# 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 R ul e(s) Discussed: 

# I rUJV1



# ~ 

# 5k -e, { 

# J.-<.1/: 

# if Written Materials? Yes/No 

# Name Organization Phone N urn ber



# ~lL'? **'v~** , 

# ,~,, 

# ~-1 **L,\/ 1.;()~-lJ(L-**  **-ll** (_;£- 

# ·' _)' \} '<--'"



# (<\C.~ **4v ~~**  **~e_** 

# E"LC .Q. 

# f'J\ \



# ~ L 

# '?J c

**<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-e d**  

# 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 ( 41 o- 6

**~-** 

# q J b-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 

# 1Risk 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 I ron and Steel Institute

2

Th e N ews@Integrated Iron and Stee l Manufacturing Facilities

• Twelve major

source integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities in the U.S.

• Facilities owned by AK Steel , ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel

• AK Steel, ArcelorMittal and U.S. Steel collectively directly employ 44,000 people at integrated related facilities -They directly

or indirectly support more
than 297 , 000 U.S. jobs.

II Amer i can iron

and Steel Institute 3 **TheNewSt ~** Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities -------__,_ __

**,'\/~** r (.' ,_,

I , **~** \- • ,. ·' ,.- .

, ... '"'J'\. .... **~ ~-...**  ...... ,. <

\

\ ""· .._"' **~~** a American Iron and Ste el Institute

..., **·~:** . . 1\ ...... **1~\** \' **.-~· ·**  . 'I / r **~** ·-...._ --' ...---. 1), .;. ...-- .).) - - ·, **~~r-·\**
/' **~·-**

I

\ \

,

7
\ •., **~·s~**

·. <\ v' (.

\

. I

-.

! "

\. \.,,_, Recently Shutdown Int eg rated Facilities (sj -;/ • Operating Integrated Facilities (12) 4

The **ew ~** Record Import Market Share U.S. Market Share

( Finishe d I mpo rts % ) 120,0 0 0,000 .,-----

- ----

- -----

- ---------- 100,0 0 0,0 0 0

28.1% - 80,0 0 0,0 0 0 .... **~** - f/) c **~** 60,000,000 u ·- .. t) **~** 40,000,000 2 0 ,0 0 0,0 0 0 0 20

. 9% 2010 23.9% 21.8%

I

I 2011 2012 o Finished Imports Sou r ce: US Census B ureau (De p 't of Commerce);
A I S I a American Iron and Ste e l Institute

5 23.1% 2013 2014 • Shipments-Exports The **NewS!~**History of Integrated Iron and Steel Subp a rt FFFFF NESHAP • Promulgated
in 2003 • Amended in 2006 • Voluntarily remanded in 2010 • EPA's stated intention is both to reconsider NESHAP and conduct ris k and technology review (RTR) • Information Collection Request (ICR) testing in 2012 a American Iron and Steel Institute

6

The N ew S ! @Section112(f)(2)andNonCategoricalRisk•EPAwillconductriskreviewunderCleanAirActSection112(f)(2)•EPAstatedthatitmayconsiderUNonCategoricalRisk"•Non-categoricalriskisassociatedwithemissionsfromsourcesatintegratedironandsteelfacilitiesthatarenotSubpartFFFFFNESHAPaffectedsourcesaAmericanIronandSteelInstitute7TheNewSI&Non-Categorical

S ources • 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 S t E±V

## Practical P

r oblems withNonCategorical Risk: Data Quality

• Iron and steel categorical

sources have ICR
data -Recent stack tests with ongoing review

• Non-categorical

sources use other data including 2011 NEI data -Estimated HAP emission rates rely

on inconsistent or unknown emission factors from various agencies -Not QA/QC'd in the

same manner -Iron and steel industry does not generate some of the data

nor is it able

to verify data

accuracy



# a American Iron and St e el 9 Institute The 

### News• @Practical Problems with NonCate g orical 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@PracticalProblemswithNonCategoricalRisk:MisstatesRisk•Attributesriskfrompollutantsthatarenotemittedbyironandsteel(SubpartFFFFF)sources-Examples:Cokeovenemissionsandhydrochloricacid-Impossibletoreduceriskfromtheseemissionsbycontrollingcategoricalsources•Theseproblemsleadtoinaccuratecharacterizationofriskfromintegratedironandsteelfacilitiesinresidualriskreport-ReputationalharmtoindustryaAmericanIronandSteelInstitute11AISI 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 Stee

l Institute

12

**The New**  **St ~** 

### Text of Sec t ion 112(f)(2)(A)

• EPA is required under certain circumstances to upromulgate standards for such category or subcategory if promulgation of such standards is required in order to provide an ample margin of safety

to protect public health in accordance with this section [.]"

• "If standards promulgated pursuant to subsection ( d ) of

this section and applicable to a category or subcategory of sources emitting

a pollutant (or pollutants) classified

as a known, probable

or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime

excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from

a source in the category or subcategory

to less than one in one million, the Administrato

r shall promulgate standards under this subsection for such source category." 

# a American Iron and Steel Institute 13 The New S t E"tlAISI's Appro a ch is t he 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 r equirement 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 Subpart

L Residual Risk Review

• 70 Fed. Reg. 19,992, 20,001 (Apr. 15, 2005 )

• EPA determined it was not appropriate to consider integrated iron and steel source emissions in Subpart L, Coke Oven Residual Risk Review

• "EPA does not believe it is appropriate to impose

a restriction on all sources within a source category
(here, the coke oven emission points at issue in

this rule) based on the fact that half of the sources

are co-located with a distinct

source. The risk to public health from integrated iron and steel plants - sources which are not necessarily

co

located with coke ovens-should be addressed in

the residual risk determination for that source category." II American Iron and Steel Institute 15 TheNewSt@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

ri sk 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 e Newst@AISI's Approach is the Best Reading Of Section 112(f)(2)

• EPA published its list of categories on Jul y 16 , 1992 ( 5 7 Fed.Reg. 31,576 ) . At that time , EPA complete d its obligation

to complete the listing of categories as required by S e ction 112(c)(1 ) of the Clean Air Act. Even then , EPA rec ognized the significance of the term "category" as it pertains to a

r esidual risk analysis completed pursuant to Section
112(f ) (2 ) . I n that notice , EPA clarified that "Section

112 ( f )( 2 )( A ) obligates the Administrator to pro m ulgat e standards to mitigate residual risks only for c ategories of sources." EPA went on to state that the exclusive use of the

term "category" will clarify the applicable requi r ements of Section112.

• In the notice, EPA stated that "[a]ll listed categories a r e

e x clusive of any specific operations or processes i nc l uded
under other categories that are listed separately. "



## a American Iron and Steel Institute 17 TheNewSt@Stru c ture 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 ris k 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 alread y 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
r esidual risk analysis for the category in which the y are regulated a American Iron and Steel Institute

1 8

The New s @Conclu s ion: Risk Analysis Must Include Subpart FFFFF Sources Only

• EPA should not consider non-categorical

r is k i n its "Acceptable Risk" determination -Best reading of statute -Consistent with explanations of

r isk review process EPA staff provided to AISI

• EPA should not consider non-categorical risk that

is subject to Section 112(f) standards in its " Ample Margin of Safety" determination -Best reading of statute -Avoids significant practical problems -Separate Section 112(f) reviews will

ensure
that no risk "Falls Between the Cracks "



## a A merican Iron and Steel Institute 19 Th eNewS W.