[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8706-8744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01473]
[[Page 8705]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 25
February 6, 2013
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; States
of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan;
Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 8706]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954; EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-9773-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
States of Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
implement emission limits that represent Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for certain taconite ore processing facilities in
Minnesota and Michigan. The Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act'') and the
regional haze rule require implementation plans to contain BART
emission limits for sources subject to BART in order to meet the
national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas arising
from manmade air pollution.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954 and EPA-RO5-OAR-2010-0037. All documents are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone
Steven Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our,'' is used, we mean the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. EPA's Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit
Technology
B. EPA's Legal Authority To Promulgate a FIP
C. Minnesota and Michigan's Regional Haze SIP Submittals
D. EPA's Regional Haze FIP and Related Actions
II. Comments and Responses
III. What action is EPA taking?
A. NOX Limits
B. SO2 Limits
C. CEMS
D. Visibility Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
E. Proposed Disapproval of the States' BART Determinations for
Taconite Facilities
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background Information
A. EPA's Regional Haze Rule and Best Available Retrofit Technology
The regional haze rule required states to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to implement the rule's requirements by no
later than December 17, 2007. Neither Minnesota nor Michigan submitted
regional haze SIPs by the required date. The Act requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP within two years after EPA finds that a state has
failed to make a required SIP submission unless the state corrects the
deficiency and EPA subsequently approves the SIP. On January 15, 2009,
EPA formally found that both Minnesota and Michigan had failed to
timely submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. This
finding triggered EPA's duty to either promulgate a regional haze FIP
for Minnesota and Michigan or approve subsequently submitted regional
haze SIPs.
Minnesota subsequently submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP on
December 30, 2009, a draft supplement to the SIP on January 5, 2012,
and a final supplement to the SIP on May 8, 2012. Michigan submitted to
EPA a regional haze SIP on November 5, 2010. In previous rulemakings,
EPA approved in part the states' regional haze SIPs for addressing most
regional haze requirements. However, EPA deferred action on the states'
BART determinations for taconite facilities in order to further
evaluate the sufficiency of those determinations. On August 15, 2012,
EPA proposed to disapprove in part the states' regional haze SIPs with
regards to their BART determinations for taconite facilities, while
simultaneously proposing to promulgate a FIP. In response to comments
received related to the sufficiency of EPA's reasoning for proposing
disapproval of the Michigan and Minnesota BART determinations, EPA is
issuing a separate supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit additional comments on that issue. Nonetheless, despite the
fact that EPA has not finalized its disapproval of the states' BART
determinations, EPA has the continuing authority and obligation to
promulgate a FIP based on its earlier finding that Minnesota and
Michigan had failed to timely submit regional haze SIPs. EPA's duty to
promulgate a FIP ends only when it has fully approved a state
submission. EPA has determined that the FIP satisfies the requirements
of the Act and the regional haze rule.
As described in greater detail in the proposal to this rulemaking
(77 FR 49308, August 15, 2012), section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to
the CAA created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's
national parks and wilderness areas. On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). In 1990, Congress
added section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues.
Accordingly, EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), which is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P
(``the regional haze rule''). On July 6, 2005, EPA published guidelines
to assist states, or EPA when implementing a FIP, in determining which
of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source (70
FR 39104), codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y (``BART
Guidelines'').
Among other things, section 169A of the Act and 40 CFR 51.308 of
the regional haze rule require that states, or EPA when implementing a
FIP, assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I areas by submitting an
implementation plan that contains emission limits representing BART for
certain BART-eligible sources. 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). Pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(e), BART must be determined based upon an analysis of the
best
[[Page 8707]]
system of continuous emission control technology available and
associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible source
that is subject to BART. In this analysis, the state, or EPA when
implementing a FIP, must take into consideration the technology
available, the costs of compliance, the energy and air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in
use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the
degree of visibility improvement reasonably anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. CAA section 169A(g)(2); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
The process of establishing BART emission limits consists of three
steps. First, states or EPA identify those sources that meet the
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth at 40 CFR 51.301.
Second, states or EPA determine whether such sources ``emit any air
pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility in any such area,'' and is therefore
``subject to BART.'' Third, for each source subject to BART, states or
EPA then identify the appropriate type and level of control for
reducing emissions by conducting a five-step analysis: step 1: identify
all available retrofit control technologies; step 2: eliminate
technically infeasible options; step 3: evaluate control effectiveness
of remaining control technologies; step 4: evaluate impacts and
document the results; step 5: evaluate visibility impacts. See BART
Guidelines.
The regional haze rule required all states to submit an
implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d) and (e) by no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR
51.308(b). Neither Minnesota nor Michigan submitted regional haze SIPs
to EPA by the required date.
B. EPA's Legal Authority To Promulgate a FIP
Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop implementation
plans with enforceable emission limitations and other control measures
to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. A state submits its
SIPs and SIP revisions to EPA for approval. Congress crafted the Act to
provide for states to take the lead in developing SIPs, but balanced
that decision by requiring EPA to review the plans to determine whether
a SIP meets the requirements of the Act. EPA is required to determine
whether the state's submittal meets the requirements of the Act based
on information and data available at the time of EPA's review. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012).
Pursuant to section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if EPA finds that a
state has failed to make a required SIP submittal or if EPA finds that
a state's required submittal is incomplete, then EPA is required to
promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. Section 110(c)(1)(A) of
the Act requires EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of its
finding that a state failed to make a required SIP submission. Further,
EPA has a continuing duty to promulgate a FIP even where EPA fails to
promulgate a FIP within the required two-year period. EPA's duty to
promulgate a FIP continues unless the state corrects the deficiency,
and EPA approves the plan or revision before EPA promulgates the
FIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It should be noted that in addition to the requirements of
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, section 110(c)(1)(B) of the Act
requires EPA to promulgate a FIP where EPA has specifically
disapproved a state's SIP submittal. Correspondingly, EPA has a
continuing duty to promulgate the FIP unless a state corrects the
deficiency and EPA approves the plan or revision before EPA
promulgates the FIP. Many of the commenters to the proposed FIP
assumed that the statutory basis for EPA's authority in promulgating
this FIP is section 110(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We acknowledge that the
proposed FIP, in identifying potential inadequacies in the Minnesota
and Michigan regional haze SIPs, may have given the impression that
the authority for promulgating the FIP was a specific determination
by EPA that the States' SIPs failed to meet the requirements of the
Act and the regional haze rule. However, as clarified in this
section, the authority for the promulgation of the FIP arises from
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rulemaking action, EPA has the authority to promulgate a
FIP addressing the BART determinations of certain taconite facilities
in Minnesota and Michigan based upon the failure of both Minnesota and
Michigan to timely submit regional haze SIPs. As discussed above, the
regional haze rule required all states to submit a regional haze
implementation plan by December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b). Neither
Minnesota nor Michigan submitted regional haze SIPs to EPA by the
required date. Therefore, on January 15, 2009, EPA found that Michigan
and Minnesota, as well as certain other states, had failed to submit
SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements (74 FR 2392). Based upon
that finding, pursuant to section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, EPA was
under a continuing duty to promulgate FIPs for Minnesota and Michigan
to address the regional haze requirements of the Act and the regional
haze rule. This FIP is promulgated pursuant to the requirements of
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
C. Minnesota and Michigan's Regional Haze SIP Submittals
Minnesota subsequently submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP on
December 30, 2009, a draft supplement to the SIP on January 5, 2012,
and a final supplement to the SIP on May 8, 2012. Michigan submitted to
EPA a regional haze SIP on November 5, 2010. In general, with regard to
the subject-to-BART taconite facilities identified in the respective
plans, each State identified Good Combustion Practices (GCP) as the
primary control method representing BART for NOX.
On January 25, 2012, EPA proposed approval of the Minnesota
regional haze plan in which EPA, among other things, proposed to
approve BART for the subject-to-BART taconite facilities (77 FR 3681).
However, prior to EPA's final action on Minnesota's regional haze plan
on June 12, 2012, EPA learned through public comment that Minnesota and
Michigan had each failed to thoroughly analyze all feasible BART
control technologies for the taconite facilities, and that the
SO2 and NOX emission limits set forth in each
State's SIP might not reflect BART. Therefore, in light of the
uncertainty pertaining to the States' BART determinations for taconite
facilities, EPA deferred action on emission limits that Minnesota
intended to represent BART for taconite facilities in the final rule
approving the Minnesota regional haze SIP (77 FR 34801, June 12, 2012).
Correspondingly, EPA proposed approval of certain provisions of the
Michigan regional haze SIP, while deferring any action on those
provisions of the SIP that addressed the requirement for BART for the
one taconite plant in Michigan to which BART applies (77 FR 46912,
August 6, 2012). Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA may
approve a SIP revision in part when only a portion of a SIP revision
meets all applicable requirements of the Act.
D. EPA's Regional Haze FIP and Related Actions
EPA proposed a FIP on August 15, 2012 (77 FR 49308) pursuant to
section 110(c)(1)(A) of the Act, based on EPA's finding that Minnesota
and Michigan failed to timely submit a regional haze SIP, and EPA's
continuing duty to promulgate a FIP to address such failure. At the
same time, EPA proposed disapproval of the BART determinations for the
subject-to-BART taconite facilities made by Minnesota and Michigan for
failing to meet the requirements of the Act and the regional haze rule.
However, in regards to the proposed disapproval, several
[[Page 8708]]
commenters raised concerns that EPA did not provide adequate notice of
its rationale for disapproving the States' BART determinations.
Therefore, EPA is taking two separate but related actions. In this
rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing the FIP for BART for the subject
taconite plants in Michigan and Minnesota. Secondly, in a separate
action, EPA is issuing and seeks comment on a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking elaborating upon the Agency's rationale for
proposing partial disapproval of the Minnesota and Michigan SIPs as
they pertain to the requirement for BART for taconite plants. The full
basis for the partial disapproval is set forth in the separate action.
II. Comments and Responses
On August 15, 2012, EPA published a Federal Register Notice
entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of
Minnesota and Michigan; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan'' (77
FR 49308). In this notice, the EPA requested comment on EPA's proposed
BART determinations and FIP for taconite ore processing facilities
located in Minnesota and Michigan. Public comments were accepted at
both a public hearing held in St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 29, 2012,
and in writing until September 28, 2012.
EPA received comments from Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.,
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine Inc., the United States National Park
Service (NPS), the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ),
the United States Forest Service, the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, the National Tribal Air Association, the Red
Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas, U.S. Steel Corporation, and more
than 1,000 private citizens.
A. General Comments in Support of the Proposed Rule
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: NPCA supports finalization and implementation of the
proposed controls, which will significantly benefit the air quality in
the parks, wilderness areas, and communities surrounding these plants.
Commenter: 1,244 private citizens provided similar comments.
Comment: As a resident of the upper Midwest and a national parks
supporter, I want to see natural air quality restored to Voyageurs and
Isle Royale National Parks and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
just as Congress intended. That's why I support EPA's proposal to
reduce haze-causing pollution from taconite plants. These large
industrial polluters should clean up their air pollution under the
Regional Haze Rule.
Reducing haze pollution in our parks will bring healthier air to
surrounding communities as well as more visitors who support our local
economies. That's why I want EPA to require the most effective methods
for reducing air pollution from taconite plants in Michigan and
Minnesota. In addition to the emission reductions outlined in EPA's
proposed plan, I encourage EPA to evaluate pollution controls that
would lead to cleaner air.
Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Comment: The Band strongly supports the FIP proposed by Region 5,
particularly with regard to Region 5's determination that low
NOX burners are BART for taconite facilities. This option is
technically feasible as these burners have already been installed on
Minntac's grate-kiln furnaces and are being installed on Essar's
straight-grate kiln furnaces. Low NOX burners have been
shown to be affordable with control costs at roughly $500 per ton,
which is well within the range of costs deemed affordable for BART by
states and EPA. Low NOX burners are a wise choice because
they prevent NOX from ever being formed. This is a key
concept in pollution prevention. Collection and disposal of pollutants
can lead to secondary environmental problems, as well as increased
energy consumption. The Band contends that installation of these
burners is an equity issue. It would be unfair to allow other
facilities to operate indefinitely without having to install low
NOX burners.
Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Comment: Red Cliff supports EPA's proposed requirement for low
NOX burners for all subject taconite furnaces in Michigan
and Minnesota.
Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Comment: Low NOX burners have been installed
voluntarily, previous to this action, by two taconite facilities with
different furnace systems commonly utilized in the taconite industry.
These system installs have shown substantial reductions, up to 60 to 70
percent, can be achieved with a minimal cost of $500 per ton or less.
The Band also agrees that taking a preemptive approach by preventing
the formation of NOX makes sense versus an after-production
control technology that is less effective and more costly, both
economically and environmentally.
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
Comment: The Association agrees that using low NOX
burners as BART for both straight and grate-kilns is a good approach.
Not only is the cost to remove NOX inexpensive, but these
burners can reduce NOX by up to 70 percent. Therefore,
placing a limit on NOX of 1.20 pounds per million British
Thermal Units on a 30-day rolling average for facility lines is very
reasonable.
Commenter: National Park Service.
Comment: NPS agrees with EPA's conclusions that control of
emissions from taconite plants in Minnesota and Michigan can be
expected to yield significant benefits in reducing visibility
impairment in the Class I area in the two states; and that technically
feasible controls are available at a reasonable cost for taconite
plants that can be expected to provide a visibility benefit that makes
those controls warranted.
Commenter: U.S. Forest Service.
Comment: The Forest Service supports the proposed FIP to require
BART for the taconite plants in Minnesota and Michigan. According to
technical analyses by the State of Minnesota and others, the highest
contributors to haze in the Boundary Waters from all sources in the
U.S. are the taconite industry and power plants. We support the
emission controls that the taconite plants would be required to install
under the proposed FIP. The FIP demonstrates that these controls are
technically feasible and available for the taconite industry to reduce
emissions and are already being used by some within the industry. The
implementation of the Minnesota regional haze plan is nearly five years
past due. Considerable effort and resources have been spent over the
past ten years developing the technical information necessary to
complete implementation. Much of the technical work was done by states,
Tribes, and FLMs working together through multi-state regional planning
organizations. The Forest Service has monitored visibility in the
Boundary Waters since 1985. The results of this technical work and
monitoring support the requirement for BART to reduce impacts to the
Boundary Waters.
Response: EPA acknowledges these commenters' support of the
Agency's efforts in developing a FIP for the taconite industry and
agrees.
B. Comments Concerning the Adequacy of the Public Comment Period
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs stated that EPA provided inadequate opportunity to
[[Page 8709]]
comment on the proposed FIP. Cliffs alleged that 45 days was not a
reasonable time period to complete the task of preparing an appropriate
response to the proposed FIP given the highly technical concerns
surrounding EPA's BART determinations for the taconite industry.
Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency did not provide an adequate
opportunity for public comment. Section 307(h) of the CAA requires EPA
to provide ``a reasonable period for public participation of at least
30 days'' when promulgating a FIP. Here, EPA chose to provide a
significantly longer 45-day public comment period in light of the many
technical issues surrounding EPA's proposed BART determinations for the
taconite industry. EPA believes that 45 days was a reasonable amount of
time for Cliffs and others to comment on EPA's proposed FIP.\2\ Cliffs'
assertion that it should have been granted an extension to conduct a
new BART analysis is without merit. Cliffs had several years to conduct
a thorough BART analysis, and its failure to timely do so does not bear
upon the reasonableness of the length of EPA's comment period. Indeed,
the fact that Cliffs was able to prepare an extensive 61-page comment
document within the allotted time supports EPA's contention that 45
days was a reasonable period for third parties to comment on the
proposed FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fact, Cliffs received a signed copy of the proposed FIP
on July 17, 2012, nearly a full month before the formal start of the
comment period. Thus, Cliffs had effectively 75 days to prepare its
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Comments Questioning EPA's Authority To Issue a Federal
Implementation Plan
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs stated that EPA has not met the threshold
requirements for issuing a FIP. EPA's proposed FIP did not provide a
critique of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for the
taconite industry or explain why those determinations were inadequate.
As a result, Cliffs argued that EPA does not have the legal authority
to issue a FIP.
Response: EPA believes that it has a strong basis for proposing
disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for the
taconite industry. Nonetheless, EPA agrees that the proposed rule did
not provide a sufficiently detailed critique of the state
determinations' inadequacies. As a result, EPA has chosen to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking providing additional
rationale for the Agency's proposed disapproval. Contrary to Cliffs'
assertion, however, EPA was not required to make a finding that
Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations were deficient before
issuing a FIP. Section 110(c)(1)(A) of the CAA provides that EPA
``shall promulgate a [FIP] within 2 years after the Administrator finds
that a State has failed to make a required submission * * * unless the
State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan
or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such Federal
Implementation plan.''
Pursuant to the regional haze rule, states were required to submit
regional haze SIPs no later than December 17, 2007 (64 FR 35714, July
1, 1999). Neither Minnesota nor Michigan made the required submission
by this date. Consequently, EPA issued a finding on January 15, 2009
that Minnesota and Michigan, as well as certain other states, had
failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirement (74 FR
2392). This finding triggered EPA's statutory duty to either approve a
subsequent state SIP submission or issue a FIP. While it is true that
Minnesota and Michigan subsequently submitted regional haze SIPs to
EPA, the Agency has not approved either of these plans with respect to
the states' BART determinations for the taconite industry. On the
contrary, EPA has proposed to disapprove the states' BART
determinations for failure to meet the minimum requirements of the CAA.
Thus, EPA had both the authority and the continuing obligation to issue
a FIP for the taconite industry in Minnesota and Michigan based on the
Agency's January 15, 2009 finding of the states' failure to submit.
Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Comment: MDEQ commented that Section 110(c)(1) of the Act
authorizes EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years after making a
finding that a state's SIP submittal does not satisfy the CAA. However,
the CAA does not allow EPA to propose a FIP and simultaneously propose
disapproval of the state's SIP.
Response: MDEQ's interpretation of section 110(c)(1) is incorrect.
Once EPA has made a finding of a state's failure to submit, EPA's
authority and continuing obligation to issue a FIP does not end until
the state has corrected the deficiency and EPA has approved a
subsequently submitted SIP. Nowhere in the CAA is there language that
limits EPA's authority to simultaneously propose a FIP and propose
disapproval of a state's SIP where there has been a prior finding of a
failure to submit.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine,
and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Comment: Cliffs and MDEQ stated that EPA failed to afford the
Minnesota and Michigan SIP proposals the requisite deference. Under the
visibility program, states have the primary responsibility for
establishing standards, including BART. Thus, Cliffs and MDEQ argued
that EPA can disapprove a SIP only where it fails to meet minimum CAA
requirements.
Response: While Congress intended states to take the lead in
developing regional haze SIPs, it balanced that decision by requiring
EPA to review state plans to determine whether they meet the
requirements of the CAA. EPA's review is not limited to a ministerial
type of automatic approval of a state's decisions. Rather, EPA must
consider not only whether the state considered the appropriate factors,
but whether the state acted reasonably in doing so. In undertaking such
a review, EPA does not ``usurp'' the state's authority, but ensures
that such authority is reasonably exercised.
Here, EPA firmly maintains that neither state's regional haze SIP
met the minimum requirements of the CAA. Among other things, EPA takes
issue with the states' assertions that low NOX burners are
not technically feasible control options for indurating furnaces and
that good combustion practices represent BART. Nonetheless, EPA
acknowledges that its August 15, 2012 proposed action (77 FR 49308) did
not provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of the deficiencies of the
states' BART determinations for the taconite industry. Therefore, EPA
is publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that further
addresses the Agency's rational for proposing disapproval of the
states' choices regarding taconite BART.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that Minnesota and Michigan engaged in
extensive and proper rulemaking efforts. Cliffs then proceeded to
provide a detailed history of each state's SIP-development process.
Response: EPA agrees that Minnesota and Michigan spent considerable
time and effort preparing their regional haze SIPs. As stated
previously, EPA intends to publish a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking that further addresses the Agency's rationale for proposing
disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations for
taconite facilities. EPA reiterates, however, that the Agency had the
[[Page 8710]]
authority and continuing obligation to promulgate a FIP for the
taconite industry based on the Agency's earlier finding that Minnesota
and Michigan had failed to submit regional haze SIPs in a timely manner
(74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009).
D. Comments Supporting EPA's Authority To Issue a Federal
Implementation Plan
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: At a public hearing on the proposed FIP, representatives
for one taconite owner asserted that EPA lacked authority to issue the
proposed FIP. The company's assertion has no merit. In fact, EPA has an
obligation to develop a FIP under the CAA. The CAA provides states with
initial responsibility for identifying sources and determining BART for
purposes of regional haze. It is equally clear, however, that EPA
retains authority to approve or disapprove the states' determinations
and issue a FIP if necessary to correct state plan deficiencies.
EPA is not only well within its authority to promulgate the
proposed FIP; it is required to do so because the state plans do not
meet the requirements of the CAA. While commenters disagree with some
of EPA's proposed BART determinations in the taconite FIP, the record
plainly supports EPA's finding that neither the Minnesota nor the
Michigan proposal met minimum CAA requirements. The National Park
Service, the National Forest Service, and other commenters all
submitted detailed technical reviews establishing the many deficiencies
in the BART analysis and conclusions of Minnesota and Michigan's plans.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that EPA has the authority
and obligation to issue a FIP.
E. Comments Concerning the Use of New Information To Evaluate Minnesota
and Michigan's BART Determinations
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA cannot use new information
regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX burners as a
control option for indurating furnaces to undermine the states' BART
determinations. Cliffs argued that EPA is seeking to reject Minnesota
and Michigan's BART determinations based on information that was not
available to either state at the time of their SIP submissions to EPA
for approval. To support its position, Cliffs pointed to EPA's BART
Guidelines, which state that new technologies need only be considered
by a state if they become available before the close of a state's
public comment period. Cliffs alleged that low NOX burners
were not an ``available'' technology because testing at Minntac and
Essar had either not yet commenced or was still ongoing at the time
Minnesota and Michigan's periods for public comment had ended.
Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Comment: MDEQ commented that there was not enough information
available prior to the close of Michigan's public comment period on
June 23, 2010 to indicate that low NOX burners had been
successfully utilized on indurating furnaces. MDEQ also argued that
EPA's proposal to find that low NOX burners represent BART
for NOX at Tilden was impermissibly based on information
generated after the close of Michigan's public comment period.
Response: EPA disagrees with Cliffs and MDEQ's comments for several
reasons. First, EPA again reiterates that the Agency had the authority
and responsibility to promulgate a FIP for the taconite industry based
on the Agency's earlier finding that Minnesota and Michigan had failed
to submit regional haze SIPs in a timely manner (74 FR 2392, January
15, 2009). Thus, EPA was entitled to rely on whatever information was
available regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX
burners at the time the Agency performed its BART analysis, including
results from the testing at Minntac and Essar.
Nonetheless, even if EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP had been
based solely on final disapproval of the states' BART determinations,
the information regarding the technical feasibility of low
NOX burners was not ``new'' as Cliffs suggests. As the BART
Guidelines make clear, technical feasibility encompasses two distinct
concepts, ``availability'' and ``applicability.'' 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y. A technology is considered ``available'' if the source
owner may obtain it through commercial channels, while it is considered
``applicable'' if it can reasonably be installed and operated on the
source type under consideration. As Cliffs pointed out, only
technologies that are ``available'' at the close of a state's public
comment period need be considered as control options by the state.
However, Cliffs' argument that low NOX burners were not
an ``available'' technology at the time Minnesota and Michigan's
periods for public comment had ended is incorrect. Testing at Minntac
and Essar had nothing to do with the ``availability'' of low
NOX burners. Rather, the testing at those facilities
concerned the ``applicability'' of low NOX burners to the
source type in question--indurating furnaces. There can be no dispute
that low NOX burners were ``available'' at the time that
Minnesota and Michigan developed their regional haze SIPs because this
technology has been obtainable through commercial channels as an option
for the control of nitrogen oxide emissions for many years. Therefore,
Minnesota and Michigan were required to consider low NOX
burners in their BART analyses, which both states did, albeit
dismissively.
Consequently, the sole question presented to the states was one of
``applicability''--whether low NOX burners could be
successfully installed on indurating furnaces. In regards to this
question, the BART Guidelines make clear that ``a commercially
available control option will be presumed applicable if it has been
used on the same or a similar source type.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y. However, in contrast to the question of ``availability,'' the
Guidelines make no mention of a cut-off date after which states may
reject information regarding a technology's ``applicability.'' Even so,
contrary to Cliffs' assertions, both states were aware that low
NOX burners had been successfully installed on two lines at
U.S. Steel's Minntac facility prior to the end of their respective
periods for public comment.\3\ In a June 23, 2010 letter to the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment regarding the
state's draft regional haze SIP, EPA commented that ``a low-
NOX main burner firing solid fuels'' had been installed at
Minntac and that ``work done by other companies had demonstrated that
burner designs that lower flame temperature can reduce NOX
formation in taconite furnaces.'' \4\ Similarly, in a February 10, 2012
letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency responding to the
state's draft regional haze SIP supplement for taconite facilities, EPA
explained in detail that ``U.S. Steel has demonstrated the development
and use of low NOX main burners that achieve 70 percent
NOX reduction on its indurating
[[Page 8711]]
lines.'' \5\ In addition to these comments, both states received
comments regarding the technical feasibility of low NOX
burners from the Forest Service as well. Therefore, both Michigan and
Minnesota were aware that low NOX burners had been
successfully applied to indurating furnaces, and Cliffs' arguments that
the results of these studies somehow constitute ``new'' information are
without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The comment period for Michigan's regional haze SIP closed
on June 23, 2010. The comment period for the Minnesota's regional
haze SIP supplement regarding BART at taconite facilities closed on
February 3, 2010, but EPA was granted an extension to submit
comments. EPA's comments were submitted on February 10, 2010, and
were received and considered by MPCA.
\4\ See Michigan Regional Haze plan: EPA Letter to Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality Regarding BART, May 24, 2012
(Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954-0008).
\5\ See MI Haze FIP, EPA 6-23-10 comments to MDEQ on MI Haze
submittal (Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954-0037).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, even if information regarding the technical feasibility of
installing low NOX burners to indurating furnaces was not
available to Minnesota or Michigan, EPA nonetheless had a duty to
consider any new information that subsequently arose when reviewing the
states' SIPs. The Ninth Circuit recently held that ``if new information
indicates to EPA that an existing SIP or SIP awaiting approval is
inaccurate or not current, then, viewing air quality and scope of
emissions with public interest in mind, EPA should properly evaluate
the new information and may not simply ignore it without reasoned
explanation of its choice.'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955, 967 (9th
Cir. 2012). Thus, EPA is required, at a minimum, to take new
information into account during the SIP approval process and, if
necessary, alter its final decision accordingly.
Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Comment: At the public hearing held in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on
August 29, 2012, some commenters voiced the opinion that low
NOX burners should not be considered as BART because the
technology was brought forward after the comment period on the
Minnesota regional haze SIP supplement had closed. This is incorrect.
Low NOX burners were in use and under consideration both
before and during the comment period of December 19, 2011 to February
3, 2012. Discussions concerning the installation of low NOX
burners at Minntac began in 2008, and the burners themselves were
installed in 2010, several months before the regional haze SIP
supplement was proposed. U.S. Steel's report to MPCA on the performance
to-date of their low NOX burners at Minntac was submitted in
December of 2011, around the time that Minnesota's SIP supplement went
on public notice. Additionally, Essar Steel committed to the use of low
NOX burners in its new plant near Nashwauk in 2010. The
record indicates that discussions took place between MPCA and the
taconite facilities around the time that the SIP supplement public
comment period was open. Because of the timing of U.S. Steel's reports
and the fact that no other economically-feasible technology offered
more than 15 percent control of NOX, those discussions
almost certainly included the possibility of requiring low
NOX burners on taconite furnaces.
In light of the emerging use of low NOX burners, the
U.S. Steel report, and the discussions indicated in the record, there
is no basis for the claim that low NOX burners were only
brought forward after the comment period. Low NOX burner
technology was not a surprise and there is no procedural unfairness in
the EPA considering it. Furthermore, to the extent that low
NOX burners can somehow be construed as new information,
there is precedent for considering new information while promulgating
regulations. For example, on July 20, 2012, EPA informed petitioners
that it would reconsider its Mercury and Toxics Standards based on the
availability of new technical information.
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: During the public hearing on this matter, a taconite
company asserted that EPA's FIP was based on ``new information'' that
is ``outside the record'' and that the company's ``due process'' rights
were somehow jeopardized by EPA's proposal. As a legal matter, the
company's argument has no merit. Likewise, as a practical matter, the
company's complaints are unavailing.
Response: EPA agrees with these commenters that it was appropriate
for EPA to rely on whatever information was available regarding the
technical feasibility of low NOX burners at the time the
Agency performed its BART analysis. For a more detailed discussion of
this issue, see EPA's previous response to comments from Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and MDEQ.
F. Comments Concerning EPA's Best Available Retrofit Technology
Analysis
Commenter: National Parks Service.
Comment: NPS agrees with EPA and with Michigan and Minnesota on the
BART-eligibility determinations with respect to the taconite facilities
and the states' determination that BART for direct PM is satisfied by
the taconite MACT rule.
Response: EPA acknowledges NPS's support.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs objected to EPA's reference to conversations with
industry competitors and their vendors in determining the feasibility
of controls for Cliffs' indurating furnaces. Cliffs asserted that EPA
ignored information provided by Cliffs and its process engineering
firms.
Response: EPA spent significant time with all affected sources and
thoroughly considered all information. EPA acknowledges that it relied
heavily upon documented information from Cliffs' competitors in the
taconite industry because these companies have experience with low
NOX burner technology and provided data from actual
experience with such technology. It would have been inappropriate for
EPA to have ignored substantive information based upon actual
experience.
1. Comments Asserting That EPA's BART Analysis Did Not Assess all
Available Technologies
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs claimed that EPA's BART determinations were
arbitrary because they ignored good combustion practices (GCP) as a
BART alternative. Cliffs stated at the MPCA March Citizens Board
meeting that ``GCP is already required under other federal regulations,
including the taconite MACT rule.''
Response: Cliffs' support of GCP as BART lacks merit because GCP is
neither defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, nor is it
typically considered a NOX reduction technique. For example,
the January 30, 2009 ``NOX Reduction Analysis'' done by
Hatch for U.S. Steel's Minntac Iron Ore Pelletizing Operation did not
list GCP as a potential NOX reduction technology for an
indurating furnace.\6\ Similarly, the 2008 BACT analysis for JEA--
Greenland Energy Center Units 1 and 2 did not list GCP as a potential
NOX control.\7\ In fact, these analyses state that GCP tends
to increase NOX emissions. This is because measures taken to
minimize the formation of NOX during combustion inhibit
complete combustion, which increases emissions of carbon monoxide.
Conversely, GCP aims to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. According to
the September 2010 ``We Energies Biomass Energy Project Revised Control
Technology Review for Carbon Monoxide Emissions for the Biomass-Fired
Boiler,'' there is an inverse relationship between NOX
emissions and carbon monoxide emissions, which means that improving
[[Page 8712]]
combustion efficiency can increase NOX emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
\7\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0070.
\8\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the GCP requirement in the taconite MACT rule, GCP for
the MACT is not the same as GCP for NOX. GCP for MACT is
aimed at reducing emissions of products of incomplete combustion (PIC).
To minimize PICs, the operating conditions targeted are generally the
opposite from those targeted for reducing NOX. As explained
in the taconite MACT rule (68 FR 61883, October 30, 2003), ``The basic
method used in reducing NOX emissions is a reduction in
combustion temperature, which is the opposite strategy needed for
minimizing PIC (i.e., increasing combustion temperature).'' In
conclusion, GCP would be expected to increase NOX emissions,
not decrease them.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA is required to consider ``any
existing pollution control technology at the source.'' Cliffs argued
that EPA failed to adequately consider or consistently apply this
threshold factor to the BART determinations in its proposed rule.
Response: To the extent that Cliffs is referring to its use of GCP
as an existing pollution control technology, neither the operational
practices that comprise GCP nor their impact on reducing emissions has
been documented by Cliffs. As described in detail in the response to
the previous comment, EPA does not consider Cliffs' use of GCP to
constitute ``existing control technology'' on these furnaces.
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: NPCA commented that EPA failed to consider fuel-blend
alternatives, including greater or exclusive use of natural gas at
grate-kiln furnaces, as part of the Agency's BART analysis for
SO2 and NOX. Fuel-blend alternatives are a
technically feasible control option because indurating furnaces can
successfully be operated on alternative fuels, namely fuel blends that
consist primarily of natural gas. Contrary to the taconite plant
owners' assertions, consideration of alternative fuels is required for
BART where changing to cleaner fuel would not necessitate significant
changes at any existing facility. There is no legal rationale for
excluding this viable pollution control. Additionally, the assertion
that alternative fuel costs are uncertain has no merit. There is simply
no factual support for price uncertainty being a basis to reject
consideration of natural gas as an alternative to coal. Even if
significant uncertainty existed, it can be dealt with appropriately in
the BART analysis. Finally, the assertion that moving towards a more
natural gas-based fuel blend would mean higher NOX emissions
in exchange for lower SO2 emissions is a red herring. The
existence of such potential secondary impacts is not a reason to
discard a BART option prior to analysis. It is a reason to perform the
analysis itself.
Response: Alternative fuels were not considered for the following
reasons. The straight-grate furnaces at ArcelorMittal, Hibbing
Taconite, and Northshore Mining already burn natural gas. Similarly,
U.S. Steel's Keetac and Minntac facilities already burn a fuel mix of
natural gas and low-sulfur coal. While fuel-blend alternatives could
have been considered for the grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite and
Tilden, EPA proposed to require the most stringent control technology,
flue-gas desulfurization (FGD), at these facilities. As the BART
Guidelines make clear, where EPA or the states choose the most
stringent control option as BART, other control options need not be
considered. Therefore, EPA was not required to consider fuel-blend
alternatives as part of the Agency's BART analysis. However, EPA notes
that subsequent to the proposal, Tilden agreed to convert to natural
gas, while United Taconite will be substantially reducing its emissions
through the use of natural gas and low-sulfur coal.
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: EPA's NOX BART determinations conclude that
significant reductions could be achieved cost-effectively by the
installation of low NOX burners at all taconite kilns. While
NPCA concurred with this conclusion, it commented that EPA failed to
fully consider the use of regenerative selective catalytic reduction
(RSCR). For instance, although RSCR was noted as an available
technology in Keetac's BART analysis, EPA's FIP made no note of it. For
Tilden, on the other hand, EPA noted this option, but only to point out
that the company found it to be infeasible. In fact, this technology
appears to be feasible for indurating furnaces. At a minimum, a more
thorough evaluation by EPA is necessary. In this case, EPA has not
shown that circumstances preclude the application of RSCR to the units
in question via evaluation of gas characteristics or demonstration of
technical challenges. It has offered no evidence that RSCR is
technically infeasible. A fuller evaluation of this technology is
warranted as part of a BART determination.
Response: EPA did evaluate post-combustion NOX-control
options when it reviewed Minnesota's regional haze plan and agreed with
the state's determination that post-combustion control of
NOX emissions from taconite facilities are not BART. For the
proposed and now final rule, EPA evaluated new data on the use of low
NOX burners at taconite facilities and, after a five-factor
BART analysis, determined that low NOX burners are BART for
these facilities. The BART analyses are fully described in section V of
the proposed rule (77 FR 49308). EPA also considered RSCR and related
selective catalytic reduction technologies at some of the subject
taconite units. EPA concluded in its BART analyses that RSCR and other
post-combustion controls do not represent BART for the subject taconite
units because, after the installation of low NOX burners,
the incremental costs of installing further post-combustion controls
are unreasonably high. Therefore, this final rule requires that
taconite indurating furnaces meet NOX emission limits
consistent with low NOX burner technology.
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: EPA's analysis for SO2 provides evidence that
dry FGD is feasible for taconite facilities, and the Agency requires
the use of this technology at the three highest emitting lines (at
United Taconite and Tilden). We support these determinations. However,
EPA fails to fully analyze the use of dry FGD on the lower-emitting
units, instead concluding, without support, that it would not be
``economically reasonable.'' NPCA asks that EPA analyze whether dry
FGD, clearly a feasible technology, could provide cost effective
reductions at additional units.
Response: EPA's BART analysis demonstrated that dry FGD is feasible
for the highest emitting lines when those lines are uncontrolled, but
determined that the same technology has unreasonably high incremental
costs for units with lower uncontrolled emissions. EPA notes, however,
that while FGD was originally proposed as BART for the units at United
Taconite and Tilden, those facilities have since agreed to operational
limits on the types of fuels that may be burned As a result, FGD is no
longer being required as BART. Additional discussion of this issue can
be found in section III of the preamble.
Commenter: National Parks Service.
Comment: It appears that low temperature oxidation is technically
and economically feasible for the entire
[[Page 8713]]
industry. In addition, tail-end SCR with natural gas reheat has been
found technically feasible and borderline economically feasible based
on a BACT analysis from several years ago when natural gas prices were
much higher. Another form of SCR, RSCR looks promising, but as a new
technology, would require trials.
While we would normally prefer to see all of the technically
feasible control options evaluated, given the time constraints and the
success of the low NOX burner technology, it is likely that
low NOX burners will reduce NOX so much that
addition of the other technologies would become too expensive for this
phase of the regional haze program. We therefore agree that low
NOX burners at 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU represent BART
for the taconite industry. By setting such a uniform limit, EPA is
establishing a ``level playing field'' that is achievable by all of the
taconite plants and will provide substantial (almost 16,000 TPY)
NOX reductions.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that post-combustion
control technologies would likely be expensive for additional pollution
reduction. EPA maintains that low NOX burners are the
appropriate control technology for the indurating furnaces at the
taconite facilities. Thus, EPA is finalizing its determination that low
NOX burners represent BART.
Commenter: National Parks Service.
Comment: EPA proposes to determine that BART for SO2 for
straight-grate kilns is existing controls because these furnaces do not
burn coal. While true, they burn fuel oil, which can have a high
potential for emitting SO2 depending on the fuel's sulfur
content. Although the BART Guidelines do not mandate fuel switching,
they encourage evaluation of lower sulfur content fuels. For example,
limiting fuel sulfur was an option considered by EPA for oil-fired EGUs
in a separate BART rule. We suggest that Minnesota consider use of
lower sulfur fuels in future reasonable progress analyses.
Response: EPA's data indicate that the taconite facilities with
straight-grate furnaces use natural gas as the primary fuel with fuel
oil as a back-up fuel only. Given the limited use of fuel oil, emission
reductions from using lower sulfur fuel would be limited. Nonetheless,
EPA agrees with the commenter that the state should consider the
impacts of using a lower sulfur fuel in its future reasonable progress
analyses and is requiring that the taconite facilities keep records of
any future use of fuel oil.
Commenter: National Parks Service.
Comment: NPS concurred with EPA's statement that ``[the Agency
does] not agree that the MPCA and Minntac have adequately documented
the infeasibility of all SO2 controls described.'' This
observation is especially pertinent with respect to the technical
feasibility of spray drying absorption (SDA). According to the taconite
industry consultant, SDA is not technically feasible because ``the high
moisture content of the exhaust would lead to saturation of the
baghouse filter cake and plugging of the filters and dust collection
system.'' On the contrary, SDA requires moisture because a slurry of
lime and water is injected into the spray dryer where the slurry reacts
with SO2 to form a dry sulfate power that is then collected
in the baghouse. As long as the moisture content of the gas stream is
not excessive and the temperature is not too low, SDA becomes a
preferred and highly effective SO2 control option. It is
expected that retrofitting the facilities with SDA would eliminate the
need for the existing Venturi rod scrubbers used to control PM on most
of the taconite furnaces, thus reducing water consumption, gas stream
moisture content, and PM emissions due to the higher efficiency of the
baghouse.
Response: In the proposed rule, EPA stated that while the state's
documentation for determining the technical feasibility of all
SO2 controls was inadequate, EPA did agree with Michigan's
conclusion that additional SO2 controls, including SDA, were
not cost effective and therefore not BART. EPA has not changed its
position on this issue in the final rule.
2. Comments Asserting That EPA's Baseline NOX Emissions Are
Arbitrary
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA's baseline NOX
assumptions are arbitrary. EPA failed to even consider the actual
emissions from each taconite furnace, let alone use them as the
starting point for calculating furnace-specific baseline emissions.
Response: EPA disagrees. In the case-by-case BART analysis for each
subject taconite facility, EPA clearly listed the baseline actual
annual emissions for each taconite furnace (see, e.g., Table V-B.24 for
Hibbing Taconite (77 FR 49321)). In the initial stages of the BART
development process, there was a significant lack of emissions data for
the taconite facilities, as acknowledged by MPCA. However, additional
monitoring and emission reporting from the taconite facilities enabled
EPA to determine baseline NOX emissions for each facility.
G. Comments Concerning EPA's Analysis of Low NOX Burner
Technology as NOX BART
1. Comments Supporting EPA's Determination That Low NOX
Burners Are Technically Feasible
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: NPCA commented that EPA's documentation of low
NOX burners demonstrated that significant, cost-effective
emission reductions are afforded by their use on both straight-grate
and grate-kiln furnaces. Despite this record, a taconite company raised
several concerns about EPA's determination during the public hearing.
The concerns were that a given control technology will not transfer
between indurating furnaces of the same type, low NOX
burners will impact processing (product quality, fuel use, etc.), and
there has been insufficient time to study various aspects or impacts of
this technology.
These concerns are either misplaced or incorrect. As to the first
point, low NOX burners have been successfully applied to a
wide variety of units, including power plants, refineries, chemical
companies, and other industrial settings, which burn a wide variety of
fuels, including gas and coal. There may be individual differences
between the burners at different taconite units. As is always the case,
customization to the particular unit will be required. However, the
differences among taconite furnaces of the same type are not
significant enough to conclude that this clearly robust technology
could not be applied to one as well as the others. Indeed, technology
transfer would be impossible without such basic assumptions.
As to the impact of low NOX burners on operational
parameters, EPA's FIP includes information addressing the points of
product quality and fuel use. Minntac's experience demonstrates no
impact to pellet quality, and after some adjustment, no increase in
fuel use.
Finally, far from having had insufficient time to analyze these
controls, the taconite facilities have had years in which to contact
vendors, do engineering studies and modeling, and perform testing. The
regional haze process has been delayed by many years at this point.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that low NOX
burners can be used to control NOX emissions from both
straight-grate and grate-kiln indurating furnaces used in the taconite
processing industry. EPA also agrees with the commenter that based on
data from taconite facilities where low NOX
[[Page 8714]]
burners are either in use or planned product, quality should not be
compromised.
Commenter: National Park Service.
Comment: NPS commented that it agreed with EPA's proposal that BART
for NOX for the taconite industry is low NOX
burners achieving a 70 percent reduction from both straight-grate and
grate-kiln furnaces. The proposal for grate-kiln lines is supported by
research sponsored by U.S. Steel. The proposal for straight-grate kilns
is supported by Essar's testing, which demonstrated a 95 percent
reduction in NOX emissions for its new kiln.
Response: As the commenter points out, EPA has determined that low
NOX burners represent BART. However, EPA is setting an
emission limit for each indurating furnace, not a 70 percent control
requirement.
2. Comments Asserting That Low NOX Burners Are Not
Technically Feasibility on Straight-Grate Kilns
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA made an unsupported presumption
that the low NOX burner technology tested in a \1/4\-scale
pilot test by Essar for a new source could be translated to all
straight-grate furnaces.
Response: As indicated in test reports, NOX emissions
from taconite facilities are generated primarily by the burner. As
burner design is the main factor contributing to NOX
emissions, EPA carefully reviewed results of emission tests of low
NOX burners for the different taconite furnace types and
concluded that low NOX burners are technically feasible for
straight-grate and grate-kiln furnaces.
Supporting the feasibility of low NOX burners on
straight-grate kilns is a September 19, 2011 summary of findings
presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Board entitled ``Results
of Testing at \1/4\-Scale of LE Low NOX Burner Prototype for
Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnaces'' by Fives North American
Combustion, Inc. (Fives) for Essar.\9\ After successful bench-scale
testing of Fives' low NOX LE burners that achieved
NOX reductions greater than 70 percent in a straight-grate
pelletizing furnace, Essar and Fives proceeded with a joint $2 million
investment in a test rig to simulate a straight-grate pelletizing
furnace. In the \1/4\-scale test rig, the cross-sectional area scaling
was very representative of actual furnace geometry, as were the energy
inputs and flows. This testing demonstrated an emission rate of 0.25
lbs NOX/MMBTU, which is well below the proposed limit of 1.2
lbs NOX/MMBTU. Fives concluded that NOX emissions
in the actual straight-grate furnace should be consistent with those
measured in the \1/4\-scale test conditions. The feasibility of low
NOX burners on straight-grate kilns was also confirmed
during a June 20, 2012 call between EPA and a national low
NOX burner manufacturer, Fives North America.
Representatives from the manufacturing company were highly confident of
the technical feasibility and application of their technology in
straight-grate taconite furnaces. EPA agrees with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA failed to conduct an
independent, case-by-case feasibility analysis as required by the Step
2 of the BART Guidelines. Minnesota and Michigan previously conducted
an extensive case-by-case BART analysis, eliminating low NOX
burners as technically infeasible for every taconite indurating
furnace. Cliffs asserted that EPA has adopted a ``one-size-fits-all''
approach that is arbitrary and capricious. According to Cliffs, a
proper feasibility analysis demonstrates that the technologies selected
by EPA are infeasible for Cliffs' indurating furnaces because low
NOX burners are not technically feasible for straight-grate
furnaces and grate-kiln furnaces. Cliffs asserted that the Fives burner
designed for Essar cannot be used without source-specific engineering
and retrofit design. Cliffs claimed that U.S. Steel spent two years
modifying the prototype low NOX burners installed on Lines 6
and 7 at its Minntac facility in an attempt to reach desired emission
rates while combusting solid fuel, such as coal and biomass, but were
ultimately unsuccessful. ArcelorMittal asserted that a proper
feasibility analysis demonstrated that the technologies selected by EPA
are infeasible for Minorca's indurating furnace. The commenters
submitted information describing indurating furnaces, including the
different types of furnaces, and explained what they believe are the
differences between furnace types.
Response: EPA believes that its finding that low NOX
burners are technically feasible for both straight-grate and grate-kiln
furnaces is supported by test results on various kiln configurations.
Taconite furnaces are all based on one of two technologies. Straight-
grate kilns are based on a Dravo-Lurgi design system, while grate-kiln
furnaces are based on an Allis-Chalmers design system. EPA understands
that each specific taconite furnace has unique operating requirements
and specialized equipment. However, all furnaces share the same
fundamental design style, either grate-kiln or straight-grate.
In assessing control technologies for a source category, EPA's BART
Guidelines state that ``control alternatives can include not only
existing controls for the source category in question but also take
into account technology transfer of controls that have been applied to
similar source categories and gas streams.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y. The Guidelines go on to explain that ``[c]ontrol technologies are
technically feasible if either (1) they have been installed and
operated successfully for the type of source under review under similar
conditions, or (2) the technology could be applied to the source under
review.'' Id.
EPA has concluded that there is a clear case for technology
transfer of low NOX burner technology from grate-kiln
furnaces to straight-grate furnaces. First, low NOX burner
technology has been clearly and successfully demonstrated and applied
across various industries for decades. Second, EPA does not consider
taconite furnaces to be particularly unique given their similar
fundamental designs. In the case of taconite applications, the Fives'
testing of a low NOX burner prototype on a straight-grate
furnace test rig provides reasonable assurance that full-scale
applications, given the appropriate time for engineering and shakedown,
will be both feasible and effective. In addition, U.S. Steel has
already installed and is successfully operating multi-fuel low
NOX burners on two unique grate-kiln indurating furnaces at
their Minntac facility. Prior to the proposed rule, U.S. Steel had
already submitted permit applications to install low NOX
burner technologies on two additional furnaces at Minntac as well. U.S
Steel has not indicated any issues with technical feasibility that will
prevent the company from applying low NOX burners at either
its Keetac facility or the remaining furnaces at Minntac. In response
to questions from EPA concerning the installation at Minntac, U.S.
Steel described the modifications it made allowing for the successful
use of low NOX burners when burning either coal or natural
gas.\10\ In EPA's view, this information obtained directly from U.S.
Steel rebuts Cliffs' claim that the
[[Page 8715]]
prototype low NOX burner tests were unsuccessful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Email from U.S. Steel to EPA dated September 19, 2012
(Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor is EPA persuaded by Cliffs and ArcelorMittal's arguments that
the taconite furnaces at their facilities are unique to the extent that
low NOX burner technology cannot be applied. While EPA
understands that a complete engineering analysis will be required to
design furnace-specific low NOX burners and that a shakedown
period will be required to understand and optimize operations, EPA does
not believe that the uniqueness of each individual taconite furnace
proves technical infeasibility. The compliance times being finalized
for each facility in this action account for engineering and shakedown
time.
Over the years, the taconite industry has demonstrated that it can
re-engineer furnaces to adapt to market changes (such as fuel prices),
process changes (to accommodate variation in the type of ore being
mined), and new technologies (such as heat recuperation systems).\11\
It is clear that depending on the needs and priorities of each company,
changes to the furnaces have and can be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For example, during the Society of Mining Engineers' Annual
Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana from March 2-6, 1986, a
presentation was given titled ``Design and Performance of the
National Steel Pellet Plant High Temperature Heat Recuperation
System'' (Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0077). The
presentation discussed a high temperature heat recuperation system
that was installed at the National Steel Pellet Company facility in
Keewatin, Minnesota. The system was similar to those installed at
Cliffs' Empire facility and U.S. Steel's Minntac facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to ArcelorMittal's comment that a proper feasibility
analysis would demonstrate that the technologies selected by EPA are
infeasible for Minorca's indurating furnace, EPA relies on a September
27, 2012 report submitted by the commenter and authored by Fives North
American titled ``Retrofitting Low NOX Burners on the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnaces.'' \12\ After
review, EPA concludes that this report supports the Agency's conclusion
that low NOX burners are feasible at the Minorca facility.
EPA therefore disagrees with ArcelorMittal's assertion that such
technology is infeasible. Fives North American was engaged to perform
an engineering study and recommend best options for retrofitting low
NOX burners at the pelletizing furnace at the Minorca plant
in order to achieve NOX emission rates below 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu under expected operating conditions. Fives
expressed confidence that the company's experience in manufacturing low
NOX burners, coupled with the successful results of the \1/
4\-scale test at Essar, provided sufficient assurance that the
technology could be applied at Minorca while preserving pellet quality
and energy efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Comments Concerning EPA's Cost Analysis for Low NOX
Burners
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA presumed that low NOX
burners will cost $500/ton at every Cliffs facility despite the fact
that none of these facilities identified low NOX burners as
technically feasible. EPA's $500/ton across-the-board cost estimate for
NOX control was neither explained in the proposed rule nor
supported by the record.
Response: EPA did not presume that low NOX burners will
cost $500/ton at every Cliffs facility. EPA's proposed rule stated that
``[b]ased on the range of cost-effectiveness values provided, a
conservative value of $500/ton will be used as the cost-effectiveness
value for low NOX burners'' (77 FR 49308, 49312). Data made
available by U.S. Steel indicate the cost-effectiveness of low
NOX burners on Minntac's Line 6 indurating furnace was $441/
ton of NOX reduced with burning a 60 percent coal/40 percent
natural gas fuel mix and $221/ton of NOX reduced when
burning 100 percent natural gas. Barr Engineering and Essar Steel
Minnesota have estimated a cost-effectiveness of $370/ton of
NOX reduced for low NOX burner technology on a
planned straight-grate natural gas-fired furnace.\13\ This furnace is
being designed to meet a much more stringent emission limit of 0.25 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, compared to EPA's proposed limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu. Thus, EPA's value of $500/ton represents a high-
end estimate of expected cost-effectiveness of the selected
NOX BART controls and is based on itemized costs and annual
NOX emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Essar and Barr Presentation for Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration, Duluth, Minnesota, April 2012 (Docket
EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Comments Concerning the Effectiveness of Low NOX Burners
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: U.S. Steel commented that, based upon its experience, the
appropriate emission factor when burning solid fuels is 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, as opposed to the proposed NOX limit
of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. U.S. Steel supplemented its comment on
October 15, 2012 with data that support a limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu while burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu while burning solid fuels. U.S. Steel proposed
that it be subject to the solid fuel limit, unless it utilizes 100
percent natural gas as a fuel for 30 consecutive days. The natural gas
limit would then apply and it would remain subject to that limit until
such time that solid fuels were utilized.
Response: Based on a review of the data submitted by U.S. Steel,
EPA agrees to revise the NOX limits in the final rule to 1.2
lbs NOX/MMBtu while an indurating furnace is burning 100
percent natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu when fuels other
than natural gas are being used. This revision primarily affects U.S.
Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac, and United Taconite.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA made an unsupported presumption
that an emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu is equivalent to
a 70 percent NOX reduction at every Cliffs facility and that
all taconite furnaces emit NOX at an uncontrolled baseline
rate of 4.0 lbs NOX/mmBTU in disregard of furnace
variability.
Response: The NOX emission limit that EPA proposed was
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. This emission
limit was not based on a percent reduction requirement, but rather was
based on a demonstration by U.S. Steel that low NOX burners
installed at the Minntac facility could achieve this emission limit.
This limit is further supported for straight-grate kilns by successful
testing of a low NOX burner prototype at a 1/4-scale test
rig at Essar. It is standard industry practice to perform pilot tests,
in which the results of a smaller unit are scaled up to a full
production unit. Furthermore, in this case the company was extremely
confident that, based upon the results with the 1/4-scale test rig, a
limit much lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu could be achieved on
the full production unit. However, based on additional test data of
operational low NOX burners submitted by U.S. Steel for
Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac, EPA is revising its proposed limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. In the final rule,
taconite indurating furnaces are subject to a limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when only natural gas is burned and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when fuels other than natural gas are used. Both
of these limits are based on a 30-day rolling average.
H. Comments Concerning Non-Air Quality Impacts of Low NOX
Burners
1. Effect on Pellet Quality
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
[[Page 8716]]
Comment: Cliffs commented that pellet quality cannot be maintained
after the installation of low NOX burner technology.
Response: EPA disagrees. Based on data supplied by U.S. Steel, EPA
has concluded that there will be no pellet quality challenges resulting
from the installation and operation of low NOX burner
technology. In an email sent by U.S. Steel to EPA on September 19,
2012, U.S. Steel indicated that pellet quality specifications have not
changed since the installation of low NOX burners, with zero
off-spec shipments to date.\14\ There have been no adverse pellet
quality issues related to the installation and operation of the low
NOX burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel is required to maintain four pellet quality parameters,
after tumble, compressions, reducibility, and low temperature
disintegration (LTD), to meet customer specifications. U.S. Steel
supplied EPA with data confirming that pellet quality parameters were
acceptable after the installation of the Line 6 low NOX
burner (Table 1). U.S. Steel also included more recent quality
parameter data to show that quality continues to remain acceptable.
U.S. Steel noted that while compressions have decreased, this has been
observed on all process lines, including those without low
NOX burners, thus indicating an issue with the feed material
and not the burners. As also shown, U.S. Steel saw an improvement in
reducibility for their pellets after the installation, which U.S. Steel
attributes to improved heat distribution in the kiln from the low
NOX burner.
Table 1--Line 6 Pellet Quality Before and After the Low NOX Burner Installation
(Higher values represent better quality)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After tumble Compression Reducibility LTD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before (11/1/10-4/3/11)......................... 96.0 416 1.15 87.30
After (4/20/11-10/31/11)........................ 96.0 417 1.22 85.58
1/1/12-9/1/12................................... 96.2 410 1.22 86.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fuel Penalty and Energy Penalty
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that a fuel penalty and an energy penalty
will result from the operation of low NOX burner technology
at its facilities. Additional fans will be required to increase primary
air flow through the furnaces because the cooler air that is injected
into the burner to control peak flame temperature must be heated. EPA
made an unsupported presumption that low NOX burners will
cause no fuel or energy penalties or other emissions increases at any
of the facilities.
Response: EPA disagrees. The installation and use of low
NOX burners is not generally considered to result in an
energy penalty because one burner is merely being replaced by another.
EPA recognizes that there is an increase in electricity needed for the
operation of low NOX burner fans to assist in movement of
air through the system or to heat cooler air that is injected into the
burner. These costs can in most cases simply be factored into the cost
impacts analysis as they were in this case for both NOX and
SO2 controls.
EPA believes that a low NOX burner installation that is
properly engineered and optimized for a given process will not result
in a fuel or energy penalty. EPA's conclusion is based on the U.S.
Steel Minntac Line 6 Low NOX Main Burner & Facility
NOX Management Final Report (December 1, 2011),\15\ which
documented that low NOX burners did not cause fuel penalties
or other emission impacts. In addition, EPA consulted with a burner
manufacturer and reviewed information provided by U.S. Steel regarding
potential fuel impacts potentially associated with the operation of low
NOX burners at a taconite facility.\16\ In this
correspondence, U.S. Steel Minntac stated that there was a temporary
10.5 percent fuel increase after initial installation of the low
NOX burner on Line 7. However, during the shakedown period,
the fuel increase was alleviated by process optimization (there was a
learning curve due to the fact that this was the first low
NOX burner installed on an iron ore processing line) and
balancing the process airflow. The waste gas fan on Line 7 was running
at maximum before the burner installation and with the addition of
combustion air, the process efficiency decreased and safety issues were
created. To alleviate this condition, the waste gas fan airflow
capacity was increased in February 2011 on Line 7 to balance the
airflow out of the process. In April 2011, the Line 6 low
NOX burner was installed at U.S. Steel's Minntac facility.
After applying what was learned during the shakedown period on Line 7,
no increase in process fuel occurred after the installation. U.S. Steel
clearly states in its September 19, 2012 email to EPA, ``The end result
is there is no increase in process fuel due to the installation of the
Line 7 low NOX burner.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0039.
\16\ U.S. Steel email to EPA dated September 19, 2012 (Docket
EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071).
\17\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, based on available data, EPA believes that with process
optimization, proper balancing of process air flows, and proper
engineering, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal will be able to achieve similar
fuel usage to U.S. Steel and will not incur either a fuel or energy
penalty. EPA understands that each company will require a shakedown
period similar to that experienced at U.S. Steel and has set the
compliance schedules each facility accordingly.
3. Increases in the Emission of Other Pollutants
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that emissions of other pollutants will
increase due to the installation of low NOX burner
technology.
Response: EPA has determined that there will be no increases in
collateral pollutants due to the installation of low NOX
burner technology. In making this determination, EPA relied on the
information supplied by MPCA, U.S. Steel, Coen Company, Inc., and
Hatch, as described below.
In a letter dated November 3, 2009 from Coen Company, Inc., Coen
stated:
As we have indicated, the kiln burner that we proposed to supply
for the above referenced project will not produce more CO as
compared with what is being produced by the existing burner. The
reason is: carbon monoxide (CO) is formed from lack of fast mixing
of NO and oxidant (O2) and chemical kinetics of the
reaction that is highly dependent on temperature and O2
concentration. The Coen multi-fuel burner is being designed for
higher stoichiometric air (1.00) as compared with the existing
burner which has a stoichiometric air of about 0.3 only. Hence, the
Coen burner design
[[Page 8717]]
promotes a higher amount of premixing of O2 (oxidant)
with fuel to reduce CO production. The flame temperature in both
cases is high enough so the oxidation of CO is not kinetically
limited. So the new burner design is not kinetically-limited for CO
oxidation and the increased premixing in the primary zone will
reduce CO emissions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, in a letter dated November 6, 2009 from Hatch to U.S.
Steel, Hatch stated: ``Since USS Minntac plans to continue using their
current fuels, fuel mixes, and fuel firing rates in conjunction with
the low NOX burners, with the exception of NOX,
Hatch does not anticipate any change in the emissions of applicable
pollutants. Substantial reduction of NOX emissions is also
anticipated.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in a letter to U.S. Steel dated November 20, 2009, Owen
Seltz, Engineer, Metallic Mining Section, Industrial Division, MPCA,
stated:
Generally, when a reduction in NOX emissions from
fuel combustion is proposed, the pollutant of concern for potential
increase is carbon monoxide (CO). However, due to the design of the
proposed low NOX main burner, CO emissions are not
anticipated to increase. Furthermore, as explained in the
manufacturers' letters dated November 3, 2009, and November 6, 2009
and submitted to the MPCA in Minntac's November 12, 2009 letter, due
to the design and operation of the proposed burner, CO emissions are
expected to decrease.\20\
\20\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these assurances, EPA is confident that there will be no
increases in other pollutants as a result of the installation of low
NOX burner technology as Cliffs claims.
I. Comments Concerning Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) BART Emission
Limits
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: NPCA commented that the proposed limits for six of the
units (at Northshore, ArcelorMittal, and Hibbing) specifically do not
apply when burning fuel oil. This loophole undermines the purpose of a
BART analysis and contradicts the CAA requirement for BART to be met on
a continuous basis. The final determination must include a limit that
encompasses the burning of fuel oil at these facilities.
Response: Northshore, ArcelorMittal, and Hibbing are straight-grate
indurating furnaces and do not burn coal. The primary fuel at these
facilities is natural gas. As a result, these facilities have
inherently low SO2 emissions. Fuel oil is used only as a
backup fuel. Due to its limited use, there was insufficient test data
to set a corresponding SO2 emission limit for periods when
fuel oil is being burned. EPA set the SO2 emission limits
based on available data. For the straight-grate facilities, data was
only available for periods in which the furnaces were combusting
natural gas. In order to address this issue, EPA has added a regulatory
requirement for affected sources to track their use of fuel oil and the
resulting SO2 emissions. This information will be used as
the basis for any restrictions that will need to be added, e.g. sulfur
content, on the use of fuel oil. These requirements are contained in
Sec. Sec. 52.1183(k)(4) and 52.1235(b)(2)(7).
Commenter: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Comment: MDEQ commented that it had based its acceptance of
Tilden's BART submittal for SO2 on the lack of visibility
impairment due to SO2 emissions.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is no longer requiring add-on
controls at the Tilden facility because Tilden has agreed to switch
fuels to natural gas within one year of the effective date of this
rule.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA should use the methods proposed
by Minnesota to set emission limits, citing the limits the state set
for the Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal facilities. Cliffs contended
that EPA's proposed SO2 emission limits are unsupported and
arbitrary. Cliffs objected to the limits set by EPA because they appear
to be based on results from a single stack test, which represents a
snapshot in time. Further, the limits ignore a significant amount of
available data and bypass the statistical analysis conducted by MPCA.
Response: In the Agency's review of Minnesota's regional haze SIP
supplement, EPA concluded that the limits for taconite facilities
proposed by Minnesota do not accurately represent the current level of
controls at the facilities. For ArcelorMittal and Hibbing Taconite,
Minnesota appears to have set the limit in pounds of SO2 per
long ton (LT) of pellets produced based on a 30-day rolling average,
using the Upper Predictive Limit (UPL) approach for normally
distributed data. Minnesota did not demonstrate an accurate method to
track or record LT of pellets produced. Therefore, the limits proposed
by Minnesota are unenforceable. EPA also concluded that the annual
testing requirement proposed by the state is insufficient to determine
compliance with a limit based on a 30-day rolling average. In this
action, EPA is finalizing SO2 limits for taconite facilities
in terms of lbs SO2/hr based on a 30-day rolling average,
which can be easily and accurately measured using the continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) required by this rule.
EPA does agree that the UPL approach is an appropriate method for
setting the SO2 limits. However, the available
SO2 emissions data for the taconite sources generally do not
follow a normal, logarithmic, or gamma distribution. For this reason,
the UPL should be determined using a nonparametric method, as set forth
below. EPA used available stack test and CEMS data from 1990 to the
present to recalculate the SO2 limits for ArcelorMittal and
Hibbing, based on the appropriate UPL equation for nonparametric data,
in terms of lbs SO2/hr on a 30-day rolling average as
follows:
UPL = xm and m = (n + 1)*(1 - a)
Where:
xm = value of the mth data point, when the data is sorted smallest
to largest
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest
to largest
n = number of data points
a = 95th percentile or 0.95
If m is not a whole number, a linear interpolation is calculated
from the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.001
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
In this final rule, EPA is setting a limit of 38.16 lbs
SO2/hr for indurating furnace EU026 at ArcelorMittal. This
limit must be measured on a 30-day rolling average and does not apply
when the subject unit is burning fuel oil. For Hibbing, EPA is
finalizing an aggregate limit of 247.8 lbs SO2/hr based on a
limit of 82.60 lbs SO2/hr for each of the three affected
lines: EU020, EU021, and
[[Page 8718]]
EU022. This limit is also measured on a 30-day rolling average and does
not apply when the subject unit is burning fuel oil.
Because of limited stack test data for Hibbing and ArcelorMittal,
these sources may, within 20 months of the effective date of this rule,
calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of hourly
CEMS data, reported in lbs SO2/hr, and submit such limit,
calculations, and CEMS data to EPA. This limit shall be set in terms of
lbs SO2/hr, based on the non-parametric UPL equations set
forth above, with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling
average.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: Cliffs submitted alternate SO2 limits for
Hibbing based on the UPL equation for normally distributed data.
Response: While EPA agrees that the UPL approach is the appropriate
method for setting the SO2 limits, EPA disagrees with the
alternate SO2 limits submitted by the Cliffs for the Hibbing
facility. Cliffs did not specify whether its suggested limit was daily,
instantaneous, or on a 30-day rolling average. But in any case, the
limit submitted by Cliffs for Hibbing appears to be calculated using
the UPL equation for normally distributed data, a p-value of 0.01
(which would represent a 99.5 percent confidence interval) and m = 1.
This is incorrect. According to the UPL method, m represents the number
of future runs (i.e., the number of future data points). As the data
sets being used in the analyses are one-hour CEMS averages, the value
of m should be 720 (30 days times 24 hours) if the limit being set is a
30-day rolling average. Even if compliance is based on the average
value of an annual performance test rather than a 30-day rolling
average, Minnesota's annual performance testing requires 30 hourly data
points, which would result in a value of 30 for m. Cliffs also appears
to have combined all stacks for each line and averaged all test runs
for each set of test data to arrive at one data point for each set of
test data, resulting in only 10 data points rather than 720 to
calculate the UPL.
In addition, although the raw test data provided SO2
emissions levels in terms of lbs SO2/hr, Cliffs calculated
the UPL in terms of lbs SO2/LT pellets and then converted
the SO2 limit back into lbs SO2/hr by using the
maximum design capacity of each line rather than the actual production
data collected during testing.
Thus, EPA disagrees with this methodology. The alternate emission
limit proposed by Cliffs is significantly higher than the limit that
would result from the correct application of the UPL equation for
normally distributed data. Further, some of the available data for the
Hibbing facility are normally distributed, while other data are not. As
noted previously, the available SO2 emissions data for the
taconite industry in general do not follow a normal, logarithmic, or
gamma distribution. For this reason, EPA is using the nonparametric UPL
equation to calculate the SO2 emission limits.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: Cliffs objected to the proposed 80 percent SO2
reduction requirement for Northshore, noting that an SO2
emission limit was also set for the facility. Cliffs contended that EPA
failed to cite any justification for the requirement and failed to
explain why an 80 percent reduction in SO2 emissions should
be required for Northshore when a similar reduction was not required
for any other facility. Cliffs asserted that Northshore's
SO2 emissions have a de minimis impact on visibility, so
imposing multiple layers of control requirements would be arbitrary and
unnecessary.
Response: Northshore is subject to BART based on the visibility
impacts that were described in the proposal rule. The document entitled
``Northshore Mining Company Analysis of Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART)'' submitted to MPCA on behalf of Northshore Mining
states that ``WWESPs are currently in place on the furnace exhausts and
are believed to remove 80 to 95 percent of the SO2 in the
exhaust.'' \21\ Thus, 80 percent is on the low end of the removal
efficiency range estimated by Northshore, not an arbitrary number
selected by EPA. Further, in a CAA section 114 request to Cliffs and
Northshore Mining, EPA requested copies of all stack tests conducted on
any emissions unit for any reason, including all test runs, even if a
full test series was not completed. In its response to EPA, Cliffs did
not provide any SO2 test data for the subject-to-BART
furnaces at Northshore. Without this emissions data, EPA believes using
Northshore Mining's prior estimate of 80 to 95 percent control
efficiency on its furnace exhausts EPA to impose an 80 percent
emissions reduction requirement on stacks SV101, SV102, SV103, SV104,
SV105, SV111, SV112, SV113, SV114, and SV115 was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0034 (p. 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the public comment period, Cliffs provided EPA with
limited SO2 emissions data for Northshore and proposed an
aggregate limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr based on a limit of 19.5
lbs SO2/hr per line. Cliffs' proposed limit is slightly
higher than the limit EPA calculated using the new data and the UPL
equation for nonparametric data. However, EPA believes it is reasonable
to set an aggregate limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr, measured on a
30-day rolling average, and to require the source to recalculate this
limit when CEMS data are available.
As stated previously, this limit does not apply when the facility
is burning fuel oil. In order to address this issue, EPA has added a
regulatory requirement for affected sources to track their use of fuel
oil and the resulting SO2 emissions. This information will
be used as the basis for any restrictions that will need to be added,
e.g. sulfur content, on the use of fuel oil. These requirements are
contained in sections 52.1183(k)(4) and 52.1235(b)(2)(7).
In summary, this final rule establishes an aggregate SO2
emission limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hour, measured on a 30-day
rolling average, for Furnace 11 and Furnace 12 at Northshore. Within 20
months of the effective date of this rule, the owner or operator must
calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of hourly
CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr and submit such
limit, calculations, and data to EPA. This limit shall be set in terms
of lbs SO2/hr, based on the non-parametric UPL equations
previously set forth by EPA, with compliance to be determined on a 30-
day rolling average. EPA agrees with the commenter that an 80 percent
reduction requirement is no longer needed because it is redundant in
light of the final lbs SO2/hr emission limit. Consequently,
this final rule does not require an additional 80 percent emissions
reduction requirement at Northshore.
Commenter: National Park Service and Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: NPS supported EPA's proposal to require FGD as BART for
SO2 at the United Taconite and Tilden facilities, agreeing
with EPA's cost-effectiveness calculations.
Cliffs, on the other hand, disagreed with EPA's cost-effectiveness
calculations for the United Taconite and Tilden facilities. Subsequent
to the public comment period, Cliffs proposed switching fuels as an
alternative to installing FGD scrubbers. Cliffs proposed a combined
limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr for Lines 1 and 2 at the United
Taconite facility, with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling
average, beginning in 54 months. To meet this limit, the United
Taconite furnaces will burn low-sulfur fuels, including increased use
of natural gas. For Tilden, Cliffs proposed switching operation to
[[Page 8719]]
100 percent natural gas within 12 months with an emissions limit to be
set after a year of CEMS data become available.
Response: Subsequent to the proposed rule, Cliffs has agreed to a
federally enforceable aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, at United
Taconite, based on the use of low-sulfur fuels. Cliffs has also agreed
to convert to the use of 100 percent natural gas at Tilden. Because
Tilden will now be restricted to the use of 100 percent natural gas,
requiring the installation of SO2 controls is no longer
economically feasible or necessary. Similarly, in light of the
reduction in SO2 emissions that will result from the use of
low-sulfur fuels at United Taconite, the cost effectiveness of
additional controls has increased to $12,021 per ton for Line 1 and
$7,680 per ton for Line 2. Thus, EPA believes that the installation of
such controls is no longer economically feasible. In addition to the
emission limit proposed by Cliffs, to ensure the use of low-sulfur
fuels and SO2 reductions resulting from the use of low-
sulfur fuels at United Taconite, EPA is also requiring that the
facility burn either natural gas or a blend of natural gas and coal.
EPA is also establishing a limitation on the coal to be used by
requiring the coal have a sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent
sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average. The requirement for
a sampling and calculation methodology for determining this value is
contained within the monitoring plan as required in section
52.1235(e)(8)(x). In summary, EPA is no longer requiring FGD at United
Taconite and Tilden as BART for SO2 in this final rule.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: U.S. Steel proposed several alternate lbs SO2/
hr limits for its Minntac facility. These limits were calculated by
applying a 99 percent confidence interval utilizing three years of CEMS
data. U.S. Steel also proposed alternate limits for producing flux
versus acid pellets due to scrubber inefficiencies during acid pellet
production.
U.S. Steel proposed, as its first choice, an aggregate limit of 498
lbs SO2/hr, on a 30-day rolling average, when all five lines
are producing flux pellets; an aggregate limit of 630 lbs
SO2/hr, on a 30-day rolling average, when Lines 3-5 are
producing acid pellets and Lines 6 and 7 are producing flux pellets;
and an aggregate limit of 800 lbs SO2/hr, on a 30-day
rolling average, when all five lines are producing acid pellets. U.S.
steel also proposed partially aggregated limits and line-by-line limits
for acid pellets and flux pellets. Finally, U.S. Steel proposed that
the limit for acid pellets be in effect during acid production and for
30 days thereafter due to the 30-day rolling average.
Response: EPA compared the limits proposed by U.S. Steel to the
limit EPA calculated with the non-parametric UPL method and found them
to be comparable. EPA also agrees with the need for a higher limit for
acid pellet production.
Therefore, in this final rule, the SO2 emission limits
for U.S. Steel's Minntac facility are 498 lbs SO2/hr on
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing flux pellets; 630 lbs
SO2/hr when Lines 3-5 are producing acid pellets and Lines 6
and 7 are producing flux pellets; and 800 lbs SO2/hr on
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing acid pellets. All limits are
calculated on a 30-day rolling average.
However, EPA does not agree that the limit for acid pellets should
apply during acid production and for 30 days thereafter and thus has
not made this change in the final rule. The emission limit for a given
30-day rolling average period will be calculated using a weighted
average as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.002
Where:
L30 = the limit for a given 30-day averaging period
nf = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is
producing flux pellets on Lines 3-7
naf = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is
producing acid pellets on Lines 3-5 and flux pellets on Lines 6 and
7
na = the number of days in the 30-day period that the facility is
producing acid pellets on Lines 3-7
Commenter: U.S. Steel and Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel commented that it is inappropriate
to use a seven percent oxygen correction for emission limits that are
not concentration based.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that the use of a seven
percent oxygen correction is not necessary when the subject-to-BART
facilities elect to comply with an emission limit measured in pounds of
pollutant per million British thermal units or pounds of pollutant per
hour.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: U.S. Steel requested that the pH and SO2
removal efficiency limits for its Keetac facility be deleted because
they are redundant with the lbs SO2/hr limit.
Response: EPA agrees with U.S. Steel and has deleted the pH and
SO2 removal efficiency limits from the final rule.
Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Comment: At United Taconite and Tilden, limiting SO2 to
5 parts per million by volume or requiring the facilities to meet a 95
percent reduction requirement, on a 30-day rolling average, using dry
FGD is achievable and cost-effective.
Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
Comment: The Red Cliff Band supported EPA's proposed requirement
for additional SO2 controls in select facilities.
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
Comment: The Association agreed with using existing SO2
controls for those taconite facilities where it would be cost
prohibitive to convert to a different technology that would only
achieve nominal SO2 reductions. However, in the case of the
United Taconite and Tilden facilities, the Association found it
relatively inexpensive to use dry FGD to limit SO2 to 5
parts per million by volume or to meet a 95 percent reduction
requirement on a 30-day rolling average.
Commenter: National Park Service.
Comment: NPS supported EPA's proposal to require FGD as BART for
SO2 at the United Taconite and Tilden facilities, agreeing
with EPA's cost effectiveness calculations and compliance schedule.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that under current
operating conditions, FGD is a cost-effective control option for the
grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite and Tilden and represents BART.
However, subsequent to the public comment period, Cliffs proposed
switching fuels as an alternative to installing FGD scrubbers. Cliffs
has since agreed to federally enforceable limits on the types of fuels
that may be burned at these facilities. In this final rule, the United
Taconite furnaces must burn a combination of natural gas and low-sulfur
coal and Tilden will now burn 100 percent natural gas. Given these
changes, EPA has determined that requiring the installation of
SO2 controls is no longer economically feasible or
necessary.
J. Comments Concerning the Visibility Analysis and Visibility Impacts
Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Comment: Tables V-C.l0 to V-C.l5 of the FIP demonstrate the changes
in visibility that could be expected from the use of low NOX
burners. While these are only predictions, the expected improvements in
visibility in the
[[Page 8720]]
Boundary Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area, Voyageurs National Park, and
Isle Royale National Park strongly support the use of this technology
at the subject-to-BART taconite plants.
Response: EPA agrees that the BART emission limits have the
potential to result in significant improvement in visibility at the
affected Class I areas.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA did not conduct a proper
analysis of visibility impacts.
Response: EPA disagrees. EPA's visibility estimates provide ample
evidence that the visibility impacts of each subject-to-BART taconite
facility are substantial enough to warrant the selected BART controls.
EPA's responses to the individual criticisms raised by the commenters
on our visibility analysis are discussed in further detail below.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that the proposed rule directly
contravened the instructions given to EPA in American Corn Growers v.
EPA. In particular, Cliffs asserted that EPA's method is a
``bifurcated'' approach to visibility that was rejected in that
decision. In Cliffs' view, the American Corn Growers court rejected a
bifurcated approach in which visibility impacts are treated differently
than the other four BART factors. Cliffs noted that for each taconite
source, EPA separated its analysis into two distinct sections. Section
V.B. of the proposed rule analyzed the first four factors, while EPA
separately analyzed visibility improvement in Section V.C. for
whichever technology emerged from the four-factor analysis in Section
V.B. Thus, in Cliffs' view, the real-world visibility impacts were, at
most, a secondary consideration that could not have influenced the
evaluation of BART alternatives.
Response: EPA disagrees. The ``bifurcation'' referred to in the
American Corn Growers decision related to EPA's use of a regional,
multi-source, group approach to determining the degree of visibility
improvement, while analyzing the other four statutory factors on a
source-specific basis. The American Corn Growers court held that the
visibility analysis must not be treated differently and must be a
source-specific analysis. Since that decision, EPA and states have
consistently conducted the visibility prong of the five-factor analysis
on a source-specific basis. In this instance, although EPA presented
its visibility analysis in a separate section of the proposed rule, the
Agency conducted the analysis on a source-specific basis consistent
with the holding in American Corn Growers.
EPA also disagrees that visibility was a secondary consideration in
its analysis. EPA's analysis shows that based on the all of the BART
factors, including visibility, the selected controls are warranted. If
highly reasonable and cost-effective controls had been available but
visibility benefits were slight, EPA would have rejected those
controls. Section V.B. of the proposed rule demonstrated that
reasonable and cost-effective controls were available. Section V.C.
then showed that the visibility benefits to be obtained by requiring
controls at each source were significant. Site-specific visibility
improvement estimates for each source, derived from regional modeling
conducted by the state of Minnesota on a variety of sources in the
area, demonstrated that the significant reductions EPA proposed will
produce significant visibility improvement in affected Class I areas.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that the approach EPA used in the
proposed rule to estimate visibility impacts was arbitrary because it
was not site-specific. Rather than extrapolating results from other
facilities, EPA should have conducted modeling for the specific sources
being regulated. The BART Guidelines instruct EPA to conduct modeling
using CALPUFF or other appropriate dispersion models for each source
and highlight the importance of source-specific features, such as stack
flow rate and release height. EPA's use of ``visibility impact ratios''
derived from other sources is not consistent with EPA's own guidelines
and provides results that are too unreliable for the purpose of a BART
visibility analysis. In using the visibility impact ratio approach, EPA
is holding itself to a lower standard than it would expect from a state
air quality agency conducting a similar BART review.
Response: EPA's proposed rule acknowledged that there is greater
uncertainty associated with the visibility impact ratio approach.
Nonetheless, EPA finds this approach to be consistent the BART
Guidelines allowance for ``appropriate'' models and believes the
approach provides adequate indication of the visibility benefits of the
evaluated controls.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA's visibility analysis was
inconsistent with the statutory obligation to consider the degree of
visibility improvement that is ``reasonably anticipated.'' In Cliffs'
view, the use of ``possible'' impacts from an approach extrapolated
from other facilities does not satisfy this statutory requirement to
consider ``reasonably anticipated'' visibility impacts. In support of
this view, Cliffs noted that EPA extrapolated visibility results from
facilities other than taconite plants, such as an electric generating
unit. Moreover, Cliffs found EPA's use of sources in the ``general
area'' as unacceptable for the visibility analysis given that wind
conditions would affect the taconite facilities differently than the
facilities EPA relied upon. Additionally, the commenter noted
differences in stack conditions between the taconite facilities being
regulated and the sources that EPA relied upon.
Response: EPA's proposed rule acknowledged the uncertainty
associated with the visibility impact ratio approach, but noted that
despite the uncertainties, the Agency was confident that the
information was adequate to assess potential visibility improvements
due to emissions reductions at the specific facilities. While the
results obtained from this approach are not expected to be as precise
as source-specific CALPUFF modeling, they are based on visibility
improvements derived from existing regional scale modeling that was
conducted on sources in and around the northern Minnesota area. Given
the geographic proximity of the taconite facilities to those that were
modeled, EPA believes that the ratio approach provided adequate
assurance of the visibility improvements that can be expected from the
proposed emission reductions.
The results EPA obtained from its analysis are presented in terms
of deciview (DV) change and change in the number of days above the 0.5
DV threshold. In the proposed rule's summary of the impacts at Boundary
Waters, Voyageurs, and Isle Royale, these values ranged from 1.3 to 7.1
DVs of improvement with between 17 and 93 fewer days above the 0.5 DV
threshold. Therefore, even if the ratio approach was over-estimating
visibility improvements by a factor of two or three, the expected
benefits would still be significant.
For example, Cliffs submitted CALPUFF modeling that showed the
visibility improvements expected from the proposed rule for two of the
seven facilities--United Taconite and Tilden. This modeling was only
performed at the most impacted of the four affected Class I areas. EPA
also notes that these were the only facilities for which new
[[Page 8721]]
scrubbers were proposed as BART for SO2.
The results of the Cliffs' modeling for United Taconite and Tilden
are presented below. The first delta DV value is the subtraction of the
two 98th percentile impacts (base minus FIP).
Table 2--United Taconite Predicted Visibility Results for the Most Impacted Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Boundary waters 98th Voyageurs days Voyageurs 98th
Scenario/year Waters days percentile over 0.5 DV percentile
over 0.5 DV delta DV delta DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002................................. 36 0.594 17 0.454
Difference/2003................................. 39 0.579 14 0.649
Difference/2004................................. 33 0.545 17 0.439
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Tilden Predicted Visibility Results for the Most Impacted Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isle 98th Seney 98th
Scenario/year Isle Days over percentile Seney days percentile
0.5 DV delta DV over 0.5 DV delta DV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002................................. 2 0.099 3 0.146
Difference/2003................................. 8 0.160 3 0.099
Difference/2004................................. 2 0.112 2 0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The baseline emissions associated with the runs above totaled
approximately 3,344 tons per year of SO2 and 3,129 tons per
year of NOX for United Taconite, and approximately 1,563
tons per year of SO2 and 2928 tons per year of
NOX for Tilden. The post-control emissions totaled
approximately 233 tons per year of SO2 and 2,435 tons per
year of NOX for United Taconite, and approximately 174 tons
per year of SO2 and 2,414 tons per year of NOX
for Tilden. The United Taconite emissions were based on CEMS data
collected under a 100-percent coal-firing scenario, while Tilden
emissions were based on stack test information collected under a
primarily coal-firing scenario.
EPA believes that Cliffs' modeled baseline emission rates are low
based on previous BART modeling and figures from the proposed rule.
Expected post-control emissions reductions also appear to be
underestimated. The proposed rule identified baseline emissions of
approximately 5,330 tons per year for NOX and 4,043 tons per
year for SO2 for United Taconite, and approximately 1,153
tons per year of SO2 and 4,613 tons per year of
NOX for Tilden. The BART Guidelines recommend that sources
use the highest 24-hour average actual emission rate, for the most
recent three or five year period of meteorological data, to
characterize the maximum potential benefit. By using a low baseline
emission rate, Cliffs' modeling underestimates the emissions reductions
that will be achieved by the installation of BART controls and the
resulting visibility improvements. However, even though the overall
SO2 and NOX reductions modeled by Cliffs were
over 50 percent lower than the reductions projected in the proposed
rule,\22\ the results still showed significant visibility improvement
at the Boundary Waters. Consequently, EPA believes that Cliffs'
modeling provides further evidence that the visibility improvements
predicted by the ratio approach are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This 50 percent discrepancy applies to United Taconite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the CALPUFF model input and meteorological data files
submitted by Cliffs, EPA, with substantial assistance from the National
Park Service, re-ran the baseline and control-case scenarios for United
Taconite and Tilden with data from the proposed rule. For United
Taconite, the baseline emissions of SO2 and NOX
reflect the emissions presented in the proposed rule. The United
Taconite control emissions for NOX were based on a 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu emission limit and heat inputs of 200 MMBtu/hr for
line 1 and 260 MMBtu/hr for line 2. The United Taconite control
emissions for SO2 were based on an approximate 94-percent
reduction from the base case.\23\ For Tilden, the baseline emissions
for both visibility pollutants were also based on those contained in
the proposed rule. The Tilden control emissions for NOX were
based on a conversion to 100 percent natural gas, with an 80 percent
reduction from the baseline for SO2 and a 65 percent
reduction for NOX. The results of this modeling are shown
below, but only for the most impacted Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EPA notes that the control emissions for SO2 at
United Taconite differ between those modeled and those that will be
achieved based on the final rule because EPA is no longer requiring
FGD as a result of the switch to low-sulfur fuels at the facility.
This change will result in higher controlled emissions and would be
expected to lower the visibility improvements demonstrated in the
model slightly.
Table 4--EPA Modeling--United Taconite Predicted Visibility Results for
the Most Impacted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Boundary Waters 98th
Scenario/year Waters days percentile
over 0.5 DV delta DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002............................... 80 1.316
Difference/2003............................... 71 1.223
Difference/2004............................... 62 1.358
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--EPA Modeling--Tilden Predicted Visibility Results for the Most
Impacted Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seney 98th
Scenario/year Seney days percentile
over 0.5 DV delta DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference/2002............................... 0 0.320
Difference/2003............................... 0 0.206
Difference/2004............................... 1 0.165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, EPA's CALPUFF modeling shows significant visibility
improvement can be expected due to the installation of BART controls at
United Taconite and Tilden. EPA believes that these results lend
additional support to the accuracy of the visibility analysis that was
performed for all facilities in the proposed rule. EPA stands by the
results of its ratio approach and believes that it produced reasonable
results for the sources examined.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
[[Page 8722]]
Comment: Cliffs commented that the proposed rule failed to properly
integrate the visibility analysis with cost considerations and that EPA
should have identified the costs of controls relative to the visibility
improvement using a $/DV metric. In support of this view, Cliffs
provided data showing that the costs per DV improvement are very high
at two of its facilities: $65 million per DV at United Taconite and
$140 million per DV at Tilden. Finally, Cliffs noted that FLMs have
cited a threshold of $20 million per DV in correspondence with states,
and that any figure beyond this threshold constitutes excessively high
costs for the degree of visibility improvement achieved.
Response: EPA disagrees that a cost per DV analysis was required.
The BART Guidelines do not require EPA or the states to conduct such an
analysis when evaluating the visibility improvement factor. While the
BART Guidelines suggest cost per DV as a possible parameter for
consideration, its use is entirely discretionary. There are numerous
examples of BART analyses conducted by states and EPA that have not
calculated this metric.
Moreover, EPA believes that Cliffs' comment underestimates the
visibility impacts from the two facilities that were modeled, leading
to erroneous cost per DV figures. As was explained in detail in the
response to the previous comment, Cliffs substantially underestimated
the baseline emission rates at United Taconite and Tilden, which in
turn resulted in emissions reduction estimates that are also too low.
The BART Guidelines recommend that the highest 24-hour average actual
emission rate, for the most recent three or five-year period of
meteorological data, be used to calculate the maximum potential
benefit. Overall, the emissions reductions predicted by Cliffs'
modeling analysis were less than 50 percent of the emissions reductions
projected by EPA for United Taconite.
Finally, Cliffs' reference to the $20 million per DV threshold is
misleading. The FLMs recommend that cost per DV be calculated
cumulatively to include improvements at all affected Class I areas.
Cliffs' analysis, on the other hand, only included visibility
improvement at a single Class I area, thereby inflating its total cost
per DV figures.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that NOX-related visibility
improvements should be discounted because nitrate visibility impacts
peak in the winter and winter-time visitation at the affected Class I
areas is significantly less than during other times of the year. Cliffs
noted that the BART Guidelines allow for consideration as to whether
impacts occur ``during the tourist season.''
Response: EPA agrees that nitrate impacts are more dominant in the
winter. Nonetheless, daily nitrate impacts from April through October
are not trivial. EPA also agrees that the BART Guidelines allow states
to consider the timing of impacts in addition to other factors related
to visibility impairment. However, states are not required to do so,
and to our knowledge, neither Michigan nor Minnesota did so in their
visibility analyses. EPA is not required to substitute a source's
desired exercise of discretion for that of the states. Furthermore,
when promulgating a FIP, EPA stands in the shoes of the state. In that
capacity, EPA is not required to consider the seasonality of impacts
and has chosen not to do so here. Taking into account visitation
contradicts the goal of the regional haze rule of improving visibility
on the 20 percent best and worst days. Indeed, EPA believes that the
experiences of visitors who come to Class I areas during periods other
than the peak visitation season are important and should not be
discounted.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs cited a number of other flaws in EPA's overall
approach to visibility that it believed led to unreliable or overstated
impacts from the taconite facilities. First, Cliffs asserted that EPA
used natural visibility conditions that were ``too clear, excluding
conditions such as fires, which had the effect of overstating the
impacts of the facilities modeled relative to natural conditions.
Second, Cliffs asserted that the chemistry in the current EPA-approved
version of CALPUFF, as well as regional photochemical models such as
CAMx, overestimates the impact of NOX emissions on
visibility impairment. Cliffs argued that this is especially true for
winter nitrate haze due to the models' static predictions of ammonia
background concentrations that should vary seasonally to be in line
with monitored observations. As a result, Cliffs concluded that the
NOX emission reductions that will accompany the installation
of BART are being improperly credited with visibility improvements that
will not occur in the Minnesota and Michigan Class I areas. Finally,
Cliffs cited real-world monitor studies as evidence that large sources
that curtailed or shut down operations had little effect on visibility
monitors. The first of these studies evaluated the changes in
visibility monitoring at the Boundary Waters during periods of low
operation at the taconite facilities during 2009. The second study
evaluated changes in visibility monitoring at the Grand Canyon after
shutdown of the Mohave Power Plant.
Response: EPA disagrees with these purported flaws in our approach,
many of which have been raised in the context of other states' BART
determinations. Regarding the issue of natural background conditions,
similar issues were addressed in EPA's action on the North Dakota
regional haze SIP (77 FR 20909, April 6, 2012). EPA recognizes that
variability in natural sources of visibility impairment cause
variability in natural haze levels as described in the Agency's
``Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the
Regional Haze Rule.'' \24\ Progress toward natural visibility in Class
I areas includes improvement toward natural conditions for the 20
percent worst days and no degradation of visibility on the 20 percent
best days. The use of the 20 percent worst days in the calculation of
the uniform rate of progress takes into consideration visibility
impairment from wild fires, windblown dust, and other natural sources
of haze. For the evaluation of visibility impacts for BART sources,
however, EPA recommends using the natural visibility baseline for the
20 percent best days for comparison to the ``cause or contribute''
applicability thresholds. This estimated baseline is reasonably
conservative and consistent with the goal of attaining natural
visibility conditions. While EPA recognizes that there are natural
sources of haze, the use of the 20 percent worst days is inappropriate
for the ``cause or contribute'' applicability thresholds. For example,
if visibility impacts were evaluated in comparison to days with very
poor natural visibility resulting from nearby wild fires or dust
storms, the impacts of BART sources would be significantly reduced
relative to these
[[Page 8723]]
poor natural visibility conditions and would not be protective of
natural visibility on the 20 percent best days.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(September 2003), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf. ``Natural visibility conditions
represent the long-term degree of visibility that is estimated to
exist in a given mandatory Federal Class I area in the absence of
human-caused impairment. It is recognized that natural visibility
conditions are not constant, but rather they vary with changing
natural processes (e.g., windblown dust, fire, volcanic activity,
biogenic emissions). Specific natural events can lead to high short-
term concentrations of particulate matter and its precursors.
However, for the purpose of this guidance and implementation of the
regional haze program, natural visibility conditions represents a
long-term average condition analogous to the 5-year average best-
and worst-day conditions that are tracked under the regional haze
program.'' Guidance at 1-1.
\25\ As part of the settlement of a case brought by the Utility
Air Regulatory Group challenging the BART Guidelines, EPA agreed to
issue guidance clarifying that states may use either the 20 percent
best days or the annual average in estimating natural visibility in
the evaluation of a BART source's impacts. This guidance makes clear
that states have the flexibility to use either approach in
estimating natural background conditions. Here, the states were not
required to use the annual average and did not. Similarly, in
issuing a FIP, EPA is not required to use the annual average either
and chose not to in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to Cliffs' comment on atmospheric chemistry, the
approach used by EPA in the proposed rule relied on regional-scale
modeling conducted by MPCA where ammonia values varied temporally and
spatially. This is in contrast to the approach used in the CALPUFF
modeling submitted by Cliffs where a constant 1 ppb monthly average
ammonia value was used. While ammonia data is not available for the
vicinity of the sources of interest, data is available for sites
located in the Class I areas (Fernberg, MN) as well as for sites to the
south more representative of northern Wisconsin and southern
Minnesota.\26\ The available Fernberg ammonia data includes several
years of information and has an overall two-week average value of about
0.5 ppb with several two-week periods over 1 ppb. The Perkinstown site
located in northern Wisconsin is in an area combining forest,
grassland, and agricultural uses and has an overall two-week average
ammonia concentration of about 1.5 ppb with several two-week periods
over 1.5 ppb. Consequently, the value of 1 ppb used in the modeling
submitted by Cliffs is most likely representative of the ammonia
concentration in the vicinity of the sources of interest. However, EPA
again reiterates that Cliffs' largely baseless criticism of CALPUFF
does not apply to the Agency's ratio approach, which relied on
regional-scale modeling conducted by the states that included temporal
and spatial variations in ammonia concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Atmospheric Deposition Program, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/AMoN/sites/data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Cliffs' comment concerning the two monitoring
studies, EPA does not find either of the studies to be persuasive with
respect to the impacts of taconite sources on visibility. The first
study asserts that the 2009 decline in taconite production and a
negligible change in visibility are evidence that further controls are
not warranted. EPA believes that that it is very difficult to discern
any effect from a one-year study and points out that the production
decline (as shown in Table 6 below) occurred during the spring and
summer, seasons for which Cliffs recognized that nitrate formation is
less important.
Table 6--Minnesota 2009 Pellet Production by Month
[Tons] \27\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pellet
Month production
(tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January................................................. 2,205,578
February................................................ 1,900,003
March................................................... 1,620,343
April................................................... 958,479
May..................................................... 181,739
June.................................................... 340,707
July.................................................... 849,363
August.................................................. 1,158,447
September............................................... 1,723,336
October................................................. 2,008,864
November................................................ 2,038,844
December................................................ 2,093,403
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second study Cliffs cited, which reviewed visibility monitoring
before and after the shutdown of the Mohave Power Plant in Nevada, is a
paper by Terhorst and Berkman (Atmospheric Environment, 2010). This
paper was subsequently examined and commented on in a paper by White et
al. (Atmospheric Environment, January 2012). There, White et al. state:
``[Terhorst and Berkman]'s technical analysis is thoughtfully conceived
and executed, but is misleadingly presented as discrediting previous
studies and their interpretation by regulators. In reality the
Terhorste Berkman analysis validates a consensus on MPP's (Mohave Power
Project) visibility impact that was established years before its
closure, in a collaborative assessment undertaken jointly by Federal
regulators and MPP's owners.'' Additionally, EPA has responded to
similar comments regarding the Mohave Power Project study and EPA's
visibility modeling in our action on the North Dakota regional haze SIP
(77 FR 20894, April 6, 2012).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minerals Tax
Division, Eveleth, MN.
\28\ There, EPA stated: ``In addition, the study by Terhorst and
Berkman does not convince us that use of CALPUFF modeling is
inappropriate for this action or that the CALPUFF modeling results
should be ignored. A model such as CALPUFF essentially holds
constant a number of factors in order to isolate the impacts of a
single source. As acknowledged by the study's authors, it is
extremely difficult in observational analyses to sufficiently
control for all factors, including emissions from other sources, to
be able to isolate the impacts of closure of a facility, especially
one located over 100 km from the Class I area at issue. In fact, the
paper notes that coarse soil mass impacts are an omitted variable in
the analytical analysis and that changes in those emissions may have
counteracted the visibility improvements expected from the source
shutdown'' (77 FR 20894, 20910).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, EPA believes that Cliffs, while identifying purported
areas where EPA's models exaggerate visibility impacts, overlooks that
there are aspects of the models that have been suggested by commenters
on our regional haze actions as under-predicting impacts. Some examples
include use of 24-hour average emissions impacts. Some examples include
use of 24-hour average emissions rather than hourly emissions, use of
monthly average relative humidity rather than daily humidity, and use
of 98th percentile results to compare to the threshold instead of the
highest day.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that certain control options should be
rejected because visibility modeling does not indicate the installation
of controls will result in a perceptible visibility improvement.
Response: EPA's disagrees. As explained in the proposed rule, EPA
believes that the application of BART will result in perceptible
improvements in visibility. Nonetheless, the perceptibility of
visibility improvement is not a prerequisite to the selection of a
control option as BART. The preamble to the BART Guidelines state,
``Even though the visibility improvement from an individual source may
not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting BART
because the contribution to haze may be significant relative to other
source contributions in the Class I area. Thus, we disagree that the
degree of improvement should be contingent upon perceptibility'' (70 FR
39104, 39129, July 6, 2005).
Minnesota's regional haze SIP described the importance of the
contribution of sources in northeastern Minnesota to visibility
impairment in the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs national parks.
Accordingly, Minnesota developed a special plan for the northeast
region of the state. Minnesota explained:
This area was targeted for controls under the long-term strategy
for several reasons. First, the MPCA's analysis of 2002 emissions
from the top 18 emitting point sources within Minnesota show that
sources from this region make up just \1/3\ of the total emissions
but provide \2/3\ of the total visibility impact. (See Chapter 8, on
modeling.) Therefore, they have a much larger impact on the Class I
areas than emissions from farther away. In addition, the taconite
facilities may be currently uncontrolled or under-controlled for
SO2 or NOX, and on the books control
strategies are projected to cause fewer
[[Page 8724]]
emission decreases in this region than in the remainder of the
state.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Minnesota's 2009 regional haze SIP submittal at 96 (Docket
EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0002).
Thus, Minnesota's assessment supports the determination that taconite
facilities contribute to regional haze even if individual impacts are
modeled below thresholds for human perceptibility.
K. Comments Concerning Requirements for Continuous Emissions Monitoring
1. Comments in Support of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Requirements
Commenter: National Parks Conservation Association.
Comment: EPA's proposed rule includes the use of CEMS as a part of
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure the
continuous application of BART. Such monitors provide more accurate
data about the emissions from taconite facilities than previous
methods. As such, they are essential for tracking emissions and
determining their impact on the surrounding communities. Moreover, CEMS
can be used as pollution control tools by helping to fine-tune
combustion and process controls in a way that periodic stack tests and
predictive monitoring cannot. As such, we fully support the required
application of CEMS on these sources.
Commenter: National Park Service.
Comment: NPS is especially pleased that EPA has proposed testing
and CEMS requirements for the subject taconite plants. Our discussions
with U.S. Steel, which has led the way in installation and operation of
CEMS on indurating furnaces, have led to the mutual agreement that CEMS
data is essential for the proper tuning and operation of combustion
controls to reduce NOX emissions. Minnesota's regional haze
SIP discussed the need for requiring CEMS for the taconite industry to
monitor NOX for a number of reasons. These included setting
BART limits, allowing facilities to efficiently manage combustion,
resulting in less fuel use and fewer emissions, and tracking progress
under the Northeast Minnesota Plan. CEMS data is also essential for
assessing the effectiveness of SO2 controls and should
provide an indication of changes in fuel use or sulfur content for use
in future regional haze planning.
Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Comment: The Band agreed with the implementation of CEMS. CEMS will
provide the facility and regulators with real time data to ensure that
the controls in place are operating at optimum levels, thus saving
money for the facility and achieving the required control requirements.
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
Comment: The Association found requiring CEMS to be a good
complement to the NOX and SO2 controls at
taconite ore processing facilities. CEMS will provide these facilities
with an accurate and timely emissions count of NOX and
SO2 and will immediately alert owners to any deviations from
such emissions that might require correction.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comments in support of the proposed
CEMS requirements. EPA is finalizing the CEMS requirements as proposed.
2. Comments Questioning EPA's Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Requirements
Commenter: U.S. Forest Service.
Comment: In the Minnesota regional haze SIP, a statement is made
that CEMS ``would apply to NOX emissions at the facilities
burning natural gas and to SO2 emissions at facilities
burning high sulfur fuels.'' We do not understand why the
NOX CEMs are only being required at natural gas-fired
furnaces. Those furnaces burning fuels other than natural gas will also
investigate NOX control strategies and therefore will need
the CEMs.
Response: EPA is requiring CEMS for all seven subject-to-BART
taconite facilities. Each taconite facility must monitor its
NOX and SO2 emissions with CEMS.
Commenter: U. S. Steel and Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel stated that it is inappropriate to
require the use of a diluent monitor as part of the monitoring
requirements under the proposed rule.
Response: The need to install a diluent monitor is source-specific
and depends on a variety of factors, including the choice of monitors
installed. While some subject-to-BART facilities may not need to
install a diluent monitor, other facilities may because of their stack
characteristics, operating conditions, and monitors chosen. Because the
final rule covers a variety of facilities, EPA feels it is appropriate
to require a diluent monitor only for those facilities needing such a
unit. Therefore, the final rule has been revised to provide the
facilities with an option to demonstrate in their monitoring plans
whether a diluent monitor is needed or not.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that EPA failed to adequately support its
CEMS requirements and that EPA should allow flexibility in the
monitoring requirements. More specifically, EPA should require ``a
comparable method of emission estimation,'' such as parametric
emissions monitors, for each subject-to-BART source. Cliffs stated that
EPA's unsupported generalized statements do not provide adequate
justification for the Agency's burdensome monitoring determination.
Response: EPA clearly states in its technical support for the
proposed rule that CEMS are the best method for demonstrating
compliance because of the variability in furnace operations and
variable fuel usage across the furnaces. The variable fuel feeds and
feed material content can impact overall emissions from the process and
thereby create the need for continuous monitoring of emissions that
impact visibility. Parametric emissions monitor systems are an option
for processes that operate at stable, non-variable conditions, but are
not appropriate for taconite units. CEMS provide a continuous record of
data that can also be used by the facility owner or operator to monitor
emissions on a real-time basis. The installation and operation of CEMS
and the real-time evaluation of the CEMS data provide several benefits
to a facility that can directly lead to practices that reduce emissions
during all periods of operation.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that CEMS do not constitute proven
monitoring technology with respect to taconite furnaces.
Response: EPA disagrees. CEMS technology for NOX and
SO2 is proven in multiple industries, including the taconite
industry. U.S. Steel is successfully using CEMS at its Minntac and
Keetac facilities currently, and any problems experienced with the
initial installation of CEMS have been resolved. EPA expects facilities
will need some time to learn CEMS operation and how it impacts process
operations. EPA has incorporated additional time into the final rule
before certification is required to allow each facility to learn how
CEMS operates.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs asserted that the requirement to install CEMS
should be limited to waste stacks. Cliffs proposed to use stack testing
data to determine the percent distribution of NOX between
the hood-exhaust header and the waste-gas header to determine
compliance. Cliffs also stated that the use of a single
[[Page 8725]]
CEMS per furnace is consistent with Minntac, which currently utilizes
NOX and SO2 CEMS only.
Response: EPA disagrees with Cliffs that the use of CEMS should be
limited to waste stacks only. Available information shows that
emissions from hood-exhaust stacks can equal about 29 percent of total
furnace emissions. Given that nearly one-third of the furnace emissions
are from hood exhausts (and can vary), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to require CEMS on both waste stacks and hood-exhaust
stacks.
Cliffs incorrectly assumed that CEMS are required at each stack
venting to the atmosphere. EPA feels it is important to obtain
continuous and representative measurements of emissions from subject-
to-BART units. If representative measurements of total emissions from
subject-to-BART units can be obtained by installing CEMS in a single
vent just prior to the common header for the waste-gas stacks and hood-
exhaust stacks, then this final rule requires only two CEMS on each
stack (one NOX CEMS and one SO2 CEMS) for a total
of four CEMS, not ten. The initial monitoring plans required by this
final rule will be prepared by the facilities and will provide a means
through which an effective monitoring program will be put into place.
These plans should include proposals for CEMS types, CEMS numbers, CEMS
installation locations, QA/QC procedures, and any other topics and are
submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval. The
installation locations provided in these plans shall be determined
based on the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, appendices B and F.
Commenters: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that requiring CEMS on emergency stacks
is inappropriate.
Response: The requirement to install CEMS on emergency stacks
depends on the frequency and duration of the use of the emergency
stacks during emergency events. If emergency stacks are used on a daily
or weekly basis, then emissions from those stacks could have an impact
on annual emissions (and visibility) and should be tracked and
recorded. If emergency stacks are truly used infrequently for quick
releases, then a CEMS may not be necessary. This can be addressed by
each facility on a case-by-case basis in its monitoring plan.
Commenters: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
Comment: Cliffs stated that the subject-to-BART facilities should
be exempt from the applicable emission limits during startup, shutdown
and malfunction events.
Response: EPA disagrees. The CAA requires sources to comply with
applicable emission limits at all times, including during startup,
shutdown and malfunction. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019,
1021 (DC Cir. 2008); US Magnesium, LLC v. EPA, 690 F.3d 1157, 1170
(10th Cir. 2012).
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
and U.S. Steel.
Comment: Cliffs commented that the requirement to develop and
implement a corrective action program for excess emission events should
be directed toward the emissions unit and not be part of the CEMS
requirement.
Response: EPA agrees that the corrective action plan for excess
emission events should be directed toward the emissions unit. The
corrective action plan should establish procedures that operators will
follow each time an excess emission event occurs (as identified through
the use of real-time CEMS data). These procedures should outline steps
to adequately identify causes of excess emissions, actions to be taken
to minimize or eliminate those emissions, and evaluate and implement
practices to prevent the causes of such excess emissions from
reoccurring. The corrective action plan can be an independently
developed plan or the procedures can be incorporated into an existing
Quality Control Program Plan, corrective action plan, or other existing
standard operating plan.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that the dates proposed for installing
CEMS are infeasible and suggested an alternative compliance period of
18 months.
Response: EPA disagrees with the length of time Cliffs asserted is
needed to design and install CEMS. EPA recognizes that a certain period
of time will be needed if significant upgrades to stacks are necessary.
However, the design and installation of a CEMS can be completed far
more rapidly than the 18-month period suggested by Cliffs. EPA also
believes it is inappropriate to consider the time needed for CEMS
installation in a cumulative sequential manner as suggested by Cliffs.
Design, engineering requirements, and upgrades to data acquisition
systems can be performed at the same time as other activities required
by the proposed rule.
EPA also recognizes that once CEMS are installed and operating,
there will be a short period of time needed to optimize and become
familiar with the system in order to certify the units. EPA believes
that the entire process for CEMS installation can be successfully met
within the time periods outlined in the proposed rule. However, in
response to the comments received, the final rule provides an
additional 30 days to certify the CEMS and perform the initial Relative
Accuracy Test Audit of the CEMS. The anticipated dates for initial
certification and the Relative Accuracy Test Audit must be included in
the monitoring plan required by the rule.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: U.S. Steel commented that it is overly burdensome to
require redundant or backup monitoring systems to obtain emissions data
during periods of primary CEMS breakdown, repair, calibration check, or
zero span adjustment. U.S. Steel proposed to use data gap-filling
procedures during those periods when data are not available from the
CEMS due to these types of events.
Response: The purpose of including the requirement to use ``other
monitoring systems approved by EPA'' is to obtain real-time emissions
data during periods of primary CEMS breakdown, repair, calibration
check, or zero span adjustment. The secondary data can be used to
assure data availability and compliance on a continuous basis. However,
the requirement for ``other monitoring systems'' does not mean that a
second CEMS system is necessarily needed. Because the duration of these
CEMS downtime events is typically short, each subject-to-BART facility
can submit proposals for using parametric monitoring or engineering
estimates as a surrogate for actual emissions monitoring during these
CEMS events. EPA expects that CEMS will be operated at all times,
including periods of process unit startup, shutdown and malfunction,
except during the events identified above as described at 40 CFR
60.13(e).
EPA also disagrees with the suggestion that gap-filling procedures
(i.e., data substitution) should be used for periods of CEMS downtime.
Gap-filling procedures are appropriate under 40 CFR part 75 because it
is a cap-and-trade program. This final rule is more appropriately
related to regulations at 40 CFR part 60, where compliance with an
emission limit (rather than annual caps) is required. 40 CFR part 60
prohibits the use of ``data substitution'' (i.e., gap-filling) because
it does not provide accurate emission rates during the CEMS downtime.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: U.S. Steel commented that it is not appropriate to require
initial performance testing of subject-to-BART
[[Page 8726]]
facilities or units if the facility is operating a certified CEMS
system on the affected units.
Response: EPA has re-evaluated the need for initial performance
testing and agrees with U.S. Steel that it is not necessary to require
such testing, for purposes of this rule, at facilities that are or will
be operating CEMS when those CEMS will be used to determine compliance.
The requirement for initial performance testing has been removed from
the final rule. It is important to note that while initial performance
testing is being removed for purposes of demonstrating compliance,
subject-to-BART units must still be tested as part of the CEMS
certification process, although this the certification process will
typically not require a 30-day test.
L. Comments Concerning Compliance Schedules
Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Comment: The Band supported the installation of low NOX
burners and felt that the 1.5 years allowed for the initial
installation, with additional burner installations to follow one year
later, is a fair and progressive approach to control NOX
emissions.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that installing low
NOX burners is the appropriate approach. In response to
additional information submitted by other commenters, however, EPA
reviewed the proposed installation schedule has extended it by a number
of months in the final rule, as discussed in more detail below.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs commented that the BART Guidelines require the
states, or EPA when promulgating a FIP, to establish deadlines for
compliance with BART emission limits no later than five years from the
date of approval or promulgation. EPA's proposed rule, however,
contains arbitrary compliance deadlines that are unreasonably short.
Cliffs stated that it would take at least four and a half years for it
to complete the required engineering, installation, and commissioning
of low NOX burners for a single furnace. ArcelorMittal
stated that ``a minimum of 48 months would be necessary to complete
this onerous process'' for its Minorca Mine facility.
Response: CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires subject-to-BART
sources to install BART and comply with any applicable emission limits
``as expeditiously as practicable.'' The Act defines this term to mean
``as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than five years
after * * * the date of promulgation.'' CAA section 169A(g)(4). This
language does not indicate that a compliance schedule of five years is
to be assumed. Rather, BART must be installed ``as expeditiously as
practicable,'' meaning as soon as the source is capable of installing
the controls and meeting the applicable emission limits.
In response to EPA's request for a detailed timeline of the steps
required to install low NOX burners on a taconite furnace,
U.S. Steel provided the following information based on its actual
experience with a previous install:
Table 7--U.S. Steel's Estimate Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Task Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed low NOX burner engineering. 6 months.
Prepare permit applicability 2 months.
determination.
Procure and manufacture low NOX 8 months.
burner.
Install low NOX burner.............. 3 weeks.
-----------------------------------
Shakedown of low NOX burner......... 6 months.
Total time...................... 22 months, 3 weeks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this information, ArcelorMittal included an
attachment to its comments of a September 27, 2012 report by Fives
North American titled ``Retrofitting Low NOX Burners on the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Straight-Grate Pelletizing Furnace.'' In that
report, Fives states that to develop an engineering solution that
complies with environmental requirements, it is important to allow
sufficient time (approximately four to eight months) for engineering
analysis and (possibly) testing. The schedule should allow for an
additional seven months for fabrication and delivery, followed by an
additional two months for installation and commissioning. This amounts
to an estimated time of 17 months to achieve compliance.
Based on the timeline provided by U.S. Steel, the vendor estimate
from Fives, and concerns from the commenters, EPA is allowing 26 months
for a company's first indurating furnace to comply with the final rule.
This will allow each source sufficient time to perform an engineering
analysis, prepare a permit applicability determination, manufacture and
install the low NOX burner, and allow for a shakedown period
to achieve compliance after the low NOX burner has been
installed. This is eight months longer than the proposed compliance
schedule, allowing for the additional time needed for a shakedown
period.
The compliance schedule for additional indurating furnaces is being
finalized as proposed. Specifically, a second line has an additional
year to comply, for a total of 38 months from the effective date of the
rule. A third line has two additional years to comply, for a total of
50 months from the effective date of the rule. This staggered
installation schedule will minimize any potential impacts on
production. EPA notes that U.S. Steel Minntac is following a shorter
schedule consistent with the proposed rule. U.S. Steel Keetac will also
follow a modified schedule. For more detail, see the comment below.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: Due to the lead time associated with acquiring process
fans at Keetac, which is estimated to be 52 weeks according to a third-
party engineering firm working on the project, and the timing of the
major outage schedule, which only occurs once per year, the potential
exists to miss the timing window where the two sync up to meet the
proposed schedule. Therefore, U.S. Steel requests an additional 12
months to the proposed schedule for installation. In addition, because
this will be the first installation of this technology at Keetac, U.S.
Steel requests an additional 6 months prior to compliance with the
proposed emission limit to allow for a shakedown period to optimize the
burner for NOX reductions.
Response: EPA agrees with U.S. Steel that additional time is needed
to procure new pre-heat fans and to achieve compliance after
installation. In the final rule, Keetac has three years (36 months from
the effective date of the
[[Page 8727]]
rule) for its single line to comply with the rule.
Commenter: U.S. Steel.
Comment: Due to timing of major outage schedules, U.S. Steel
requests flexibility in the order of installation for Line 4 and Line 5
at Minntac. U.S. Steel agrees with the overall intent of the proposed
schedule, but requests the option to select the order of installation
of low NOX burners at Lines 4 and 5.
Response: EPA agrees with the U.S. Steel's request to leave to the
discretion of U.S. Steel the order of installation of low
NOX burners at Lines 4 and 5 at Minntac.
M. Comments Asserting That EPA Must Conduct Government-to-Government
Consultation With the Tribes
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).
Comment: The Association understands that at the request of the
Fond du Lac Band, EPA held a June 28, 2012 conference call with the
region's Tribes to discuss the FIP. We appreciate EPA for doing this
and highly recommend that the Agency hold similar calls with Tribes for
other such actions. However, EPA must also honor its commitment to
conduct formal government-to-government consultation in accordance with
Executive Order (EO) 13175.
The Association disagrees with EPA's statement that the FIP ``does
not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175
does not apply to this rule.'' The application of BART to taconite ore
processing facilities that either are in close proximity to Tribes and
their communities or are within Treaty-ceded territory areas
maintaining Tribes' usufructary functions is a regulatory action that
has Tribal implications. As such, EPA must conduct formal government-
to-government consultation with Tribes.
There are also clear purposes for EPA to conduct formal government-
to-government consultation with Tribes. First, it provides for more
candid conversations between individual Tribes and EPA than would occur
otherwise in a group meeting involving other Tribes. Second, each
Tribe's circumstances are unique and must be treated as such by EPA.
Group meetings would only give short shrift to these circumstances.
Third, most cultural resources information is protected from release
under statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.
Discussion of such information as part of a group meeting risks its
release to the general public and potentially endangers Tribal cultural
sites and practices. Finally, the subject matter may be so unique, such
as a dispute between an individual Tribe about whose cultural resources
might be located within or near a taconite ore processing facility,
that government-to-government consultation between the Tribe and EPA
could provide the best opportunity for a resolution to the situation
versus a group meeting where any number of issues might be discussed in
a finite period of time.
Response: EPA acknowledges that this action may have tribal
implications. EPA recognizes that Tribes may have significant interests
in regulatory programs even if the potential Tribal impacts are not the
types specifically identified in the Executive Order. In this case, EPA
initiated consultation with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. While the Tribes ultimately chose not to
engage in individual consultation, EPA did communicate with Tribal
representatives to ensure that information was made available and that
there was sufficient opportunity for questions and discussion. This
effort is described in further detail in Section IV of this final rule.
EPA appreciates the comments provided by the Tribes and NTAA on this
rule, which will benefit Tribes through reduced pollution and improved
visibility.
N. Comments Concerning Non-Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Rule
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources.
Comment: Cliffs commented that significant environmental impacts
will result if the rule is finalized as proposed. Cliffs stated that
increased fuel combustion resulting from low NOX burner
application will result in increased emissions of the products of
combustion. Cliffs added that EPA's proposed SO2 controls
also carry ancillary environmental consequences.
Response: EPA disagrees. The BART Guidelines recognize that
environmental concerns become important when sensitive site-specific
receptors exist and are impacted by byproducts of the control device.
However, the fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste
that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against that
technology as BART. In this case, there are no such sensitive, site-
specific issues. To avoid any such issues, EPA rejected the use of wet
SO2 scrubbing at taconite plants in Minnesota because
wastewater from wet scrubbing had the potential to interfere with the
production of wild rice.
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
Comment: The Association commented that Tribal traditional
practices will benefit by controlling NOX and SO2
emissions from taconite ore processing facilities. Such benefits
specifically relate to visibility, health, and acid deposition.
Not only does regional haze, which the FIP addresses, reduce the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see, it marginalizes
Tribal traditional practices that have existed since time immemorial.
Many Tribes engage in traditional practices associated with sacred
mountains, lakes, or other places that hold significance to them. Some
of these practices are dependent on Tribal members being able to view
and honor such icons that may be located many miles from a Tribe's
lands.
A corresponding effect of NOX and SO2
emissions on Tribal traditional practices is on the health of Tribal
members. Tribes are not immune from the health effects of
NOX and SO2, such as asthma, bronchitis, and
heart disease. In fact, they are more susceptible to these effects
based on lifestyles. Many Tribes and their members spend considerable
time outdoors engaged in Tribal traditional practices. Time-honored
practice precludes Tribal members from simply moving indoors during
high or moderate NOX or SO2 emission episodes.
Hence, they experience increased health effects due to their long-term
exposure to NOX and SO2. However, the FIP does
much to reduce their exposures to such emissions from taconite ore
processing facilities.
Tribal traditional practices are also affected by acid deposition
for which NOX and SO2 serve as precursors. Upon
being emitted into the atmosphere, NOX and SO2
return to the Earth's surface is one of two ways. The first occurs when
these pollutants mix with water vapor in the atmosphere and are
subsequently converted into acids. This is known as wet deposition. The
second way occurs when NOX and SO2 form gases and
salts. These gases and salts can cling to basically anything, including
the ground, trees, and buildings. After they attach to an object, they
are converted into acids at the point where moisture in the air mixes
with them. Tribal foods, such as wild rice, can be contaminated by acid
deposition. Forest ecosystems, which are an integral part to Tribal
life, are susceptible to oxidation damage due to acid deposition and
ozone exposure. Acid deposition adversely affects everything in the
forest ecosystem, and the plants and animals on which a number of
Tribes subsist. The
[[Page 8728]]
petroglyphs (rock images) and other sacred sites of Tribes are also
susceptible to acid deposition and decay. The FIP helps to control acid
deposition that would otherwise occur due to the emissions of taconite
ore processing facilities. Undeniably, this will benefit the region's
Tribes.
Response: While the focus of the regional haze program is to
improve visibility at Class I areas, the EPA agrees with the
Association that emission reductions made to improve visibility have
additional benefits. EPA agrees that Midwestern Tribes will benefit as
the regional haze program is implemented and emission reductions occur.
Commenter: Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe.
Comment: The Band commented about concerns related to the damage of
wild rice. Wild rice is extremely susceptible to sulfides where impacts
from these emissions can be currently observed. The effects of sulfide
degradation can have detrimental effects on Tribal Lifeways for this
important cultural and subsistence food source.
Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
Comment: Sulfur dioxide is a pollutant of special concern to the
Red Cliff Tribe due to its negative impacts on sensitive aquatic
organisms such as wild rice and its interaction with atmospherically
deposited mercury in aquatic systems. Reductions in SO2
could help to decrease the methylation of mercury in waters fished by
Red Cliff and reduce limitations on how much locally harvested fish
tribal members can safely consume.
Response: EPA did consider the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts as part of its BART determinations. EPA is aware
of the concerns regarding sulfur oxides in wastewater and the resulting
effect on wild rice. Accordingly, EPA considered the significance of
the potential impacts of wastewater releases while evaluating the
control technology options for the taconite facilities.
Commenter: National Tribal Air Association.
Comment: Tribes shoulder a disproportionate burden of the negative
environmental consequences caused by the operation of commercial and
industrial facilities. Most of these facilities are not located in
Tribal communities, but their emissions often find their way onto
Reservations and Ceded Territories. Such is the case for the taconite
ore processing facilities whose current emissions not only affect the
region's Tribes, but whose conversion to ozone could impact these
Tribes even further. The Association finds that the NOX
reductions required under the FIP will help address the problem of
ozone levels rising with respect to the taconite ore processing
facilities and will inhibit climate change albeit a small amount.
Response: While emission reductions being required of the taconite
industry are solely to improve visibility at mandatory Class I areas,
EPA agrees that collateral benefits may also be achieved due to the
emission reductions. EPA did not attempt to identify or quantify these
additional potential benefits in this final rule.
O. Miscellaneous Comments
Commenter: Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
Comment: The Northeast Minnesota Plan calls for a 30 percent
reduction in emissions of SO2 and NOX (regional
haze causing pollutants) from large emitters in this region by the year
2018, with an interim goal of a 20 percent reduction by the year 2012.
Minnesota's regional haze SIP states that these facilities are well on-
track for meeting these goals. However, over the past several years
there have been numerous applications for new mining projects in the
area. The Band is very concerned with maintaining the progress that has
already been achieved, so that Voyageurs National Park and the Boundary
Waters Canoe and Wilderness Area can meet their regional haze
Reasonable Progress Goals, as required in the Regional Haze Rule.
Response: EPA gave final approval to many elements of the Minnesota
regional haze plan on June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34801). This approval
included the Northeast Minnesota Plan. EPA expects Minnesota to meet
the pollution reductions goals in the Plan, which may include needing
to offset any emission increases from new and expanding facilities with
deeper emission reductions from other facilities.
Commenter: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Comment: The Band commented that it was concerned how the taconite
facilities will meet the new hourly SO2 and NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have recently been
issued by EPA. It is likely that at least some of these facilities will
need to install additional control equipment in order to be able to
demonstrate attainment with these new standards. The installation of
low NOX burners on the BART-eligible taconite sources
promises to be a good solution, both for achieving the one-hour
NO2 NAAQS and for reducing regional haze. Given the current
state of uncertainty as to how modeling for this one-hour standard
should be approached, it may be years before controls are required on
taconite furnaces as a solution to any modeled exceedances of the
NAAQS. The Band is concerned that this will cause delay in achieving
regional haze goals in this area. It is also possible that litigation
against or revocation of the NAAQS could further delay the area in
achieving these goals.
Response: EPA agrees that control technology installed to meet BART
requirements for regional haze may also contribute to improvements in
ambient air quality.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs noted that it could not duplicate some of the delta
DV and delta days values listed in Tables V-C.10, V-C.11, and V-C.14 of
the proposed FIP.
Response: Upon review of the values, EPA agrees with the Cliffs
that some of the delta DV and delta days values were incorrect in the
proposed rule. Specifically, some of the values listed in Tables V-C.5,
V-C.8, and V.C.9 were incorrect. Cliffs also noted that it could not
reproduce values in Tables V-C.10, V-C.11, and V-C.14. These values
were linked to values in the previous tables and also were listed
incorrectly. EPA regrets the errors, but overall, the corrections were
minor and did not change the conclusions reached. Corrected tables are
listed below.
Table V-C.5--BART NOX and SO2 Emission Reductions and Modeled Visibility Impact/Emission Reduction Ratios for
Fine Particulates at Class I Areas for United Taconite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Parameter waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Decrease ([Delta] NOX)............................ 0 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[[Page 8729]]
SO2 Emissions Decrease ([Delta] SO2)............................ 1,837 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[Delta] dv PM2.5................................................ -1.2 -0.8 -0.3
[Delta] dv PM2.5/[Delta] SO2.................................... -0.00065 -0.00043 -0.000016
[Delta] Days PM2.5.............................................. -10 -8 -3
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] SO2.................................. -0.0054 -0.0044 -0.0016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-C.8--BART NOX and SO2 Emission Reductions and Modeled Visibility Impact/Emission Reduction Ratios for
Fine Particulates at Class I Areas for Northshore Mining-Silver Bay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Parameter waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Decrease ([Delta] NOX)............................ 678 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions Decrease ([Delta] SO2)............................ 444 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[Delta] dv PM2.5................................................ -0.2 -0.1 -0.2
[Delta] dv PM2.5/[Delta] NOX.................................... -0.00029 -0.00015 -0.00029
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] SO2.................................... -0.00045 -0.00023 -0.00045
[Delta] Days PM2.5.............................................. -5 -1 -3
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] NOX.................................. -0.0074 -0.0015 -0.0044
[Delta] Days PM2.5/[Delta] SO2.................................. -0.011 -0.0023 -0.0068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-C.9--Averaged Visibility Impact/Emission Change Ratios for Analyzed/Impacted Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Parameter ratio waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] NOX.................................... -0.00061 -0.00030 -0.00042
[Delta] DV PM2.5/[Delta] SO2.................................... -0.00050 -0.00025 -0.00030
[Delta] Days/[Delta] NOX........................................ -0.0083 -0.004 -0.00524
[Delta] Days/[Delta] SO2........................................ -0.0067 -0.0030 -0.0037
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-C.10--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for ArcelorMittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction......................................... 2,859 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV...................................................... -1.7 -0.9 -1.2
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV........................................... -24 -11 -15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-C.11--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for Hibbing Taconite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction......................................... 5,259 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV...................................................... -3.2 -1.6 -2.2
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV........................................... -44 -21 -28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V-C.12--Estimated Emission Reductions and Resulting Changes in Visibility Factors for U.S. Steel-Keetac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary
Visibility factor or pollutant emissions reduction waters Voyageurs Isle Royale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions Reduction......................................... 2,908 tons/year
-----------------------------------------------
[Delta] DV...................................................... -1.8 -0.9 -1.2
[[Page 8730]]
[Delta] Days > 0.5 DV........................................... -24 -11 -15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: References to the optional use of Part 75 recordkeeping
requirements should be removed from the proposed rule because taconite
furnaces are not Acid Rain subject units.
Response: EPA intended to provide the Part 75 recordkeeping
requirements as an option for facilities electing to use those
recordkeeping requirements. If a subject-to-BART facility is not
subject to the Acid Rain requirements, then recordkeeping requirements
of either 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 63 may be used.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine,
and U.S. Steel.
Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel noted that the reference to 40 CFR
163.3 is incorrect and should be revised to 40 CFR 136.3.
Response: A correct citation is provided in the final rule.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine.
Comment: Cliffs noted that the reference to 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B, Performance Specification 2, Procedure 1, is incorrect.
Procedure 1 should be associated with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
Response: A correct citation is provided in the final rule.
Commenter: Cliffs Natural Resources, ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine,
and U.S. Steel.
Comment: Cliffs and U.S. Steel stated that the inclusion of
references to the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 is inappropriate
and overly burdensome. The references to 40 CFR part 63 should be
removed.
Response: EPA included references to 40 CFR part 63 because many of
those requirements (including the development of a startup, shutdown
and malfunction plan and monitoring plan) should have already been
developed for the subject-to-BART facilities for purposes of the
Taconite MACT rule. Additionally, the requirements associated with the
installation, certification, maintenance, and operation of the CEMS are
similar. However, in response to the comments received, references to
40 CFR part 63 will be removed. References to 40 CFR part 60,
appendices B and F will be retained where appropriate. The rule has
also been revised to specifically identify requirements that we
intended to include (for example notifications or reporting), but which
were previously incorporated through citing to either 40 CFR part 60 or
40 CFR part 63.
III. What action is EPA taking?
The emission sources discussed below are indurating furnaces at
seven taconite facilities. Six of the taconite facilities,
ArcelorMittal, Hibbing Taconite, Northshore Mining, U.S. Steel Keetac,
U.S. Steel Minntac, and United Taconite, are located in Minnesota,
while Tilden is located in Michigan. EPA has adopted the terminology
used by the companies and states to identify the indurating furnaces to
ensure consistency with permits and other enforceable documents.
However, regardless of whether the emission sources are referred to as
furnaces, kilns, or lines, all terms refer to indurating furnaces,
which involve a high temperature process for hardening taconite pellets
for subsequent use in blast furnaces.
A. NOX Limits
EPA is revising its proposed limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU,
on a 30-day rolling average, to a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBTU
when only natural gas is used and a limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBTU for all other fuels, on a 30-day rolling average, for all
indurating furnaces. These revised limits are based upon test data
submitted by U.S. Steel for Lines 6 and 7 at Minntac while using low
NOX burners. This revision affects U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S.
Steel Minntac, and United Taconite, which use solid fuel. The other
four facilities will be subject to the natural gas limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBTU. To meet these limits, the sources will
essentially be required to install low NOX burners on each
indurating furnace. Based upon information received during the comment
period, EPA believes that 26 months is a reasonable time for a
company's first indurating furnace to comply with the limit. This will
allow each company sufficient time to perform an engineering analysis,
prepare a permit applicability determination, manufacture and install
the low NOX burner(s), and provide for a shakedown period to
achieve compliance after the low NOX burner(s) have been
installed. While this compliance schedule is six months longer than the
proposal, EPA believes that the additional time is necessary for a
shakedown period.
As specified in the proposal, a second line will have an additional
year to comply with the emission limit, while a third line will have
two additional years to comply. This approach will stagger the
installation and minimize impacts on production. EPA notes, however,
that U.S. Steel Minntac is on a shorter schedule consistent with what
was proposed, while U.S. Steel Keetac has been given three years to
comply with its only line. The additional time afforded to U.S. Steel
Keetac is primarily due to the lead time associated with acquiring
process fans.
B. SO2 Limits
EPA is revising all of the proposed SO2 limits as
follows. Unless otherwise stated, these limits are based on the 95th
percentile UPL.
Tilden Mining Company
Tilden's Grate Kiln Line 1 is required to convert to 100 percent
natural gas and install CEMS within one year of the effective date of
this rule. Within 26 months of the effective date of this rule, an
emission limit must be established, in terms of lbs SO2/hr,
on a 30-day rolling average, based on the 95th percentile UPL. This
compliance schedule allows two months to process 12 months of CEMS
data. This is a change from the proposed requirement to install an add-
on control system, achieving either 5 ppmv SO2 or 95 percent
removal efficiency, because such a control system is not economically
feasible when a furnace is using only natural gas.
U.S. Steel Keetac
An emission limit of 225 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply to U.S. Steel Keetac's Grate Kiln
pelletizing furnace beginning three months from the effective date of
the rule. This numerical limit and compliance schedule are the same as
those contained in the proposed rulemaking and reflect existing
controls. However, redundant control efficiency and pH limits have been
eliminated.
[[Page 8731]]
EPA has clarified in the final rule that, in addition to this
SO2 limit, any coal burned at Keetac must have a sulfur
content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a
monthly block average.
Hibbing Taconite
An aggregate emission limit of 247.8 lbs SO2/hr, based
on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the pelletizing furnaces at
Hibbing's three lines beginning six months from the effective date of
this rule. This limit reflects existing controls. This is an increase
from the proposed limit, which totaled 183 lbs SO2/hr, based
on a 30-day rolling average. This increase is a result of more accurate
emission data that was obtained subsequent to the proposal.
U.S. Steel Minntac
An aggregate emission limit of 498 lbs SO2/hr shall
apply to indurating furnace Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing flux
pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 630 lbs SO2/hr shall
apply to Lines 3-7 when Lines 3-5 are producing acid pellets and Lines
6 and 7 are producing flux pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 800
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to Lines 3-7 when all lines are
producing acid pellets. These limits reflect existing controls. These
SO2 emission limits are based on a 30-day rolling average
and apply three months from the effective date of this rule. This is an
increase from the proposed limits, which totaled 327 lbs
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average. This increase is
a result of more accurate emission data that was obtained subsequent to
the proposal. EPA has clarified in the final rule that, in addition to
these SO2 limits, any coal burned at Minntac must have a
sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a
monthly block average.
United Taconite
An aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr, based on
a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 1 and Line 2 pellet
furnaces beginning 54 months from the effective date of this rule. In
addition to this limit, United Taconite is required to burn either
natural gas or a blend of natural gas and coal. Any coaled burned must
have a sulfur content no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight
based on a monthly block average. This limit represents a change from
the proposed requirement to install an add-on control system, achieving
either 5 ppmv SO2 or 95 percent removal efficiency. Because
this federally enforceable operational change in fuel mixture will
achieve approximately a 50 percent reduction in the facility's baseline
and actual emissions, the proposed add-on control system is no longer
cost effective.
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
An emission limit of 38.16 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply to ArcelorMittal's indurating furnace
beginning six months from the effective date of this rule. This is an
increase from the proposed limit of 23 lbs SO2/hr, based
upon a 30-day rolling average. This increase is a result of more
accurate emission data that was obtained subsequent to the proposal.
Northshore Mining Company
An aggregate emission limit of 39 lbs SO2/hr, based on a
30-day rolling, shall apply to Furnace 11 and Furnace 12, beginning six
months from the effective date of this rule. This limit will stay
effective for one year. This is an increase from the proposed limit of
33.4 lbs SO2/hr, based upon a 30-day rolling average. The
proposed control efficiency requirement has been eliminated because it
is a redundant requirement. Within 20 months of the effective date of
this rule, a revised SO2 limit must be established based on
one year of hourly CEMS data using the 95th percentile UPL.
C. CEMS
As required in the proposal, installation and operation of CEMS is
required no later than the applicable compliance date for each limit.
This represents no change from the proposed rulemaking. However, as
indicated above, some compliance dates have been extended, and some
indurating furnaces are now subject to status-quo SO2
limits. Based upon comments received, as well as additional information
regarding the amount of time needed to install CEMS, we have increased
the compliance schedule from three months to six months for those
sources that are maintaining status quo controls and do not currently
have CEMS.
D. Visibility Benefits and Cost Effectiveness
EPA estimates that this action will improve visibility at four
Class I areas by reducing about 22,000 tons per year of NOX
emissions and 2,000 tons per year of SO2 emissions from
seven taconite facilities. The reductions in NOX emissions
will result from the installation of low NOX burners, a
relatively inexpensive control device that does not involve significant
retrofit costs as the process consists primarily of switching out
burners. U.S. Steel Minntac is the only facility at which low
NOX burners have been installed and the only one for which
detailed cost information is available.
Table 8--Low NOX Burner Cost Analysis at U.S. Steel Minntac Line 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Total Cost-
Fuel blend Capital cost capital cost Annual O&M ($/ annualized effectiveness
($) ($/yr) yr) cost ($/yr) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60% Coal/40% Natural Gas........ $2,846,422 $536,754 $228,293 $765,048 $441
100% Natural Gas................ 2,846,422 536,754 228,293 765,048 210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the costs cited by U.S. Steel are generally
applicable across the industry based on discussions the Agency had with
vendors. As a result, a figure of $500/ton was ultimately selected as a
conservative upper bound for the cost effectiveness of installations at
the other taconite facilities.
Reductions in SO2 emissions will result from fuel
switching and new emission limits that properly reflect existing
SO2 controls. EPA did not have sufficient information to
estimate the costs of fuel switching.
Proposed Disapproval of the States' BART Determinations for Taconite
Facilities
EPA reiterates that the Agency is not taking action today on its
proposed disapproval of Minnesota and Michigan's BART determinations
for the taconite industry. EPA is issuing a separate supplemental
notice of
[[Page 8732]]
proposed rulemaking that provides additional explanation of the
Agency's rationale for the proposed disapproval and solicits additional
comments. EPA will publish a separate final rulemaking regarding the
proposed disapproval once the Agency has completed review of any
additional public comments received.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action finalizes BART requirements for seven taconite
facilities in Minnesota and Michigan. Therefore, it is not a rule of
general applicability, and not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51753, October 4,
1993). Because this type of action is exempt from review under EO
12866, it is also not subject to review under Executive Order 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this FIP only applies to
seven facilities in Minnesota and Michigan, the Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The net
result of this final action is that EPA is promulgating emission
controls on selected units at seven large taconite facilities that are
not owned by small entities, and therefore are not themselves small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
It is a rule of particular applicability that affects only seven
facilities in Michigan and Minnesota. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule only
applies to seven facilities in Michigan and Minnesota.
E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action addresses Michigan and
Minnesota's failure to submit SIPs by the applicable deadline that meet
the regional haze requirements under the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, EPA did consult
with Michigan and Minnesota in developing this action.
F. Executive Order 13175
Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implication, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action may have Tribal implications.
For example, although the FIP does not apply to sources in Indian
country, controls and emission reductions arising from the program may
affect Indian country or other Tribal interests. However, the
regulations arising under this action will neither impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
EPA initiated consultation with Tribal officials early in the
process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. EPA sent an invitation to
consult to each Region 5 Tribe on August 15, 2012, along with a copy of
the proposed taconite FIP Federal Register notice. Conference calls
were held on the taconite FIP proposal on August 22, 2012 and September
12, 2012 to provide all Region 5 Tribes with more information on the
proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to ask questions of EPA
technical staff and request individual consultation if desired. Four
Region 5 Tribes participated in the August 22, 2012 call. Two Region 5
Tribes participated in the September 12, 2012 discussion. One Region 5
Tribe provided verbal testimony at the public hearing held on the
proposed taconite FIP rulemaking on August 29, 2012. One Region 5
Tribal Chair expressed appreciation for the discussions held with the
Tribes and gratitude for EPA's careful consideration of the regional
haze situation in northeast Minnesota.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the executive order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements
specific standards established by Congress in statutes. However, to the
extent this rule will limit emissions, the rule will have a beneficial
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 8733]]
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Today's action
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use
of voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the
use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This rule limits emissions from seven facilities.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 8, 2013. Pursuant to
Clean Air Act section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the
requirements of Clean Air Act section 307(d) because it promulgates a
FIP under Clean Air Act section 110(c). Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See Clean Air Act section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 15, 2013.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart X--Michigan
0
2. Section 52.1183 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (j),
and adding paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1183 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Tilden Mining Company, or any subsequent owner/operator of the
Tilden Mining Company facility in Ishpeming, Michigan, shall meet the
following requirements:
(1) NOX Emission Limits. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
the indurating furnace, Grate Kiln Line 1 (EUKILN1), beginning 26
months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive
days when only natural gas is used a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply.
(2) SO2 Emission Limits. A fuel sulfur content limit of no greater
than 1.20 percent sulfur content by weight shall apply to fuel
combusted in Process Boiler 1 (EUBOILER1) and Process Boiler
2 (EUBOILER2) beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. A fuel
sulfur content limit of no greater than 1.50 percent sulfur content by
weight shall apply to fuel combusted in the Line 1 Dryer (EUDRYER1)
beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. The sampling and calculation
methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must be
described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (n)(8)(x) of
this section.
(3) The owner or operator of the facility must switch Grate Kiln
Line 1 (EUKILN1) to 100 percent natural gas beginning 1 year from March
8, 2013. For the purposes of CEMS requirements, the compliance date by
which the CEMS must be installed and operated for Tilden is one year
from March 8, 2013. Within 26 months of March 8, 2013, the owner or
operator must calculate and comply with an SO2 limit based
on one year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs
SO2/hr and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to
EPA. This limit shall be calculated in terms of lbs SO2/hr,
based on the following equations, with compliance to be determined on a
30-day rolling average.
m - (n + 1) * [alpha]
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile
If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed
as:
UPL = Xm,
Where:
xm - value of the mth data point in terms of lbs SO2/hr,
when the data is sorted smallest to largest
If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear
[[Page 8734]]
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.003
Where:
mt = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
(4) Starting 26 months from March 8, 2013, records shall be kept
for any day during which fuel oil is burned as fuel (either alone or
blended with other fuels) in Grate Kiln Line 1. These records must
include, at a minimum, the gallons of fuel oil burned per hour, the
sulfur content of the fuel oil, and the SO2 emissions in
pounds per hour.
(5) Starting 26 months from March 8, 2013 for Grate Kiln Line 1,
the SO2 limit does not apply for any hour in which it is
documented that there is a natural gas curtailment, beyond Cliffs'
control, necessitating that the supply of natural gas to Tilden's Line
1 indurating furnace is restricted or eliminated. Records must be kept
of the cause of the curtailment and duration of such curtailment.
During such curtailment, the use of backup coal is restricted to coal
with no greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight.
(l) Testing and monitoring. (1) The owner or operator shall
install, certify, calibrate, maintain and operate a Continuous
Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) for NOX on Tilden Mining
Company unit EUKILN1. Compliance with the emission limits for
NOX shall be determined using data from the CEMS.
(2) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate,
maintain and operate a CEMS for SO2 on Tilden Mining Company
unit EUKILN1. Compliance with the emission standard selected for
SO2 shall be determined using data from the CEMS.
(3) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate,
maintain and operate one or more continuous diluent monitor(s)
(O2 or CO2) and continuous flow rate monitor(s)
on Tilden Mining Company unit EUKILN1 to allow conversion of the
NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of the
standard (lbs/MMBtu and lbs/hr, respectively) unless a demonstration is
made that a diluent monitor and continuous flow rate monitor are not
needed for the owner or operator to demonstrate compliance with
applicable emission limits in units of the standards.
(4) For purposes of this section, all CEMS required by this section
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (l)(4)(i)-(xiv) of this
section.
(i) All CEMS must be installed, certified, calibrated, maintained,
and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance
Specification 2 (PS-2) and Appendix F, Procedure 1.
(ii) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate
monitors) must be installed and operational no later than the
compliance date for the emission limit identified at (k)(1). All CEMS
associated with monitoring SO2 must be installed and
operational no later than twelve months after March 8, 2013.
Verification of the CEMS operational status shall, as a minimum,
include completion of the manufacturer's written requirements or
recommendations for installation, operation, and calibration of the
devices.
(iii) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation
of each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, PS-2. The
performance evaluations must be completed no later than 60 days after
the respective CEMS installation.
(iv) The owner or operator of each CEMS must conduct periodic
Quality Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) checks of each CEMS in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. The first CEMS
accuracy test will be a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and must be
completed no later than 60 days after the respective CEMS installation.
(v) The owner or operator of each CEMS must furnish the Regional
Administrator two, or upon request, more copies of a written report of
the results of each performance evaluation and QA/QC check within 60
days of completion.
(vi) The owner or operator of each CEMS must check, record, and
quantify the zero and span calibration drifts at least once daily
(every 24 hours) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F,
Procedure 1, Section 4.
(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero and span adjustments, all CEMS required by this section shall be
in continuous operation during all periods of process operation of the
indurating furnaces, including periods of process unit startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
(viii) All CEMS required by this section must meet the minimum data
requirements at paragraphs (l)(4)(viii)(A)-(C) of this section.
(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling,
analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute quadrant
of an hour.
(B) Sample, analyze and record emissions data for all periods of
process operation except as described in paragraph (l)(4)(viii)(C) of
this section.
(C) When emission data from CEMS are not available due to
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be obtained using
other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods approved by the
EPA. The other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods to be
used must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by this
section and provide information such that emissions data are available
for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period and at least 22 out of
30 successive unit operating days.
(ix) Owners or operators of each CEMS required by this section must
reduce all data to 1-hour averages. Hourly averages shall be computed
using all valid data obtained within the hour but no less than one data
point in each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this
requirement, an hourly average may be computed from at least two data
points separated by a minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates
for more than one quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a
result of performance of calibration, quality assurance, preventive
maintenance activities, or backups of data from data acquisition and
handling systems, and recertification events.
(x) The 30-day rolling average emission rate determined from data
derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr
depending on the emission standard selected) must be calculated in
accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of the pollutant in question emitted from
the Unit during an operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating
days.
(B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) or the total
actual hours of operation (in hours) during an
[[Page 8735]]
operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question
emitted during the thirty operating days by the total heat input (or
actual hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected)
during the thirty operating days.
(D) For purposes of this calculation, an operating day is any day
during which fuel is combusted in the BART affected Unit regardless of
whether pellets are produced. Actual hours of operation are the total
hours a unit is firing fuel regardless of whether a complete 24-hour
operational cycle occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel for only 5
hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for that
day are 5. Similarly, total number of pounds of the pollutant in
question for that day is determined only from the CEMS data for the
five hours during which fuel is combusted.)
(E) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section
uses an alternative method to determine 30-day rolling averages, that
method must be described in detail in the monitoring plan required by
this section. The alternative method will only be applicable if the
final monitoring plan and the alternative method are approved by EPA.
(F) A new 30-day rolling average emission rate must be calculated
for the period ending each new operating day.
(xi) The 30-day rolling average removal efficiency determined from
data derived from the CEMS required by this section must be calculated
in accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A)-(G) of this section.
(A) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in
paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the inlet of the control
device.
(B) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in
paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the outlet of the
control device.
(C) Subtract the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at
the outlet of the control device from the 30-day rolling average
emission rate determined at the inlet of the control device.
(D) Divide the result of paragraph (l)(4)(xi)(C) of this section by
the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at the inlet.
(E) Multiply the result of paragraph (l)(4)(xi)(D) of this section
by 100 to determine the 3-day rolling average percent removal
efficiency.
(F) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section
uses an alternative method to determine the 30-day rolling average
removal efficiency, that method must be described in detail in the
monitoring plan required by this section. The alternative method will
only be applicable if the final monitoring plan and the alternative
method are approved by EPA.
(G) A new 30-day rolling average removal efficiency must be
calculated for each new operating day.
(xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of
determining compliance under this section.
(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced and reported in units of the
applicable standard.
(xiv) A Quality Control Program must be developed and implemented
for all CEMS required by this section in accordance with 40 CFR Part
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The program will include, at a
minimum, written procedures and operations for calibration checks,
calibration drift adjustments, preventative maintenance, data
collection, recording and reporting, accuracy audits/procedures,
periodic performance evaluations, and a corrective action program for
malfunctioning CEMS.
(m) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) Records required by this
section must be kept in a form suitable and readily available for
expeditious review.
(ii) Records required by this section must be kept for a minimum of
5 years following the date of creation.
(iii) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years following
the date of creation and may be kept offsite, but readily accessible,
for the remaining 3 years.
(2) The owner or operator of the BART affected unit must maintain
the records identified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i)-(xi) of this section.
(i) A copy of each notification and report developed for and
submitted to comply with this section including all documentation
supporting any initial notification or notification of compliance
status submitted, according to the requirements of this section.
(ii) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup,
shutdown, and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution
control equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(iii) Records of activities taken during each startup, shutdown,
and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution control
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(iv) Records of the occurrence and duration of all major
maintenance conducted on the BART affected unit, air pollution control
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(v) Records of each excess emission report, including all
documentation supporting the reports, dates and times when excess
emissions occurred, investigations into the causes of excess emissions,
actions taken to minimize or eliminate the excess emissions, and
preventative measures to avoid the cause of excess emissions from
occurring again.
(vi) Records of all CEMS data including, as a minimum, the date,
location, and time of sampling or measurement, parameters sampled or
measured, and results.
(vii) All records associated with quality assurance and quality
control activities on each CEMS as well as other records required by 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but not limited to, the
quality control program, audit results, and reports submitted as
required by this section.
(viii) Records of the NOX emissions during all periods
of BART affected unit operation, including startup, shutdown and
malfunction, in the units of the standard. The owner or operator shall
convert the monitored data into the appropriate unit of the emission
limitation using appropriate conversion factors and F-factors. F-
factors used for purposes of this section shall be documented in the
monitoring plan and developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A, Method 19. The owner or operator may use an alternate
method to calculate the NOX emissions upon written approval
from EPA.
(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or records of the
removal efficiency (based on CEMS data), depending on the emission
standard selected, during all periods of operation, including periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction, in the units of the standard.
(x) Records associated with the CEMS unit including type of CEMS,
CEMS model number, CEMS serial number, and initial certification of
each CEMS conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B,
Performance Specification 2 must be kept for the life of the CEMS unit.
(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil usage as required at
paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
(n) Reporting requirements. (1) All requests, reports, submittals,
notifications, and other communications to the Regional Administrator
required by this section shall be submitted, unless instructed
otherwise, to the Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5 (A-18J) at 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
[[Page 8736]]
References in this section to the Regional Administrator shall mean the
EPA Regional Administrator for Region 5.
(2) The owner or operator of each BART affected unit identified in
this section and CEMS required by this section must provide to the
Regional Administrator the written notifications, reports and plans
identified at paragraphs (n)(2)(i)-(viii) of this section. If
acceptable to both the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator
of each BART affected unit identified in this section and CEMS required
by this section the owner or operator may provide electronic
notifications, reports and plans.
(i) A notification of the date construction of control devices and
installation of burners required by this section commences postmarked
no later than 30 days after the commencement date.
(ii) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS
required by this section commences postmarked no later than 30 days
after the commencement date.
(iii) A notification of the date the construction of control
devices and installation of burners required by this section is
complete postmarked no later than 30 days after the completion date.
(iv) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS
required by this section is complete postmarked no later than 30 days
after the completion date.
(v) A notification of the date control devices and burners
installed by this section startup postmarked no later than 30 days
after the startup date.
(vi) A notification of the date CEMS required by this section
startup postmarked no later than 30 days after the startup date.
(vii) A notification of the date upon which the initial CEMS
performance evaluations are planned. This notification must be
submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is
scheduled to begin.
(viii) A notification of initial compliance, signed by the
responsible official who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to
whether the source has complied with the requirements of this section,
including, but not limited to, applicable emission standards, control
device and burner installations, CEMS installation and certification.
This notification must be submitted before the close of business on the
60th calendar day following the completion of the compliance
demonstration and must include, at a minimum, the information at
paragraphs (n)(2)(viii)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) The methods used to determine compliance.
(B) The results of any CEMS performance evaluations, and other
monitoring procedures or methods that were conducted.
(C) The methods that will be used for determining continuing
compliance, including a description of monitoring and reporting
requirements and test methods.
(D) The type and quantity of air pollutants emitted by the source,
reported in units of the standard.
(E) A description of the air pollution control equipment and
burners installed as required by this section, for each emission point.
(F) A statement by the owner or operator as to whether the source
has complied with the relevant standards and other requirements.
(3) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for NOX and
SO2. The plan must include, at a minimum, procedures for
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action for a
malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring
equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The plan must
ensure that, at all times, the owner or operator operates and maintains
each affected source, including associated air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner which satisfies the general duty to
minimize or eliminate emissions using good air pollution control
practices. The plan must ensure that owners or operators are prepared
to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence.
(4) The written reports of the results of each performance
evaluation and QA/QC check in accordance with and as required by
paragraph (l)(4)(v) of this section.
(5) Compliance Reports. The owner or operator of each BART affected
unit must submit semiannual compliance reports. The semiannual
compliance reports must be submitted in accordance with paragraphs
(n)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, unless the Regional
Administrator has approved a different schedule.
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for the affected source through
June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes first after the compliance
date that is specified for the affected source.
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked no later than
30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report
(July 30 or January 30), whichever comes first.
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked no later
than 30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report
(July 30 or January 30).
(6) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (n)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(iv) Identification of the process unit, control devices, and CEMS
covered by the compliance report.
(v) A record of each period of a startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the reporting period and a description of the actions the owner
or operator took to minimize or eliminate emissions arising as a result
of the startup, shutdown or malfunction and whether those actions were
or were not consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(vi) A statement identifying whether there were or were not any
deviations from the requirements of this section during the reporting
period. If there were deviations from the requirements of this section
during the reporting period, then the compliance report must describe
in detail the deviations which occurred, the causes of the deviations,
actions taken to address the deviations, and procedures put in place to
avoid such deviations in the future. If there were no deviations from
the requirements of this section during the reporting period, then the
compliance report must include a statement that there were no
deviations. For purposes of this section, deviations include, but are
not limited to, emissions in excess of applicable emission standards
established by this section, failure to continuously operate an air
pollution control device in accordance with operating requirements
designed to assure compliance with emission standards, failure to
continuously operate CEMS required by this section, and failure to
maintain records or submit reports required by this section.
[[Page 8737]]
(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS required by this section must
submit quarterly excess emissions and monitoring system performance
reports to the Regional Administrator for each pollutant monitored for
each BART affected unit monitored. All reports must be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each three-month period of a calendar
year (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December) and
must include, at a minimum, the requirements at paragraphs (n)(7)(i)-
(xv).
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Identification and description of the process unit being
monitored.
(iii) The dates covered by the reporting period.
(iv) Total source operating hours for the reporting period.
(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor model number and monitor serial
number.
(vi) Pollutant monitored.
(vii) Emission limitation for the monitored pollutant.
(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification or audit.
(ix) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(x) A table summarizing the total duration of excess emissions, as
defined at paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A)-(B) of this section, for the
reporting period broken down by the cause of those excess emissions
(startup/shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, unknown causes), and the total percent of excess
emissions (for all causes) for the reporting period calculated as
described at paragraph (n)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
(A) For purposes of this section, an excess emission is defined as
any 30-day rolling average period, including periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day rolling average
emissions of either regulated pollutant (SO2 and
NOX), as measured by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable emission
standards in this section.
(B) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 30-day
rolling average emission rate in accordance with this section which
exceeds the applicable emission standards of this section, then it will
be considered 30 days of excess emissions. If the following 30-day
rolling average emission rate is calculated and found to exceed the
applicable emission standards of this section as well, then it will add
one more day to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days).
Similarly, if an excess emission is calculated for a 30-day rolling
average period and no additional excess emissions are calculated until
15 days after the first, then that new excess emission will add 15 days
to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 45). For purposes
of this section, if an excess emission is calculated for any period of
time within a reporting period, there will be no fewer than 30 days of
excess emissions but there should be no more than 121 days of excess
emissions for a reporting period.
(C) For purposes of this section, the total percent of excess
emissions will be determined by summing all periods of excess emissions
(in days) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total
BART affected unit operating days for the reporting period, and then
multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess emissions for the
reporting period. An operating day, as defined previously, is any day
during which fuel is fired in the BART affected unit for any period of
time. Because of the possible overlap of 30-day rolling average excess
emissions across quarters, there are some situations where the total
percent of excess emissions could exceed 100 percent. This extreme
situation would only result from serious excess emissions problems
where excess emissions occur for nearly every day during a reporting
period.
(xi) A table summarizing the total duration of monitor downtime, as
defined at paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(A) of this section, for the reporting
period broken down by the cause of the monitor downtime (monitor
equipment malfunctions, non-monitor equipment malfunctions, quality
assurance calibration, other known causes, unknown causes), and the
total percent of monitor downtime (for all causes) for the reporting
period calculated as described at paragraph (n)(7)(xi)(B) of this
section.
(A) For purposes of this section, monitor downtime is defined as
any period of time (in hours) during which the required monitoring
system was not measuring emissions from the BART affected unit. This
includes any period of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span checks, and
similar activities.
(B) For purposes of this section, the total percent of monitor
downtime will be determined by summing all periods of monitor downtime
(in hours) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total
number of BART affected unit operating hours for the reporting period,
and then multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess
emissions for the reporting period.
(xii) A table which identifies each period of excess emissions for
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (n)(7)(xii)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) The date of each excess emission.
(B) The beginning and end time of each excess emission.
(C) The pollutant for which an excess emission occurred.
(D) The magnitude of the excess emission.
(E) The cause of the excess emission.
(F) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted to
minimize or eliminate the excess emissions and prevent such excess
emission from occurring again.
(xiii) A table which identifies each period of monitor downtime for
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (n)(7)(xiii)(A)-(D) of this section.
(A) The date of each period of monitor downtime.
(B) The beginning and end time of each period of monitor downtime.
(C) The cause of the period of monitor downtime.
(D) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted
for system repairs or adjustments to minimize or eliminate monitor
downtime and prevent such downtime from occurring again.
(xiv) If there were no periods of excess emissions during the
reporting period, then the excess emission report must include a
statement which says there were no periods of excess emissions during
this reporting period.
(xv) If there were no periods of monitor downtime, except for daily
zero and span checks, during the reporting period, then the excess
emission report must include a statement which says there were no
periods of monitor downtime during this reporting period except for the
daily zero and span checks.
(8) The owner or operator of each CEMS required by this section
must develop and submit for review and approval by the Regional
Administrator a site specific monitoring plan. The purpose of this
monitoring plan is to establish procedures and practices which will be
implemented by the owner or operator in its effort to comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section.
The monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the information at
paragraphs (n)(8)(i)-(x) of this section.
(i) Site specific information including the company name, address,
and contact information.
[[Page 8738]]
(ii) The objectives of the monitoring program implemented and
information describing how those objectives will be met.
(iii) Information on any emission factors used in conjunction with
the CEMS required by this section to calculate emission rates and a
description of how those emission factors were determined.
(iv) A description of methods to be used to calculate emission
rates when CEMS data is not available due to downtime associated with
QA/QC events.
(v) A description of the QA/QC program to be implemented by the
owner or operator of CEMS required by this section. This can be the QA/
QC program developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F,
Procedure 1, Section 3.
(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS maintained on site for system
maintenance and repairs.
(vii) A description of the procedures to be used to calculate 30-
day rolling averages and an example calculation which shows the
algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate 30-day rolling averages.
(viii) A sample of the document to be used for the quarterly excess
emission reports required by this section.
(ix) A description of the procedures to be implemented to
investigate root causes of excess emissions and monitor downtime and
the proposed corrective actions to address potential root causes of
excess emissions and monitor downtime.
(x) A description of the sampling and calculation methodology for
determining the percent sulfur by weight as a monthly block average for
coal used during that month.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
0
3. Section 52.1235 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1235 Regional haze.
(a) [Reserved]
(b)(1) NOX emission limits. (i) United States Steel Corporation,
Keetac: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Grate Kiln pelletizing
furnace (EU030), beginning 3 years from March 8, 2013. However, for any
30, or more, consecutive days when only natural gas is used a limit of
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall
apply.
(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
the Line 1 pelletizing furnace (EU020) beginning 26 months from March
8, 2013. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 2 pelletizing furnace
(EU021) beginning 38 months from March 8, 2013. An emission limit of
1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall
apply to the Line 3 pelletizing furnace (EU022) beginning 50 months
from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive days when
only natural gas is used at any Hibbing Taconite pelletizing furnace, a
limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, shall apply to that furnace.
(iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An emission limit
of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average,
shall apply to each of the five indurating furnaces (EU225, EU261,
EU282, EU315, and EU334). The owner or operator shall comply with this
NOX emission limit beginning 12 months from March 8, 2013
for the Line 6 indurating furnace (EU315); 24 months from March 8, 2013
for the Line 7 indurating furnace (EU334); 36 months from March 8, 2013
for the Line 4 or Line 5 indurating furnace (EU261) or (EU282); 48
months from March 8, 2013 for the Line 5 or Line 4 indurating furnace
(EU282) or (EU261); and 59 months from March 8, 2013 for the Line 3
indurating furnace (EU225). However, for any 30 or more consecutive
days when only natural gas is used at any of Minntac's indurating
furnaces, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply to that furnace.
(iv) United Taconite: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Line 1
pellet furnace (EU040) beginning 38 months from March 8, 2013. An
emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply to the Line 2 pellet furnace (EU042)
beginning 26 months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more,
consecutive days when only natural gas is used at either of United
Taconites' Line 1 or Line 2 pellet furnaces, a limit of 1.2 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
that furnace.
(v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine: An emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
the indurating furnace (EU026) beginning 26 months from March 8, 2013.
However, for any 30, or more, consecutive days when only natural gas is
used, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average, shall apply.
(vi) Northshore Mining Company- Silver Bay: An emission limit of
1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall
apply to Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) beginning 26 months from March 8,
2013. An emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-
day rolling average, shall apply to Furnace 12 (EU110/114) beginning 38
months from March 8, 2013. However, for any 30, or more, consecutive
days when only natural gas is used at either Northshore Mining Furnace
11 or Furnace 12, a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply. An emission limit of 0.085 lbs/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to Process Boiler
1 (EU003) and Process Boiler 2 (EU004) beginning 5
years from March 8, 2013. The 0.085 lbs/MMBtu emission limit for each
process boiler applies at all times a unit is operating, including
periods of start-up, shut-down and malfunction.
(2) SO2 emission limits. (i) United States Steel
Corporation, Keetac: An emission limit of 225 lbs SO2/hr,
based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to the Grate Kiln
pelletizing furnace (EU030). Any coal burned at Keetac shall have a
sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur by weight or less based on a
monthly block average. The sampling and calculation methodology for
determining the sulfur content of fuel must be described in the
monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of this section.
Compliance with these requirements for EU030 is required beginning 3
months from March 8, 2013.
(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company: An aggregate emission limit of 247.8
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to the three affected lines, EU020,
EU021, and EU022. The SO2 emission limits for these three
pelletizing furnaces are based on a 30-day rolling average. Emissions
resulting from the combustion of fuel oil are not included in the
calculation of the 30-day rolling average. However, if any fuel oil is
burned after the first day that SO2 CEMS are required to be
operational, then the information specified in (b)(2)(vii) must be
submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional Administrator no
later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year so that a limit
can be set. Compliance with the emission limits is required beginning 6
months from March 8, 2013. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the owner
or operator may calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one
year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr
and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to EPA. This limit
shall be set in terms of lbs
[[Page 8739]]
SO2/hr, based on the following equations, with compliance to
be determined on a 30-day rolling average.
m=(n+1)*[alpha]
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest
to largest
n=[alpha] number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95\th\ percentile
If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed
as:
UPL = Xm,
Where:
X=m value of the m\th\ data point in terms of lbs
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest.
If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.004
Where:
m=[igr] the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at
zero decimal places, and
m=d the decimal portion of m
(iii) United States Steel Corporation, Minntac: An aggregate
emission limit for indurating furnace Lines 3-7 (EU225, EU261, EU282,
EU315, and EU334) of 498 lbs SO2/hr shall apply when all
lines are producing flux pellets. An aggregate emission limit of 630
lbs SO2/hr shall apply to Lines 3-7 when Line 3-5 are
producing acid pellets and Lines 6 and 7 are producing flux pellets. An
aggregate emission limit of 800 lbs SO2/hr shall apply to
Lines 3-7 when all lines are producing acid pellets. The SO2
emission limits are based on a 30-day rolling average and apply
beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013. The emission limit for a given
30-day rolling average period is calculated using a weighted average as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.005
Where:
L30 = the limit for a given 30 day averaging period
nf = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is
producing flux pellets on lines 3-7
naf = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is
producing acid pellets on lines 3-5 and flux pellets on lines 6 and
7
na = the number of days in the 30 day period that the facility is
producing acid pellets on lines 3-7
Also, beginning 3 months from March 8, 2013, any coal burned at
Minntac's Lines 3-7 shall have a sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur
by weight or less based on a monthly block average. The sampling and
calculation methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must
be described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of
this section.
(iv) United Taconite: An aggregate emission limit of 529.0 lbs
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
the Line 1 pellet furnace (EU040) and Line 2 pellet furnace (EU042)
beginning 54 months from March 8, 2013. Also, beginning 54 months from
March 8, 2013, any coal burned in the Line 1 or Line 2 pellet furnace
shall have a sulfur content of 0.60 percent sulfur by weight or less
based on a monthly block average. The sampling and calculation
methodology for determining the sulfur content of fuel must be
described in the monitoring plan required at paragraph (e)(8)(x) of
this section.
(v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine: An emission limit of 38.16 lbs
SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average, shall apply to
the indurating furnace (EU026) beginning 6 months from March 8, 2013.
This limit shall not apply when the unit is combusting fuel oil.
However, if any fuel oil is burned after the first day that
SO2 CEMS are required to be operational, then the
information specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section must be
submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional Administrator no
later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year so that a limit
can be set. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the owner or operator
may calculate a revised SO2 limit based on one year of
hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs SO2/hr and submit
such limit, calculations, and CEMS data to EPA. This limit shall be set
in terms of lbs SO2/hr, based on the following equations,
with compliance to be determined on a 30-day rolling average.
m = (n + 1) * [alpha]
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95\th\ percentile
If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed
as:
UPL = Xm,
Where:
xm = value of the mth data point in terms of lbs
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest
If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.006
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
m[alpha] = the decimal portion of m
(vi) Northshore Mining Company--Silver Bay: An aggregate emission
limit of 39.0 lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling average,
shall apply to Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114).
Compliance with this limit is required within 6 months. Emissions
resulting from the combustion of fuel oil are not included in the
calculation of the 30-day rolling average. However, if any fuel oil is
burned after the first day that SO2 CEMS are required to be
operational, then the information specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of
this section must be submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional
Administrator no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year
so that a limit can be set. Within 20 months of March 8, 2013, the
owner or operator must calculate a revised SO2 limit based
on one year of hourly CEMS emissions data reported in lbs
SO2/hr and submit such limit, calculations and CEMS data to
EPA. This limit shall be set in terms of lbs SO2/hr, based
on the following equations, with compliance to be determined on a 30-
day rolling average.
m = (n + 1) * [alpha]
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when data is sorted smallest
to largest
n = number of data points
[alpha] = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile
If m is a whole number, then the limit, UPL, shall be computed
as:
UPL = Xm,
Where:
[[Page 8740]]
xm = value of the mth data point in terms of lbs
SO2/hr, when the data is sorted smallest to largest
If m is not a whole number, the limit shall be computed by linear
interpolation according to the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06FE13.007
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
m[alpha] = the decimal portion of m
(vii) Starting with the first day that SO2 CEMS are
required to be operational, for the facilities listed in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(vi) of this section, records shall be kept for any day
during which fuel oil is burned (either alone or blended with other
fuels) in one or more of a facility's indurating furnaces. These
records must include, at a minimum, the gallons of fuel oil burned per
hour, the sulfur content of the fuel oil, and the SO2
emissions in pounds per hour. If any fuel oil is burned after the first
day that SO2 CEMS are required to be operational, then the
records must be submitted, for each calendar year, to the Regional
Administrator no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar
year.
(c) Testing and monitoring. (1) The owner or operator of the
respective facility shall install, certify, calibrate, maintain and
operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for
NOX on United States Steel Corporation, Keetac unit EU030;
Hibbing Taconite Company units EU020, EU021, and EU022; United States
Steel Corporation, Minntac units EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and EU334;
United Taconite units EU040 and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine unit
EU026; and Northshore Mining Company--Silver Bay units Furnace 11
(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114). Compliance with the
emission limits for NOX shall be determined using data from
the CEMS.
(2) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate,
maintain and operate CEMS for SO2 on United States Steel
Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; Hibbing Taconite Company units EU020,
EU021, and EU022; United States Steel Corporation, Minntac units EU225,
EU261, EU282, EU315, and EU334; United Taconite units EU040 and EU042;
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine unit EU026; and Northshore Mining Company--
Silver Bay units Furnace 11 (EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/EU114).
(3) The owner or operator shall install, certify, calibrate,
maintain and operate one or more continuous diluent monitor(s)
(O2 or CO2) and continuous flow rate monitor(s)
on the BART affected units to allow conversion of the NOX
and SO2 concentrations to units of the standard (lbs/MMBtu
and lbs/hr, respectively) unless a demonstration is made that a diluent
monitor and continuous flow rate monitor are not needed for the owner
or operator to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limits
in units of the standards.
(4) For purposes of this section, all CEMS required by this section
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(4)(i)-(xiv) of this
section.
(i) All CEMS must be installed, certified, calibrated, maintained,
and operated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance
Specification 2 (PS-2) and Appendix F, Procedure 1.
(ii) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate
monitors) must be installed and operational no later than the unit
specific compliance dates for the emission limits identified at
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(vi) of this section. All CEMS associated with
monitoring SO2 (except the CEMS associated with monitoring
SO2 at United Taconite Line 1 and Line 2 pellet furnaces)
must be installed and operational no later than six months after March
8, 2013. All CEMs associated with monitoring SO2 at United
Taconite Line 1 and Line 2 pellet furnaces must be installed and
operational no later than 54 months from March 8, 2013. Verification of
the CEMS operational status shall, as a minimum, include completion of
the manufacturer's written requirements or recommendations for
installation, operation, and calibration of the devices.
(iii) The owner or operator must conduct a performance evaluation
of each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, PS-2. The
performance evaluations must be completed no later than 60 days after
the respective CEMS installation.
(iv) The owner or operator of each CEMS must conduct periodic
Quality Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) checks of each CEMS in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. The first CEMS
accuracy test will be a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and must be
completed no later than 60 days after the respective CEMS installation.
(v) The owner or operator of each CEMS must furnish the Regional
Administrator two, or upon request, more copies of a written report of
the results of each performance evaluation and QA/QC check within 60
days of completion.
(vi) The owner or operator of each CEMS must check, record, and
quantify the zero and span calibration drifts at least once daily
(every 24 hours) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F,
Procedure 1, Section 4.
(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero and span adjustments, all CEMS required by this section shall be
in continuous operation during all periods of BART affected process
unit operation, including periods of process unit startup, shutdown,
and malfunction.
(viii) All CEMS required by this section must meet the minimum data
requirements at paragraphs (c)(4)(viii)(A)-(C) of this section.
(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling,
analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute quadrant
of an hour.
(B) Sample, analyze and record emissions data for all periods of
process operation except as described in paragraph (c)(4)(viii)(C) of
this section.
(C) When emission data from CEMS are not available due to
continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be obtained using
other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods approved by the
EPA. The other monitoring systems or emission estimation methods to be
used must be incorporated into the monitoring plan required by this
section and provide information such that emissions data are available
for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period and at least 22 out of
30 successive unit operating days.
(ix) Owners or operators of each CEMS required by this section must
reduce all data to 1-hour averages. Hourly averages shall be computed
using all valid data obtained within the hour but no less than one data
point in each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this
requirement, an hourly average may be computed from at least two data
points separated by a
[[Page 8741]]
minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities,
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling systems, and
recertification events.
(x) The 30-day rolling average emission rate determined from data
derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr
depending on the emission standard selected) must be calculated in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of the pollutant in question emitted from
the Unit during an operating day and the previous twenty-nine operating
days.
(B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) or the total
actual hours of operation (in hours) during an operating day and the
previous twenty-nine operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question
emitted during the thirty operating days by the total heat input (or
actual hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected)
during the thirty operating days.
(D) For purposes of this calculation, an operating day is any day
during which fuel is combusted in the BART affected Unit regardless of
whether pellets are produced. Actual hours of operation are the total
hours a unit is firing fuel regardless of whether a complete 24-hour
operational cycle occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel for only 5
hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for that
day are 5. Similarly, total number of pounds of the pollutant in
question for that day is determined only from the CEMS data for the
five hours during which fuel is combusted.)
(E) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section
uses an alternative method to determine 30-day rolling averages, that
method must be described in detail in the monitoring plan required by
this section. The alternative method will only be applicable if the
final monitoring plan and the alternative method are approved by EPA.
(F) A new 30-day rolling average emission rate must be calculated
for each new operating day.
(xi) The 30-day rolling average removal efficiency determined from
data derived from the CEMS required by this section must be calculated
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(xi)(A)-(G) of this section.
(A) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in
paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the inlet of the control
device.
(B) Calculate the 30-day rolling average emission rate described in
paragraphs (c)(4)(x)(A)-(F) of this section at the outlet of the
control device.
(C) Subtract the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at
the outlet of the control device from the 30-day rolling average
emission rate determined at the inlet of the control device.
(D) Divide the result of paragraph (c)(4)(xi)(C) of this section by
the 30-day rolling average emission rate determined at the inlet.
(E) Multiply the result of paragraph (c)(4)(xi)(D) of this section
by 100 to determine the 30-day rolling average removal efficiency.
(F) If the owner or operator of the CEMS required by this section
uses an alternative method to determine the 30-day rolling average
removal efficiency, that method must be described in detail in the
monitoring plan required by this section. The alternative method will
only be applicable if the final monitoring plan and the alternative
method are approved by EPA.
(G) A new 30-day rolling average removal efficiency must be
calculated for each new operating day.
(xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of
determining compliance under this section.
(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced and reported in units of the
applicable standard.
(xiv) A Quality Control Program must be developed and implemented
for all CEMS required by this section in accordance with 40 CFR Part
60, Appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The program will include, at a
minimum, written procedures and operations for calibration checks,
calibration drift adjustments, preventative maintenance, data
collection, recording and reporting, accuracy audits/procedures,
periodic performance evaluations, and a corrective action program for
malfunctioning CEMS.
(5) No later than the compliance date of this section, owners or
operators utilizing a wet scrubber to control SO2 shall
include in the performance testing an evaluation of compliance with the
pH limits established by this section. The pH evaluation shall be
performed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 136.3 using EPA
Method 150.2.
(d) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) Records required by this
section must be kept in a form suitable and readily available for
expeditious review.
(ii) Records required by this section must be kept for a minimum of
5 years following the date of creation.
(iii) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years following
the date of creation and may be kept offsite, but readily accessible,
for the remaining 3 years.
(2) The owner or operator of the BART affected units must maintain
the records at paragraphs (d)(2)(i)-(xi) of this section.
(i) A copy of each notification and report developed for and
submitted to comply with this section including all documentation
supporting any initial notification or notification of compliance
status submitted according to the requirements of this section.
(ii) Records of the occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction of the BART affected units, air pollution control
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(iii) Records of activities taken during each startup, shutdown,
and malfunction of the BART affected unit, air pollution control
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(iv) Records of the occurrence and duration of all major
maintenance conducted on the BART affected units, air pollution control
equipment, and CEMS required by this section.
(v) Records of each excess emission report, including all
documentation supporting the reports, dates and times when excess
emissions occurred, investigations into the causes of excess emissions,
actions taken to minimize or eliminate the excess emissions, and
preventative measures to avoid the cause of excess emissions from
occurring again.
(vi) Records of all CEMS data including, as a minimum, the date,
location, and time of sampling or measurement, parameters sampled or
measured, and results.
(vii) All records associated with quality assurance and quality
control activities on each CEMS as well as other records required by 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but not limited to, the
quality control program, audit results, and reports submitted as
required by this section.
(viii) Records of the NOX emissions during all periods
of BART affected unit operation, including startup, shutdown and
malfunction in the units of the standard. The owner or operator shall
convert the monitored data into the appropriate unit of the emission
limitation using appropriate conversion factors and F-factors. F-
factors used for purposes of this section shall be documented in the
monitoring plan and developed in accordance with 40 CFR
[[Page 8742]]
Part 60, Appendix A, Method 19. The owner or operator may use an
alternate method to calculate the NOX emissions upon written
approval from EPA.
(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or records of the
removal efficiency (based on CEMS data), depending on the emission
standard selected, during all periods of operation, including periods
of startup, shutdown and malfunction, in the units of the standard.
(x) Records associated with the CEMS unit including type of CEMS,
CEMS model number, CEMS serial number, and initial certification of
each CEMS conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B,
Performance Specification 2 must be kept for the life of the CEMS unit.
(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil usage as required at
paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section.
(e) Reporting requirements. (1) All requests, reports, submittals,
notifications, and other communications to the Regional Administrator
required by this section shall be submitted, unless instructed
otherwise, to the Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5 (A-18J), at 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
(2) The owner or operator of each BART affected unit identified in
this section and CEMS required by this section must provide to the
Regional Administrator the written notifications, reports and plans
identified at paragraphs (e)(2)(i)-(viii) of this section. If
acceptable to both the Regional Administrator and the owner or operator
of each BART affected unit identified in this section and CEMS required
by this section the owner or operator may provide electronic
notifications, reports and plans.
(i) A notification of the date construction of control devices and
installation of burners required by this section commences postmarked
no later than 30 days after the commencement date.
(ii) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS
required by this section commences postmarked no later than 30 days
after the commencement date.
(iii) A notification of the date the construction of control
devices and installation of burners required by this section is
complete postmarked no later than 30 days after the completion date.
(iv) A notification of the date the installation of each CEMS
required by this section is complete postmarked no later than 30 days
after the completion date.
(v) A notification of the date control devices and burners
installed by this section startup postmarked no later than 30 days
after the startup date.
(vi) A notification of the date CEMS required by this section
startup postmarked no later than 30 days after the startup date.
(vii) A notification of the date upon which the initial CEMS
performance evaluations are planned. This notification must be
submitted at least 60 days before the performance evaluation is
scheduled to begin.
(viii) A notification of initial compliance, signed by the
responsible official who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to
whether the source has complied with the requirements of this section,
including, but not limited to, applicable emission standards, control
device and burner installations, CEMS installation and certification.
This notification must be submitted before the close of business on the
60th calendar day following the completion of the compliance
demonstration and must include, at a minimum, the information at
paragraphs (e)(2)(viii)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) The methods used to determine compliance.
(B) The results of any CEMS performance evaluations, and other
monitoring procedures or methods that were conducted.
(C) The methods that will be used for determining continuing
compliance, including a description of monitoring and reporting
requirements and test methods.
(D) The type and quantity of air pollutants emitted by the source,
reported in units of the standard.
(E) A description of the air pollution control equipment and
burners installed as required by this section, for each emission point.
(F) A statement by the owner or operator as to whether the source
has complied with the relevant standards and other requirements.
(3) The owner or operator must develop and implement a written
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for NOX and
SO2. The plan must include, at a minimum, procedures for
operating and maintaining the source during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; and a program of corrective action for a
malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring
equipment used to comply with the relevant standard. The plan must
ensure that, at all times, the owner or operator operates and maintains
each affected source, including associated air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, in a manner which satisfies the general duty to
minimize or eliminate emissions using good air pollution control
practices. The plan must ensure that owners or operators are prepared
to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable after their occurrence.
(4) The written reports of the results of each performance
evaluation and QA/QC check in accordance with and as required by
paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
(5) Compliance reports. The owner or operator of each BART affected
unit must submit semiannual compliance reports. The semiannual
compliance reports must be submitted in accordance with paragraphs
(e)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section, unless the Administrator has
approved a different schedule.
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for the affected source through
June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes first after the compliance
date that is specified for the affected source.
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked no later than
30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report
(July 30 or January 30), whichever comes first.
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked no later
than 30 calendar days after the reporting period covered by that report
(July 30 or January 30).
(6) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include
the information in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(iv) Identification of the process unit, control devices, and CEMS
covered by the compliance report.
(v) A record of each period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the reporting period and a description of the actions the owner
or operator took to minimize or eliminate emissions arising as a result
of the startup, shutdown, or malfunction and whether those actions were
or were not consistent with the source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
(vi) A statement identifying whether there were or were not any
deviations from the requirements of this section
[[Page 8743]]
during the reporting period. If there were deviations from the
requirements of this section during the reporting period, then the
compliance report must describe in detail the deviations which
occurred, the causes of the deviations, actions taken to address the
deviations, and procedures put in place to avoid such deviations in the
future. If there were no deviations from the requirements of this
section during the reporting period, then the compliance report must
include a statement that there were no deviations. For purposes of this
section, deviations include, but are not limited to, emissions in
excess of applicable emission standards established by this section,
failure to continuously operate an air pollution control device in
accordance with operating requirements designed to assure compliance
with emission standards, failure to continuously operate CEMS required
by this section, and failure to maintain records or submit reports
required by this section.
(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS required by this section must
submit quarterly excess emissions and monitoring system performance
reports for each pollutant monitored for each BART affected unit
monitored. All reports must be postmarked by the 30\th\ day following
the end of each three-month period of a calendar year (January-March,
April-June, July-September, October-December) and must include, at a
minimum, the requirements at paragraphs (e)(7)(i)-(xv) of this section.
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Identification and description of the process unit being
monitored.
(iii) The dates covered by the reporting period.
(iv) Total source operating hours for the reporting period.
(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor model number and monitor serial
number.
(vi) Pollutant monitored.
(vii) Emission limitation for the monitored pollutant.
(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification or audit.
(ix) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(x) A table summarizing the total duration of excess emissions, as
defined at paragraphs (e)(7)(x)(A)-(B) of this section, for the
reporting period broken down by the cause of those excess emissions
(startup/shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, unknown causes), and the total percent of excess
emissions (for all causes) for the reporting period calculated as
described at paragraph (e)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
(A) For purposes of this section, an excess emission is defined as
any 30-day rolling average period, including periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day rolling average
emissions of either regulated pollutant (SO2 and
NOX), as measured by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable emission
standards in this section.
(B) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 30-day
rolling average emission rate in accordance with this section which
exceeds the applicable emission standards of this section, then it will
be considered 30 days of excess emissions. If the following 30-day
rolling average emission rate is calculated and found to exceed the
applicable emission standards of this section as well, then it will add
one more day to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days).
Similarly, if an excess emission is calculated for a 30-day rolling
average period and no additional excess emissions are calculated until
15 days after the first, then that new excess emission will add 15 days
to the total days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 45). For purposes
of this section, if an excess emission is calculated for any period of
time within a reporting period, there will be no fewer than 30 days of
excess emissions but there should be no more than 121 days of excess
emissions for a reporting period.
(C) For purposes of this section, the total percent of excess
emissions will be determined by summing all periods of excess emissions
(in days) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total
BART affected unit operating days for the reporting period, and then
multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess emissions for the
reporting period. An operating day, as defined previously, is any day
during which fuel is fired in the BART affected unit for any period of
time. Because of the possible overlap of 30-day rolling average excess
emissions across quarters, there are some situations where the total
percent of excess emissions could exceed 100 percent. This extreme
situation would only result from serious excess emissions problems
where excess emissions occur for nearly every day during a reporting
period.
(xi) A table summarizing the total duration of monitor downtime, as
defined at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(A) of this section, for the reporting
period broken down by the cause of the monitor downtime (monitor
equipment malfunctions, non-monitor equipment malfunctions, quality
assurance calibration, other known causes, unknown causes), and the
total percent of monitor downtime (for all causes) for the reporting
period calculated as described at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(B) of this
section.
(A) For purposes of this section, monitor downtime is defined as
any period of time (in hours) during which the required monitoring
system was not measuring emissions from the BART affected unit. This
includes any period of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span checks, and
similar activities.
(B) For purposes of this section, the total percent of monitor
downtime will be determined by summing all periods of monitor downtime
(in hours) for the reporting period, dividing that number by the total
number of BART affected unit operating hours for the reporting period,
and then multiplying by 100 to get the total percent of excess
emissions for the reporting period.
(xii) A table which identifies each period of excess emissions for
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (e)(7)(xii)(A)-(F) of this section.
(A) The date of each excess emission.
(B) The beginning and end time of each excess emission.
(C) The pollutant for which an excess emission occurred.
(D) The magnitude of the excess emission.
(E) The cause of the excess emission.
(F) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted to
minimize or eliminate the excess emissions and prevent such excess
emission from occurring again.
(xiii) A table which identifies each period of monitor downtime for
the reporting period and includes, at a minimum, the information in
paragraphs (e)(7)(xiii)(A)-(D) of this section.
(A) The date of each period of monitor downtime.
(B) The beginning and end time of each period of monitor downtime.
(C) The cause of the period of monitor downtime.
(D) The corrective action taken or preventative measures adopted
for system repairs or adjustments to minimize or eliminate monitor
downtime and prevent such downtime from occurring again.
(xiv) If there were no periods of excess emissions during the
reporting period, then the excess emission report must include a
statement which says there were no periods of excess emissions during
this reporting period.
(xv) If there were no periods of monitor downtime, except for daily
zero
[[Page 8744]]
and span checks, during the reporting period, then the excess emission
report must include a statement which says there were no periods of
monitor downtime during this reporting period except for the daily zero
and span checks.
(8) The owner or operator of each CEMS required by this section
must develop and submit for review and approval by the Regional
Administrator a site specific monitoring plan. The purpose of this
monitoring plan is to establish procedures and practices which will be
implemented by the owner or operator in its effort to comply with the
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this section.
The monitoring plan must include, at a minimum, the information at
paragraphs (e)(8)(i)-(x) of this section.
(i) Site specific information including the company name, address,
and contact information.
(ii) The objectives of the monitoring program implemented and
information describing how those objectives will be met.
(iii) Information on any emission factors used in conjunction with
the CEMS required by this section to calculate emission rates and a
description of how those emission factors were determined.
(iv) A description of methods to be used to calculate emission
rates when CEMS data is not available due to downtime associated with
QA/QC events.
(v) A description of the QA/QC program to be implemented by the
owner or operator of CEMS required by this section. This can be the QA/
QC program developed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F,
Procedure 1, Section 3.
(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS maintained on site for system
maintenance and repairs.
(vii) A description of the procedures to be used to calculate 30-
day rolling averages and an example calculation which shows the
algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate 30-day rolling averages.
(viii) A sample of the document to be used for the quarterly excess
emission reports required by this section.
(ix) A description of the procedures to be implemented to
investigate root causes of excess emissions and monitor downtime and
the proposed corrective actions to address potential root causes of
excess emissions and monitor downtime.
(x) A description of the sampling and calculation methodology for
determining the percent sulfur by weight as a monthly block average for
coal used during that month.
[FR Doc. 2013-01473 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P