{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Environmental Regulatory Tracki"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Baker Botts L.L.P.","Debra Jezouit"]
[]
[]
[]
["Environmental Regulatory Tracking"]
[]
["Report Generated: 5/2/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Environmental Regulatory Tracki","index":1,"n_rows":9,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":9,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","USA (Federal Law)"]
["Horizon Scan"]
["1. Classification of steel slags, refractories and aluminum dross – are each of them regulated as industrial co-products, solid wastes or hazardous wastes? Are there regulations, limitations or restrictions in landfilling such materials?","As the classification of steel slags may vary by state, please refer to your regional environmental and legal teams with any questions.\n"]
["2. Reuse, recycle and alternative application of internal byproducts  - what regulations are now in place or are anticipated within the next 12-18 months that will encourage steel mills and aluminum producers to reuse or recycle their internal by-products (such waste refractories, slags, sludges, baghouse dust, aluminum dross, etc) or find alternative application for by-products (asphalt, cement, ready-mix, mineral wool, replacement for natural mining new aggregates, fertilizers, etc.)?","Federal RegulationsThere are currently no federal regulations that specifically encourage the reuse or recycling of internal by-products from steel mills or aluminum manufacturers. However, exemption from regulation under the\nResource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) of 1976may provide an incentive to do so.\nRCRA defines “solid waste” broadly as “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities,” but certain materials that would otherwise fall within that definition are exempt from solid waste regulation under \nRCRA. \n42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) (emphases added). These exemptions are specified in \n40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a) and include, among others, “[s]econdary materials that are reclaimed and returned to the original process or processes in which they were generated where they are reused in the production process” provided that certain conditions are met, § \n261.4(a)(8); certain coke by-product wastes, as long as there is “no land disposal of [such] wastes from the point they are generated to the point they are recycled to coke ovens or tar recovery or refining processes, or mixed with coal tar,” § \n261.4(a)(10); certain splash condenser dross residues in high-temperature metals recovery units, § \n261.4(a)(11); certain scrap metals being recycled, § \n261.4(a)(13); and “spent materials . . . generated within the primary mineral processing industry from which minerals, acids, cyanide, water, or other values are recovered by mineral processing or by beneficiation” provided that certain conditions are met, § \n261.4(a)(17). (emphases added).\nRCRA also provides for similar, alternative application exemptions for hazardous waste. \nRCRA defines “hazardous waste” as a “solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible, illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed,” but certain materials that would otherwise fall within that definition are exempt from hazardous waste regulation under \nRCRA. \n42 U.S.C. § 6903(5), see e.g., \n40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(7) (mining and mineral processing wastes exemption provided by the \nBevill Amendment.). Certain hazardous wastes are explicitly excluded from the definition of solid waste, which means that they are exempt from \nRCRA regulation altogether. These exemptions are provided in \n40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a) and include hazardous secondary materials — defined as “secondary material[s] (e.g., spent material, by-product, or sludge) that, when discarded, would be identified as a hazardous waste,” \n40 C.F.R. § 260.10 — “generated and legitimately reclaimed within the United States and its territories and under the control of the generator,” § \n261.4(a)(23); “generated and then transferred to another person for the purpose of reclamation,” § \n261.4(a)(24); “exported from the United States and reclaimed at a reclamation facility located in a foreign country,” § \n261.4(a)(25); and “generated and then transferred to another person for the purpose of remanufacturing,” § \n261.4(a)(27). (emphases added).\nWhile internal by-products generated from steel mills and aluminum producers are likely “solid wastes” under \nRCRA’s broad definition and may also be “hazardous wastes,” they may not be subject to \nRCRA regulation if their alternative applications (e.g., reuse, recycle, reclaim) fall under the “solid waste” exemptions.\nState RegulationsCertain types of industrial non-hazardous secondary materials — encompassing “any materials that are not the primary product of manufacturing or other industrial sectors” and including, for instance, “scrap and residuals from production processes and products received at the end of their useful life” — are exempt from federal and state waste management requirements if they fall within the beneficial use exemption. See \nEPA’s “Beneficial Use Compendium: A Collection of Resources and Tools to Support Beneficial Use Evaluations,” EPA 530-R-16-009, at 1-1 (June 2016). The exemption requires “substitution of these materials, either as generated or following additional processing, for some or all of the virgin, raw materials in a natural or commercial product . . . in a way that provides a functional benefit, meets product specifications and does not pose concerns to human health or the environment.” \nid.\nState environmental agencies, rather than the EPA, generally manage the beneficial use of industrial non-hazardous secondary materials and, more importantly, determine whether to allow a proposed beneficial use. See \nid. at 1-2, see also \nBeneficial Use State Program Locator (envcap.org\n) for a compilation of state beneficial use programs. Many state programs specifically exempt the reuse of steel manufacturing by-products such as slag, spent refractory, and scale from waste management regulations, while others require a general permit before reusing them in land applications such as roadway construction or as a soil additive. See \nEPA’s “Beneficial Use of Waste Materials: State of the Practice 2012, EP-W-09-004 (Sept. 14, 2013).While the general term, “beneficial use,” is not explicitly defined in \nRCRA, such use of waste materials is reflected in the exemptions provided by \n40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a), as discussed above. See also \nid. at 19. At this time, the EPA has only published a definition for beneficial use specific to coal combustion residuals at \n40 C.F.R. § 257.53. The EPA, however, is currently exploring the beneficial uses of electric arc furnace (“\nEAF”) slag generated during the steel-making process in encapsulated and unencapsulated uses, road base material, and landscaping use and is undertaking research on potential human risks and leaching of such uses. See \nEPA’s Summary of EAF Slag. \n"]
["3. Use of chemicals, metals, oxides - Are there any existing or anticipated regulatory limitations or otherwise encouragement on handling or using certain chemicals, metals, oxides e.g. in the steel industry, landfill (for example):\n1.fluorine-containing material additions in the steel-making process.\n2.Aluminum oxides from Aluminum dross slag in cement, steelmaking, etc.\n3.Chrome, Beryllium, Molybdian, calcium, oxides, etc."," In general, certain chemicals can be subject to (1) registration and reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“ TSCA ”) ; (2) exposure and handling requirements under Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“ OSHA ”) regulations ; and/or (3) waste management requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“ RCRA ”). There do not appear to be any federal regulations specifically encouraging the use of any of the referenced substances. See also Response to Q2 on alternative applications of on internal by-products from steel mills and aluminum producers. \n\n Summary of the Applicable Regulations \n\n \n\t Fluorine-containing material additions may be subject to TSCA and RCRA , depending on whether they are listed on the TSCA Inventory , or are listed hazardous wastes or have hazardous characteristics under RCRA . Fluorine-containing substances are likely to be subject to RCRA as fluorine is a listed Hazardous Constituent under RCRA . The substances are subject to the general industry requirements under OSHA regulations. \n\t Aluminum oxide is subject to TSCA and OSHA regulations. Aluminum oxide is not a listed hazardous substance under RCRA . All other hazardous chemicals handled or used in these industries are likely subject to TSCA , OSHA , and RCRA regulations. \n\t Chromium and beryllium are subject to TSCA , OSHA , and likely RCRA regulations, as they are listed as Hazardous Constituents under RCRA . Molybdenum and calcium are subject to TSCA and OSHA regulations but are not listed as hazardous wastes under RCRA . \n \n\n Further detail is provided below. \n\n TSCA \n\n Under TSCA , the EPA regulates chemical substances and mixtures that present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. As such, TSCA includes reporting, recordkeeping and testing requirements, and restrictions on certain chemicals. Manufacturers of chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory compiled under TSCA Section 8 that meet production volume thresholds (generally 25,000 lbs, see 40 C.F.R. § 711.8(a) ), are required to provide the EPA with information on the production and use of those chemicals. 40 C.F.R. Part 711 . The TSCA Inventory can be accessed here. Aluminum oxide and chemicals used in steel manufacturing (including aluminum, beryllium, boron, calcium, carbon, cerium, chromium, cobalt, copper, hafnium, iron, lanthanum, lead, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, silicon, sulfur, tantalum, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and zirconium) are listed on the TSCA Inventory. \n\n New chemical substances (i.e., those not on the TSCA Inventory ) and significant new uses for existing chemicals must go through the EPA approval process. Section 5 of the TSCA ( 15 U.S.C. § 2604 ) requires anyone who plans to manufacture a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose to provide the EPA with a Premanufacture Notice (“ PMN ”) at least 90 days before initiating the activity. TSCA Section 5 also authorizes the EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use,” which may require the submittal of significant new use notice (“ SNUN ”) to the EPA at least 90 days before the chemical is manufactured or processed for that use. The EPA will review the PMN or SNUN to determine what actions should be taken. If the EPA determines that a new chemical substance or significant new use “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or environment,” the agency can prohibit or limit the manufacture or processing of the substance. 15 U.S.C. § 2604(f) . \n\n OSHA \n\n The exposure and handling of chemical hazards are regulated by OSHA under 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 . OSHA has general industry standards, such as requiring personal protective equipment as appropriate. 29 C.F.R. Subpart I . OSHA also has some industry-specific and chemical-specific requirements. According to OSHA , “[e]xposures to hazards present in steel operations are addressed in specific OSHA standards for general industry” at 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, Subparts D, F, G, H, I, J, L, N, O, Q, R, and Z . Additional information on OSHA regulations and resources applicable to the steel industry can be found on the OSHA website. There also are no industry-specific OSHA regulations for landfills. \n\n Subpart Z outlines standards for toxic and hazardous substances. Notably, OSHA specifically regulates the handling of beryllium under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1024 and chromium under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1026 . These regulations set permissible exposure limits (“ PEL s”) for employees and outline additional safety requirements. The PEL s for both substances are as follows: \n\n \n\t For beryllium:\n\t \n\t\t Employers must ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of beryllium in excess of 0.2 μg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. \n\t\t Employers must ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of beryllium in excess of 2.0 μg/m3 as determined over a sampling period of 15 minutes. \n\t \n\t \n\t For chromium:\n\t \n\t\t Employers must ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of chromium (VI) in excess of 5 µg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. \n\t \n\t \n \n\n Additional safety measures required for both beryllium and chromium include written exposure control plans, engineering and work practice controls (such as exhaust ventilation), respiratory protection, access to washing facilities, and access to medical surveillance. Employers must also maintain a record of all exposure measurements and medical surveillance. \n\n Subpart Z also regulates exposure to specific air contaminants, listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1000 . While molybdenum is listed, OSHA has not provided a corresponding PEL for the substance. Several calcium substances – calcium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcium silicate, and calcium sulfate – are also listed as air contaminants. Of the calcium substances, only calcium oxide has a listed PEL of 5 mg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. Fluorine also is subject to a PEL of .2 mg/m3 calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average. \n\n RCRA \n\n As discussed in more detail in response to Question 1, RCRA is the primary federal law regulating the management and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Solid waste is classified as hazardous if it either exhibits certain hazardous characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) or is specifically listed by the EPA as hazardous waste. See 40 C.F.R. § 261.3 (defining “hazardous waste” as a solid waste that meets any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, is listed in Subpart D of the regulation, or is a mixture of solid and hazardous waste). If waste is identified as hazardous, then it may be subject to the requirements of RCRA Subtitle C and the corresponding regulations. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921–39g ; 40 C.F.R. Parts 260–68, 270–73 . These regulations include standards for generators and transporters of hazardous waste and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, as well as land disposal restrictions. For example, 40 C.F.R. Part 262 outlines hazardous waste management standards for hazardous waste generators – persons who produce hazardous waste. Based on the quantity of waste generated, generators are subject to various requirements including personnel training, contingency plan and emergency procedure preparation, packaging and labeling restrictions, shipment tracking (manifests), and recordkeeping. \n\n The EPA has listed some industry-specific wastes as hazardous, including emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces and spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations of facilities within the iron and steel industry. 40 C.F.R. § 261.32 . Additionally, the EPA has placed some compounds, including beryllium powder, beryllium compounds, chromium compounds, and fluorine, on the Hazardous Constituents list in Appendix VIII to RCRA . Compounds listed in Appendix VIII have been identified as having toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on humans or other life forms and are used by the EPA to determine if a waste should be considered for listing. \n"]
["4. Cement and Concrete regulations – rules to limit or encourage adding more slag, fly ash, etc to cement; Green cement / concrete regulations that would support lower carbon-emissions based products (i.e. Carbicrete)"," While there are no federal regulations specifically encouraging the addition of coal combustion residuals (“ CCR ”) to cement, the EPA has chosen not to regulate the beneficial use of CCR under RCRA in an effort to encourage the beneficial use of such products. See Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, 65 Fed. Reg. 32,214 (May 22, 2000) .  The EPA noted that it did not want “to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes so they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.” Id. at 32,221 . \n\n To qualify as a “beneficial use,” the following criteria must be met: (1) the CCR must provide a functional benefit; (2) the CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices such as extraction; (3) the use of CCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory standards, or design standards when available, and when such standards are not available, CCR cannot be used in excess quantities; and (4) when unencapsulated use of CCR involves placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate and keep records, and provide such documentation upon request, that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR , or that environmental releases to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,301, 21,349 (Apr. 17, 2015) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 257.53 ) . Any use that fails to comply with these criteria is considered disposal of CCR and is subject to disposal regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA . See 80 Fed. Reg. 21,301 (regulating the disposal of CCR as solid waste under RCRA Subtitle D). \n\n The EPA provides non-binding procurement guidelines for federal agencies regarding the specifications, performance standards and acceptable ratios for recovered materials such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace (“ GGBF ”) slag, cenospheres, and silica fume included in cement and concrete. These guidelines are part of the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline Program , and the recommended recycled-content levels can be found in the Recovered Materials Advisory Notice IV (“ RMAN IV ”) published at 69 Fed. Reg. 24,039 (Apr. 30, 2004) .  The EPA recommends that procuring agencies require that construction projects allow for the use of coal fly ash or GGBF slag unless it would be technically inappropriate. The recommended material specifications for concrete and cement are referenced in Table C-3 of the RMAN IV , 69 Fed. Reg. at 24,045 , and are reproduced below: \n\n \n\t ASTM C 595 – “Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements”  \n\t ASTM C 150 – “Standard Specification for Portland Cement” \n\t AASHTO M 240 – “Blended Hydraulic Cements” \n\t ASTM C 618 – “Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete” \n\t ASTM C 311 – “Standard Methods of Sampling and Testing Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete” \n\t ASTM C 989 – “Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete Mortars” \n\t AASHTO M 302 – “Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars” \n\t American Concrete Institute Standard Practice ACI 226.R1 – “Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a Cementitious Constituent in Concrete” \n \n\n The EPA has not announced any anticipated federal regulations in the near term. Agency Rule List - Spring 2021 . The Biden Administration, however, has expressed its intent to “use more sustainable and innovative materials, including cleaner steel and cement” in investments under the American Jobs Plan. FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan (Mar. 31, 2021).  \n\n The states of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have adopted specifications that allow the use of GGBF slag in one or more applications. The EPA, Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines: Cement and Concrete Specifications . Municipalities also may have their own specifications or requirements. For example, Marin County, California passed a law in 2020 requiring low carbon concrete in all construction projects. Marin County Code Chapter 19.07 . The New York State Senate also passed Bill S542A on June 8, 2021, which is now waiting to be signed or vetoed by the governor, which would require the establishment of guidelines for state contracts requiring the procurement of low embodied carbon concrete where “deemed appropriate.” \n"]
["5. Regulations to support new technologies – existing or anticipated regulations on EAF dust recovery, dust control, dumps recovery, treatment of water, natural gas"," Certain industries are subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“ NESHAP ”) under § 112 of the Clean Air Act , including: \n\n \n\t Portland Cement Manufacturing ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart LLL ) \n\t Iron and Steel Foundries Major Sources ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart EEEEE )  \n\t Iron and Steel Foundry Area Sources ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart ZZZZZ ) \n\t Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart YYYYY ) \n\t Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart FFFFF ) \n\t Steel Pickling ( 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart CCC ) \n \n\n The EPA identifies categories of sources emitting one or more hazardous air pollutants (“ HAP s”) and promulgates technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (“ tpy ”) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP s. All other sources are “area sources.”  For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (“ MACT ”) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts).   The EPA also must determine, every eight years, whether any technological developments justify revising the standards – this is referred to as a Risk and Technology Review (“ RTR ”).  \n\n The EPA completed the RTR for the Portland Cement industry in 2018. The  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review, 80 Fed. Reg. 54,728 (July 25, 2015) . The 2018 NESHAP RTR for Portland Cement did not revise the numerical emission limits but did revise monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule. The EPA anticipates proposing amendments to the NESHAP for Portland Cement Manufacturing to clarify the intent of the provisions applying to previously idled cement kilns promulgated in the 2018 Portland Cement NESHAP RTR final rule. A proposed rule is expected in August 2021.   \n\n The RTR s for Iron and Steel Foundry Major Sources and for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities were finalized in 2020. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Iron and Steel Foundries Major Source Residual Risk and Technology Review and Area Source Technology Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 56,080 (Sep. 10, 2020) ; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review, 85 Fed. Reg. 42,074 (July 13, 2020) . The technology review for Iron and Steel Foundry area sources also was finalized in 2020 in the same rule as the RTR for major sources. 85 Fed. Reg. 56,080 . For both Iron and Steel Foundries and Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities RTR s, the EPA retained the existing emissions and MACT standards .  The EPA did, however, amend the provisions for both categories related to startup, shutdown, and malfunctions (“ SSM ”), consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . Additionally, the EPA promulgated emissions standards for mercury for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities. 85 Fed. Reg. at 42,077 .  No RTR has been completed yet for Steel Pickling or for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities nor are RTR s currently expected. \n\n Certain categories of stationary sources, including Portland Cement Plants and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels), also are subject to New Source Performance Standards (“ NSPS ”) under the Clean Air Act . See 40 C.F.R. Part 60 Subparts F, AA, AAa.  New, modified, or reconstructed stationary sources must meet the NSPS , which are intended to reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated” while considering the “costs of achieving such reductions and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.”  42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1).  The EPA intends to review the current NSPS for steel plants ( 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts AA , AAa ) – the agency must issue a proposed rule by November 1, 2021, pursuant to a consent decree. Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. Wheeler, No. 18-cv-04765 (N.D. Cal. entered May 10, 2019) . \n\n Likewise, certain industrial categories are subject to effluent guidelines under the Clean Water Act . Cement manufacturing is regulated under 40 C.F.R. Part 411 , while iron and steel manufacturing is regulated under 40 C.F.R. Part 420 . The effluent standards are based on the best available technology (“ BAT ”) that is economically achievable for the industry. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A) . Industries do not have to implement particular technologies; however, they must meet the regulatory standard that the EPA has established, which is based on a model technology that has been determined to be the BAT . These standards are generally incorporated into a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“ NPDES ”) permit for direct dischargers, which are sources that discharge directly to waters of the United States. Indirect dischargers, sources that introduce pollutants to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, must comply with pretreatment standards. 40 C.F.R. Part 403 . \n"]
["6. CO2 emissions and CO2 trading programs - Existing and anticipated CO2 trading programs the Client could benefit from and/or CO2 emissions regulations that may favor increased use of steel mills and aluminium producers internal by-products/applied products"," No existing CO2 cap and trade programs exist or are anticipated to pass in the near term on the federal level in the United States. On the state level, only California and Washington have enacted cap and trade programs that cover the industrial sector, which includes steel mills and aluminum producers. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality also is promulgating a cap and trade program based on a state executive order that could cover steel mills and aluminum producers. None of these programs have explicit offset protocols that would incentivize the use of by-products/applied products from steel mills or aluminum producers, but the programs could present opportunities for these industries if they are able to reduce their emissions to sell unused allowances to other covered entities (although companies also should consider banking unused allowances for future, more stringent compliance periods), or if the use of internal by-products/applied products could help covered entities reduce their emissions.  \n\n In 2006, California passed Assembly Bill 32 (“ AB 32 ”) , which authorized the California Air Resources Board (“ CARB ”) to set up a cap and trade program to help achieve the statute’s goal of reducing state greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CARB launched the program in 2013. In 2017, Assembly Bill 398  reaffirmed legislative support for the state’s cap and trade program with a super-majority vote and also declared the program should help meet the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Additionally, Executive Order B-55-18 issued by the governor in 2018 sets a state goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.  \n\n Notably, CARB ’s cap and trade program regulations mandate that cement manufacturers, iron and steel mills, and aluminum and aluminum alloy billet manufacturers receive 100% of their allowance allocations at no cost through 2030. See CARB , Final Regulation Order: California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms, Table 8-1: Assistance Factors . The program is also linked to Quebec’s cap and trade program under the Western Climate Initiative.   \n\n Regarding Washington, Senate Bill 5126 (“ SB 5126 ”) was enacted in May 2021. SB 5126 directs the state’s Department of Ecology to implement, by January 1, 2023, a cap and trade system similar to the one in California. Emissions intensive, trade-exposed industries, as determined by being engaged in one or more of the processes described within specified North American industry classification system codes (“ NAICS ”), will receive allowance allocations at no cost. The law also contemplates the possibility of linking to other cap and trade programs in the future.  \n\n In Oregon, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of promulgating a cap and trade program called the Climate Protection Program, as directed by the governor’s Executive Order No. 20-04 , signed in March 2020. Although the agency is still in the rulemaking process, the initial draft rule makes clear that all covered entities will receive allowance allocations at no cost. Covered entities include stationary sources required to obtain a Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit or an Oregon-required Air Contaminant Discharge Permit and that have annual covered emissions that equal to or exceed 25,000 metric tons of CO2e. A revised draft rule was released for public comment in August 2021. The state’s Environmental Quality Commission is expected to vote in December 2021 on whether to enact the program.  \n"]
["7. Steel slags/Applied Products imports, export, transport or trade – existing or anticipated regulations that would limit or encourage import/export, transport or trade of steel slags or applied products.","In 2018, the United States imposed a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports under Section 232 of the \nTrade Expansion Act of 1962.Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018, 83 Fed. Reg. 11625, (Mar. 15, 2018). Section 232 allows the president to impose import tariffs or quotas on products when it is determined that product imports “threaten to impair the national security.” \n19 U.S.C. § 1862(c). Since the time that \nProclamation 9705 was issued, the United States has subsequently exempted allied countries such as Australia, Canada, and Mexico from these tariffs, and Argentina, Brazil, and South Korea have agreed to quotas instead of tariffs. See \nProclamation 9980 of January 24, 2020, 85 Fed. Reg. 5281 (Jan. 29, 2020). There have been no indications as to whether these tariffs will be modified under the current administration. \nAs discussed in the answer to Question 3, \nRCRA is the primary federal law regulating the domestic management, transport, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Under the EPA’s \nRCRA regulations, basic oxygen furnaces and open-hearth furnaces slag from carbon steel production qualify as solid waste. \n40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(R). Thus, the EPA’s solid waste regulations would apply to such steel slag materials that enter the United States. See id. §\n 239.1 et seq. \nAdditionally, \n40 C.F.R. Part 262 Subpart H regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous waste for recovery or disposal. For hazardous waste imports and exports, the EPA revised \n40 C.F.R. Part 262 Subpart H to align with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (“\nOECD”) \nDecision C(2001)107/Decision of the Council Concerning the Revision of Decision C(92)39/Final on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations (Mar. 24, 2004). See \n40 C.F.R. § 262.80 et seq. Such regulations, which impose reporting and notification requirements on importers and exporters, would apply to any steel slags or applied products that qualify as hazardous waste under \nRCRA. \nThere do not appear to be U.S. laws or regulations that encourage the import or export of steel slags or applied products. \n"]