Document 3JKd6VoqLeyY9npnBn3QBX4NE

11&S Rule Presidential Exemption Request March 31. 2025 Page 2 of 10 A. BACKGROUND EPA first promulgated the NESHAPs for the 1I&S industry pursuant to CAA 112(d) on May 20, 2003, 68 Fed. Reg. 27,646, establishing emissions limitations for HAPs emitted from new and existing sinter/recycling plants, blast furnaces ("BFs"), and basic oxygen process furnace ("BOPF") shops. This rulemaking required all sources to meet I 'AP emission standards through application of maximum achievable control technology ("MACT"). It included particulate matter emissions limitations and opacity limits for capture systems and control devices. EPA found that "1p 'articulate matter and opacity serve as surrogate measures of I 'AP emissions."2 In 2020, the Trump EPA issued a final rule for the II&S source category to fulfill its obligations under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2), known as the "risk and technology review" ("RTR"). The 2020 ll&S RTR Rule concluded that the original 2003 Il&S Rule addressed the risk from hazardous air pollutants with an adequate margin of safety to public health, and that there were no new technologies that justified revisions to the 2003 MACT standards under CAA 112(d)(6).3 On April 3, 2024, the Biden EPA promulgated the II&S Rule, revising the Trump EPA's 2020 RTR rulcmaking for the ll&S source category. The Agency maintains in the 2024 1I&S Rule that the residual risk to human health and environment from the ll&S source category continues to be acceptable within an ample margin of safety, based on its analysis in the 2020 RTR.4 As to the technology review under CAA section 1 12(d)(6), however, the 2024 II&S Rule establishes new hazardous air pollutant ("HAP") emissions limits at Sinter/Recycling plants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, carbonyl sulfide, mercury, hydrochloric acid, ciioxinifuran toxicity equivalence), BOPFs (total hydrocarbons, hydrochloric acid, dioxinduran toxicity equivalence), BF stoves (total hydrocarbon, hydrochloric acid), and 13F casthouses (total hydrocarbon, hydrochloric acid); and new standards, in the form of opacity limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, for five Unmeasurable Fugitive Intermittent Particulate ("UFII"') sources (unplanned bleeder valve openings; planned bleeder valve openings; small and large bell leaks; iron beaching; and slag processing, handling and storage operations) based on the flawed conclusion that no new technology is requireci to meet these standards. EPA justified the slew of new HAP emissions limitations and UHP source standards based purportedly on a new technology review. Relying on an aggressive interpretation of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Louisiana Environmental Aciion Network v. EPA ("I. AA"), 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020), the 13iden EPA unlawfully and erroneously established new emission limits and work practice standards without consideration of the underlying CAA 112(d) obligation to only "revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)." The record does not support the Biden EPA's new technology review and resulting II&S Rule standards. As the 'Frump EPA had properly concluded in 2020, there is no demonstrated technically feasible or economically reasonable technology that II&S facilities can use to meet the 2 Id at 27,467 3 85 Fcci Rcg 42,074, 42,074 (July 13, 2020) '4 Id at 23,312 1104059958 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000118- 00002 SC_EVERSPLIT0005808