communities if 

results are presented in the broader 

context of aggregate and cumulative 

risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 4

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA incorporates 

cumulative risk analyses into its RTR 

risk assessments. The Agency (1) 

Conducts facility-wide assessments, 

which include source category emission 

points, as well as other emission points 

within the facilities; (2) combines 

exposures from multiple sources in the 

same category that could affect the same 

individuals; and (3) for some persistent 

and bioaccumulative pollutants, 

analyzes the ingestion route of 

exposure. In addition, the RTR risk 

assessments consider aggregate cancer 

risk from all carcinogens and aggregated 

noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens 

affecting the same target organ or target 

organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risk in the context of total HAP risk 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk 

from emission sources other than those 

that we have studied in depth during 

this RTR review would have 

significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than the source category or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3087 

5U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 

Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Studies— 

MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland 

Cement Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA–452/R–09– 

006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. 

facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate 

or cumulative assessments would 

compound those uncertainties, making 

the assessments too unreliable. 

B. How do we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review primarily 

focuses on the identification and 

evaluation of developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

have occurred since the MACT 

standards were promulgated. Where we 

identify such developments, we analyze 

their technical feasibility, estimated 

costs, energy implications, and non-air 

environmental impacts. We also 

consider the emission reductions 

associated with applying each 

development. This analysis informs our 

decision of whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to 

revise the emissions standards. In 

addition, we consider the 

appropriateness of applying controls to 

new sources versus retrofitting existing 

sources. For this exercise, we consider 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original MACT standards; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

MACT standards) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original MACT standards; 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards; and 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards). 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

were considered at the time we 

originally developed the NESHAP (i.e., 

the 2003 Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP), we review a 

variety of data sources in our 

investigation of potential practices, 

processes, or controls. We also review 

the NESHAP and the available data to 

determine if there are any unregulated 

emissions of HAP within the source 

category and evaluate this data for use 

in developing new emission standards. 

See sections II.C and II.D of this 

preamble for information on the specific 

data sources that were reviewed as part 

of the technology review. 

C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk 

posed by the source category? 

In this section, we provide a complete 

description of the types of analyses that 

we generally perform during the risk 

assessment process. In some cases, we 

do not perform a specific analysis 

because it is not relevant. For example, 

in the absence of emissions of HAP 

known to be persistent and 

bioaccumulative in the environment 

(PB–HAP), we would not perform a 

multipathway exposure assessment. 

Where we do not perform an analysis, 

we state that we do not and provide the 

reason. While we present all of our risk 

assessment methods, we only present 

risk assessment results for the analyses 

actually conducted (see section IV.B of 

this preamble). 

The EPA conducts a risk assessment 

that provides estimates of the MIR for 

cancer posed by the HAP emissions 

from each source in the source category, 

the HI for chronic exposures to HAP 

with the potential to cause noncancer 

health effects, and the HQ for acute 

exposures to HAP with the potential to 

cause noncancer health effects. The 

assessment also provides estimates of 

the distribution of cancer risk within the 

exposed populations, cancer incidence, 

and an evaluation of the potential for an 

adverse environmental effect. The seven 

sections that follow this paragraph 

describe how we estimated emissions 

and conducted the risk assessment. The 

docket for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Source Category in 

Support of the 2020 Risk and 

Technology Review Proposed Rule. The 

methods used to assess risk (as 

described in the seven primary steps 

below) are consistent with those 

described by the EPA in the document 

reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s SAB 

in 2009; 5 and described in the SAB 

review report issued in 2010. They are 

also consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

The actual emissions and the 

emission release characteristics for one 

of the three major source facilities were 

obtained primarily from the 2017 NEI. 

The actual emissions and the emission 

release characteristics for the other two 

facilities were developed by the EPA 

based on data provided by the facilities 

and refractory emission factors. 

Additional information on the 

development of the modeling file for 

each facility, including the development 

of the actual emissions estimates and 

emissions release characteristics, can be 

found in the memorandum titled 

Emissions Data Used to Develop the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing Risk 

and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 

Modeling Input Files, found in 

Appendix 1 to the Refractory Products 

Risk Assessment Report, available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during a 

specified annual time period. These 

‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower 

than the emission levels allowed under 

the requirements of the current MACT 

standards. The emissions allowed under 

the MACT standards are referred to as 

the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ emissions. We 

discussed the consideration of both 

MACT-allowable and actual emissions 

in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 

FR 1992, 1998 through 1999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 

FR 34421, 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 

FR 76603, 76609, December 21, 2006, 

respectively). In those actions, we noted 

that assessing the risk at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since that risk reflects the maximum 

level facilities could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044.) 

For Refractory Products 

Manufacturing sources with compliance 

test data, we determined allowable 

emissions by calculating a multiplier for 

each emission source. Based on the data 

in compliance test reports, we 

calculated the multipliers by comparing 

actual emissions and control efficiencies 

to the applicable Refractory Products 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3088 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

6For more information about HEM–3, go to 

https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-human-exposure-model-hem. 

7U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

8A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

9The EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment classifies carcinogens as: ‘‘Carcinogenic 

to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’ 

and ‘‘suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential.’’ These classifications also coincide with 

the terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, 

and possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are 

the terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 

FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the 

document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting 

Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures 

(EPA/630/R–00/002), was published as a 

supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both 

documents can be obtained from https://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid

=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. 

Summing the risk of these individual compounds 

to obtain the cumulative cancer risk is an approach 

that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 

2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics 

Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the 

National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data— 

an SAB Advisory, available at https://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915 

BB04E148525 70CA007A682C/$File/ecadv

02001.pdf. 

Manufacturing NESHAP emission limit. 

For some sources compliance was 

determined by comparing the 

concentration of THCs to the emission 

limit of 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 

percent oxygen, and the emissions were 

measured at the outlet of the control 

device. For other sources, compliance 

was determined by comparing the THC 

control efficiency to the THC control 

efficiency requirement of 95 percent, 

and the emissions were measured at the 

inlet and outlet of the control device 

accordingly. For sources without 

compliance test data, we assumed the 

actual and the allowable emissions were 

equal. Additional information on the 

development of the allowable emissions 

can be found in the memorandum titled 

Emissions Data Used to Develop the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing Risk 

and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 

Modeling Input Files, found in 

Appendix 1 to the Refractory Products 

Risk Assessment Report, available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0148. 

3. How do we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures, and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risk? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risk from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (HEM–3).6 The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: 

(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 

kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, 

and (3) estimating individual and 

population-level inhalation risk using 

the exposure estimates and quantitative 

dose-response information. 

a. Dispersion Modeling 

The air dispersion model AERMOD, 

used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing air 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.7 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (2016) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations from 824 

meteorological stations selected to 

provide coverage of the U.S. and Puerto 

Rico. A second library of U.S. Census 

Bureau census block 8 internal point 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

(U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for 

each census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant-specific dose-response 

values is used to estimate health risk. 

These are discussed below. 

b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we use the estimated 

annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each HAP emitted by 

each source in the source category. The 

HAP air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid located within 50 

km of the facility are a surrogate for the 

chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who 

reside in that census block. A distance 

of 50 km is consistent with both the 

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989) and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

For each facility, we calculate the MIR 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, 70 

years) exposure to the maximum 

concentration at the centroid of each 

inhabited census block. We calculate 

individual cancer risk by multiplying 

the estimated lifetime exposure to the 

ambient concentration of each HAP (in 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) by 

its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is 

an upper-bound estimate of an 

individual’s incremental risk of 

contracting cancer over a lifetime of 

exposure to a concentration of 1 

microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use UREs 

from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS 

values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

UREs, where available. In cases where 

new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

The pollutant-specific dose-response 

values used to estimate health risk are 

available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/ 

dose-response-assessment-assessinghealth-risks-associated-exposurehazardous-air-pollutants. 

To estimate individual lifetime cancer 

risks associated with exposure to HAP 

emissions from each facility in the 

source category, we sum the risks for 

each of the carcinogenic HAP 9 emitted 

by the modeled facility. We estimate 

cancer risk at every census block within 

50 km of every facility in the source 

category. The MIR is the highest 

individual lifetime cancer risk estimated 

for any of those census blocks. In 

addition to calculating the MIR, we 

estimate the distribution of individual 

cancer risks for the source category by 

summing the number of individuals 

within 50 km of the sources whose 

estimated risk falls within a specified 

risk range. We also estimate annual 

cancer incidence by multiplying the 

estimated lifetime cancer risk at each 

census block by the number of people 

residing in that block, summing results 

for all of the census blocks, and then 

dividing this result by a 70-year 

lifetime. 

To assess the risk of noncancer health 

effects from chronic exposure to HAP, 

we calculate either an HQ or a target 

organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). 

We calculate an HQ when a single 

noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more 

than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we 

sum the HQ for each of the HAP that 

affects a common target organ or target 

organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The 

HQ is the estimated exposure divided 

by the chronic noncancer dose-response 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3089 

10See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to 

Support Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A 

Case Study Analysis (Draft Report, May 2017. 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/risk-and-technology-review-nationalemissions-standards-hazardous). 

11 In the absence of hourly emission data, we 

develop estimates of maximum hourly emission 

rates by multiplying the average actual annual 

emissions rates by a factor (either a categoryspecific factor or a default factor of 10) to account 

for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk 

Assessment for Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and 

Technology Review Proposed Rule, and in 

Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support 

Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. 

Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

12CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8- 

hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot 

Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, 

The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure 

Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at 

https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary. 

13National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing 

Operating Procedures for Developing Acute 

Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. 

Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_

operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the 

National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances ended 

in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues 

to operate at the EPA and works with the National 

Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://

www.epa.gov/aegl). 

14ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 

2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association. 

Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/ 

AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse

PlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG

%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%

20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014

%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2- 

2014%29.pdf. 

value, which is a value selected from 

one of several sources. The preferred 

chronic noncancer dose-response value 

is the EPA RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime’’ (https://

iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/ 

termreg/searchandretrieve/glossa

riesandkeywordlists/search.do?

details=&vocabName=IRIS

%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC 

from the EPA’s IRIS is not available or 

where the EPA determines that using a 

value other than the RfC is appropriate, 

the chronic noncancer dose-response 

value can be a value from the following 

prioritized sources, which define their 

dose-response values similarly to the 

EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https:// 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) 

the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/ 

crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as 

noted above, a scientifically credible 

dose-response value that has been 

developed in a manner consistent with 

the EPA guidelines and has undergone 

a peer review process similar to that 

used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific 

dose-response values used to estimate 

health risks are available at https://

www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants. 

c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP

That May Cause Health Effects Other

Than Cancer

For each HAP for which appropriate 

acute inhalation dose-response values 

are available, the EPA also assesses the 

potential health risks due to acute 

exposure. For these assessments, the 

EPA makes conservative assumptions 

about emission rates, meteorology, and 

exposure location. As part of our efforts 

to continually improve our 

methodologies to evaluate the risks that 

HAP emitted from categories of 

industrial sources pose to human health 

and the environment,10 we revised our 

treatment of meteorological data to use 

reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions in our acute risk screening 

assessments instead of worst-case air 

dispersion conditions. This revised 

treatment of meteorological data and the 

supporting rationale are described in 

more detail in Residual Risk Assessment 

for Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Source Category in Support of the 2020 

Risk and Technology Review Proposed 

Rule, and in Appendix 5 of the report: 

Technical Support Document for Acute 

Risk Screening Assessment. This revised 

approach has been used in this proposal 

and in all other RTR rulemakings 

proposed on or after June 3, 2019. 

To assess the potential acute risk to 

the maximally exposed individual, we 

use the peak hourly emission rate for 

each emission point,11 reasonable 

worst-case air dispersion conditions 

(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of 

highest off-site exposure. Specifically, 

we assume that peak emissions from the 

source category and reasonable worstcase air dispersion conditions co-occur 

and that a person is present at the point 

of maximum exposure. 

To characterize the potential health 

risks associated with estimated acute 

inhalation exposures to a HAP, we 

generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs, 

acute exposure guideline levels 

(AEGLs), and emergency response 

planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour 

exposure durations, if available, to 

calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is 

calculated by dividing the estimated 

acute exposure concentration by the 

acute dose-response value. For each 

HAP for which acute dose-response 

values are available, the EPA calculates 

acute HQs. 

An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration.’’ 12

Acute RELs are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. They are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population through 

the inclusion of margins of safety. 

Because margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL does 

not automatically indicate an adverse 

health impact. AEGLs represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general 

public and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 

hours.13 They are guideline levels for 

‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes that ‘‘Airborne 

concentrations below AEGL–1 represent 

exposure levels that can produce mild 

and progressively increasing but 

transient and nondisabling odor, taste, 

and sensory irritation or certain 

asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.’’ Id. 

AEGL–2 are defined as ‘‘the airborne 

concentration (expressed as parts per 

million or milligrams per cubic meter) 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience irreversible or other serious, 

long-lasting adverse health effects or an 

impaired ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPGs are ‘‘developed for emergency 

planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for 

single exposures to chemicals.’’ 14 Id. at 

1. The ERPG–1 is defined as ‘‘the

maximum airborne concentration below

which it is believed that nearly all

individuals could be exposed for up to


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3090 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 

objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. Similarly, 

the ERPG–2 is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

one hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ Id. at 1. 

An acute REL for 1-hour exposure 

durations is typically lower than its 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1. 

Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the 

same as the corresponding ERPG–1s, 

and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG– 

2s. The maximum HQs from our acute 

inhalation screening risk assessment 

typically result when we use the acute 

REL for a HAP. In cases where the 

maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also 

report the HQ based on the next highest 

acute dose-response value (usually the 

AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1). 

For this source category, we estimated 

acute emissions by determining acute 

multipliers, which we then multiplied 

by the actual emissions. The acute 

multipliers for all sources were based on 

data from compliance tests for the 

specific sources, when available. For the 

batch processes, which were tested for 

8 to 18 hours, we determined the acute 

multiplier by calculating mass 

emissions for each hour of the test and 

then taking the ratio of the maximum 

hourly emission rate to the average 

hourly emission rate. For sources that 

were tested for three 1-hour test runs, 

we determined the acute multiplier as 

the ratio of the mass emissions for the 

highest test run to the three-run average. 

The acute emissions were converted 

from ton per hour to ton per year for the 

risk modeling input file using 8,760 

hours per year. If compliance test results 

were not available, we applied source 

specific acute multipliers developed for 

other similar sources to estimate the 

acute emissions. Additional information 

on the development of the acute 

emissions can be found in the 

memorandum titled Emissions Data 

Used to Develop the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) Risk Modeling Input Files, 

found in Appendix 1 to the Refractory 

Products Risk Assessment Report, 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148. 

In our acute inhalation screening risk 

assessment, acute impacts are deemed 

negligible for HAP for which acute HQs 

are less than or equal to 1, and no 

further analysis is performed for these 

HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from 

the screening step is greater than 1, we 

assess the site-specific data to ensure 

that the acute HQ is at an off-site 

location. 

4. How do we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening assessment? 

The EPA conducts a tiered screening 

assessment examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first 

determine whether any sources in the 

source category emit any HAP known to 

be persistent and bioaccumulative in the 

environment, as identified in the EPA’s 

Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see 

Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://

www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-andmodeling-air-toxics-risk-assessmentreference-library). 

For the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category, we 

identified PB–HAP emissions of arsenic, 

cadmium, POM, mercury (divalent 

mercury and methyl mercury) and lead, 

so we proceeded to the next step of the 

evaluation. Except for lead, the human 

health risk screening assessment for PB– 

HAP consists of three progressive tiers. 

In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we 

determine whether the magnitude of the 

facility-specific emissions of PB–HAP 

warrants further evaluation to 

characterize human health risk through 

ingestion exposure. To facilitate this 

step, we evaluate emissions against 

previously developed screening 

threshold emission rates for several PB– 

HAP that are based on a hypothetical 

upper-end screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with 

the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. The PB–HAP with screening 

threshold emission rates are arsenic 

compounds, cadmium compounds, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

mercury compounds, and POM. Based 

on the EPA estimates of toxicity and 

bioaccumulation potential, these 

pollutants represent a conservative list 

for inclusion in multipathway risk 

assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 

1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2013-08/ 

documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In 

this assessment, we compare the 

facility-specific emission rates of these 

PB–HAP to the screening threshold 

emission rates for each PB–HAP to 

assess the potential for significant 

human health risks via the ingestion 

pathway. We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening 

assessment. The ratio of a facility’s 

actual emission rate to the Tier 1 

screening threshold emission rate is a 

‘‘screening value (SV).’’ 

We derive the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rates for these PB– 

HAP (other than lead compounds) to 

correspond to a maximum excess 

lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million 

(i.e., for arsenic compounds, 

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and 

furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause 

noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium 

compounds and mercury compounds), a 

maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate 

of any one PB–HAP or combination of 

carcinogenic PB–HAP in the Tier 1 

screening assessment exceeds the Tier 1 

screening threshold emission rate for 

any facility (i.e., the SV is greater than 

1), we conduct a second screening 

assessment, which we call the Tier 2 

screening assessment. The Tier 2 

screening assessment separates the Tier 

1 combined fisher and farmer exposure 

scenario into fisher, farmer, and 

gardener scenarios that retain upperbound ingestion rates. 

In the Tier 2 screening assessment, 

the location of each facility that exceeds 

a Tier 1 screening threshold emission 

rate is used to refine the assumptions 

associated with the Tier 1 fisher and 

farmer exposure scenarios at that 

facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 

screening assessment is that a lake and/ 

or farm is located near the facility. As 

part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, 

we use a USGS database to identify 

actual waterbodies within 50 km of each 

facility and assume the fisher only 

consumes fish from lakes within that 50 

km zone. We also examine the 

differences between local meteorology 

near the facility and the meteorology 

used in the Tier 1 screening assessment. 

We then adjust the previouslydeveloped Tier 1 screening threshold 

emission rates for each PB–HAP for 

each facility based on an understanding 

of how exposure concentrations 

estimated for the screening scenario 

change with the use of local 

meteorology and USGS lakes database. 

In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we 

maintain an assumption that the farm is 

located within 0.5 km of the facility and 

that the farmer consumes meat, eggs, 

dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced 

near the facility. We may further refine 

the Tier 2 screening analysis by 

assessing a gardener scenario to 

characterize a range of exposures, with 

the gardener scenario being more 

plausible in RTR evaluations. Under the 

gardener scenario, we assume the 

gardener consumes home-produced 

eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at 

the same ingestion rate as the farmer. 

The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3091 

15Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish 

and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. 

International Journal of Environmental Health 

Research, 12:343–354. 

16U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 

Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 

2011. 

17 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal 

standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is 

requisite to protect public health and provide an 

adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— 

differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard 

(requiring, among other things, that the standard 

provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety to protect 

public health’’). However, the primary lead NAAQS 

is a reasonable measure of determining risk 

acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene 

NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the 

most susceptible group in the human population— 

children, including children living near major lead 

emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 

FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the 

primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step 

is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS 

reflects an adequate margin of safety. 

the high-end food intake assumptions 

that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish 

(adult female angler at 99th percentile 

fish consumption 15) and locally grown 

or raised foods (90th percentile 

consumption of locally grown or raised 

foods for the farmer and gardener 

scenarios 16). If PB–HAP emission rates 

do not result in a Tier 2 SV greater than 

1, we consider those PB–HAP emissions 

to pose risks below a level of concern. 

If the PB–HAP emission rates for a 

facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 

threshold emission rates, we may 

conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. 

There are several analyses that can be 

included in a Tier 3 screening 

assessment, depending upon the extent 

of refinement warranted, including 

validating that the lakes are fishable, 

locating residential/garden locations for 

urban and/or rural settings, considering 

plume-rise to estimate emissions lost 

above the mixing layer, and considering 

hourly effects of meteorology and 

plume-rise on chemical fate and 

transport (a time-series analysis). If 

necessary, the EPA may further refine 

the screening assessment through a sitespecific assessment. 

In evaluating the potential 

multipathway risk from emissions of 

lead compounds, rather than developing 

a screening threshold emission rate, we 

compare maximum estimated chronic 

inhalation exposure concentrations to 

the level of the current National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for lead.17 Values below the level of the 

primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are 

considered to have a low potential for 

multipathway risk. 

For further information on the 

multipathway assessment approach, see 

the Refractory Products Risk 

Assessment Report, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

5. How do we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect, 

Environmental HAP, and Ecological 

Benchmarks 

The EPA conducts a screening 

assessment to examine the potential for 

an adverse environmental effect as 

required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA 

defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 

as ‘‘any significant and widespread 

adverse effect, which may reasonably be 

anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

areas.’’ 

The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which 

are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’ 

in its screening assessment: Six PB– 

HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP 

included in the screening assessment 

are arsenic compounds, cadmium 

compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury), and lead compounds. 

The acid gases included in the screening 

assessment are HCl and HF. 

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate 

are of particular environmental concern 

because they accumulate in the soil, 

sediment, and water. The acid gases, 

HCl and HF, are included due to their 

well-documented potential to cause 

direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment, we evaluate the following 

four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, 

surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish 

consumed by wildlife, and air. Within 

these four exposure media, we evaluate 

nine ecological assessment endpoints, 

which are defined by the ecological 

entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP 

(other than lead), both community-level 

and population-level endpoints are 

included. For acid gases, the ecological 

assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant 

communities. 

An ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level. For each environmental 

HAP, we identified the available 

ecological benchmarks for each 

assessment endpoint. We identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: Probable 

effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level (NOAEL). In cases where 

multiple effect levels were available for 

a particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

For further information on how the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment was conducted, including a 

discussion of the risk metrics used, how 

the environmental HAP were identified, 

and how the ecological benchmarks 

were selected, see Appendix 9 of the 

Refractory Products Risk Assessment 

Report, which is available in the docket 

for this action. 

b. Environmental Risk Screening 

Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

assessment, the EPA first determined 

whether any facilities in the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source category 

emitted any of the environmental HAP. 

For the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category, we 

identified emissions of arsenic, 

cadmium, HCl, HF, lead, mercury 

(divalent mercury and methyl mercury), 

and POM. Because one or more of the 

environmental HAP evaluated are 

emitted by at least one facility in the 

source category, we proceeded to the 

second step of the evaluation. 

c. PB–HAP Methodology 

The environmental screening 

assessment includes six PB–HAP, 

arsenic compounds, cadmium 

compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury), and lead compounds. 

With the exception of lead, the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for PB–HAP consists of three 

tiers. The first tier of the environmental 

risk screening assessment uses the same 

health-protective conceptual model that 

is used for the Tier 1 human health 

screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE 

model simulations were used to backcalculate Tier 1 screening threshold 

emission rates. The screening threshold 

emission rates represent the emission 

rate in tons of pollutant per year that 

results in media concentrations at the 

facility that equal the relevant ecological 

benchmark. To assess emissions from 

each facility in the category, the 

reported emission rate for each PB–HAP 

was compared to the Tier 1 screening 

threshold emission rate for that PB–HAP 

for each assessment endpoint and effect 

level. If emissions from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold 

emission rate, the facility ‘‘passes’’ the 

screening assessment, and, therefore, is 

not evaluated further under the 

screening approach. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier 1 screening 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3092 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 

facility further in Tier 2. 

In Tier 2 of the environmental 

screening assessment, the screening 

threshold emission rates are adjusted to 

account for local meteorology and the 

actual location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 

screening assessment. For soils, we 

evaluate the average soil concentration 

for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km 

radius for each facility and PB–HAP. 

For the water, sediment, and fish tissue 

concentrations, the highest value for 

each facility for each pollutant is used. 

If emission concentrations from a 

facility do not exceed the Tier 2 

screening threshold emission rate, the 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screening 

assessment and typically is not 

evaluated further. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier 2 screening 

threshold emission rate, we evaluate the 

facility further in Tier 3. 

As in the multipathway human health 

risk assessment, in Tier 3 of the 

environmental screening assessment, we 

examine the suitability of the lakes 

around the facilities to support life and 

remove those that are not suitable (e.g., 

lakes that have been filled in or are 

industrial ponds), adjust emissions for 

plume-rise, and conduct hour-by-hour 

time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 

adjustments to the screening threshold 

emission rates still indicate the 

potential for an adverse environmental 

effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds 

the screening threshold emission rate), 

we may elect to conduct a more refined 

assessment using more site-specific 

information. If, after additional 

refinement, the facility emission rate 

still exceeds the screening threshold 

emission rate, the facility may have the 

potential to cause an adverse 

environmental effect. 

To evaluate the potential for an 

adverse environmental effect from lead, 

we compared the average modeled air 

concentrations (from HEM–3) of lead 

around each facility in the source 

category to the level of the secondary 

NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead 

NAAQS is a reasonable means of 

evaluating environmental risk because it 

is set to provide substantial protection 

against adverse welfare effects which 

can include ‘‘effects on soils, water, 

crops, vegetation, man-made materials, 

animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and 

climate, damage to and deterioration of 

property, and hazards to transportation, 

as well as effects on economic values 

and on personal comfort and wellbeing.’’ 

d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk 

Methodology 

The environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases evaluates the 

potential phytotoxicity and reduced 

productivity of plants due to chronic 

exposure to HF and HCl. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screening assessment that compares 

modeled ambient air concentrations 

(from AERMOD) to the ecological 

benchmarks for each acid gas. To 

identify a potential adverse 

environmental effect (as defined in 

section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from 

emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate 

the following metrics: The size of the 

modeled area around each facility that 

exceeds the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas, in acres and square 

kilometers; the percentage of the 

modeled area around each facility that 

exceeds the ecological benchmark for 

each acid gas; and the area-weighted 

average SV around each facility 

(calculated by dividing the areaweighted average concentration over the 

50-km modeling domain by the 

ecological benchmark for each acid gas). 

For further information on the 

environmental screening assessment 

approach, see Appendix 9 of the 

Refractory Products Risk Assessment 

Report, which is available in the docket 

for this action. 

6. How do we conduct facility-wide 

assessments? 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category emission 

points of interest, but also emissions of 

HAP from all other emission sources at 

the facility for which we have data. For 

this source category, we conducted the 

facility-wide assessment using a dataset 

compiled from the 2017 NEI. The source 

category records of that NEI dataset 

were removed, evaluated, and updated 

as described in section II.C of this 

preamble: What data collection 

activities were conducted to support 

this action? Once a quality assured 

source category dataset was available, it 

was placed back with the remaining 

records from the NEI for that facility. 

The facility-wide file was then used to 

analyze risks due to the inhalation of 

HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for 

the populations residing within 50 km 

of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of the facility-wide risks that 

could be attributed to the source 

category addressed in this proposal. We 

also specifically examined the facility 

that was associated with the highest 

estimate of risk and determined the 

percentage of that risk attributable to the 

source category of interest. The 

Refractory Products Risk Assessment 

Report, available through the docket for 

this action, provides the methodology 

and results of the facility-wide analyses, 

including all facility-wide risks and the 

percentage of source category 

contribution to facility-wide risks. 

7. How do we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe that our approach, which 

used conservative tools and 

assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health and environmentally 

protective. A brief discussion of the 

uncertainties in the RTR emissions 

dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates, and dose-response 

relationships follows below. Also 

included are those uncertainties specific 

to our acute screening assessments, 

multipathway screening assessments, 

and our environmental risk screening 

assessments. A more thorough 

discussion of these uncertainties is 

included in the Refractory Products Risk 

Assessment Report, which is available 

in the docket for this action. If a 

multipathway site-specific assessment 

was performed for this source category, 

a full discussion of the uncertainties 

associated with that assessment can be 

found in Appendix 11 of that document, 

Site-Specific Human Health 

Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment 

Report. 

a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

emissions dataset involved quality 

assurance/quality control processes, the 

accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on the source of the data, the 

degree to which data are incomplete or 

missing, the degree to which 

assumptions made to complete the 

datasets are accurate, errors in emission 

estimates, and other factors. The 

emission estimates considered in this 

analysis reflect short-term fluctuations 

based on actual emissions testing data. 

The estimates of peak hourly emission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3093 

18 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_

internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/ 

glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=

&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary). 

19An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

20See A Review of the Reference Dose and 

Reference Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, 

December 2002, and Methods for Derivation of 

Inhalation Reference Concentrations and 

Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 

1994. 

rates for the acute effects screening 

assessment were also based on actual 

emissions testing data. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

We recognize there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

the EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a 

model to estimate ambient pollutant 

concentrations, the user chooses certain 

options to apply. For RTR assessments, 

we select some model options that have 

the potential to overestimate ambient air 

concentrations (e.g., not including 

plume depletion or pollutant 

transformation). We select other model 

options that have the potential to 

underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not 

including building downwash). Other 

options that we select have the potential 

to either under- or overestimate ambient 

levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor 

locations). On balance, considering the 

directional nature of the uncertainties 

commonly present in ambient 

concentrations estimated by dispersion 

models, the approach we apply in the 

RTR assessments should yield unbiased 

estimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. We also note that the 

selection of meteorology dataset 

location could have an impact on the 

risk estimates. As we continue to update 

and expand our library of 

meteorological station data used in our 

risk assessments, we expect to reduce 

this variability. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

Assessment 

Although every effort is made to 

identify all of the relevant facilities and 

emission points, as well as to develop 

accurate estimates of the annual 

emission rates for all relevant HAP, the 

uncertainties in our emission inventory 

likely dominate the uncertainties in the 

exposure assessment. Some 

uncertainties in our exposure 

assessment include human mobility, 

using the centroid of each census block, 

assuming lifetime exposure, and 

assuming only outdoor exposures. For 

most of these factors, there is neither an 

under nor overestimate when looking at 

the maximum individual risk or the 

incidence, but the shape of the 

distribution of risks may be affected. 

With respect to outdoor exposures, 

actual exposures may not be as high if 

people spend time indoors, especially 

for very reactive pollutants or larger 

particles. For all factors, we reduce 

uncertainty when possible. For 

example, with respect to census-block 

centroids, we analyze large blocks using 

aerial imagery and adjust locations of 

the block centroids to better represent 

the population in the blocks. We also 

add additional receptor locations where 

the population of a block is not well 

represented by a single location. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and noncancer effects from both chronic 

and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties are generally expressed 

quantitatively, and others are generally 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note, 

as a preface to this discussion, a point 

on dose-response uncertainty that is 

stated in the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, 

that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA actions is 

protection of human health; 

accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk 

assessment procedures, including 

default options that are used in the 

absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective’’ 

(the EPA’s 2005 Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment, pages 1 

through 7). This is the approach 

followed here as summarized in the 

next paragraphs. 

Cancer UREs used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk.18 That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit). In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.19 Chronic noncancer RfC and 

reference dose (RfD) values represent 

chronic exposure levels that are 

intended to be health-protective levels. 

To derive dose-response values that are 

intended to be ‘‘without appreciable 

risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an 

uncertainty factor (UF) approach,20

which considers uncertainty, variability, 

and gaps in the available data. The UFs 

are applied to derive dose-response 

values that are intended to protect 

against appreciable risk of deleterious 

effects. 

Many of the UFs used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute dose-response 

values are quite similar to those 

developed for chronic durations. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute dose-response value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute dose-response values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

dose-response value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of acute 

dose-response values at different levels 

of severity should be factored into the 

risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

selection of ecological benchmarks for 

the environmental risk screening 

assessment. We established a hierarchy 

of preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 

assessment endpoint. We searched for 

benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., 

no-effects level, threshold-effect level, 

and probable effect level), but not all 

combinations of ecological assessment/ 

environmental HAP had benchmarks for 

all three effect levels. Where multiple 

effect levels were available for a 

particular HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we used all of the available 

effect levels to help us determine 

whether risk exists and whether the risk 

could be considered significant and 

widespread. 

Although we make every effort to 

identify appropriate human health effect 

dose-response values for all pollutants 

emitted by the sources in this risk 

assessment, some HAP emitted by this 

source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, 

these pollutants cannot be included in 

the quantitative risk assessment, which 

could result in quantitative estimates 

understating HAP risk. To help to 

alleviate this potential underestimate, 

where we conclude similarity with a 

HAP for which a dose-response value is 

available, we use that value as a 

surrogate for the assessment of the HAP 

for which no value is available. To the 

extent use of surrogates indicates 

appreciable risk, we may identify a need 

to increase priority for an IRIS 

assessment for that substance. We 

additionally note that, generally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

21 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

encompasses both variability in the range of 

expected inputs and screening results due to 

existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well 

as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate 

the true result. 

speaking, HAP of greatest concern due 

to environmental exposures and hazard 

are those for which dose-response 

assessments have been performed, 

reducing the likelihood of understating 

risk. Further, HAP not included in the 

quantitative assessment are assessed 

qualitatively and considered in the risk 

characterization that informs the risk 

management decisions, including 

consideration of HAP reductions 

achieved by various control options. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

dose-response value of an individual 

compound in that group to estimate 

risk. Similarly, for an individual 

compound in a group (e.g., ethylene 

glycol diethyl ether) that does not have 

a specified dose-response value, we also 

apply the most protective dose-response 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation 

Screening Assessments 

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that the EPA conducts as 

part of the risk review under section 112 

of the CAA. The accuracy of an acute 

inhalation exposure assessment 

depends on the simultaneous 

occurrence of independent factors that 

may vary greatly, such as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology, and the 

presence of a person. In the acute 

screening assessment that we conduct 

under the RTR program, we assume that 

peak emissions from the source category 

and reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions (i.e., 99th percentile) cooccur. We then include the additional 

assumption that a person is located at 

this point at the same time. Together, 

these assumptions represent a 

reasonable worst-case actual exposure 

scenario. In most cases, it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time when peak emissions and 

reasonable worst-case air dispersion 

conditions occur simultaneously. 

f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Risk Screening 

Assessments 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP or environmental HAP 

emissions to determine whether a 

refined assessment of the impacts from 

multipathway exposures is necessary or 

whether it is necessary to perform an 

environmental screening assessment. 

This determination is based on the 

results of a three-tiered screening 

assessment that relies on the outputs 

from models—TRIM.FaTE and 

AERMOD—that estimate environmental 

pollutant concentrations and human 

exposures for five PB–HAP (dioxins, 

POM, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) 

and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For 

lead, we use AERMOD to determine 

ambient air concentrations, which are 

then compared to the secondary 

NAAQS standard for lead. Two 

important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.21

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the model adequately represents the 

actual processes (e.g., movement and 

accumulation) that might occur in the 

environment. For example, does the 

model adequately describe the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA SAB 

reviews and other reviews, we are 

confident that the models used in the 

screening assessments are appropriate 

and state-of-the-art for the multipathway 

and environmental screening risk 

assessments conducted in support of 

RTRs. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the 

multipathway and environmental 

screening assessments, we configured 

the models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally representative 

datasets for the more influential 

parameters in the environmental model, 

including selection and spatial 

configuration of the area of interest, lake 

location and size, meteorology, surface 

water, soil characteristics, and structure 

of the aquatic food web. We also assume 

an ingestion exposure scenario and 

values for human exposure factors that 

represent reasonable maximum 

exposures. 

In Tier 2 of the multipathway and 

environmental screening assessments, 

we refine the model inputs to account 

for meteorological patterns in the 

vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values, and we 

identify the actual location of lakes near 

the facility rather than the default lake 

location that we apply in Tier 1. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

2 to account for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the 

screening assessments, we refine the 

model inputs again to account for hourby-hour plume-rise and the height of the 

mixing layer. We can also use those 

hour-by-hour meteorological data in a 

TRIM.FaTE run using the screening 

configuration corresponding to the lake 

location. These refinements produce a 

more accurate estimate of chemical 

concentrations in the media of interest, 

thereby reducing the uncertainty with 

those estimates. The assumptions and 

the associated uncertainties regarding 

the selected ingestion exposure scenario 

are the same for all three tiers. 

For the environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases, we employ a 

single-tiered approach. We use the 

modeled air concentrations and 

compare those with ecological 

benchmarks. 

For all tiers of the multipathway and 

environmental screening assessments, 

our approach to addressing model input 

uncertainty is generally cautious. We 

choose model inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

models, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. This approach reduces the 

likelihood of not identifying high risks 

for adverse impacts. 

Despite the uncertainties, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do not 

exceed screening threshold emission 

rates (i.e., screen out), we are confident 

that the potential for adverse 

multipathway impacts on human health 

is very low. On the other hand, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do 

exceed screening threshold emission 

rates, it does not mean that impacts are 

significant, only that we cannot rule out 

that possibility and that a refined 

assessment for the site might be 

necessary to obtain a more accurate risk 

characterization for the source category. 

The EPA evaluates the following HAP 

in the multipathway and/or 

environmental risk screening 

assessments, where applicable: Arsenic, 

cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury 

(both inorganic and methyl mercury), 

POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP 

represent pollutants that can cause 

adverse impacts either through direct 

exposure to HAP in the air or through 

exposure to HAP that are deposited 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3095 

22The EPA not only has authority under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3) to set MACT standards for 

previously unregulated HAP emissions at any time, 

but is required to address any previously 

unregulated HAP emissions as part of its periodic 

review of MACT standards under CAA section 

112(d)(6). LEAN v. EPA, 955 F3d at 1091–1099. 

from the air onto soils and surface 

waters and then through the 

environment into the food web. These 

HAP represent those HAP for which we 

can conduct a meaningful multipathway 

or environmental screening risk 

assessment. For other HAP not included 

in our screening assessments, the model 

has not been parameterized such that it 

can be used for that purpose. In some 

cases, depending on the HAP, we may 

not have appropriate multipathway 

models that allow us to predict the 

concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 

acknowledges that other HAP beyond 

these that we are evaluating may have 

the potential to cause adverse effects 

and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate 

other relevant HAP in the future, as 

modeling science and resources allow. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3)? 

In this action, we are proposing 

standards for previously unregulated 

HAP for existing sources in the clay and 

nonclay refractory subcategories 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3).22 For existing clay refractory 

sources, we are proposing a MACT floor 

limit for (non-mercury) metal HAP and 

a MACT floor limit for mercury (in 

addition to the existing NESHAP work 

practice standard to use natural gas as 

fuel for existing clay refractory sources). 

For existing nonclay refractory sources, 

we are proposing a work practice 

standard to use natural gas as fuel to 

limit metal HAP emissions as provided 

in CAA section 112(h) in lieu of a 

numerical emissions standard (in 

addition to the existing NESHAP THC 

limit for existing nonclay refractory 

sources). 

The results and proposed decisions 

based on the analyses performed 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) are presented below. 

1. Clay Refractory Products 

a. Background 

For existing clay refractory sources, 

the 2002 Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP proposal 

preamble identifies the primary HAP 

emissions as HF and HCl from the 

manufacture of clay products. The 

NESHAP requires control of HF/HCl 

with a work practice to use natural gas 

as a clean fuel replacement for coal, fuel 

oil, and waste-derived fuels that were 

used in kilns and ovens at that time. 

More recent available data in emission 

test reports for these sources reviewed 

for this action confirm trace (but 

measurable) amounts of (non-mercury) 

metal HAP and mercury emissions. 

Based on this data, we are proposing 

MACT floor limits for these HAP for 

new and existing clay refractory 

sources. We propose to set a limit for 

mercury and a limit for PM as a 

surrogate for (non-mercury) metal HAP. 

We are setting a limit for PM as a 

surrogate for (non-mercury) metal HAP 

because the metal HAP are contained in 

the PM and the control techniques that 

would be used to control PM will 

equally control (non-mercury) metal 

HAP. We have used PM as a surrogate 

for (non-mercury) metal HAP for other 

rules with similar processes (e.g., 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime 

Manufacturing, Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing). 

b. Proposed MACT Standards 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), we 

are proposing MACT floor limits of 9.5 

pounds per hour for PM and 18 

micrograms per dry standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm), corrected to 18 percent 

oxygen, for mercury from each existing 

kiln that is used to produce clay 

refractory products. Because there are 

fewer than 30 kilns used to produce clay 

refractory products in the source 

category, CAA section 112(d)(3)(B) 

directs the EPA to base the MACT floor 

on the best performing five sources for 

which the EPA has data. For the clay 

refractory kiln subcategory, we had data 

for only two clay refractory kilns, so we 

considered all sources for which we had 

data as the best performing sources in 

the subcategory. To calculate the limits, 

we used the test data from the two clay 

refractory kilns to calculate the average 

emissions for each kiln. We then 

determined upper prediction limits 

(UPLs) that incorporate the potential 

variability in future measurements to 

develop the PM and mercury standards. 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3) 

requirements for new sources, the 

standard for new sources shall not be 

less stringent than the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source. We are 

proposing MACT floor limits of 3.1 

pounds per hour for PM and 6.1 mg/ 

dscm, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, 

for mercury from each new kiln that is 

used to produce clay refractory 

products. These limits were derived 

using the same test data as the existing 

source limits but are based on the UPL 

determinations for the best-performing 

kiln rather than both existing kilns for 

which we have data. 

The EPA’s MACT analyses use the 

UPL approach to identify the average 

emission limitation achieved by the best 

performing sources. The EPA uses this 

approach because it incorporates the 

average performance of the best 

performing sources as well as the 

variability of the performance during 

testing conditions. The UPL represents 

the value which one can expect the 

mean of a specified number of future 

observations (e.g., 3-run average) to fall 

below for the specified level of 

confidence (99 percent), based upon the 

results from the same population. In 

other words, the UPL estimates what the 

upper bound of future values will be 

based upon present or past background 

data. The UPL approach encompasses 

all the data point-to-data point 

variability in the collected data, as 

derived from the dataset to which it is 

applied. For more details regarding how 

these limits were derived, see the 

technical memorandum titled 

Development of Proposed Standards 

and Impacts for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, located in the 

docket for this rule. 

To demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits, the EPA is proposing 

initial and repeat 5-year performance 

testing for the regulated pollutants, 

continuous parameter monitoring, and 

daily visible emissions (VE) checks. 

Owners and operators whose clay 

refractory products kilns are equipped 

with a fabric filter to reduce PM (as a 

surrogate for metal HAP) have the 

option of demonstrating compliance 

using a bag leak detection system 

instead of daily VE checks. 

c. Consideration of Beyond-the-Floor 

Options 

The EPA also evaluated the beyondthe-floor option of requiring all existing 

sources to meet the proposed new 

source MACT standards for mercury 

and PM (as a surrogate for total (nonmercury) metal HAP). We assume an 

uncontrolled kiln would need a fabric 

filter for control of PM and an activated 

carbon injection and fabric filter system 

for control of mercury to meet the new 

source standards. For the total (nonmercury) metal HAP beyond-the-floor 

option, we estimate the total capital cost 

would be $1.74 million, the annual cost 

would be $649,000, and the control 

would achieve (non-mercury) metal 

HAP reductions of 0.015 tpy, for a cost 

effectiveness of $42.7 million per ton of 

(non-mercury) metal HAP removed. For 

the mercury beyond-the-floor option, we 

estimate the total capital cost would be 

$1.84 million, the annual cost would be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3096 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

23Thus, while we believe that there are metal 

HAP emissions, the lack of data showing 

measurable emissions leads the EPA to conclude 

that the application of measurement methodology 

to this class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. See CAA 

112(h)(2)(B). 

$740,000, and the control would 

achieve mercury reductions of 0.0023 

tpy, for a cost effectiveness of $321 

million per ton of mercury removed. 

We conclude that the costs of the 

controls are not reasonable relative to 

the level of emission reduction achieved 

for either the mercury or total (nonmercury) metal HAP beyond-the-floor 

options. In addition, these controls 

would create additional solid waste, as 

there would be a need to dispose of the 

collected metal-contaminated dust. 

Therefore, we are not proposing beyondthe-floor limits for mercury or total nonmercury metal HAP and are proposing 

standards based on the MACT floor. See 

the technical memorandum titled 

Development of Proposed Standards 

and Impacts for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, located in the 

docket for this rule, for details regarding 

the derivation of the cost and emission 

estimates for the beyond-the-floor 

option. 

2. Nonclay Refractory Products That Use 

Organic HAP 

For existing nonclay refractory 

sources, the 2002 Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP proposal 

preamble identifies organic HAP as the 

primary emissions from the 

manufacture of nonclay products that 

include organic resin binders. The 

NESHAP requires control of organic 

HAP with a THC limit for these sources. 

Sources currently employ the use of 

thermal oxidizers, regenerative thermal 

oxidizers, and catalytic oxidizers to 

meet the THC limit. However, the 

NESHAP does not require sources to use 

natural gas as fuel for sources in this 

subcategory because metal HAP 

emissions were determined to be below 

measurable quantities due to the use of 

purified nonclay raw materials. 

Available HAP data for these sources in 

the 2017 NEI were found to be outdated 

and not reflective of current operating 

conditions. The 2017 NEI included 

measurable PM emissions for these 

existing nonclay refractory sources, and 

the PM would be expected to have trace 

amounts of metal HAP; however, we 

have no emission stack test data to 

indicate measurable emissions of metal 

HAP for these existing nonclay 

refractory sources.23 Therefore, we are 

proposing a work practice standard to 

use natural gas as fuel for existing 

nonclay refractory sources to limit metal 

HAP emissions in lieu of a numerical 

emissions standard as the MACT floor 

level of control in accordance with CAA 

section 112(h). Because we expect HAP 

metals to be emitted in unmeasurable 

quantities based on the purified raw 

materials used and we have no emission 

stack test data to indicate measurable 

emissions of metal HAP for these 

existing nonclay refractory sources, we 

could not identify a beyond the floor 

measure that would obtain further 

emission reductions. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

As described in section III of this 

preamble, for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category, we 

conducted a risk assessment for all HAP 

emitted. We present results of the risk 

assessment briefly below and in more 

detail in the Refractory Products Risk 

Assessment Report, in the Docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2020–0148). 

1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 1 below provides a summary of 

the results of the inhalation risk 

assessment for the source category. For 

more detail about the MACT-allowable 

emission levels, see Appendix 1 to the 

Refractory Products Risk Assessment 

Report, in the Docket for this action. 

TABLE 1—REFRACTORY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Risk assessment 

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 

Estimated population at 

increased risk of cancer ≥1-in-1 million 

Estimated annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 1Maximum 

screening 

acute noncancer HQ 2

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Source Category ................................... 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.0003 0.0003 0.04 0.04 HQREL = 0.09 

Whole Facility ........................................ 0.7 .................. 0 .................. 0.0004 .................. 0.04 .................. ........................

1The target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) is the sum of the chronic noncancer HQs for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system. 

2The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values. 

The results of the inhalation risk 

modeling, as shown above, indicate that 

the maximum individual cancer risk 

based on actual and allowable emissions 

(lifetime) is 0.7-in-1 million (driven by 

trace amounts of chromium, arsenic, 

nickel, and cadmium emissions from 

tunnel kilns) and the total estimated 

annual cancer incidence (national) from 

these facilities based on actual and 

allowable emission levels is 0.0003 

excess cancer cases per year or one case 

every 3,333 years. The maximum 

chronic noncancer TOSHI value based 

on actual and allowable emissions is 

0.04 (driven by HF from tunnel kilns). 

2. Screening Level Acute Risk 

Assessment Results 

Table 1 of this preamble shows the 

acute risk results for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source 

category. The screening analysis for 

acute impacts was based on an estimate 

of acute emissions developed for each 

emissions source using compliance test 

report data and engineering 

calculations. The maximum screening 

acute noncancer HQ value (off-facility 

site) is 0.09 (driven by HF). For more 

detailed acute risk screening results, 

refer to the Refractory Products Risk 

Assessment Report, in the Docket for 

this action. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

The emissions data for Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source category 

indicate that five PB–HAP are emitted 

by sources within this source category: 

Arsenic, cadmium, POM, mercury 

(divalent mercury and methyl mercury), 

and lead. The cadmium emissions from 

these facilities did not exceed the Tier 

1 multipathway SV of 1 for cancer or 

noncancer. The arsenic, methyl 

mercury, and POM emissions exceeded 

the Tier 1 multipathway SV of 1 for 

cancer. Therefore, a Tier 2 screening 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3097 

24 Demographic groups included in the analysis 

are: White, African American, Native American, 

other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino, 

children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64 

years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults 

without a high school diploma, people living below 

the poverty level, people living two times the 

poverty level, and linguistically isolated people. 

assessment was conducted for arsenic, 

menthyl mercury and POM. Emissions 

of arsenic, POM, and methyl mercury 

from these facilities did not exceed the 

Tier 2 multipathway SV of 1 for cancer. 

The Tier 2 noncancer screening 

assessment resulted in an SV less than 

1 for mercury emissions. 

An exceedance of a screening 

threshold emission rate or SV in any of 

the tiers cannot be equated with a risk 

value or an HQ (or HI). Rather, it 

represents a high-end estimate of what 

the risk or hazard may be. For example, 

an SV of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be 

interpreted to mean that we are 

confident that the HQ would be lower 

than 2. Similarly, a Tier 2 cancer SV of 

5 means that we are confident that the 

risk is lower than 5-in-1 million. Our 

confidence comes from the 

conservative, or health-protective, 

assumptions encompassed in the 

screening tiers: we choose inputs from 

the upper end of the range of possible 

values for the influential parameters 

used in the screening tiers, and we 

assume that the exposed individual 

exhibits ingestion behavior that would 

lead to a high total exposure. Based 

upon the results of this screening 

assessment no further screening or sitespecific assessments were conducted for 

this source category. 

In evaluating the potential for 

multipathway effects from emissions of 

lead, modeled maximum annual-average 

lead concentrations were compared to 

the NAAQS for lead (0.15 mg/m3). 

Results of this analysis confirmed that 

the NAAQS for lead would not be 

exceeded by any facility. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A of this 

preamble, we conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category for the 

following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, 

HCl, HF, lead, mercury (divalent 

mercury and methyl mercury), and 

POM. 

In the Tier 1 screening analysis for 

PB–HAP (other than lead, which was 

evaluated differently), arsenic, 

cadmium, divalent mercury, and POM 

had no Tier 1 exceedances for any 

ecological benchmark. Methyl mercury 

emissions at one facility had a Tier 1 

exceedance for the surface soil NOAEL 

(avian ground insectivores) by a 

maximum SV of 2. A Tier 2 screening 

assessment was performed for methyl 

mercury. Methyl mercury had no Tier 2 

exceedances for any ecological 

benchmark. 

For lead, we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the secondary lead 

NAAQS. 

For HCl and HF, the average modeled 

concentration around each facility (i.e., 

the average concentration of all off-site 

data points in the modeling domain) did 

not exceed any ecological benchmark. In 

addition, each individual modeled 

concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site 

data point in the modeling domain) was 

below the ecological benchmarks for all 

facilities. For HF, the maximum facility 

SV (based on the average concentration 

of all off-site data points over the 

modeling domain) was well below 1 

(0.007) and the maximum area that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark was 

only 0.002 percent of the modeled area. 

Based on the results of the 

environmental risk screening analysis, 

we do not expect an adverse 

environmental effect as a result of HAP 

emissions from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

As shown in Table 1 of this 

document, the maximum facility-wide 

cancer MIR is 0.7-in-1 million, driven 

by chromium, arsenic, nickel, and 

cadmium emissions from tunnel kilns. 

The total estimated cancer incidence 

from the whole facility is 0.0004 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one excess case 

in every 2,500 years. No people were 

estimated to have cancer risks above 1- 

in-1 million from exposure to HAP 

emitted from both MACT and nonMACT sources at the three facilities in 

this source category. The maximum 

facility-wide TOSHI for the source 

category is estimated to be 0.04, driven 

by HF emissions from tunnel kilns. 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the source category, 

we performed a demographic analysis, 

which is an assessment of risks to 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations living within 5 km and 

within 50 km of the facilities. In the 

analysis, we evaluated the distribution 

of HAP-related cancer and noncancer 

risks from the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category across 

different demographic groups within the 

populations living near facilities.24

Results of the demographic analysis 

indicate that the minority population is 

significantly lower within 5 km of the 

facilities than the national percentage 

(18 percent versus 38 percent). This 

difference is accounted for by smaller 

population percentages around the 

facilities for all minority demographic 

groups. Specifically, African American 

(6 percent versus 12 percent nationally), 

Native American (0.1 percent versus 0.8 

percent nationally), Other and 

Multiracial (5 percent versus 7 percent 

nationally), and Hispanic or Latino (6 

percent versus 18 percent nationally). In 

addition, the percentage of the 

population living within 5 km of 

facilities in the source category is lower 

than the corresponding national 

percentage for the demographic groups, 

‘‘Over 25 Without a HS Diploma’’ (10 

percent versus 14 percent nationally) 

and ‘‘Below the Poverty Level’’ (11 

percent versus 14 percent nationally). 

When examining the risk levels of those 

exposed to emissions from Refractory 

Products Manufacturing facilities, we 

find that no one is exposed to a cancer 

risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a 

chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 

1. 

The methodology and the results of 

the demographic analysis are presented 

in a technical report titled Risk and 

Technology Review—Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Source Category 

Operations, September 2020 (hereafter 

referred to as the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Demographic Analysis 

Report), in the docket for this action. 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety, and adverse 

environmental effect? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in section III.A of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the cancer 

MIR, the number of persons in various 

cancer and noncancer risk ranges, 

cancer incidence, the maximum 

noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute 

noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer 

risks, the distribution of cancer and 

noncancer risks in the exposed 

population, and risk estimation 

uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 

14, 1989). 

For the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category, the risk 

analysis indicates that cancer risk due to 

actual emissions or allowable emissions 

is 0.7-in-1 million. The risks are 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 

which is the presumptive upper limit of 

acceptable risk. The risk analysis also 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3098 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

shows we did not identify a potential 

for adverse chronic noncancer health 

effects. The acute noncancer risks based 

on actual emissions are low at an HQ of 

less than 1 (based on the REL) for HF. 

Therefore, we find there is little 

potential concern of acute noncancer 

health impacts from actual emissions. In 

addition, the risk assessment indicates 

no significant potential for 

multipathway health effects. 

Considering all of the health risk 

information and factors discussed 

above, including the uncertainties 

discussed in section III.C.7 of this 

preamble, we propose to find that the 

risks from the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category are 

acceptable. 

3. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis 

We are proposing that the risks from 

the Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category are acceptable. There 

are no individuals in the exposed 

population with lifetime cancer risks 

above 1-in-1 million as a result of actual 

or allowable emissions from this 

category. In addition, in our risk 

analysis we did not identify a potential 

for adverse chronic noncancer, acute 

noncancer, or multipathway health 

effects. Therefore, we are proposing that 

the current standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

4. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The emissions data for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing source category 

indicate that the following 

environmental HAP are emitted by this 

category: Arsenic, cadmium, HCl, HF, 

lead, mercury (divalent mercury and 

methyl mercury), and POM. The 

screening-level evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects associated with emissions of 

these environmental HAP from the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category indicated that there are 

no exceedances of Tier 2 SVs for PB– 

HAP, no exceedances of the average 

modeled concentration around each 

facility (i.e., the average concentration 

of all off-site data points in the 

modeling domain) for acid gases, and 

for lead we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the secondary lead 

NAAQS. In addition, we are unaware of 

any adverse environmental effects 

caused by HAP emitted by this source 

category. Therefore, we do not expect 

there to be an adverse environmental 

effect as a result of HAP emissions from 

this source category, and taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, we are proposing 

that it is not necessary to set a more 

stringent standard to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

As described in section III.B of this 

preamble, our technology review 

focused on identifying developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies for the Refractory Products 

source category. We reviewed various 

information sources regarding emission 

sources that are currently regulated by 

the Refractory Products Manufacturing 

NESHAP to support the technology 

review. The information sources 

included the following: The RBLC; state 

regulations; facility operating permits; 

regulatory actions, including technology 

reviews promulgated for other similar 

NESHAP subsequent to the Surface 

Coating of Metal Cans NESHAP; and 

discussions with individual refractory 

product manufacturing facilities. 

A brief discussion of our review of 

these various information sources 

follows. Based on our review of facility 

operating permits and discussions with 

individual refractory product 

manufacturing facilities, we identified 

an advance in practice that we are 

proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

in this action. 

Our search of the RBLC database for 

improvements in refractory products 

manufacturing technologies did not 

identify any new developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). 

We also reviewed requirements for 

other similar source categories. During 

development of the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, we identified 

two other source categories that operate 

kilns that are similar in design and 

operation to kilns that manufacture clay 

refractory products: The Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Industry and the Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Industry. Since the 

promulgation of the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, the NESHAP 

for these two other source categories 

were vacated, and new NESHAP for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Industry and NESHAP 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 

Industry were promulgated on October 

26, 2015 (80 FR 65470). However, the 

control devices have not changed since 

the promulgation of the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP. 

Therefore, no developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies were identified in the 

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing Industry and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Industry that were not 

considered during the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP 

development. 

We also contacted representatives for 

the three major source facilities subject 

to the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP and the 

industry trade association, The 

Refractories Institute, and asked them to 

identify facility-specific developments 

in practices, processes, and control 

technologies. Two of the three facilities 

indicated they had not made changes in 

raw materials or manufacturing 

practices and processes because such 

changes would detrimentally affect their 

products. One facility had installed a 

wet scrubber to control opacity/ 

particulate matter (a surrogate for metal 

HAP) emitted by its tunnel kilns used to 

manufacture both clay and nonclay 

refractory products. Since wet scrubbers 

were previously considered during the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

NESHAP development, we did not 

consider this to be a development in 

control technology. 

We also conducted a review of the 

state operating permits for the three 

major source facilities that are subject to 

the Refractory Products Manufacturing 

NESHAP and three synthetic area 

source refractory facilities to determine 

whether any are using technologies that 

exceed the MACT level of control or are 

using technologies that were not 

considered during the development of 

the original NESHAP. We found the 

HAP control devices described in the 

permits were considered and included 

in the 2003 Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP for the relevant 

refractory products. Therefore, the 

permit review did not identify any new 

developments in processes or control 

technologies for the refractory 

manufacturing source category under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Based on our review of facility 

operating permits and discussions with 

individual refractory product 

manufacturing facilities, we identified 

an advance in practice that we are 

proposing in this action. The current 

NESHAP has a work practice standard 

that applies during periods of scheduled 

maintenance of emission controls for 

continuous kilns during bypass periods. 

We are proposing to limit the provision 

to THC emission controls and add 

additional requirements to reflect the 

best practices for one facility as part of 

the technology review required by CAA 

section 112(d)(6). In addition to the best 

practices, we are proposing an 

additional reporting requirement. We 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3099 

are aware of only one major source 

facility that uses this provision and will 

be affected by these proposed 

requirements. 

To comply with current NESHAP 

work practice standard, the owner or 

operator must request approval from the 

Administrator to bypass the control 

device, minimize THC emissions during 

the period when the kiln is operating 

and the control device is out of service, 

and minimize the amount of time that 

the kiln is operating and the control 

device is out of service. Approval from 

the Administrator must be requested in 

advance for each scheduled 

maintenance event of the control device 

if the bypass of the control device is 

required to conduct the maintenance. 

The procedures for minimizing the THC 

emissions during the time the control 

device is out of service and the amount 

of time the control device is out of 

service for maintenance must be 

included in the facility’s OM&M plan, 

and records of the maintenance 

performed are also required. 

Consistent with the demonstrated best 

practices for one facility, we are 

proposing a revision to the existing 

requirements to limit the number of 

hours bypass of the emission controls 

can occur to no more than 750 hours per 

kiln per year. If the control being 

bypassed is for THC control, the facility 

is also required to manufacture products 

with lower HAP binder and limit 

production to no more than five cars 

with higher THC binder levels during 

these periods, Therefore, we are also 

proposing to require sources to schedule 

the manufacture of product with binder 

percentages at the lower end of the 

range produced (i.e., below the typical 

average of product binder content) and 

the number of kiln cars with products 

for which the mass fraction of organic 

HAP in the resins, binders, and 

additives greater than the average must 

not exceed five for the year on a 12- 

month rolling basis, consistent with the 

best practices of the facility. Based on 

2017 raw material and production data 

provided by the facility, we estimate 

that if the regenerative thermal oxidizer 

was offline for all 750 hours allowed by 

the permit for maintenance, the HAP 

emissions during that 750 hours would 

be about 61 pounds per year. This 

estimate is considered conservative 

because it does not take into account 

any HAP emission reductions that were 

achieved by implementing the best 

practices described in this paragraph for 

periods when the control device is 

offline (scheduling products with low 

HAP binder and limiting higher THC 

binder levels to five cars). 

Finally, we are also proposing to add 

new reporting requirements for these 

periods. We are proposing to require 

reporting of the THC emissions and 

other information for control device 

maintenance and bypass periods in 

semi-annual compliance reports (in 

addition to the current NESHAP 

provision to document the planned 

maintenance procedures in the OM&M 

plan and to maintain records of 

continuous kiln maintenance). 

Reporting of this information in the 

semi-annual compliance reports will 

help to ensure compliance with the 

revised requirements that we are 

proposing. 

As part of the technology review, we 

also identified previously unregulated 

HAP, and are proposing new standards 

under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), as 

described in section IV.A, above. 

Additional information supporting the 

revised standard is provided in the 

memorandum titled Technology Review 

for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, available in 

the docket for this action. 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing 

additional revisions to the NESHAP. We 

are proposing revisions to the SSM 

provisions of the MACT rule in order to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 

3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which the 

court vacated two provisions that 

exempted sources from the requirement 

to comply with otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. We also are 

proposing various other changes to 

require electronic submittal of 

notification of compliance status 

(NOCS) reports, performance test and 

performance evaluation reports for 

refractory products manufacturing 

facilities, new test methods and 

incorporation by reference (IBR) of 

alternative test methods, and making 

technical and editorial revisions. Our 

analyses and proposed changes related 

to these issues are discussed in the 

sections below. 

1. SSM 

a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM 

Exemption 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

court vacated portions of two provisions 

in the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations governing the emissions of 

HAP during periods of SSM. 

Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule, which 

appears at 40 CFR 63.9792(a)(1). 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we 

are proposing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We are also proposing 

several revisions to Table 11 of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SSSSS (Applicability of 

General Provisions to Subpart SSSSS, 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘General 

Provisions table to subpart SSSSS’’). For 

example, we are proposing to eliminate 

the incorporation of the General 

Provisions’ requirement that the source 

develop an SSM plan. Further, we are 

proposing to eliminate and revise 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption as further described below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

seeking comment on the specific 

proposed deletions and revisions and 

also whether additional provisions 

should be revised to achieve the stated 

goal. 

In proposing these rule amendments, 

the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, is not 

proposing alternate standards for those 

periods. Nonclay refractory sources 

employ the use of continuous and 

periodic kilns that use air pollution 

control devices, including thermal 

oxidizers, regenerative thermal 

oxidizers, and catalytic oxidizers, to 

meet the THC limit in the rule. Facility 

representatives for these sources 

indicated that startups and shutdowns 

of the kilns and air pollution control 

devices are part of normal operations 

and they experience no difficulties in 

meeting the existing THC emission limit 

during these periods. Therefore, 

alternative standards are not needed. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 

(Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3100 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards and this reading has been 

upheld as reasonable by the court in 

U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 

606–610 (2016). Under CAA section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing sources when setting 

emission standards. As the court has 

recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels the EPA to consider 

such events in setting CAA section 112 

standards. 

As the court recognized in U.S. Sugar 

Corp, accounting for malfunctions in 

setting standards would be difficult, if 

not impossible, given the myriad 

different types of malfunctions that can 

occur across all sources in the category 

and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the 

frequency, degree, and duration of 

various malfunctions that might occur. 

Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to 

conceive of a standard that could apply 

equally to the wide range of possible 

boiler malfunctions, ranging from an 

explosion to minor mechanical defects. 

Any possible standard is likely to be 

hopelessly generic to govern such a 

wide array of circumstances.’’). As such, 

the performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude 

in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. 

We generally defer to an agency’s 

decision to proceed on the basis of 

imperfect scientific information, rather 

than to ’invest the resources to conduct 

the perfect study.’ ’’). See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations. As such, the emissions over 

a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 

to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

Although no statutory language 

compels the EPA to set standards for 

malfunctions, the EPA has the 

discretion to do so where feasible. For 

example, in the Petroleum Refinery 

Sector RTR, the EPA established a work 

practice standard for unique types of 

malfunctions that result in releases from 

pressure relief devices or emergency 

flaring events because we had 

information to determine that such work 

practices reflected the level of control 

that applies to the best performing 

sources (80 FR 75178, 75211 through 

75214, December 1, 2015). The EPA will 

consider whether circumstances warrant 

setting standards for a particular type of 

malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA 

has sufficient information to identify the 

relevant best performing sources and 

establish a standard for such 

malfunctions. We also encourage 

commenters to provide any such 

information. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA will 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA will also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard 

was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable, and was not 

instead caused, in part, by poor 

maintenance or careless operation. 40 

CFR 63.2 (Definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 

112, is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 

F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 

b. 40 CFR 63.9792(b) General Duty 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

describes the general duty to minimize 

emissions. Some of the language in that 

section is no longer necessary or 

appropriate in light of the elimination of 

the SSM exemption. We are proposing 

instead to add general duty regulatory 

text at 40 CFR 63.9792(b) that reflects 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

while eliminating the reference to 

periods covered by an SSM exemption. 

The current language in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the 

general duty entails during periods of 

SSM. With the elimination of the SSM 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3101 

exemption, there is no need to 

differentiate between normal operations, 

startup and shutdown, and malfunction 

events in describing the general duty. 

Therefore, the language the EPA is 

proposing for 40 CFR 63.9792(b) does 

not include that language from 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i). 

We are also proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 40 CFR 63.9792(b). 

c. SSM Plan 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these 

paragraphs require development of an 

SSM plan and specify SSM 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM plan. 

We are also proposing to remove from 

40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS, the 

current provisions requiring the SSM 

plan at 40 CFR 63.9792(c). As noted, the 

EPA is proposing to remove the SSM 

exemptions. Therefore, affected units 

will be subject to an emission standard 

during such events. The applicability of 

a standard during such events will 

ensure that sources have ample 

incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

d. Compliance With Standards 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current 

language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 

sources from non-opacity standards 

during periods of SSM. As discussed 

above, the court in Sierra Club vacated 

the exemptions contained in this 

provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is 

proposing to revise the standards in this 

rule to apply at all times. 

e. 40 CFR 63.9800 Performance 

Testing 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1) by changing the entry in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) 

describes performance testing 

requirements. The EPA is instead 

proposing to add a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.9800(d). The 

performance testing requirements we 

are proposing to add differ from the 

General Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

proposed performance testing 

provisions will also not allow 

performance testing during startup or 

shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart should not be conducted during 

malfunctions because conditions during 

malfunctions are often not 

representative of normal operating 

conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that 

the owner or operator maintain records 

of the process information necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such records an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

The EPA is proposing to add language 

clarifying that the owner or operator 

must make such records available to the 

Administrator. 

f. Monitoring 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The crossreferences to the general duty and SSM 

plan requirements in 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) 

are not necessary in light of other 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 

good air pollution control practices (40 

CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 

requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). Further, we are proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 63.9804(a)(13) and 

63.9808(b) to add requirements to 

maintain the monitoring equipment at 

all times in accordance with 40 CFR 

63.9792(b) and keep the parts readily 

available for routine repairs of the 

monitoring equipment, consistent with 

the requirements in 40 CFR 

63.8(c)(1)(ii). 

g. 40 CFR 63.9816 Recordkeeping 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA is proposing that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction, requiring a record of ‘‘the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction.’’ A similar record is 

already required in 40 CFR 

63.9816(c)(5), which requires a record of 

‘‘the date, time, and duration of each 

deviation,’’ which the EPA is retaining. 

The regulatory text in 40 CFR 

63.9816(c)(5) differs from the General 

Provisions in that the General 

Provisions requires the creation and 

retention of a record of the occurrence 

and duration of each malfunction of 

process, air pollution control, and 

monitoring equipment; whereas 40 CFR 

63.9816(c)(5) applies to any failure to 

meet an applicable standard and is 

requiring that the source record the 

date, time, and duration of the failure 

rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ For this 

reason, the EPA is proposing to add to 

40 CFR 63.9816(c)(5) a requirement that 

sources also keep records that include a 

list of the affected source or equipment 

and actions taken to minimize 

emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

the emission limit for which the source 

failed to meet the standard, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Examples of 

such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters 

(e.g., process throughput, rate, operating 

temperature, organic HAP content, and 

control device efficiencies). The EPA is 

proposing to require that sources keep 

records of this information to ensure 

that there is adequate information to 

allow the EPA to determine the severity 

of any failure to meet a standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions when the source 

has failed to meet an applicable 

standard. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ When 

applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) is 

no longer appropriate because SSM 

plans will no longer be required. The 

requirement previously applicable 

under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to 

record actions to minimize emissions 

and record corrective actions is now 

applicable by reference to 40 CFR 

63.9816(c)(5). When applicable, the 

provision in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events to show that actions 

taken were consistent with their SSM 

plan. The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(vi) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ The provision 

requires sources to maintain records 

during continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) malfunctions. Section 

63.9816(c)(5) covers records of periods 

of deviation from the standard, 

including instances where a CMS is 

inoperative or out-of-control. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(15) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ When applicable, 

the provision allows an owner or 

operator to use the affected source’s 

SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the 

recordkeeping requirements of the SSM 

plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also 

satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is 

proposing to eliminate this requirement 

because SSM plans would no longer be 

required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful 

purpose for affected units. 

We are proposing to remove the 

requirement in 40 CFR 63.9816(a)(2) 

that deviation records specify whether 

deviations from a standard occurred 

during a period of SSM. This revision is 

being proposed due to the proposed 

removal of the SSM exemption and 

because, as discussed above in this 

section, we are proposing that deviation 

records must specify the cause of each 

deviation, which could include a 

malfunction period as a cause. We are 

also proposing to remove the 

requirement to report the SSM records 

in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) by 

deleting 40 CFR 63.9816(a)(2). 

h. 40 CFR 63.9814 Reporting 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table to subpart 

SSSSS (Table 11) entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 4 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) 

describes the reporting requirements for 

SSM. To replace the General Provisions 

reporting requirement, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the immediate 

SSM report from Table 10 referenced at 

40 CFR 63.9814(a) and add reporting 

requirements to 40 CFR 63.9814(d) and 

(e). The replacement language differs 

from the General Provisions 

requirement in that it eliminates the 

SSM report as a stand-alone report. We 

are proposing language that requires 

sources that fail to meet an applicable 

standard at any time to report the 

information concerning such events in 

the semi-annual compliance report 

already required under this rule. For 

deviations from an applicable emission 

limitation that occur at an affected 

source where a CPMS is not used to 

demonstrate compliance, 40 CFR 

63.9814(d) already requires that the 

semi-annual compliance report must 

contain the number, duration, and the 

cause of such events (including 

unknown cause, if applicable). We are 

proposing that the report also include 

the date and time of each deviation, a 

list of the affected source or equipment, 

an estimate of the quantity of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit for which the source 

failed to meet the standard, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Similarly, for 

deviations from an applicable emission 

limitation that occur at an affected 

source where a CPMS is used to 

demonstrate compliance, we are 

retaining the current requirements in 40 

CFR 63.9814(e) to report the date, time, 

and cause of each deviation. We are 

proposing that the report must also 

contain the number and duration of 

deviations, a list of the affected sources 

or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

Regarding the proposed new 

requirement discussed above to estimate 

the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit for 

which the source failed to meet the 

standard and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions, 

examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available, or engineering 

judgment based on known process 

parameters (e.g., process throughput, 

rate, operating temperature, organic 

HAP content, and control device 

efficiencies). The EPA is proposing this 

requirement to ensure that the EPA has 

adequate information to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. The 

proposed amendments, therefore, 

eliminate the requirement in Table 10 to 

40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS to report 

whether the source deviated from its 

SSM plan, including required actions to 

communicate with the Administrator, 

and the cross-reference to 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) that contains the 

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an 

immediate report for SSM when a 

source failed to meet an applicable 

standard but did not follow the SSM 

plan. We will no longer require owners 

and operators to report when actions 

taken during an SSM event were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. 

We are proposing to remove the 

requirement in 40 CFR 63.9814(e)(5) 

that deviation reports must specify 

whether deviation from an operating 

limit occurred during a period of SSM. 

We are also proposing to remove the 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.9814(e)(8) to 

break down the total duration of 

deviations into the startup and 

shutdown categories. As discussed 

above in this section, we are proposing 

to require reporting of the cause of each 

deviation. Further, the startup and 

shutdown categories no longer apply 

because these periods are proposed to 

be considered normal operation. 

2. Electronic Reporting Requirements 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of refractory products 

manufacturing facilities submit 

electronic copies of NOCS required by 

40 CFR 63.7(b) and (c), 40 CFR 

63.8(f)(4), and 40 CFR 63.9 (b) through 

(e) and (h), and 40 CFR 63.9812, and 

performance test results and 

performance evaluation results required 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3103 

25https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

26EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

27E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013- 

09-30.pdf. 

28 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 

2012. Available at: https://

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html. 

by 40 CFR 63.9(h) and 40 CFR 63.9800, 

and 40 CFR 63.9814 through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 

description of the electronic data 

submission process is provided in the 

memorandum, Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. The proposal requires that all 

NOCS be submitted as portable 

document format (PDF) files and 

uploaded to CEDRI. For performance 

test and performance evaluation results 

the proposal requires test results that 

use test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

listed on the ERT website 25 at the time 

of the test be submitted in the format 

generated through the use of the ERT or 

an electronic file consistent with the 

xml schema on the ERT website. 

Performance test results using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

ERT at the time of the test are required 

to submitted as a PDF file using the 

attachment module of the ERT. 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI that 

preclude an owner or operator from 

accessing the system and submitting 

required reports and (2) force majeure 

events, which are defined as events that 

will be or have been caused by 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

affected facility, its contractors, or any 

entity controlled by the affected facility 

that prevent an owner or operator from 

complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically. Examples 

of force majeure events are acts of 

nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 

equipment failure or safety hazards 

beyond the control of the facility. The 

EPA is providing these potential 

extensions to protect owners and 

operators from noncompliance in cases 

where they cannot successfully submit 

a report by the reporting deadline for 

reasons outside of their control. In both 

circumstances, the decision to accept 

the claim of needing additional time to 

report is within the discretion of the 

Administrator, and reporting should 

occur as soon as possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 26 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 27 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.28 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum, Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

3. Incorporation by Reference Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

The EPA is proposing regulatory text 

that includes IBR. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the following documents described in 

the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14: 

• ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 

10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ issued 

August 31, 1981, IBR proposed for Table 

4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS. 

This document specifies methods, 

apparatus, and calculations which are 

used to determine quantitatively, the 

gaseous constituents of the exhausts 

including oxygen and carbon dioxide 

resulting from station combustions 

sources. 

• ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ Approved 

February 1, 2012, IBR proposed for 

Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SSSSS. 

• ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method),’’ (Approved March 1, 2016), 

IBR proposed for Table 4 to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SSSSS. 

• EPA–454/R–98–015, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance,’’ September 1997, 

IBR proposed for 40 CFR 63.9804(f). 

This document provides guidance on 

the use of triboelectric monitors as 

fabric filter bag leak detectors. The 

document includes fabric filter and 

monitoring system descriptions; 

guidance on monitor selection, 

installation, setup, adjustment, and 

operation; and quality assurance 

procedures. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, the EPA document generally 

available electronically through https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). The ANSI/ASME 

document is available from the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) at http://

www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park 

Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990; or 

by telephone at (800) 843–2763. The 

ASTM methods are available from 

ASTM International at http://

www.astm.org; by mail at 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959; or 

by telephone at (610) 832–9585. 

4. Technical and Editorial Changes 

The following lists additional 

proposed changes that address technical 

and editorial corrections: 

• Revise 40 CFR 63.9824 and Table 4 

to subpart SSSSS of part 63 to clarify 

the location in 40 CFR part 60 of 

applicable EPA test methods; and 

• Revise 40 CFR 63.9814 and 40 CFR 

63.9816 to include the requirements to 

record and report information on 

failures to meet the applicable standard. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

We are proposing that affected 

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction after January 14, 2021, 

must comply with all requirements of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3104 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

the subpart, including the amendments 

being proposed, no later than the 

effective date of the final rule or upon 

startup, whichever is later. The final 

action is not expected to be a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so 

the effective date of the final rule will 

be the promulgation date as specified in 

CAA section 112(d)(10). 

We are proposing that affected 

sources that commence construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 14, 

2021, must comply with the all 

requirements of the subpart, including 

the amendments being proposed, no 

later than the dates described below. We 

are also proposing that existing nonclay 

affected sources must comply with the 

requirement to use natural gas as fuel, 

or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel 

(except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or supply interruption) 

immediately upon the effective date of 

the final rule. 

Also, we are proposing that existing 

affected sources must comply with the 

following two amendments no later than 

181 days after the effective date of the 

final rule (i.e., 181 days after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register). First, for existing 

affected sources, we are proposing a 

requirement that notifications, 

performance test results, and 

performance evaluation results be 

electronically submitted. Second, for 

existing affected sources with 

continuous kilns using THC emission 

control devices, we are proposing 

improvements to the existing work 

practice standard as a result of the CAA 

section 112(d)(6) technology review i.e., 

limit the number of hours for bypass of 

the control device to conduct scheduled 

maintenance to 750 hours per year per 

kiln, schedule the manufacture of 

product with binder percentages at the 

lower end of the range during periods of 

control device bypass, and report THC 

emissions in the semi-annual 

compliance report. Existing affected 

facilities would have to continue to 

meet the current requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SSSSS, until the 

applicable compliance date of the 

amended rule (i.e., 181 days after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register). 

Finally, we are proposing that affected 

clay refractory product sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 14, 

2021 must meet new limits for PM/ 

metal HAP and mercury no later than 1 

year after the effective date of the final 

rule. The EPA determined that a 1-year 

compliance date allows sufficient time 

for notification and testing to 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

new PM/metal HAP and mercury limits. 

We are proposing the immediate 

compliance date for the removal of the 

SSM exemptions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) in 

accordance with the SSM court 

decision. For other SSM changes, 

excluding the revised requirements for 

the SSM described above (40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1)), our experience with similar 

industries further shows that this sort of 

regulated facility generally requires a 

time period of 181 days to read and 

understand the amended rule 

requirements; make any necessary 

adjustments; to read and understand the 

rule and adjust computer systems, 

evaluate whether changes are needed, 

and to update their OM&M plan to 

reflect the revised requirements. 

We also determined that an 

immediate compliance date is 

practicable for the natural gas 

requirement and is based on current 

practices and other information 

provided by the facilities. 

We are proposing the 181-day 

compliance date for electronic reporting 

and the scheduled maintenance work 

practice to require facilities to 

implement these changes as 

expeditiously as practicable. For 

electronic reporting, our experience 

with similar industries that are required 

to convert reporting mechanisms to 

install necessary hardware and software, 

become familiar with the process of 

submitting performance test results 

electronically through the EPA’s CEDRI, 

test these new electronic submission 

capabilities, and reliably employ 

electronic reporting shows that a time 

period of a minimum of 90 days, and, 

more typically, 180 days, is generally 

necessary to successfully accomplish 

these revisions. For the scheduled 

maintenance work practice, we expect 

facilities would also need this time to 

seek approval from the Administrator 

before taking the control device on the 

affected kiln out of service for 

scheduled maintenance and update 

their operation, maintenance, and 

monitoring plan to reflect the revised 

requirements. 

For the new PM/metal HAP and 

mercury requirements, we determined 

the 1-year compliance date would 

provide existing clay sources with 

sufficient time to plan and schedule 

facility resources to meet the 

notification and compliance 

demonstration testing requirements 

associated with the new limits. 

We solicit comment on these 

proposed compliance periods, and we 

specifically request submission of 

information from sources in this source 

category regarding specific actions that 

would need to be undertaken to comply 

with the proposed amended 

requirements and the time needed to 

make the adjustments for compliance 

with any of the revised requirements. 

We note that information provided may 

result in changes to the proposed 

compliance dates. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Currently, three major sources subject 

to the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP are operating 

in the United States. The NESHAP 

applies to each new, reconstructed, and 

existing affected source located at a 

refractory products manufacturing 

facility that is a major source of HAP 

emissions, is located at a major source 

of HAP emissions, or is part of a major 

source of HAP emissions. A refractory 

products manufacturing facility is a 

plant site that manufactures refractory 

products, such as refractory bricks, 

refractory shapes, monolithics, kiln 

furniture, crucibles, and other materials 

used for lining furnaces and other high 

temperature process units. Refractory 

products manufacturing facilities 

typically process raw material by 

crushing, grinding, and screening; 

mixing the processed raw materials with 

binders and other additives; forming the 

refractory mix into shapes; and drying 

and firing the shapes. The NESHAP lists 

the affected sources for four 

subcategories across the industry as the 

shape dryers, curing ovens, and kilns 

that are used to manufacture refractory 

products that use organic HAP; shape 

preheaters, pitch working tanks, 

defumers, and coking ovens that are 

used to produce pitch-impregnated 

refractory products; kilns that are used 

to manufacture chromium refractory 

products; and kilns that are used to 

manufacture clay refractory products. 

The three major sources currently 

operating in the U.S. can be grouped 

into two of the subcategories and use 

curing ovens and kilns that are used to 

manufacture nonclay refractory 

products that use organic HAP and kilns 

that are used to manufacture clay 

refractory products. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

At the current level of control, the 

estimated emissions of HAP from the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category are approximately 40 

tpy. The proposed amendments require 

that all three major sources in the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

source category comply with the 

relevant emission standards at all times, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3105 

including periods of SSM. The proposed 

amendments also limit the number of 

hours a continuous kiln control device 

can be bypassed during scheduled 

maintenance and require minimizing 

emissions of THC during bypass 

periods. We were unable to quantify the 

emissions that occur during periods of 

SSM or the specific emissions 

reductions that would occur as a result 

of this action. However, eliminating the 

SSM exemption has the potential to 

reduce emissions by requiring facilities 

to meet the applicable standard during 

SSM periods. Requiring the use of 

natural gas as kiln fuel also ensures a 

reduction in metal HAP emissions from 

combustion of coal, fuel oil, or wastederived fuels. 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (e.g., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants). Energy impacts consist of 

the electricity and steam needed to 

operate control devices and other 

equipment. The proposed amendments 

would have no effect on the energy 

needs of the affected facilities in either 

of the two source categories and would, 

therefore, have no indirect or secondary 

air emissions impacts. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

We estimate that each facility in this 

source category will experience costs as 

a result of these proposed amendments. 

Estimates for reporting and 

recordkeeping costs for each facility are 

associated with the electronic reporting 

requirements, elimination of the SSM 

exemption, and scheduled maintenance 

of continuous kiln control devices. The 

costs associated with the electronic 

reporting requirements are attributed to 

submittal of notifications and semiannual compliance reports using CEDRI 

and include time for becoming familiar 

with CEDRI. The costs associated with 

the revised SSM requirements were 

estimated for re-evaluating previously 

developed SSM record systems. The 

costs associated with recordkeeping to 

document the frequency and duration of 

scheduled maintenance of control 

devices for continuous kilns were also 

estimated. The recordkeeping and 

reporting costs are presented in section 

VIII.C of this preamble. 

We also estimated the costs associated 

with the proposed new compliance 

testing requirements for the clay 

refractory sources in this action. Two of 

the major source refractories 

manufacture clay refractory and are 

required to conduct periodic 

compliance testing for PM/metal HAP 

and mercury once every 5 years. One 

clay refractory source has two 

continuous kilns and the other has two 

continuous kilns and three batch kilns. 

The costs associated with conducting 

the combined PM/metal HAP and 

mercury test for each continuous kiln 

stack is estimated to be about $23,600. 

The costs associated with conducting 

the combined PM/metal HAP and 

mercury test for each batch kiln stack is 

estimated to be about $31,800. We also 

assumed that tests for additional stacks 

at the same facility would be conducted 

in the same trip, so the additional cost 

is less due to reduced travel costs. The 

total costs for the two facilities to test 

the seven kilns in a single year would 

be $115,300. In addition to the testing 

costs, each facility performing the 

testing will have an additional $6,800 in 

reporting costs per facility in the year in 

which the test occurs. 

For kilns that meet the limits without 

any controls, owners or operators are 

required to conduct VE monitoring to 

demonstrate compliance. One of the 

continuous kilns is controlled with a 

wet scrubber, but the other six kilns are 

expected to need to conduct VE 

monitoring. We estimate that the 

monitoring will cost $3,740 per year per 

stack, for a total of $22,400 per year. 

For further information on the 

potential testing and monitoring costs, 

see the memorandum titled 

Development of Proposed Standards 

and Impacts for the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing NESHAP, located in the 

docket for this action. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The economic impact analysis is 

designed to inform decision makers 

about the potential economic 

consequences of the compliance costs 

outlined in section V.C of this preamble. 

To assess the maximum potential 

impact, the largest cost expected to be 

experienced in any one year is 

compared to the total sales for the 

ultimate owner of the affected facilities 

to estimate the total burden for each 

owner. For these proposed amendments, 

the total cost of testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping and reporting is 

estimated to be $158,140. The total 

annual costs associated with the 

requirements range from 0.00008 to 0.18 

percent of annual sales revenue per 

ultimate owner. These costs are not 

expected to result in a significant 

market impact, regardless of whether 

they are passed on to customers or 

absorbed by the firms. 

The EPA also prepared a small 

business screening assessment to 

determine whether any of the identified 

affected facilities are small entities, as 

defined by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. One of the facilities 

affected by these amendments is a small 

entity. However, the annual cost 

associated with the requirements is 0.18 

percent of annual sales revenue for the 

owner of that facility. Therefore, there 

are no significant economic impacts on 

a substantial number of small entities 

from these amendments. 

E. What are the benefits? 

As stated above in section V.C of this 

preamble, we were unable to quantify 

the specific emissions reductions 

associated with eliminating the SSM 

exemption, although this proposed 

change has the potential to reduce 

emissions of volatile organic HAP. 

Because these proposed amendments 

are not considered economically 

significant, as defined by Executive 

Order 12866, we did not monetize the 

benefits of reducing these emissions. 

This does not mean that there are no 

benefits associated with the potential 

reduction in volatile organic HAP from 

this rule. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are also 

interested in additional data that may 

improve the risk assessments and other 

analyses. We are specifically interested 

in receiving any improvements to the 

data used in the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses and instructions 

are available for download on the 

project website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/ 

refractory-products-manufacturingnational-emissions-standards. The data 

files include detailed information for 

each HAP emissions release point for 

the facilities in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3106 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

downloaded from the project website, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0148 (through the 

method described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility (or facilities). We request that all 

data revision comments be submitted in 

the form of updated Microsoft® Excel 

files that are generated by the 

Microsoft® Access file. These files are 

provided on the project website at 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/refractory-productsmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards . 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to OMB for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposal have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

ICR document that the EPA prepared 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2040.08. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the docket for this rule, and it is 

briefly summarized here. 

As part of the RTR for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing NESHAP, the 

EPA is not proposing to revise the 

existing emission limit requirements but 

is adding new emission limit 

requirements for existing clay refractory 

sources and is adding new work 

practices for existing nonclay refractory 

sources. The EPA is also proposing to 

revise the SSM provisions of the rule 

and proposing the use of electronic data 

reporting for future performance test 

data submittals, notifications, and 

reports. This information is being 

collected to assure compliance with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Facilities manufacturing refractory 

products. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SSSSS). 

Estimated number of respondents: In 

the 3 years after the amendments are 

final, approximately three respondents 

per year would be subject to the 

NESHAP and no additional respondents 

are expected to become subject to the 

NESHAP during that period. 

Frequency of response: The total 

number of responses is 21 per year. 

Total estimated burden: The average 

annual burden to the three refractory 

products manufacturing facilities over 

the 3 years if the amendments are 

finalized is estimated to be 230 hours 

(per year). The average annual burden to 

the Agency over the 3 years after the 

amendments are final is estimated to be 

202 hours (per year). Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The average 

annual cost to the refractory products 

manufacturing facilities is $27,100 in 

labor costs in the first 3 years after the 

amendments are final. The average 

annual capital and operation and 

maintenance cost is $69,900. The total 

average annual Agency cost over the 

first 3 years after the amendments are 

final is estimated to be $9,990. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than February 16, 2021. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The annualized costs 

associated with the proposed 

requirements in this action for the 

affected small entities is described in 

section V.D. above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. No tribal facilities are 

known to be engaged in any of the 

industries that would be affected by this 

action. In addition, the EPA conducted 

a proximity analysis for this source 

category and found that no refractory 

products manufacturing facilities are 

located within 50 miles of tribal lands. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 3107 

III.A, IV.B, and IV.C of this preamble 

and are further documented in the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Docket. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Refractory 

Products Manufacturing RTR through 

the Enhanced National Standards 

Systems Network Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also contacted 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. We conducted 

searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 

2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 25, 25A, 

26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, and 

EPA Methods 311 and 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A. No applicable VCS 

were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 

2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 5B, 5D, and 5F. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, 

‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.’’ This 

method determines quantitatively the 

gaseous constituents of exhausts 

resulting from stationary combustion 

sources. The manual procedures (but 

not instrumental procedures) of VCS 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 

may be used as an alternative to EPA 

Method 3B for measuring the oxygen or 

carbon dioxide content of the exhaust 

gas. The gases covered in ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981 are oxygen, carbon 

dioxide, CO, nitrogen, SO2, sulfur 

trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, 

however the use in this rule is only 

applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide 

and is an acceptable alternative to the 

manual portion only and not the 

instrumental portion. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, 

‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

320. ASTM D6348–03(2010) was 

determined to be equivalent to EPA 

Method 320 with caveats. ASTM 

D6348–12e1 is a revised version of 

ASTM D6348–03(2010) and includes a 

new section on accepting the results 

from the direct measurement of a 

certified spike gas cylinder, but lacks 

the caveats placed on the ASTM D6348– 

03(2010) version. The VCS ASTM 

D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy,’’ is an extractive FTIR 

field test method used to quantify gas 

phase concentrations of multiple 

analytes from stationary source effluent 

and is an acceptable alternative to EPA 

Method 320 at this time with caveats 

requiring inclusion of selected annexes 

to the standard as mandatory. When 

using ASTM D6348–12e1, the following 

conditions must be met: 

(1) The test plan preparation and 

implementation in the Annexes to 

ASTM D6348–03, Sections A1 through 

A8 are mandatory; and 

(2) In ASTM D6348–03, 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, percent R 

must be 70 percent ≥ R ≤ 130 percent. 

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 percent R 

value for each compound must be 

reported in the test report, and all field 

measurements must be corrected with 

the calculated percent R value for that 

compound by using the following 

equation: 

Reported Results = ((Measured 

Concentration in Stack))/(%R) × 

100. 

Finally, the EPA is incorporating by 

reference the VCS ASTM D6784–16), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from 

Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method),’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion 

for mercury only) as a method for 

measuring elemental, oxidized, particlebound, and total mercury 

concentrations ranging from 

approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms 

per normal cubic meter. This test 

method describes equipment and 

procedures for obtaining samples from 

effluent ducts and stacks, equipment 

and procedures for laboratory analysis, 

and procedures for calculating results. 

VCS ASTM D6784–16 allows for 

additional flexibility in the sampling 

and analytical procedures for the earlier 

version of the same standard VCS 

ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008). 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision 

is contained in section IV.B of this 

preamble and the technical report titled 

Risk and Technology Review—Analysis 

of Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Source Category 

Operations, September 2020, available 

in the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing Docket, respectively. 

As discussed in section IV.B of this 

preamble, we performed a demographic 

analysis for each source category, which 

is an assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups, of the population 

close to the facilities (within 50 km and 

within 5 km). In this analysis, we 

evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer risks and noncancer 

hazards from the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category across 

different social, demographic, and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near operations identified as 

having the highest risks. 

The results of the Refractory Products 

Manufacturing source category 

demographic analysis indicate that no 

one is exposed to a cancer risk at or 

above 1-in-1 million and no one is 

exposed to a chronic noncancer HI 

greater than 1. 

The proximity results (irrespective of 

risk) indicate that the population 

percentages for ‘‘ages 18 to 64’’ and 

‘‘ages 65 and up’’ demographic 

categories located within 5 km of 

refractory products manufacturing 

facilities and ‘‘ages 65 and up’’ 

demographic categories located within 

50 km of refractory products 

manufacturing facilities are slightly 

higher than their respective nationwide 

percentages. 

We do not expect this proposal to 

achieve significant reductions in HAP 

emissions. The EPA anticipates that this 

action does not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and/or indigenous peoples, as specified 

in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) because it does not 

significantly affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The documentation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3108 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

for this decision is contained in section 

IV of this preamble and the technical 

report titled Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Demographic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Source Category Operations, September 

2020, which are available in the 

Refractory Products Manufacturing 

Docket, respectively. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Andrew Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00137 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS