Date: ?Jtu~ , /1-puJ 11, o{ 0 I ) r;.j; I I' 31ltwl 

Meeting: /tNl~ct)...n { )[.(.h -f 5 kt-f [n.s b,W L 

Rule(s) Discussed: I rUJV1 ~ 5k -e, { J.-<.1/: if 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone N urn ber 

~lL'? 'v~ , ,~,, ~-1L,\/ 1.;()~-lJ(L- -ll (_;£-

·' _)' \} '<--'" 

(<\C.~ 4v ~~ ~e_ E"LC .Q. f'J\ \ ~ L '?Jc <c.::l~ \ ( (, 3 

(l,~ d)y-'( Dt~J.\ b\re.r .r}\os\e ne ( LLf Zo)--8 6} ~ J 5lJ'-O 

:c, f~r)t--~tf (J . S. ~f-ed L/12- 4-3~--s-c11 0 

~~ +h ,;(J/'1 u. s. ~-I(? p I I 11 z - Lfs 3 - u s c; tJ f)frv~ ~A_ 

............... 

\Ac;_ 'YT~ I 4 12-- ~?; Zql q 

~ ~ 1() !l (IZ!t c,Li- I!;:_ 5 Ji,-£ (__. Sf~ · L/2;J~S'2:;7. 0 

_j.-0 ~1\ H! \\ forrc~lor M cHvt ( 41o- 6 ~- qJb-z 

K0vM~\Q K~~\\lf f\r~~ \ ~ \ ~ ~ '-1;;. \ - J-91-:2.. 

_J(fY r.z.r I) <...-h.. 0Ut.;D.C- ~~ I 1J.?f -I L, "S -1 ?t-1 1 
Risk and Technology 

Review, Subpart FFFFF 

Integrated Iron and 

Steel Category 

Meeting with Janet McCabe, EPA OAR 

April17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

a American Iron and Steel Institute The ew S!~ 
Integrated Iron and Steel 

Man ufactu ring Faci I ities 

• Integrated iron and steel manufacturing 

facilities are primary steel plants that 

produce steel from raw materials 

• Affected sources are blast furnaces, 

sinter plants and basic oxygen process 

furnace shops 

• NESHAP at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart 

FFFFF 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 2 The News@ 
Integrated Iron and S

Manufacturing Facili

• Twelve major source integrated i

steel manufacturing facilities in t

• Facilities owned by AK Steel, 

ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel 

• AK Steel, ArcelorMittal and U.S. S

collectively directly employ 44,00

people at integrated related facil

-They directly or indirectly support m

than 297,000 U.S. jobs. 

II American iron and Steel Institute 3 
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities 

-------__,_ __ ,'\/~ 

r (.' 

I 

~ \- 

, ... '"'J'\. 

~-... ...... 

\ \ 

""· 

~~ .._"' 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 

..., 

·~: 

. . 

1\ ...... 1~\ \' .-~· · . 'I / 

r 

~ ·-...._ 

--' ...---. 1), .;. 

...-- .).) 

--·, ~~r-·\ /' ~·- I \ 

\ •., , 7 \ 

~·s~ ·. 

<\ v' (. I \ . -. ! " \. \.,,_, Recently Shutdown Integrated Facilities (sj-;/ 

• Operating Integrated Facilities (12) 

4 The ew ~ 
Record Import Market Share 

U.S. Market Share (Finished Imports %) 

000,000 .,------ ----- ------ ----------

000,000 28.1% 

000,000 

00,000 

00,000 

00,000 

0 

20.9% 

2010 

23.9% 

21.8% I I 

2011 2012 

o Finished Imports 

Source: US Census Bureau (Dep't of Commerce); AISI 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 5 

23.1% 

2013 2014 

• Shipments-Exports 

The NewS!~ 
History of Integrated Iron and 

Steel Subpart FFFFF NESHAP 

• Promulgated in 2003 

• Amended in 2006 

• Voluntarily remanded in 2010 

• EPA's stated intention is both to 

reconsider NESHAP and conduct risk 

and technology review (RTR) 

• Information Collection Request (ICR) 

testing in 2012 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 6 The NewS!@ 
Section 112(f)(2) and N

Categorical Risk 

• EPA will conduct risk review unde

Air Act Section 112(f)(2) 

• EPA stated that it may consider U

Categorical Risk" 

• Non-categorical risk is associate

emissions from sources at integr

iron and steel facilities that are n

Subpart FFFFF NESHAP affected 

sources 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 7 
Non-Categorical 

Sources 

• Integrated iron and steel facilities may be 

co-located with other sources that are not 

in the iron and steel category or "NonCategorical Sources" 

• Examples include: 

- Recovery Coke Ovens (63 Subparts L, CCCCC) 

- Non

-Recovery Coke Ovens (63 Subparts L, CCCCC) 

-Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (61 Subpart L) 

- Steel HCI Pickling Facilities (63 Subpart CCC) 

- Industrial Boilers (63 Subpart DDDDD) 

- Equipment Leaks (61 Subpart V) 

- Reciprocation Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) (63 Subpart ZZZZ) 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 8 The New 

StE±V 
Practical Problems wit

Categorical Risk: Data 

• Iron and steel categorical sources 

data 

-Recent stack tests with ongoing 

• Non-categorical sources use other 

including 2011 NEI data 

-Estimated HAP emission rates r

inconsistent or unknown emissio

factors from various agencies 

-Not QA/QC'd in the same manne

-Iron and steel industry does not 

generate some of the data nor is 

to verify data accuracy 

a American Iron and Steel 9 Institute 
Practical Problems with NonCategorical Risk: Equity 

• All integrated iron and steel 

manufacturing facilities are unique 

-Facilities' co-located non-categorical 

sources vary across industry, e.g., not all 

have co-located coke ovens 

-Significant size differences in co-located 

facilities 

• Co-located sources should not receive 

additional evaluation 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 10 TheNewst@ 
Practical Problems with N

Categorical Risk: Misstat

• Attributes risk from pollutants that are n

by iron and steel (Subpart FFFFF) source

-Examples: Coke oven emissions and 

hydrochloric acid 

-Impossible to reduce risk from these 

by controlling categorical sources 

• These problems lead to inaccurate 

characterization of risk from integrated ir

steel facilities in residual risk report 

- Reputational harm to industry 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 11 
AISI Position on 

Non-Categorical Risk 

• Including non-categorical sources in a 

112(f) analysis is contrary to Clean Air 

Act and past practices 

-Such inclusion is not supported by the text 

and structure of the Clean Air Act 

-If EPA includes such non-categorical 

sources, EPA is reading "category" right out 

of 112(f) 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 12 The New St~ 
Text of Section 112(f)(2

• EPA is required under certain circumstances 

upromulgate standards for such category or 

subcategory if promulgation of such standar

required in order to provide an ample margin 

to protect public health in accordance with th

section [.]" 

• "If standards promulgated pursuant to subse

this section and applicable to a category or 

subcategory of sources emitting a pollutant (

pollutants) classified as a known, probable o

human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime exc

cancer risks to the individual most exposed t

emissions from a source in the category or s

to less than one in one million, the Administr

promulgate standards under this subsection 

source category." 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 13 
AISI's Approach is the Best Reading Of Section 

112(f)(2) 

• 70 Fed. Reg. 19,992, 19,997 (Apr. 15, 2005) 

• "[T]he natural reading of section 112(f) is that 

EPA should evaluate risks posed by the 

emissions only from the category or 

subcategory." 

• "The statutory 'trigger' provision ... of section 

112(f)(2)(A), . . . clearly is directed exclusively 

at emissions from the source category alone, 

and thus supports a reading that the ultimate 

requirement of the provision likewise applies 

only to emissions from the source category." 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 14 TheNewSt~ 
History: Coke Oven Part 63 

L Residual Risk Review 

• 70 Fed. Reg. 19,992, 20,001 (Apr. 15, 2

• EPA determined it was not appropriate to 

integrated iron and steel source emissio

Subpart L, Coke Oven Residual Risk Rev

• "EPA does not believe it is appropriate to 

restriction on all sources within a source 

(here, the coke oven emission points at i

this rule) based on the fact that half of th

are co-located with a distinct source. The 

public health from integrated iron and ste

plants- sources which are not necessaril

located with coke ovens-should be addr

the residual risk determination for that so

category." 

II American Iron and Steel Institute 15 
AISI's Approach is the Best Reading Of Section 

112(f)(2) 

• EPA, in footnote 12 of the April 15, 2005 

rulemaking, stated "Further, section 

112(c)(9) authorizes EPA to delist a category 

or subcategory on the basis of specified risk 

criteria. This section does not require EPA to 

look beyond the relevant category or 

subcategory in making delisting decisions. It 

would be inconsistent for Congress to allow 

categories or subcategories to be delisted 

entirely from the section 112 regulatory 

program using a category specific analysis, 

yet require EPA to look beyond the same 

specific category when making similar risk 

assessments under section 112(f)." 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 16 Th

eNewst@ 
AISI's Approach is the Best Reading 

112(f)(2) 

• EPA published its list of categories on July 16, 19

Fed.Reg. 31,576). At that time, EPA completed it

to complete the listing of categories as required 

112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Even then, EPA re

significance of the term "category" as it pertains 

residual risk analysis completed pursuant to Sec

112(f)(2). In that notice, EPA clarified that "Sect

112(f)(2)(A) obligates the Administrator to promu

standards to mitigate residual risks only for categ

sources." EPA went on to state that the exclusive 

term "category" will clarify the applicable require

Section112. 

• In the notice, EPA stated that "[a]ll listed categori

exclusive of any specific operations or processes 

under other categories that are listed separately.

a American Iron and Steel Institute 17 
Structure of Section 112 

• Including non-categorical sources (emissions from other 

categories) in the residual risk assessment would 

inappropriately result in including risk from sources where 

Section 112(d) standards have not been fully implemented, such as Boilers and RICE 

• Including non-categorical sources in the residual risk 

assessment would inappropriately result in including risk from sources that are not regulated under Section 112(d), like Coke By-Product Recovery Plants 

• Including non-categorical sources in the residual risk 

assessment would inappropriately result in including risk 

from sources where MACT standards have already been 

revised under Section 112(f)(2), such as Coke Ovens and 

Steel HCI Pickling 

• The risk for these other sources are appropriately ·included in 

the residual risk analysis for the category in which they are regulated 

a American Iron and Steel Institute 18 The News@ 
Conclusion: Risk Analysis M

Include Subpart FFFFF Sour

• EPA should not consider non-categorical 

"Acceptable Risk" determination 

-Best reading of statute 

-Consistent with explanations of risk r

process EPA staff provided to AISI 

• EPA should not consider non-categorical 

is subject to Section 112(f) standards in 

Margin of Safety" determination 

-Best reading of statute 

-Avoids significant practical problems 

-Separate Section 112(f) reviews will e

that no risk "Falls Between the Crack

a American Iron and Steel Institute 19