Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0081
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2020-09-10T04:00Z

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron and Steel Foundries Residual Risk and Technology Review

Final Rule

Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
                      This page intentionally left blank.

           National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
         Iron and Steel Foundries Residual Risk and Technology Review
                                       
                   Summary of Public Comments and Responses

                                       
                                       
                                       
                           Contract No. EP-D-11-084
                           Work Assignment No. 4-02
                                       
                                       
                                       
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     Sector Policies and Programs Division
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                       
                                       
                                   May 2020

                                       
                                  Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Sector Policies and Programs Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  Introduction	5
2.0  Risk Review	6
3.0  Technology Review	7
4.0  SSM Revisions	8
5.0  Electronic Reporting Requirements	8
6.0  Other Comments Received	8

             LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND UNITS OF MEASURE
                                       

CAA          	Clean Air Act
CFR          	Code of Federal Regulations
EPA          	Environmental Protection Agency
HAP          	hazardous air pollutant(s)
ID	identification
MACT         	maximum achievable control technology
MIR          	maximum individual risk
NESHAP         	national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
OMB          	Office of Management and Budget
PAH          	polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
SSM          	startup, shutdown, and malfunction

1.0  Introduction
      On October 9, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in the Federal Register (84 FR 54394) for iron and steel foundries under 40 CFR part 63 subparts EEEEE (covering major source iron and steel foundries) and ZZZZZ (covering areas source iron and steel foundries). The amendments were proposed to fulfill the EPA's requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to complete a risk review for major source iron and steel foundries and a technology review for both major and area source iron and steel foundries. Specifically, the EPA proposed to remove exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and specify that the emissions standards apply at all times; require electronic reporting of performance test results and compliance reports; and make minor corrections and clarifications for a few other rule provisions for major sources and area sources. 
      The proposal provided a 45-day comment period ending on November 25, 2019. The Docket ID Number for this rulemaking is EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373. The EPA received comments from 10 unique commenters from foundries, trade associations, environmental groups, and private citizens. Thirteen public comment docket ID numbers were assigned. One commenter (Earthjustice) submitted 44 attachments to their original comments. As each docket ID number is allowed a maximum of 20 attachments, this comment was assigned three docket ID numbers (-0063 through -0065). Additionally, the primary comments from Earthjustice in Docket ID Item Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0063 were posted again by Sarah Elbakri of Earthjustice and were assigned Docket ID Item Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0071. Thus, although 13 docket ID numbers were assigned for public comment submissions, there were only 10 unique commenters to the proposed amendments to the iron and steel foundry NESHAPs. Table 1 provides a summary of the commenters and their affiliations sorted by the docket ID numbers assigned.
Table 1. Summary of Public Submissions Received During the Public Comment Period
                                  Document ID
                    (All start with: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373)
                                   Commenter
                                  Affiliation
                                     -0059
Anonymous public comment
Private Citizen
                                     -0060
Blake Jeffery
Indiana Cast Metals Association
                                     -0061
Anonymous public comment
Private Citizen
                                     -0062
Anonymous public comment
Private Citizen
                                     -0063
Earthjustice
Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, and Earthjustice
                                     -0064
Earthjustice
Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, and Earthjustice
                                     -0065
Earthjustice
Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, and Earthjustice
                                     -0066
Anonymous public comment
Private Citizen
                                     -0067
Anonymous public comment
Private Citizen
                                     -0068
Jeff Hannapel
American Foundry Society
                                     -0069
Angela Dine Schmeisser
St. Marys Foundry
                                     -0070
Derek MacKenzie
Kohler Co.
                                     -0071
Sarah Elbakri, Earthjustice
Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, and Earthjustice

      This document includes only a summary of comments received on the proposed amendments that are not included in the preamble to the final amendments and responses to those comments. Some of the key substantive comments received and the EPA's responses to those comments are included in the preamble to the final amendments. The additional public comments that are not included in the preamble and the EPA's responses to these additional comments are provided in this document. 
2.0  Risk Review
      Many of the comments received regarding the residual risk review methodologies and conclusions are summarized in the preamble to the final amendments. These comments and the EPA's responses are provided in section IV.A.3 of the preamble to the final amendments (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373). Additional comments received regarding the residual risk review that are not summarized in the preamble to the final amendments are included in this section along with the EPA's responses. 
Comment 1: Commenters (-0060, -0068, -0069, -0070) agreed with the EPA's conclusion that there are no adverse environmental effects as a result of HAP emissions from the iron and steel foundries source categories.  
Response 1: We acknowledge the comment; no response is required.
Comment 2: Commenters (-0063) stated the risk assessment and proposed determination are also unlawful and arbitrary because EPA has presented these numbers in the abstract  -  making it difficult for communities to understand the risk assessment and for the public to understand what the risks EPA has found actually mean for people's lives. For example, EPA provides only the results of its facility-wide risk assessment and acute risk modeling and refined assessment. It does not provide the emission totals it used, or the methods or data it used to calculate the facility-wide risk numbers. According to the commenter, the current rulemaking does not advance EPA's goals to provide greater community transparency and public participation in rulemakings and to promote action on environmental justice concerns. (See EPA's "Plan EJ 2014" and "EJ 2020 Action Agenda")
Response 2: We respectfully disagree with the commenter that the data and methods were not included in the docket for public comment. We included the emissions inventory and all risk model inputs used for the risk modeling (see Docket Items No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0021 and -0022). We also provided a detailed explanation of our risk methodologies and assumptions in the risk assessment report (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0019). We also conducted a specific environmental justice analysis that was included in the docket (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0020) and summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 84 FR 54411).
3.0  Technology Review
      Many of the comments received regarding the technology review methodologies and conclusions are summarized in the preamble to the final amendments. These comments and the EPA's responses are provided in section IV.B.3 of the preamble to the final amendments (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373). Additional comments received regarding the technology review that are not summarized in the preamble to the final amendments are included in this section along with the EPA's responses.
Comment 1: Commenters (-0063) stated EPA must review and follow the Act and existing caselaw to ensure it sets a numerical limit for every regulated hazardous air pollutant, in order to satisfy the requirements in CAA § 112(d)(2)-(3) and (d)(6). According to the commenters, the EPA states that significant emissions and risks are coming from steel foundries mold and core making processes and steel foundries pouring, cooling, and shakeout processes, but the EPA appears to include these emissions only when evaluating "facility-wide" risk. Thus, it appears that the EPA is not treating these sources as regulated sources under this source category's standards. According to the commenters, these are emissions from iron and steel foundries and the EPA must set limits on all pollutants and all emission points as the Act directs. The commenters urged EPA to provide information on these emissions and its proposal to regulate these sources and requested the EPA to extend the comment deadline to allow for meaningful public review and comment. 
Response 1: One of the reasons we evaluate facility risk is to identify risks from emission sources that may be mischaracterized in the NEI as related to a different source category. Emissions from pouring, cooling and shakeout are certainly part of the source category and they are clearly subject to emission standards under the current iron and steel foundries NESHAP. Both the major and area source NESHAP include pollution prevention measures targeted to reduce organic HAP emissions from mold and core making and from pouring cooling and shakeout. The major source rule also has operational standards at 40 CFR 63.7710(b) requiring "... procedures for igniting gases from mold vents in pouring areas and pouring stations that use a sand mold system." The requirements for these procedures are further detailed in 40 CFR 63.7710(b)(6); these requirements are specifically aimed at reducing organic HAP emissions from pouring and cooling. Finally, the major source rule includes volatile organic HAP emission limits at 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(10) for automated conveyor and pallet cooling lines that use a sand mold system and for automated shakeout lines that use a sand mold system. Clearly, emissions from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines were considered in the development of the MACT standards and these emissions are considered part of the iron and steel foundries source categories. Furthermore, as part of our risk and technology review, we considered developing additional emission limitations for these sources. As documented in our memorandum Control Cost Estimates for Organic HAP Emissions from Iron and Steel Foundries (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373-0016), we specifically evaluated additional control strategies specific to reducing organic HAP emissions from mold- and core-making operations and from pouring, cooling, and shakeout lines. We concluded that revising the existing standards was not necessary based on our analysis of the cost and emission reductions achieved by these additional controls. As such, we have fulfilled our obligation to regulate these sources under CAA § 112(d)(2)-(3) when we developed the original MACT standards and to review these requirements under CAA § 112(d)(6) as part of this risk and technology review. This information was included in the docket for this rulemaking. No further revision to the rule is required or necessary. As such, the request for an additional proposal and extended comment period was not granted. 
4.0  SSM Revisions
      All comments received regarding the SSM revisions are summarized in the preamble to the final amendments. These comments and the EPA's responses are provided in section IV.C.3 of the preamble to the final amendments (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
5.0  Electronic Reporting Requirements
      All comments received regarding the proposed electronic reporting requirements are summarized in the preamble to the final amendments. These comments and the EPA's responses are provided in section IV.D.3 of the preamble to the final amendments (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0373).
6.0  Other Comments Received
Comment 1: Commenters (-0068) noted that the operating limits for wet scrubbers in the major source foundry rule at 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(2) requires that the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate must not fall below the minimum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test. Because there is greater variability in the sources than will be observed during a performance test, the commenters suggested adding ". . . or established by the equipment manufacturer or provider" to the end of paragraph 40 CFR 63.7690(b)(2).
Response 1: These comments do not address any aspect of the risk and technology review, the proposed amendments to the NESHAP, or any other issues discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As such they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and no response is required.
Comment 2: Commenters (-0068) noted that the major source foundries rule at 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(1) requires foundry owners/operators to determine compliance with the opacity limit in 40 CFR 63.7690(a)(7) using a certified observer to conduct each opacity test using EPA Method 9. The commenter requested that 40 CFR 63.7732(d)(1) and other related sections be amended to allow the flexibility of using EPA Method 22 as an alternative to EPA Method 9 as provided in the area source foundry rule [40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZZ, Table 1, Item 2b].
Response 2: These comments do not address any aspect of the risk and technology review, the proposed amendments to the NESHAP, or other any other issues discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As such they are outside the scope of this rulemaking and no response is required.