[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29710-29728]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09589]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049; FRL-8150-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU96

Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
Constructed After 10/21/74 & On or Before 8/17/83; Standards of
Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces & Argon-Oxygen
Decarburization Constructed After 8/17/83

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is proposing new and revised standards
of performance for electric arc furnaces (EAF) and argon-oxygen
decarburization (AOD) vessels in the steel industry. The EPA is
proposing that EAF facilities that begin construction, reconstruction
or modification after May 16, 2022 would need to comply with a
particulate matter (PM) standard in the format of facility-wide PM
emitted per amount of steel produced and a melt shop opacity limit of
zero. The proposal would limit emissions of PM and opacity from new,
modified, or reconstructed EAF and AOD vessels. In addition, we are
proposing that all emission limits apply at all times; periodic
compliance testing at least once every 5 years; and electronic
reporting. In this action, the EPA also is proposing amendments for
certain provisions in the current new source performance standards
(NSPS) that apply to EAF constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or
before August 17, 1983, and EAF and AOD vessels constructed after
August 17, 1983, and before May 16, 2022 to clarify and refine the
current provisions.

DATES:
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2022.
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 June 15, 2022.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before May 23, 2022, we will hold a virtual 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-2002-0049, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0049 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: 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 our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff also continues
to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only.
For further information on the 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 Donna Lee Jones, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address: [email protected].

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<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at [email protected]. If
requested, the virtual hearing will be held on June 6, 2022. The
hearing will convene at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude
at 4:00 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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels or contact the public
hearing team at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the
hearing will be May 31, 2022. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a
general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate
order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.
    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
[email protected]. 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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels. 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 [email protected] 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 pre-register for the
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by May 23,
2022. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without
advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049. 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 to https://www.regulations.gov
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be
submitted 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://www2.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 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.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by
appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on the EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID,
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and 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 and note the docket ID.
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.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP),
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the
postal service, please send it 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-2002-0049. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.
    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:

acfm actual cubic feet per minute
acmm actual cubic meters per minute
AOD argon-oxygen decarburization
BLDS bag leak detection systems
BID background information document
BPT benefits per ton
BSER best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
DEC direct shell evacuation control
dscf dry standard cubic feet
dscm dry standard cubic meters
EAF electric arc furnace
EAV equivalent annual value
EIA economic impact assessment
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
g grams
gr grains
II&S integrated iron and steel industry
ISA Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter
kg kilograms
lb pounds
mg milligram
Mg megagram
Mg/yr megagram per year
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
O&M operating and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
p. page
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA regulatory impacts analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SMA Steel Manufacturers Association
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
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 background for action?
    B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?
III. What actions are we proposing?
    A. Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc
Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After
May 16, 2022
    B. Amendments to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants:
Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or
Before August 17, 1983, and Standards of Performance for Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization
Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983, and On or Before May 16,
2022
    C. Electronic Reporting
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the air quality and other environmental impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR
Part 51

    J. 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?

    The source category that is the subject of this proposal is
comprised of the steel manufacturing facilities that operate EAF and
AOD vessels regulated under CAA section 111 New Source Performance
Standards. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code for the source category is 331110. This NAICS code provides a
guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. 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 action.

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/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website.
    Redline versions of the regulatory language that incorporate the
changes proposed in this action to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa
are included in a memorandum titled EAF NSPS Redline Versions of
Proposed Rule Changes for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, which is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0049). In addition, another memorandum will be available in the same
docket that will include the proposed rule 40 CFR part 60, subparts
AAb, titled EAF NSPS Proposed Rule 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post
copies of these memoranda to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-arc-furnaces-eafs-and-argon-oxygen-decarburization-vessels.

II. Background

A. What is the background for action?

    An electric arc furnace (EAF) is a metallurgical furnace used to
produce carbon and alloy steels. The input material to an EAF is
typically almost 100 percent scrap steel. Cylindrical, refractory-lined
EAF are equipped with carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through
the furnace roof. With electrodes retracted, the furnace roof can be
rotated to permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying
agents and fluxing materials usually are added through doors on the
side of the furnace. Electric current is passed between the electrodes
and through the scrap, producing an arc and generating enough heat to
melt the scrap steel charge. After the melting and refining periods,
impurities (in the form of slag \1\) and the refined steel are poured
from the furnace. If argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels are
present, they follow the EAF in the production sequence and are used to
oxidize carbon, silicon, and impurities, such as sulfur. For these
reasons, the AOD vessels reduce alloy additions compared to an EAF
alone. Use of AOD vessels also reduce EAF heat times, improve quality
control, and increase daily steel production. AOD vessels are primarily
used in stainless steel making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Slag is the molten metal oxides and other impurities that
float to the surface of the molten steel product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process. Cycles, also
called heats, range from about 1.5 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel
and from 5 to 10 hours to produce alloy steel. Scrap steel is charged
to begin a cycle, with alloying agents and slag forming materials added
later in the process for refining purposes. Stages of each cycle
normally are charging, melting, refining (which also usually includes
oxygen blowing), and tapping. All these operations generate particulate
matter (PM) emissions.
    Air emission control techniques typically involve an air emission
capture system and a gas cleaning system. The air emission capture
systems used in the EAF industry include direct shell evacuation
control (DEC) systems, side draft hoods, combination hoods, canopy
hoods, scavenger ducts, and furnace enclosures. The DEC system consists
of ductwork attached to a separate opening, or ``fourth hole,'' in the
furnace roof (top) that draws emissions from the furnace to a gas
cleaner and which works only when the furnace is up-right and the roof
is in place. Side draft hoods collect furnace exhaust gases from around
the electrode holes and work doors after the gases leave the furnace.
Combination hoods incorporate elements from the side draft and direct
shell evacuation systems. Canopy hoods and scavenger ducts are used to
address charging and tapping emissions. Baghouses are typically used as
gas cleaning systems (i.e., emissions control devices).
    There are approximately 88 EAF in the United States of America
(U.S.), with most (> 95 percent) EAF subject to one of the EAF NSPS
that are described below. Thirty-one states have one or more EAF
facilities, with most of the EAF facilities east of the Mississippi
River. Pennsylvania (15), Ohio (10), Alabama (7), and Indiana (7) have
the most EAF facilities per state (approximate number of EAF facilities
in each state).
    In 1975, the first NSPS for EAF were promulgated (for EAF that
commenced construction after October 21, 1974). (40 FR 43850). The 1975
NSPS set PM standards for emissions from EAF control devices (12 mg/
dscm [0.0052 gr/dscf]), and set opacity limits for EAF melt shop
emissions, which include but are not limited to emissions via roof
vents, doors, cracks in walls, etc. (0 percent opacity, with 20 percent
and 40 percent opacity allowed during charging and tapping,
respectively); control device exhaust (3 percent opacity); and dust
handling procedures (10 percent opacity).
    In 1984, the NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA (for EAF
constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983)
was revised and a new subpart was created as 40 CFR part 60, subpart
AAa to add AOD vessels as affected units for EAF and AOD vessels that
commenced construction after August 17, 1983 (49 FR 43843). These 1984
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AA raised the melt shop opacity
from 0 percent to 6 percent opacity, keeping the exceptions for
charging (20 percent opacity) and tapping (40 percent opacity). The EAF
rule at 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa set requirements for melt shop
opacity at 6 percent with no exceptions. Both rules, 40 CFR part 60,
subparts AA and AAa (and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) were revised in
the 1984 amendments to include EPA Method 5D for the determination of
PM emissions from positive-pressure fabric filters, which are common
control devices for EAF and AOD vessels.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the 1984 technology review of the 1975 EAF NSPS standards
in subpart AA, test data were obtained from four facilities. The EPA
at that time considered lowering the PM standard to 7.2 mg/dscm
(0.0031 gr/dscf) from 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf), but the lower
level was found by the EPA to be not cost-effective ($8,000/ton in
1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 1989 (54 FR 6672), 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and
AAa (and Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60)

were revised to consolidate the EPA test methods and delete repetitions
of methods already referenced; and on May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21344), minor
corrections were made to the February 1989 revisions. On March 2, 1999
(64 FR 10109), as a result of recommendations made by the EPA's Common
Sense Initiative, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa were revised to
add an option to monitor furnace static pressure instead of melt shop
opacity; and to monitor baghouse fan amperage instead of baghouse
flowrate. On October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61758), amendments were made to 40
CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa to promulgate Performance
Specification (PS) 15 for certifying continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); to
reformat various methods as per recommendations by the Environmental
Monitoring Management Council; and to make miscellaneous technical and
editorial corrections. On February 22, 2005 (70 FR 8530), 40 CFR part
60, subparts AA and AAa were amended as a result of a petition by the
American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Manufacturers Association
(SMA), and Specialty Steel Industry of North America to add bag leak
detection systems (BLDS) as an alternative monitoring method to the
continuous opacity monitoring systems currently cited in the rules.

B. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the
Administrator's judgement cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must then issue
performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources
in each source category. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). These standards are
referred to as new source performance standards (NSPS). On October 11,
1974, the EPA Administrator identified and listed EAF that produce
steel as such a source category for which NSPS should be developed and
which were to be done within 120 days. (39 FR 37419). The EPA has the
authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine the
pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the emission
level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, type, and sizes
within categories in establishing the standards. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b). The
CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Administrator to review and
revise, if appropriate, the NSPS every 8 years. 42 U.S.C.
7411(b)(l)(B).
    The CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that performance standards are
to ``reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' 42 U.S.C.
7411(a)(1). This definition makes clear that the standard of
performance must be based on controls that constitute ``the best system
of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated,'' which the EPA
commonly refers to as ``BSER.'' The EPA reviewed the requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subpart AAa and found that there were improvements in the
performance of EAF, AOD, and their control devices since 1984. As
explained in this preamble, the EPA has developed proposed performance
standards for PM emissions and melt shop opacity that reflect BSER,
considering the cost of achieving such emission reductions, and any
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements.

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS review?

    As noted in the section II.B, CAA section 111 requires the EPA, at
least every 8 years to review and, if appropriate revise the standards
of performance applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources.
If the EPA revises the standards of performance, they must reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
BSER taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.
CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In reviewing an NSPS to determine whether it is ``appropriate'' to
revise the standards of performance, the EPA evaluates the statutory
factors, including the following information:
     Expected growth for the source category, including how
many new facilities, reconstructions, and modifications may trigger
NSPS in the future.
     Pollution control measures, including advances in control
technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or
other systems of emission reduction, that are ``adequately
demonstrated'' in the regulated industry.
     Available information from the implementation and
enforcement of current requirements indicates that emission limitations
and percent reductions beyond those required by the current standards
are achieved in practice.
     Costs (including capital and annual costs) associated with
implementation of the available pollution control measures.
     The amount of emission reductions achievable through
application of such pollution control measures.
     Any nonair quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements associated with those control measures.
    In evaluating whether the cost of a particular system of emission
reduction is reasonable, the EPA considers various costs associated
with the particular air pollution control measure or a level of
control, including capital costs and operating costs, and the emission
reductions that the control measure or particular level of control can
achieve. The agency considers these costs in the context of the
industry's overall capital expenditures and revenues. The agency also
considers cost-effectiveness analysis as a useful metric, and a means
of evaluating whether a given control achieves emission reduction at a
reasonable cost. A cost-effectiveness analysis allows comparisons of
relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more options. In
general, cost-effectiveness is a measure of the outcomes produced by
resources spent. In the context of air pollution control options, cost-
effectiveness typically refers to the annualized cost of implementing
an air pollution control option divided by the amount of pollutant
reductions realized annually.
    After the EPA evaluates the factors described above, the EPA then
compares the various systems of emission reductions and determines
which system is ``best.'' The EPA then establishes a standard of
performance that reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable
through the implementation of the BSER. In doing this analysis, the EPA
can determine whether subcategorization is appropriate based on
classes, types, and sizes of sources, and may identify a different BSER
and establish different performance standards for each subcategory. The
result of the analysis and BSER determination leads to standards of
performance that apply to facilities that begin construction,
reconstruction, or modification after the date of publication of the
proposed standards in the Federal Register. Because the new source
performance

standards reflect the best system of emission reduction under
conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in doing its review,
the EPA also evaluates and determines the proper testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to ensure compliance
with the emission standards.
    See section III.A of this preamble for information on the specific
data sources that were reviewed as part of this action.

III. What actions are we proposing?

A. Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After May 16, 2022

    The proposed standards, as 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, would apply
to all new, modified, or reconstructed EAF and AOD vessels, and their
associated dust-handling systems in the steel industry, which commence
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 16, 2022. The
proposed standards would limit total PM emissions from all pollution
control devices (e.g., baghouses) installed on EAF and AOD vessels, in
terms of total mass of PM emitted at the facility per total mass of
steel produced, to 79 milligrams PM per kilogram steel (mg/kg) [0.16
pounds (lb) PM per ton steel produced (lb/ton)]). Visible emissions
from EAF and AOD that exit from the melt shop would be limited to an
opacity of 0 percent during all phases of operation. Visible emissions
from control devices on EAF and AOD would remain at less than 3 percent
opacity, as in the current EAF NSPS for 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and
AAa. Opacity of the dust handling system also would remain at less than
10 percent as in the current NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and
AAa.
    Explanation of the procedures and data used to determine the format
and values of the proposed standards as BSER for EAF are discussed
below. Also discussed is the review of the standards for opacity for
EAF control devices and dust handling systems in the current NSPS
rules.
1. New Format for PM Baghouse Limits for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAb
    From EAF PM test reports covering the period from 2005 through
2017, the EPA obtained PM emissions and opacity data for 33 facilities,
46 EAF, and 54 baghouses in 154 emission and opacity tests \3\
(hereafter referred to as the ``EAF dataset''). The test data showed a
substantial improvement in EAF, AOD, and baghouse performance beyond
the current NSPS PM standard. Among these 33 facilities (more than one-
third of the current industry) and their 54 baghouses, the highest
baghouse PM emissions were 44 percent of the current standard (5.3 mg/
dscm [2.30E-03 gr/dscf]), the lowest emissions were 0.83 percent of the
current standard (0.10 mg/dscm [4.33E-05 gr/dscf]), and the median
emissions were 10 percent of the current standard (1.2 mg/dscm [5.11E-
04 gr/dscf]). From these test data, as well as the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse Data repository,\4\ the EPA identified 15 EAF facilities,
approximately half of the EAF dataset, that reported 0 percent melt
shop opacity. The number of opacity tests per facility with 0 percent
melt shop opacity ranged from 1 test to 3 tests, with a median of 2
tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For details of the EAF dataset, see the memorandum titled
``Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace
Facilities'' located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2002-0049).
    \4\ See https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information for more information. RACT, or reasonably
available control technology, is required on existing sources in
areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards
(i.e., nonattainment areas); BACT, or best available control
technology, is required on major new or modified sources in clean
areas (i.e., attainment areas); and LAER, or lowest achievable
emission rate, is required on major new or modified sources in
nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current EAF NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa) include
numerical limits for PM emissions from EAF (and also AOD in 40 CFR part
60, subpart AAa) control devices and apply to each individual control
device, typically a baghouse, which is also known as a fabric filter.
Some EAF or AOD vessel baghouses control the bulk of PM emissions,
which occur during melting and refining, where the emissions are
captured by hoods, canopies, or other mechanisms directly from the EAF
or AOD vessel exhaust (and are called primary emissions); other
baghouses control the fugitive PM emissions that are emitted during
charging and tapping, from other melt shop processes such as ladling of
alloys, or that escape the primary capture systems. Fugitive emissions
also are called secondary emissions. A third type of baghouse controls
both primary and secondary emissions. The above-mentioned baghouse
types may control PM from one or more EAF/AOD, primary or secondary, in
various combinations.
    The emissions, and, hence, collected PM, from baghouses that
control only secondary emissions can be much lower than the other two
types of baghouses, as seen in the EAF dataset where the baghouse with
the lowest PM emissions controlled only secondary emissions.\5\ Because
of the inherent lower baghouse PM input (loading), secondary baghouses
can be operated inefficiently without exceeding the current NSPS limit,
which is expressed in the units of mass PM per unit of control device
exhaust air. In addition, where there is a standard in terms of mass PM
per unit of total exhaust air, baghouse dilution air (added to EAF
exhaust air) can be increased with the effect of lowering measured
baghouse PM emission concentration and disguising the true performance
of the baghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The baghouse with the lowest emissions in the EAF dataset
was 0.83 percent of the current standard (0.10 mg/dscm [4.33E-05 gr/
dscf]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to set a facility-wide PM limit instead of a
limit that applies to each control device (the format of the current
standard), because we think this form of standard will result in better
control and provide greater assurance of compliance. Most importantly,
if EAF emissions can be divided up into separate baghouses, for
practical purposes or otherwise, with each device falling under the
same NSPS PM limit, there is no accounting for the total PM emissions
from the facility. A facility-wide total control device PM emissions
limit in units of pounds of PM per ton of steel produced also would
alleviate the potential disparity in control device emissions between
low-and high-loading control devices, such as that for control devices
for primary vs. secondary emissions, as well as for well-operated vs.
inefficiently-operated control devices that both operate below the
individual baghouse limit.
    To determine BSER for control device PM emissions, the EPA only
used data from EAF facilities with 0 percent melt shop opacity. This
was because facilities that control their melt shop opacity to 0
percent are collecting more PM (specifically from the melt shop) than
facilities that have a nonzero melt shop opacity and, as a result, are
sending more PM to their control devices. Consequently, EAF facilities
with 0 percent melt shop opacity are expected to have a slightly higher
control device PM emission rate on average compared to EAF facilities
with greater than 0 percent melt shop opacity, as evidenced by the EAF
dataset of 33 EAF facilities. As a corollary, at EAF facilities with 6
percent melt shop opacity, some of the PM generated by the EAF is not
captured, avoids the control device, and can exit through the melt shop
roof, thus raising the melt shop opacity to above zero. In turn,
facilities with 6

percent melt shop opacity collect less PM and, therefore, less PM is
sent to control device, which results in (slightly) lower PM emissions
in the control device exhaust. Overall, because of the large amount of
PM emission differential between 6 percent and 0 percent melt shop
opacity, much less PM is emitted to the environment with 0 percent melt
shop opacity than with 6 percent opacity, despite the higher level of
control device emissions with 0 percent melt shop opacity. This effect
is described quantitatively below in section 2.c.
    Of the 15 EAF facilities in the EPA dataset with 0 percent melt
shop opacity, control device PM emissions data and steel production
values needed to develop an emission standard in mass of PM per mass of
steel production were available for 13 of the 15 facilities; these data
included 51 individual tests from 23 baghouses and 21 EAF. The 13 EAF
facilities and their PM emissions were used to demonstrate that 0
percent melt shop opacity is BSER and to develop a facility-wide total
PM control device emission standard that is BSER for new, modified, and
reconstructed EAF.
2. Analyses To Determine BSER for Melt Shop Opacity and PM Emissions
From Control Devices
    The PM and opacity test data for 13 EAF facilities with 0 percent
melt shop opacity were used as a major input to determine the BSER for
melt shop opacity and for total facility-wide PM control device
emissions (in units of mass of PM emissions per mass of steel
produced). The cost, emissions reduction analyses, and other factors
used in the determination of BSER are discussed below and in more
detail in the memorandum titled Cost and Other Analyses to Determine
BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity from EAF Facilities,6
hereafter referred to as the Cost Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Cost Analyses to Determine BSER for PM Emissions and Opacity
from EAF Facilities. D.L. Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, and G.E. Raymond, RTI International,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March 1, 2022 (Docket ID No.
EPA-OAR-2002-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. BSER for Melt Shop Opacity
    To determine if 0 percent opacity is BSER for the EAF melt shop, an
estimate of the PM emissions reductions compared to the baseline level
of the current standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa), at 6
percent, was made along with the costs to achieve the additional PM
control and opacity reduction from 6 percent to 0 percent. We also
considered other factors, such as the findings that the proposed melt
shop opacity of 0 percent was being achieved by 19 of the 31 facilities
for which the EPA has opacity data (from 2010), and that for the
remaining 12 facilities, average opacity in the test data was no higher
than 1.2 percent (with a range of 0.1 percent to 1.2 percent). Based on
these data, we conclude that an opacity limit of 0 percent is feasible
and well demonstrated.
    To determine the PM emission reductions, emissions data from the
EAF dataset were used along with emission factors and EAF control
information in an EPA background information document (BID) about the
EAF industry prepared for the 1984 EAF NSPS.\7\ For assessing the costs
of the reductions, it was assumed that facilities achieving 0 percent
melt shop opacity have better fugitive collection than facilities with
higher melt shop opacities. Consequently, for the BSER calculations,
costs were assessed for adding a partial roof canopy (segmented canopy
hood, closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor elsewhere) to collect
PM emissions that might otherwise escape through the melt shop roof
vents to achieve complete control of melt shop fugitives. The
procedures used to determine whether 0 percent opacity using new canopy
hooding is BSER are summarized below. Details of the BSER cost
procedures can be found in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-020a).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM Emission Reductions with 0 percent Opacity: Two approaches were
used to develop estimates of PM emission reductions with the addition
of a partial roof canopy in order to reduce melt shop opacity from 6
percent to 0 percent. The resulting average PM emission reduction of
the two estimates, at 660 megagram per year (Mg/yr) [730 tons per year
(tpy)], was used in the final BSER calculation. The methodology for
each of the two approaches is described below and in more detail in the
Cost Memorandum.\6\
    The first method to estimate PM reductions to compare PM emissions
with 0 percent melt shop opacity to emissions with 6 percent was
partially based on data from the EAF BID.\7\ The average uncontrolled
EAF PM emissions of 15 g/kg [29 lb/ton] from the EAF BID \8\ was used
along with the average capture efficiency of a ``segmented canopy hood,
closed roof over furnace, open roof monitor elsewhere,'' at 90
percent,\9\ and the estimated steel production at an average EAF
facility, at 490,000 Mg/yr [540,000 tpy] \10\ to estimate the roof vent
PM emission rate of 630 Mg/yr [700 tpy]. This value was assumed to be
the melt shop PM fugitive emission rate from the roof vent of a melt
shop with 6 percent opacity, the current EAF NSPS opacity standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-020a).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982. Table
3-7, p. 3-37.
    \9\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-010a).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Table 4-2,
combination 2, p. 4-23.
    \10\ From the median of industry capacity data for EAF
facilities provided to the EPA by SMA in 2018, assuming 70 percent
capacity utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second method used to estimate PM emission reductions to
compare PM emissions with 0 percent melt shop opacity to PM emissions
with 6 percent opacity was based on data obtained from the EPA dataset
for facilities with 0 or 6 percent melt shop opacity.\3\ Opacity and PM
emission data were available for 9 EAF facilities, 12 EAF/AOD, 13
baghouses, and 33 tests where 6 percent melt shop opacity was achieved;
and 13 facilities, 21 EAF/AOD, 23 baghouses, and 51 individual tests
where 0 percent melt shop opacity was achieved.\3\ The annual baghouse
stack emissions for facilities with 6 percent melt shop opacity was
estimated at 11,000 Mg/yr [12 tpy] PM based on an average emission rate
of 22 mg/kg [4.4E-02 lb/ton] for nine facilities using an average steel
production rate of 490,000 Mg/yr [540,000 tpy] steel, as discussed
above.\10\ The total PM emissions generated by the EAF are the PM
emissions sent to the baghouse plus the uncaptured emissions emanating
from the melt shop as opacity, if not controlled to 0 percent opacity.
The captured PM emissions routed to the baghouse can be calculated from
the average PM emitted from the baghouse (11 Mg/yr [12 tpy]) in the EPA
dataset and the assumption of baghouse control efficiency of 99.8
percent, to produce an estimate of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000 tpy] PM routed to
the baghouse at a facility where 6 percent melt shop opacity was
achieved.
    Further, in the second approach, to calculate total PM emissions
generated (uncontrolled) by the EAF, the estimate of 5,500 Mg/yr [6,000
tpy] uncaptured

PM routed to the baghouse estimated above, is added to an estimate of
uncaptured PM emitted from the melt shop where there is 6 percent melt
shop opacity. Using the estimate of 90 percent captured PM at a melt
shop with 6 percent opacity, the total PM emissions generated by the
EAF is calculated as 6,000 Mg/yr [6,700 tpy PM]. The difference between
the PM generated and the PM captured, at 600 Mg/yr [670 tpy] is the
second estimate of the amount of PM that is controlled when comparing
the PM emitted from 6 percent melt shop opacity compared to 0 percent
opacity, because all PM is captured at a 0 percent melt shop opacity
facility.
    As a check on the estimate of 6,700 tpy total uncontrolled PM from
the EAF, an emission factor in format of PM emitted per ton steel is
calculated from the average steel production used in the calculations.
The result, at 13 g/kg [25 lb/ton] PM emitted per ton steel, is in the
expected range as that cited above in the first method, between 8.5 and
21 g/kg [17 to 42 lb/ton]) from the EAF BID.\8\ This result also
confirms that the baghouse efficiency value at 99.8 percent, used in
the calculation is appropriate. The average of the results with the two
methods, at 660 Mg PM/yr [730 tpy] controlled, is used in the BSER
analysis as the additional PM controlled between 0 percent melt shop
opacity and 6 percent.
    Costs for Installing and Operating a Partition Roof Canopy: Canopy
hoods are a common method of controlling fugitive EAF emissions.\11\ To
estimate the costs for EAF facilities to reduce their PM emissions and
melt shop opacity from 6 percent to 0 percent opacity, the costs for
addition of a partition roof canopy (above the crane rails) were
estimated using the procedure and information from the Ferroalloys
NESHAP, where EAF also are used and shop fugitives also are a
concern.\12\ Detailed cost information from or about EAF facilities was
not available to the EPA to directly calculate cost estimates for a
canopy at steel-making EAF facilities; whereas, the ferroalloy cost
estimates do include detailed cost input parameters from the ferroalloy
industry which we used to estimate such costs at an EAF facility. The
EPA seeks comment regarding this cost analysis and seeks detailed
information on EAF source category-specific costs to further inform the
development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization
Vessels in Steel Industry--Background Information for Proposed
Revisions to Standards--Draft EIS, Preliminary (EPA-450/3-82-010a).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982.
    \12\ Cost Impacts of Control Options Considered for the
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0177. August 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To adapt the ferroalloy cost-estimating procedure to steelmaking
EAF, equipment costs and other parameters were scaled by the ratio of
the ferroalloys EAF flowrate at 200 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (9,400
actual cubic meters per minute (acmm) [330,000 actual cubic feet per
minute (acfm)] to EAF flowrate at 200[deg]F (18,000 acmm [640,000
acfm]) for a medium-sized steel facility in the EAF data, which
corresponded to 15,000 standard cubic meters per minute [530,000
standard cubic feet per minute]. Using the ferroalloy cost estimates
with the flowrate of a medium-sized steelmaking EAF produced capital
costs for a partial canopy hood of $6,800,000; operating and
maintenance costs are $340,000; and total annualized costs are $800,000
in 2020 dollars for a medium-sized EAF. Similar cost analyses were done
for a small and large EAF facility using flowrates from the EAF data.
Table 1 shows the cost estimates for small, medium, and large EAF
baghouses and melt shops to achieve 0 percent melt shop opacity with a
partial roof canopy hood above the crane rails compared to model plants
meeting the rule requirement of 6 percent opacity.

  Table 1--Model Plant Costs and Parameters for Achieving 0 Percent Melt Shop Opacity Compared to Model Plants
  Operating at the Current Rule Requirement of 6 Percent Opacity by Adding a Partial Roof Canopy Hood Above the
                                                   Crane Rails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Model plant size
                     Cost parameter                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Small              Medium             Large
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air flow, acmm [acfm]..................................     1,300 [45,000]   18,000 [640,000]             91,000
                                                                                [3,200,000]
Capital Costs..........................................           $480,000         $6,800,000        $34,000,000
Operating and Maintenance Costs........................            $27,000           $340,000         $1,700,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs.............................            $60,000           $800,000         $4,000,000
PM Removed 6% opacity to 0% opacity, Mg/yr [tpy].......            51 [56]          660 [730]      3,600 [4,000]
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg [$/ton].......................    $1,200 [$1,100]    $1,200 [$1,100]    $1,100 [$1,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers have been rounded and, therefore, may not calculate exactly.

    However, new, modified, or reconstructed facilities would need to
comply with applicable state requirements, and programs such as New
Source Review (NSR), if the NSR applicability criteria are met. Under
NSR, certain technology requirements apply depending on the location of
the facility (i.e., lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) in
nonattainment areas, or best achievable control technology (BACT) in
attainment areas). Therefore, the cost estimates shown in Table 1 are
considered conservative (i.e., more likely to be overestimates than
underestimates). We estimate that the actual cost impacts of the
proposed 0 percent opacity limit likely would be lower because we
expect any new, modified, or reconstructed facility would be able to
meet the proposed opacity and PM limits without any additional control
equipment beyond those already required by NSR or applicable state
requirements, or by minor process changes to improve capture of exhaust
flows or other process parameters, if needed.
    Overall Cost Effectiveness to Achieve 0 percent Melt Shop Opacity:
Using the annual costs of $800,000 per year (described above), for a
partition roof canopy (above the crane rails) for a medium-sized
steelmaking EAF and a PM reduction of 660 Mg/yr [730 tpy] for achieving
0 percent melt shop opacity compared to 6 percent opacity (also
described above) the cost-effectiveness is $1,210 per Mg [$1,100 per
ton] PM

removed for a medium-sized EAF and melt shop. The same analyses
performed for small and large EAF baghouses and melt shops produced
similar cost-effectiveness estimates, at $1,200 per Mg [$1,100 per ton]
and $1,100 per Mg [$1,000 per ton] for small and large EAF baghouses,
respectively, as shown in Table 1. The values of $1,200 per Mg [$1,100
per ton] and lower are well within the range of what the EPA has
considered cost-effective for the control of PM emissions, and,
therefore, 0 percent melt shop opacity is considered BSER for EAF.
b. Facility-Wide Total PM Control Device Emission Limit
    The PM emissions data in the EAF dataset from the 13 EAF facilities
with 0 percent opacity were used to determine BSER for EAF and AOD
facilities along with the estimated costs of control. The number of PM
test reports used per facility ranged from one (3-run) test to 10
tests, with a median of three tests. The EAF facility total baghouse PM
emissions per mass of steel produced from the 13 facilities with 0
percent melt shop opacity ranged from a low of 6.5 mg/kg [0.013 lb/ton]
to a high of 79 mg/kg [0.016 lb/ton] with a median of 26 mg/kg [0.052
lb/ton].
    The control costs for a range of baghouse performance levels were
estimated based on baghouse air-to-cloth (A/C) ratio, which is
expressed in units of volume of air flow per unit bag area (i.e.,
cloth), or meters [feet] per unit of time. The A/C ratio is generally
accepted as the most important design parameter between baghouses of
different performance levels, where a low A/C ratio is considered to be
the best level of control (less air and more baghouse filter cloth) and
a high A/C ratio is a low or poor level control (high air volume and
low baghouse filter area).\13\ Because no A/C ratio data were available
in the EAF PM test reports, values for A/C from CAA section 114
responses submitted by the integrated iron and steel (II&S) industry
for the risk and technology review for 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF
(85 FR 42074) \14\ ratio were used in the EAF BSER PM cost analysis.
The baghouses used for emissions from furnaces in the II&S industry are
expected to be similar in operation as the baghouses used at EAF/AOD
for the purposes of this analysis. The A/C ratio in the II&S data
ranged from a low of 24 m/s [1.3 ft/min] to a high of 130 m/s [7.2 ft/
min].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA/
42/B-02-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. January 2002. Section 6, Particulate Matter
Controls, Chapter 1, Baghouses and Filters. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
    \14\ Summary of Questionnaire (Enclosure 1) Responses to EPA
Information Collection Requests from Integrated Iron & Steel
Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083-0614).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to explore what level of PM emissions per mass of steel
produced derived from the dataset would be BSER, five evenly-spaced
points in the ranked PM mass rate data in the EAF data and five evenly-
spaced points in the ranked A/C ratios were matched to represent five
model facilities of various levels of baghouse-controlled PM emissions,
with the lowest (best) PM mass emission rate matched to the lowest
(best) A/C ratio and labeled Model Plant A, and the highest in both
variables labelled Model Plant E. The intermediary facilities were
matched similarly so that there were five distinct operating levels to
produce five model plants.
    In addition, a ``baseline'' model plant was developed using a PM
mass emission rate (in mass PM per mass steel) that was estimated as
equivalent to the current NSPS standard (in mass per unit flowrate)
using the EAF dataset, where data in both mass emissions per mass of
steel produced and in mass per unit flowrate were available. The PM
mass emission rate for the baseline model plant was estimated using the
ratio of the mass per unit flowrate of the highest emitting facility in
the dataset (Model Plant E) at 9.2 mg/dscm [0.0040 gr/dscf] to the NSPS
standard (12 mg/kg [0.0052 gr/dscf]) for a ratio of 0.77 (9.2/12 mg/kg
[0.0040/0.0052 gr/dscf]), and back calculating an equivalent mass value
using the 0.77 ratio and the PM mass rate of Model Plant E in units of
mass PM per mass of steel produced (79 mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]/0.77). The
resulting value of 100 mg/kg [0.20 lb/ton] was used as an estimate of
the PM mass emission rate per mass of steel produced for the NSPS
baseline model plant. An A/C ratio of 8.0 was used for the baseline
model plant, as the highest A/C ratio that realistically could be
expected.\13\
    Table 2 shows the PM mass emission rates and A/C ratios for the
five model plants and the baseline model plant. Details of the analysis
are described in the Cost Memorandum.\6\

                                         Table 2--Model Plant Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  PM emission rate (PM per steel             A/C ratio
                                                             produced)           -------------------------------
                  Model plants                   --------------------------------
                                                       mg/kg          lb/ton           m/min          ft/min
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............................................             6.5           0.013            0.40             1.3
B...............................................              17           0.034            0.88             2.9
C...............................................              40            0.08             1.2             4.0
D...............................................              50            0.10             1.5             4.9
E...............................................              79            0.16             2.2             7.2
Baseline........................................             100            0.20             2.4             8.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current
  limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/dscf).

    Steel production for each model facility size was taken from
industry capacity data \15\ and corresponded to 45,000, 700,000, and
3,100,000 Mg/yr [50,000, 780,000, and 3,500,000 tpy] \16\ for small,
medium or ``average,'' and large facilities, respectively, where medium
was determined from the median of industry data, and small and large
were the smallest and largest facilities. Estimates of baghouse
flowrate were taken from the EAF data, at 1,300, 18,000, and 91,000
acmm [45,000, 640,000, and 3,200,000 acfm] \16\ for small, medium, and
large facility-level baghouses, respectively. At these operating levels
and the emission rate per mass of steel produced developed

from the PM emissions in the EAF data, as described above, the PM
emissions for the Model Plants A through E range from 0.27 to 3.5 Mg/
yr, 4.6 to 55 Mg/yr, and 20 to 250 Mg/yr [0.30 to 3.9 tpy, 5.1 to 61
tpy, and 23 to 270 tpy], for small, medium, and large facilities,
respectively. For the baseline model plant, PM emissions were estimated
to be 4.6, 72, and 320 Mg/yr [5.1, 72, and 350 tpy] for small, medium,
and large facilities, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ From the industry capacity data for EAF facilities provided
to the EPA by SMA in 2018.
    \16\ Numbers have been rounded and may not exactly match
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of control were estimated using the EPA cost-estimating
procedures \13\ based on model baghouses with flows and production
levels for baghouses at small, medium, and large facilities, as
described above. Differences in capital costs for the model plants
mainly reflect the cost of bags needed for each A/C ratio. The
operating and maintenance (O&M) costs reflect periodic replacement of
bags, along with other typical baghouse O&M costs. Annual costs include
the annualized capital costs combined with the annual operating and
maintenance costs.
    Capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs were estimated for new
baghouses at new facilities corresponding to the five model plants and
the baseline model plant for small, medium or ``average,'' and large
model facilities following the procedures in the EPA Cost Manual \13\
to meet each level of model plant PM emissions and A/C ratios, and for
all three facility sizes. In this analysis, Model Plant A has the
lowest emissions, the lowest A/C ratio, and the highest costs for a new
baghouse at a new facility; and Model Plant E, has the highest
emissions, highest A/C ratio, and lowest costs, for a new baghouse at a
new facility; all model plants emit less PM emissions than a (new)
baseline model plant, have lower A/C ratios, and have higher costs for
a new baghouse at a new facility. The BSER PM level is determined by
comparing the (new) baseline model plant costs and emissions to each
model plant, starting with the model plant with the highest estimated
emissions and lowest costs (Model Plant E), and ending with the model
plant with the lowest emissions and highest costs (Model Plant A), and
repeating the analysis for each of the three facility sizes, small,
medium, and large.
    Estimated capital costs \6\ for new baghouses for Model Plants A
through E ranged from $710,000 to $1,900,000 for a small facility;
$4,300,000 to $21,000,000 for a medium facility; and $20,000,000 to
$100,000,000 for a large facility. Operating and maintenance costs for
the five model plants ranged from $190,000 to $260,000 for a small
facility; $1,300,000 to $2,200,000 for a medium facility; and
$5,500,000 to $10,000,000 for a large facility. Annual costs for the
five model plants ranged from $238,000 to $380,000 for a small
facility; $1,600,000 to $3,600,000 for a medium facility; and
$6,800,000 to $17,000,000 for a large facility.
    Capital costs for the baseline facility were estimated to be
$680,000 for a small facility, $3,900,000 for a medium facility, and
$18,000,000 for a large facility. Operating and maintenance costs for
the baseline facility were estimated to be $190,000 for a small
facility, $1,300,000 for a medium facility, and $5,400,000 for a large
facility. Annual costs for the baseline facility were estimated to be
$236,000 for a small facility, $1,500,000 for a medium facility, and
$6,600,000 for a large facility.\6\
    The results of the cost analyses in Table 3 for a medium-sized
model facility show the estimated costs, PM emissions reduced, and
cost-effectiveness for Model Plants A through E and the baseline model
plant for a medium-size facility. The cost analyses in Table 3 indicate
that the highest emitting model plant (E) in the cost analysis, at 79
mg/kg [1.6E-01 lb/ton], is within the range of what the EPA has
considered to be a cost-effective level of control for PM emissions
relative to the baseline model plant, at approximately $2,000 per Mg PM
removed [$1,800 per ton PM removed] for a medium-sized facility. This
level reflects an estimated 22 percent reduction in emissions from the
baseline model plant (100 mg/kg [0.20 lb/ton]). The cost impacts of the
next level of emission control in the cost analysis for medium-sized
facilities, for Model D (50 mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton)), is $6,100/Mg PM
removed [$5,500/ton PM removed], which is at the higher end of the
range that is considered cost-effective. Table 4 shows the estimated
cost-effectiveness of increased PM control over the baseline for Model
Plant E for all three facility sizes (small, medium, and large), which
have approximately the same cost-effectiveness values as medium-sized
facilities, at approximately $2,200 $/Mg [$2,000 per ton PM removed]
for both small and large model facilities.

                                                  Table 3--Emissions, Costs and Cost-Effectiveness for a Medium-Size Model EAF Facility \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Cost for new baghouse at new
                                                                                facility

                                                                       Cost-effectiveness

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model plant \3\ \4\                                                       EAF       Capital       Annual       Annual       Annual   Additional
                                                                     facility                        O&M        costs         cost           PM
                                                                           PM                                           difference   controlled
                                                                     emission                                                 from         from
                                                                         rate                                             baseline     baseline
                                                                                (Delta   (Delta PM)   Delta Cost/Delta PM
                                                                                Cost)                   from baseline
                                                                       Incremental cost-
                                                                     effectiveness to next
                                                                          model plant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Mg/yr             $         $/yr         $/yr         $/yr        Mg/yr       $/Mg      $/ton       $/Mg           $/ton
                                                                        [tpy]                                                             [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................................................  4.6 [5.1]   $21,000,000   $2,200,000   $3,600,000   $2,100,000      67 [74]    $31,000    $28,000   $194,000        $176,000
B.................................................................    12 [13]    10,000,000    1,600,000    2,200,000      700,000      60 [66]     12,000     11,000     20,000          18,000
C.................................................................    28 [31]     7,300,000    1,400,000    1,900,000      370,000      43 [48]      8,500      7,700     21,000          19,000
D.................................................................    35 [39]     6,100,000    1,300,000    1,700,000      220,000      36 [40]      6,100      5,500      9,400           8,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E \4\.............................................................    55 [61]     4,300,000    1,270,000    1,600,000       32,000      16 [18]      2,000      1,800              NA
Baseline \5\......................................................    72 [79]     3,900,000    1,260,000    1,500,000           NA           NA         NA         NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ A medium-size facility is estimated to produce 700,000 Mg/yr [775,000 tpy] steel at capacity.
\2\ Numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding.
\3\ The standards for the model plants are as follows: A = 6.5 mg/kg (0.013 lb/ton); B = 17 mg/kg (0.034 lb/ton); C = 40 mg/kg (0.08 lb/ton); D = 50 mg/kg (0.10 lb/ton); E = 79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/
  ton). See Table 2. Model Facility E represents the standard being proposed.
\4\ See Table 2 for additional model plant parameters.
\5\ The baseline model facility emissions are based on an estimate in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/dscf).

      Table 4--Costs for New Baghouses at New Facilities for Model Plant E (BSER) Compared to Baseline at Small, Medium, and Large Model Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Cost for new baghouse \2\                Additional
                                         EAF     -----------------------------------------------------      PM                         Incremental cost-
                                     facility PM                                             Annual     controlled        Cost-         effectiveness to
         Model facility \1\            emission                                 Annual    costs Delta      from     effectiveness \2\   next model plant
                                         rate        Capital     Annual O&M     costs         from       baseline                         (D) \1\ \2\
                                                                                baseline      level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Mg/yr             $         $/yr         $/yr         $/yr        Mg/yr         Delta $/Mg               $/Mg
                                           [tpy]                                                             [tpy]            [$/ton]            [$/ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Small Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................    3.6 [3.9]      $710,000     $190,000     $238,000       $2,290    1.1 [1.2]    $2,200 [$2,000]   $10,000 [$9,300]
Baseline...........................    4.6 [5.1]       680,000      190,000      236,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Medium Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................      55 [61]     4,300,000    1,270,000    1,550,000       32,400      16 [18]      2,000 [1,800]      9,400 [8,500]
Baseline...........................      72 [79]     3,900,000    1,260,000    1,520,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Large Facility \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model E............................    246 [271]    20,000,000    5,500,000    6,730,000      162,000      73 [80]      2,200 [2,000]     11,000 [9,600]
Baseline...........................    318 [351]    18,000,000    5,400,000    6,570,000  ...........  ...........  .................  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baseline model facility emissions are based on emissions in units of mg/kg (lb/ton) of the current limit, which is in units of mg/dscm (gr/
  dscf). Model Facility E represents the standard being proposed (79 mg/kg [0.16 lb/ton]). Model D is the next higher level of control (50 mg/kg [0.10
  lb/ton]). See Table 2.
\2\ Cost numbers may not calculate exactly due to rounding.
\3\ Production levels are 45,000, 700,000, and 3,100,000 Mg/yr [45,000, 775,000, 3,450,000 tpy] at small, medium, and large model facilities,
  respectively.

    Tables 3 and 4 also show that the incremental cost-effectiveness of
the model plants compared to the next level of emissions control. In
Table 4, the incremental cost difference between Model E compared to
Model Plant D, the next level of emission control, is shown for all
three sizes of model plants. For a medium-sized model plant, the
incremental cost-effectiveness comparing Model Plant E to Model Plant D
is at the higher end of the range that is considered cost-effective, at
$9,400/Mg [$8,500/ton]. The incremental cost-effectiveness is even
greater for small and large facilities, at greater than or equal to
$10,000/Mg ($9,300/ton), also shown in Table 4. Because the control
costs for the BSER analysis were derived from A/C ratios taken from
integrated iron and steel baghouses, there is some uncertainty
regarding the A/C ratios and costs for EAF facilities. For this reason,
in the BSER determination, we have selected Model Plant E to ensure the
BSER control level is feasible for new, modified, or reconstructed EAF
facilities. Detailed cost information for Model Plants A through E for
all three sizes of facilities are shown in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
c. Overall Reduction in EAF Emissions With Facility-Wide PM Limit at 79
mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton) and 0 Percent Melt Shop Opacity Standard
    The baghouses at EAF facilities with 0 percent melt shop opacity
under the proposed standard (79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton)), would emit an
estimated 39 Mg/yr [43 tpy] PM emissions for an average facility
producing 492,100 Mg/yr (542,500 tpy steel).\10\ By contrast, the
estimated PM emissions from a baghouse where there is 6 percent melt
shop opacity are 11 Mg/yr (12 tpy) for an average facility.\10\ [See
the example provided in section III.A.2.a (BSER for Melt Shop Opacity)]
Because the PM prevented from exiting the roof vent is instead
collected and sent to the baghouses, this results in an additional 28
Mg/yr (31 tpy) PM emissions (39 Mg/yr minus 11 Mg/yr [43 tpy minus 12
tpy]) emitted from the baghouse at a 0 percent melt shop opacity
(average-sized) facility as compared to a melt shop at 6 percent
opacity. The total PM emissions prevented from being emitted with 0
percent melt shop opacity compared to 6 percent opacity are 663 Mg/yr
(731 tpy). However, baghouses have high efficiencies of 98 percent and
higher; therefore, the additional baghouse PM emissions of 28 Mg/yr [31
tpy] are much lower than the PM that would have otherwise been emitted
out the roof vents. Therefore, despite the additional baghouse
emissions, the net amount of PM prevented from being emitted at the
average facility is 635 Mg/yr (700 tpy), or 663 Mg/yr minus 28 Mg/yr
(731 tpy minus 31 tpy), presenting a clear case of effective overall
emissions prevention.
    The NSPS general provisions (CAA section 60.11(c)) currently
excludes opacity requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction. We are proposing that opacity limits in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart AAb would apply at all times along with all other emissions
limits and standards because there are no technical limitations known
to prevent new, reconstructed, or modified facilities from meeting all
standards at all times.
3. Requirement for Compliance Testing Every Five Years
    We are proposing that sources complying with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart AAb would be required to perform compliance testing every 5
years after the initial testing performed upon startup, as required
under 40 CFR part 60.8. This requirement already is required in many of
the permits for existing EAF in the EAF dataset and in the industry,
and is a standard requirement for testing for other sources of PM
emissions for many other industrial sectors.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR part 63 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants) subparts: FFFFF (Integrated Iron and Steel
Manufacturing); DDDD (Plywood and Composite Wood Products
Manufacture); LLLLL (Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing); RRRRR (Taconite Iron Ore Processing); UUU (Petroleum
Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and
Sulfur Recovery Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Review of EAF NSPS Standards for Opacity From EAF Control Devices
and Dust Handling Systems
    The current NSPS standards for EAF in 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA
and AAa, require less than 3 percent opacity from control device
(baghouse) exhaust and less than 10 percent for dust handling
procedures. In the EAF dataset discussed above, no facilities reported
lower levels of opacity for these sources nor were lower levels
required in any permits for these or any other EAF

facilities. In addition, in determinations reported in the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse,\4\ only the current levels in the rule for baghouse
exhaust (9 facilities) and dust handling systems (3 facilities) were
considered BACT. Therefore, the conclusion of this review is that the
opacity standards for control device exhaust and dust handling systems
should remain the same.
5. Proposal of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAb Without Startup, Shutdown,
Malfunction Exemptions
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (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 section 112 standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing standards in this
rule that apply at all times. The NSPS general provisions in 40 CFR
60.11 (c) currently exclude opacity requirements during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and the provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c)
contains an exemption from nonopacity standards. We are proposing in 40
CFR part 60, subpart AAb a specific requirement at 60.272b (c) that
overrides the general provisions for SSM. As provided in 60.11(f), we
are proposing that all standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb apply
at all times, including both opacity and nonopacity limits.
    The EPA has attempted to ensure that the general provisions we are
proposing to override are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, is not proposing alternate standards for those periods because
we believe both the PM and opacity standards can be met at all times.
With regard to malfunctions, these events are described in the
following paragraph.
    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 60.2).
The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of
CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law
requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining what
standards of performance reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. While
the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions standards. 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 section 111 standards of performance.
The EPA's approach to malfunctions in the analogous circumstances
(setting ``achievable'' standards under section 112) has been upheld as
reasonable by the D.C Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

B. Amendments to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric
Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and on or Before
August 17, 1983, and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants:
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
Constructed After August 17, 1983, and on or Before May 16, 2022

    Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa are being
proposed to clarify and refine the rule requirements by adding,
removing, or revising ambiguous or outdated definitions, compliance,
measurement, monitoring, and reporting requirements; specifically, 40
CFR part 60, sections 60.271 and 60.271a ``Definitions'', 60.272 and
60.272a ``Standard for particulate matter'', 60.273 and 60.273a
``Emission monitoring'', 60.274a ``Monitoring of operations'', 60.275a
``Test methods and procedures'', and 60.276a ``Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements''.
    We are proposing minor revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and
AAa (and also include in proposed subpart AAb) in the above-mentioned
sections to clarify the rule and enhance compliance and enforcement.
One change being considered but not proposed is discussed in further
detail in the following paragraphs. The EPA requests comments as to the
appropriateness of all the revisions proposed or considered.
    The current rules, 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa, require
facilities to respond to a BLDS alarm and complete corrective action
for the cause of the alarm within 3 hours. However, the industry has
stated that there have been instances where there was insufficient time
to respond to a BLDS alarm within 3 hours to both find and fix the
cause of a BLDS alarm. According to the SMA, facility owners and
operators report that determining the cause of the alarm often requires
operators to undertake a multi-step troubleshooting process that
requires numerous physical inspections and other diagnostic efforts
that sometimes takes longer than 3 hours.
    Some baghouses in the industry can have more than 25 compartments
housing 5,000 or more individual bags. In these instances, facilities
may have to sequentially isolate compartments to determine which
compartment might have caused the BLDS alarm. The facility must then
physically examine each of the compartments. If a bag has a significant
rupture, the cause of the alarm likely will be apparent during that
inspection. However, given the sensitivity of BLDS, the alarms can be
triggered by extremely small holes in bags. The SMA claims that, in
these cases, even physical observation can fail to find any leak within
the allocated time period. In the case of a false alarm, which can
happen in some cases due to the sensitivity of the BLDS, the careful
search of the isolated compartment(s) will yield no useful information,
as per the SMA. However, it is important that baghouses work properly
on a continuous basis to minimize PM emissions and that leaks, if
present, are identified and fixed in a timely manner.
    Given the concerns raised by the SMA, we are soliciting comments as
to whether the EPA should allow owners and operators a longer time
period (e.g., 8 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours) to find and fix the cause
of a BLDS alarm, which would be more consistent with the time period
permitted in some other related rules, such as in the Integrated Iron
and Steel NESHAP, as promulgated in 2003, 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF
(see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2015-title40-vol14/pdf/CFR-2015-title40-vol14-part63-subpartFFFFF.pdf), and the Taconite Iron
Ore Processing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, also promulgated
in 2003 (see https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2015-title40-
vol15/pdf/CFR-2015-

title40-vol15-part63-subpartRRRRR.pdf), which both allow a 24-hour
response time to address BLDS alarms.
    We are soliciting comments, data, and other information regarding
this issue and whether the EPA should change the time to both find and
fix the cause of a BLDS alarm from 3 hours to a longer timeframe (e.g.,
24 hours as in other rules, or some other duration), including whether
this change would be an appropriate amount of time to allow for such
action, and information supporting this change. We also solicit
comments or suggestions regarding potential measures that could be
required to be taken by facility owners or operators during the time
the BLDS alarm is being investigated to ensure that the increase in
time allowed to address a BLDS alarm does not result in an increase in
emissions beyond the level allowable under the rule. For example, if we
provided additional time to find and repair the cause of the alarm, are
there additional steps that could be taken to ensure that the facility
continues to comply with the current emissions standards (e.g., opacity
limit of less than 3 percent) during that period such as by requiring
the facility to conduct an opacity test (EPA Method 9) or visible
emissions test (EPA Method 21) on a regular basis (e.g., once every
hour) until the cause of the alarm is found and fixed.

C. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is proposing that owners or operators of EAF facilities
submit electronic copies of required performance test/demonstration of
compliance reports and semiannual reports 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 proposed rule would require that
performance test/demonstration of compliance results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \18\ 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, and
other performance test/demonstration of compliance results be submitted
in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module of the
ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For semiannual reports, the proposed rule would require that owners
or operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed templates for
these reports is included in the docket for this action.\19\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, AAa, and AAb, Standards of
Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen
Decarburization Vessels, 40 CFR part 60.276(g) Semiannual Compliance
Report Spreadsheet Template, available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 which 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, equipment
failure, or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. The EPA
is providing these potential extensions to protect owners or 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 would increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports and is keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency. Electronic submittal would further assist in the
protection of public health and the environment by improving
compliance, 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. Ultimately, electronic
reporting would reduce the burden on regulated facilities, delegated
air agencies, and the EPA by making the data easy to record and read.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper waste and redundancies and
minimizes data reporting errors. The resulting electronic data are more
quickly and accurately accessible to the affected facilities, air
agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is
consistent with the EPA's plan \20\ to implement Executive Order 13563
and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide policy \21\ developed in
response to the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews. August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \21\ E-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.
    \22\ 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/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air quality and other environmental impacts?

    For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, the reductions in PM
potentially emitted would have a beneficial air impact when comparing 6
percent melt shop opacity in the baseline to the 0 percent opacity
proposed for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb. Similarly, reductions in PM
less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) potentially emitted also
are estimated from new, modified and reconstructed EAF under the
proposed NSPS rule, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, compared to the
emissions that are allowed under the current NSPS with 6 percent melt
shop opacity.
    Based on the actual emissions emitted by 31 facilities in the EAF
data, where the actual average opacity was 0.14 percent, the emissions
impact for PM from nine new facilities projected in the next 10 years
(estimated to reflect three small, four medium, and two large) is
estimated to be an emissions reduction of 142 Mg (157 tons) PM that
would otherwise be emitted in 2032. Using an estimate of 0.218 \23\ for
the ratio of PM2.5

to PM the emissions impact for PM2.5 from nine new
facilities projected in the next 10 years, as above, would be an
emissions reduction of 30 Mg (33 tons) of PM2.5 in 2032.
Details of the emissions estimates can be found in the memorandum
titled ``Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Arc Furnace
Facilities'' located in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2002-0049) and hereafter referred to as the ``Emissions
Memorandum.'' No PM emission reductions are estimated for the new PM
limit for facility-wide total baghouse emissions in mg/Mg (lb/ton)
because all facilities in the 2010 EAF data could meet the new limit
and, therefore, we expect that all new facilities also would be able to
meet the limit. The EPA asks for comments on these assumptions and for
emission test reports, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The PM2.5 to PM ratio is an average of similar
uncontrolled sources, as cited in ``Evaluation of PM2.5
Emissions and Controls at Two Michigan Steel Mills and a Coke Oven
Battery.'' Final Report. Work Assignment 4-12 under EPA Contract No.
68-D-01-073 by RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
February 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Solid wastes would increase slightly, approximately 17 tons per
facility, on average, with the additional PM collected to meet 0
percent melt shop opacity limit under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart
AAb as compared to current facilities meeting opacity limits under 40
CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. The small increase in solid wastes
would be the same for both the carbon and specialty steel shops.
However, most EAF dust is recycled to reclaim zinc.24 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Proven Waelz Kiln Technology. Accessed 2/18/22. http://www.globalsteeldust.com/waelz_kiln_technology.
    \25\ R[uuml]tten, J. Application of the Waelz Technology on
Resource Recycling of Steel Mill Dust. D[uuml]sseldorf: GmbH. D-
40225, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A relatively small increase in energy results from the use of
electricity to power fans that draw EAF exhaust air into the canopy
hood that captures the PM and sends PM-laden air to the baghouse, at
66, 940, 4,700 MW-hr per year for small, medium, and large facilities,
respectively. Some decrease in energy use may occur if the A/C ratio of
the fabric filters to meet the proposed facility baghouse standard is
lowered due to an increase in number of bags.
    Finally, there would be no water or noise impacts with the proposed
40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb.

B. What are the cost impacts?

    Costs are estimated for regular testing every 5 years for nine new
facilities projected in the 10 years after proposal. Annual testing
costs are $6,672 per year for conducting EPA Method 5 for PM emissions
at each baghouse's exhaust for each facility over a 5-year period,
using an estimate of 1.64 baghouses per facility based on the EAF data.
While new sources that start up after proposal would be subject to
testing every five years under the proposed NSPS, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart AAb, EPA Method 5 testing is required upon initial startup
under 40 CFR part 60.8. Therefore, in the first 5 years after startup
there would be no testing costs as a result of the proposed rule for
new sources that start up in this period. In the sixth year through the
tenth year after initial startup, the new sources estimated to start up
in the first five years after proposal would incur costs of
approximately $6,000 per year for testing, based on an estimate of 0.9
new facilities per year (0.9 x $6,672). Because the startup of new
facilities is estimated to be staggered, with 0.9 new facilities
starting each year after proposal, the total costs for testing under
this rule after the initial testing required under 40 CFR part 60.8
would range from approximately $6,000 in the sixth year after proposal
to a total of approximately $30,000 in the tenth year after proposal
(reflecting costs for 4.5 facilities (0.9 x 5 years)), where the
testing costs that would occur in years six through ten are for the new
facilities that start up in years one through five after proposal.
    Based on information from 2010 through 2017 obtained by the EPA for
31 EAF facilities, the EPA found the average opacity to be 0.14
percent, with about half of the units achieving 0 percent opacity in
the tests. Because opacity in the baseline in already low, the EPA
expects any new, modified or reconstructed facility would be able to
meet the proposed opacity and PM limits without any additional control
devices beyond those already required by the NSR program or applicable
state requirements or by minor process changes to improve capture of
exhaust flows or other process parameters, if needed. While the actual
cost impacts of the proposed 0 percent opacity limit would likely be
substantially lower, the EPA developed an upper bound estimate of
potential compliance costs based upon the assumption that affected
units would install a partial roof canopy above the crane rails to
ensure 0 percent melt shop opacity compared to a hypothetical baseline
model facility meeting 6 percent opacity. These costs are estimated to
be $60,000, $800,000, and $4,000,000 per year per facility for small,
medium, and large model facilities, respectively.
    Total annual costs for 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, based on nine
new facilities in the first 10 years after proposal are $180,000 per
year for three small facilities, $3,200,000 per year for four medium
facilities, and $8,000,000 per year for two large facilities for a
total of $11,380,000 per year by the tenth year after proposal using
the same staggered startup rate described above for testing costs.
Details of the cost estimates can be found in the Cost Memorandum.\6\
    For the proposed mass-based PM standard in mg/kg (lb/ton) for
facility-wide total baghouse PM emissions, we estimated the capital and
annual costs between a baseline scenario based on the current NSPS
individual baghouse limit (in mg/dscm (gr/dscf)) and a scenario based
on a lower total facility-wide baghouse PM emissions in mg/kg (lb/ton),
the format for the BSER we are proposing. Because data from the 31
existing EAF facilities in the 2010 data acquired by the EPA that was
used to develop the facility-wide PM limit show these facilities
already could meet the 79 mg/kg (0.16 lb/ton) total facility baghouse
PM limit, we expect the proposed mass-based standard applied to future
new, modified, and reconstructed EAF facilities would be feasible and
pose minimal cost impacts, if any. The EPA asks for comments on these
cost assumptions and for emission test reports, where appropriate.
    Additional cost analysis, including calculation of costs using the
upper bound cost estimates for the installation of partial roof
canopies, can be found in the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) associated
with this proposal, which is available in the docket for this rule. The
EIA additionally presents costs in terms of the present value and
equivalent annual value of projected compliance costs over the 2023 to
2032 period discounted at 3 and 7 percent.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs associated with the
proposed requirements and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will
change in response to a regulatory requirement. As discussed in section
IV.B., the cost analysis incorporates the assumption that units
affected by the new subpart AAb would install a partial roof canopy
above the crane rails to ensure 0 percent melt shop opacity compared to
a hypothetical baseline model facility meeting 6 percent opacity. The
costs should be viewed as upper bound

estimates on the potential compliance costs as the EPA expects any new,
modified or reconstructed facility would be able to meet the proposed
opacity and PM limits without any additional control devices beyond
those already required by the NSR program or applicable state
requirements or by minor process changes to improve capture of exhaust
flows or other process parameters, if needed. As discussed in the EIA,
even under the upper bound cost assumptions described above, the EPA
expects the potential economic impacts of this proposal will be small.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), we performed
an analysis to determine if any small entities might be
disproportionately impacts the proposed requirements. The EPA does not
know what firms will construct new facilities in the future and, as a
result, cannot perform a cost-to-sales analysis with the same
confidence as we do with firms owning existing facilities. However,
based on an assessment of the new units built during the 2011 to 2020
period and the units that have been announced, which are all owned by
firms that are not considered to be small businesses, the EPA does not
believe it is likely that any future facilities will be built by a
small business. See the EIA in the docket for this action for
additional information on the analysis presented in this section.

D. What are the benefits?

    The proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa would
both clarify the rule and enhance compliance and enforcement.
Implementing the proposed subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAb, is
expected to reduce PM emissions, including PM2.5. As
explained in section IV.A, the proposed requirements are projected to
reduce 30 Mg (33 tons) of PM2.5 in 2032. These emissions
reductions would be expected to produce health benefits in the affected
locations. The Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter
(ISA) report \26\ contains synthesized toxicological, clinical, and
epidemiological evidence that the EPA uses to determine whether each
pollutant is causally related to an array of adverse human health
outcomes associated with either acute (i.e., hours or days-long) or
chronic (i.e., years-long) exposure. For each outcome, the ISA report
includes the EPA conclusions as to whether this relationship is causal,
likely to be causal, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, or not likely to be a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final
Report, 2019). EPA/600/R-19/188. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ISA report it was found that acute exposure to
PM2.5 was causally related to cardiovascular effects and
mortality (i.e., premature death), and respiratory effects as likely-
to-be-causally related. In the ISA report, the EPA identified
cardiovascular effects and total mortality as causally related to long-
term exposure to PM2.5 and respiratory effects as likely-to-
be-causal; and the evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship for
reproductive and developmental effects as well as cancer, mutagenicity,
and genotoxicity.
    The benefits per ton (BPT) of the PM2.5 emissions
reductions cited above for years 2025 and 2030 and at 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates are presented in Table 5 below in 2020 dollars.
Information regarding the process by which these BPTs were calculated
is available in the technical support document Estimating the Benefit
per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5
Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-emitted
PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors
from 21 Sectors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 2022. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/source-apportionment-tsd-oct-2021_0.pdf.

                                   Table 5--Benefits per Ton of PM2.5 Reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              $/ton PM2.5 emission reductions--$2020
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                            3 Percent discount rate         7 Percent discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................        $407,000        $413,000        $366,000        $371,000
2030............................................         431,000         449,000         388,000         404,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The range reported here reflects the use of risk estimates from two alternative long-term exposure PM-
  mortality studies.

E. What are the environmental justice impacts?

    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the agency's actions, and following the directives set
forth in multiple Executive Orders,\28\ the Agency has carefully
considered the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns,
as per Executive Order 12898 (see section V.J below for more
discussion). We do not know the locations of future new, modified, or
reconstructed facilities that are affected by this rule, therefore, we
assessed the population living in areas around existing EAF facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations. 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Demographic proximity analyses allow one to assess the proximity of
vulnerable populations to environmental hazards as a proxy for exposure
and the potential for adverse health impacts that may occur at a local
scale due to economic activity at a given location such as noise,
odors, and traffic. We include the following proximity screening
analyses to characterize the potential for communities with EJ concerns
to be impacted by emissions sources covered under this EPA action.
    Although baseline proximity analyses are presented here, several
important caveats should be noted. Emissions are not expected to
increase from the proposed rulemaking, so most communities nearby
affected facilities should not experience increases in exposure from
directly-emitted pollutants. However, facilities may vary widely in
terms of the risk they already pose to nearby populations; therefore,
proximity to affected facilities does not capture the variation in
baseline exposure across communities. Nor does it indicate that any
exposures or impacts would occur and should not be interpreted as a
direct measure of exposure or impact. These points limit the usefulness
of proximity analyses when attempting to answer question 1

or 2 from the EPA's EJ technical guidance: (1) [Does the rule] ``create
new disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples''; and (2) [Does the rule]
``exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Actions. Section 3: Key Analytic Considerations, 3.1
Analyzing Differential Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. June 2016. p. 11. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that while the total proportion of people of color in
proximity to existing EAF facilities is similar to the national
average, the population of African Americans is higher than the
national average. Also, the education level of populations near
existing sources is similar to the national average; however, the
percent of population living below the poverty level is above the
national average.
    For the new EAF proposed rule, subpart, 40 CFR part AAb, the EPA
expects that the proposed rule would enhance compliance by increasing
the frequency of emissions testing, reducing emissions of PM by meeting
a lower opacity limit for melt shop roof vents, improving the reporting
of total facility-wide baghouse emissions, and requiring facilities to
meet the proposed standards, including opacity, at all times, thereby
overriding compliance exemptions in the General Provisions to CAA part
60 (part 60.11(c)) provided for opacity during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
    Following is a more detailed description of how the agency
considers EJ in the context of regulatory development, and specific
actions taken to address EJ concerns for this action.
    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is intended to advance racial
equity and support underserved communities through federal government
actions (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines EJ as ``the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.'' \30\ The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.'' In recognizing that minority and low-income populations
often bear an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA
continues to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public
health and environmental effects of air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine some population demographics of communities residing
nearby existing sources, we performed a demographic analysis, which is
an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations
living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. The
EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average
for each of the demographic groups.
    This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified,
and reconstructed EAF sources that commence construction after the rule
is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new EAF
facilities are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the
existing EAF facilities would be modified or reconstructed in the
future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 88
existing EAF facilities as a characterization of the demographics in
areas where these facilities are now located.
    The results of the demographic analysis (see Table 6) indicate
that, for populations within 5 km of the 88 existing EAF facilities,
the percent minority population (being the total population minus the
white population) is below the national average (37 percent versus 40
percent). This difference is largely driven by the percent Hispanic or
Latino population that is lower than the national average (14 percent
versus 19 percent). However, the percent of the population that is
African American is above the national average (17 percent versus 12
percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level is
higher than the national average (17 percent versus 13 percent). The
percent of the population over 25 without a high school diploma and the
percent of the population in linguistic isolation are similar to the
national averages.
    The results of the analysis of populations within 50 km of the 88
EAF facilities is similar to the 5 km analysis for minorities, with
lower total minorities being driven by a smaller Hispanic or Latino
population and the African American population being slightly above the
national average. However, the percent of the population living below
the poverty level, over 25 without a high school diploma, and in
linguistic isolation were all similar to the national averages.
    A summary of the demographic assessment performed for the EAF
facilities is included as Table 6. The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Electric Arc Furnace
Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0049).

                           Table 6--Demographic Assessment Results for EAF Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population      Population
                                                                                within 50 km   within 5 km of
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide    of 88 existing    88 existing
                                                                                EAF facilities  EAF facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     328,016,242      71,577,375       2,781,377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................................................             60%             62%             63%
Minority........................................................             40%             38%             37%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................             12%             15%             17%
Native American.................................................            0.7%            0.3%            0.3%
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................             19%             15%             14%
Other and Multiracial...........................................              8%              8%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................             13%             13%             17%
Above Poverty Level.............................................             87%             87%             83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................             12%             11%             11%
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................             88%             89%             89%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................              5%              5%              4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American
  Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based
  on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations.
2. Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
3. To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
  for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African
  American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or
  Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also
  identified as in the Census.
4. This action proposes standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources that commence
  construction after the rule is proposed. Therefore, the locations of the construction of new EAF facilities
  are not known. In addition, it is not known which of the existing EAF facilities would be modified or
  reconstructed in the future. Therefore, the demographic analysis was conducted for the 88 existing EAF
  facilities as a characterization of the demographics in areas where these facilities are now located.

    The EPA expects that the Standards of Performance for Steel Plants:
Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
Constructed After May 16, 2022 would ensure compliance via frequent
testing and reduce emissions via a lower opacity limit for melt shop
roof vents and by meeting all the proposed standards at all times
(including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions). Therefore,
there may be a positive, beneficial effect for populations in proximity
to any future affected sources, including in communities potentially
overburdened by pollution, which are often minority, low-income and
indigenous communities.
    The EPA is asking for comment on the list of the current 88 EAF