Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, 78720-78725 [2013-30885]
Download as PDF
78720
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1).
■
2. Revise § 207.340 to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 207.340 Reservoirs at headwaters of the
Mississippi River; use and administration.
(a) Description. These reservoirs
include Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake,
Pokegama, Sandy Lake, Pine River and
Gull Lake.
(b) Penalties. The River and Harbor
Act approved August 11, 1888 (25 Stat.
419, 33 U.S.C. 601) includes the
following provisions as to the
administration of the headwater
reservoirs:
And it shall be the duty of the
Secretary of War to prescribe such rules
and regulations in respect to the use and
administration of said reservoirs as, in
his judgment, the public interest and
necessity may require; which rules and
regulations shall be posted in some
conspicuous place or places for the
information of the public. And any
person knowingly and willfully
violating such rules and regulations
shall be liable to a fine not exceeding
five hundred dollars, or imprisonment
not exceeding six months, the same to
be enforced by prosecution in any
district court of the United States within
whose territorial jurisdiction such
offense may have been committed.
(c) Previous regulations now revoked.
In accordance with the above act, the
Secretary of War prescribed regulations
for the use and administration of the
reservoirs at the headwaters of the
Mississippi River under date of
February 11, 1931, which together with
all subsequent amendments are hereby
revoked and the following substituted
therefor.
(d) Authority of officer in charge of
the reservoirs. The accumulation of
water in, and discharge of water from
the reservoirs, including that from one
reservoir to another, shall be under the
direction of the U.S. District Engineer,
St. Paul, Minnesota, and of his
authorized agents subject to the
following restrictions and
considerations:
(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the discharge
from any reservoir may be varied at any
time as required to permit inspection of,
or repairs to, the dams, dikes or their
appurtenances, or to prevent damage to
lands or structures above or below the
dams.
(2) During the season of navigation on
the upper Mississippi River, the volume
of water discharged from the reservoirs
shall be so regulated by the officer in
charge as to maintain as nearly as
practicable, until navigation closes, a
sufficient stage of water in the navigable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
reaches of the upper Mississippi and in
those of any tributary thereto that may
be navigated and on which a reservoir
is located.
(e) Passage of logs and other floating
bodies. Logs and other floating bodies
may be sluiced or locked through the
dams, but prior authority for the
sluicing of logs must be obtained from
the District Engineer when this
operation necessitates a material change
in discharge.
(f) Obstructions to flow of water. No
person shall place floating bodies in a
stream or pond above or below a
reservoir dam when, in the opinion of
the officer in charge, such act would
prevent the necessary flow of water to
or from such dam, or in any way injure
the dam and its appurtenances, its dikes
and embankments; and should floating
bodies lying above or below a dam
constitute at any time an obstruction or
menace as beforesaid, the owners of said
floating bodies will be required to
remove them immediately.
(g) Trespass. No one shall trespass on
any reservoir dam, dike, embankment or
upon any property pertaining thereto.
[FR Doc. 2013–31078 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
service Intelligent Mail to qualify for
automation prices.
Consistent with this Order, the United
States Postal Service® hereby gives
notice that the January 26, 2014,
deadline to comply with the full-service
Intelligent Mail requirements to qualify
for automation prices, previously
published on April 18, 2013, in a final
rule in the Federal Register (78 FR
23137–23149), is deferred until further
notice. Specifically, this deferral applies
to the requirements specified in DMM
233.5.1 (First-Class commercial letters
and cards); DMM 243.6.1.2, 243.6.4.1,
243.6.5.1, and 243.7.1 (Standard Mail
letters); DMM 333.5.1 (First-Class
automation flats); DMM 343.7.1
(Standard Mail automation flats); DMM
363.4.1 and 363.6.1 (Bound Printed
Matter flats); DMM 705.24.1 (advanced
preparation and special postage
payment systems); and DMM 707.13.4,
707.14.1, and 707.14.2 (Periodicals).
See, 78 FR 23146–23148.
All other requirements that were
published in the Federal Register (78
FR 23137–23149) will be implemented
on January 26, 2014.
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice.
[FR Doc. 2013–30705 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am]
POSTAL SERVICE
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
39 CFR Part 111
Deferral of Compliance Date: FullService Intelligent Mail Barcode
Requirement To Qualify for
Automation Prices
Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Final rule; partial deferral of
compliance date.
AGENCY:
The Postal Service gives
notice that it is deferring the previouslyannounced compliance date of January
26, 2014, for mailers to use full-service
Intelligent Mail® to qualify for
automation prices when mailing FirstClass Mail®, Standard Mail®;
Periodicals®, and Bound Printed
Matter® mailpieces.
DATES: The compliance date of the
relevant portions of the final rule
published April 18, 2013 (78 FR 23137)
is delayed indefinitely.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lizbeth J. Dobbins at 202–268–3781.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Order
No. 1890 (November 21, 2013), the
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)
determined that the price changes
proposed in Docket No. R2013–10 could
take effect as scheduled only if the
Postal Service elected to defer the
requirement for mailers to use fullSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0965; FRL–9904–71–
Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Disapproval of State Implementation
Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns
Harbor
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On December 10, 2009,
Indiana submitted a request for a
revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state
implementation plan (SIP) for the
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC
(ArcelorMittal) facility in Porter County,
Indiana. This revision would remove
the SO2 emission limit for the blast
furnace gas flare at the facility. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed to disapprove this requested
revision on March 20, 2013. The EPA is
addressing comments and finalizing the
disapproval action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
January 27, 2014.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0965. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information may not be 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 Mary
Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353–5954 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954,
Portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
ADDRESSES:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received, and what
is EPA’s response?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. What is the background for this
action?
On December 10, 2009, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a
request for revision of its SO2 SIP. This
revision would amend 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 7–4–14,
Porter County SO2 Emission
Limitations, by removing the SO2 limit
for the blast furnace flare at the
ArcelorMittal steel mill. To be
approved, this SIP revision request must
comply with section 110(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), which states that the
Administrator shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS), reasonable further progress,
and any other applicable requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
After reviewing the state’s submittal,
EPA determined that the proposed SIP
revision does not meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l). Removal of the
flare limit eliminates the only
requirement which directly addresses
the sulfur content of the blast furnace
gas which ArcelorMittal uses to fuel
other combustion units in the facility.
Although blast furnace gas is considered
to be a low-sulfur fuel, the state’s
submittal indicates that the sulfur
content of blast furnace gas can vary,
and the proposed SIP revision would
allow ArcelorMittal’s blast furnace gas
to increase in sulfur content without
limit. This would be inconsistent with
the state’s prior attainment
demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS.
The state has not fully evaluated the
ambient impact of new operating
scenarios in which ArcelorMittal
generates and uses higher-sulfur blast
furnace gas. It did not provide sufficient
information for EPA to confirm the
assertion that the SIP emission limits
would continue to be met, with or
without the use of the flare, under
maximum blast furnace capacity
without limitations on blast furnace gas
sulfur content. Since the state’s SIP
submittal did not meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l), EPA published a
notice of proposed disapproval for this
SIP revision request on March 20, 2013
(78 FR 17157). EPA received four letters
commenting on the proposed
disapproval.
II. What comments were received, and
what is EPA’s response?
EPA received two comments in
support of the proposed disapproval,
from an Indiana public interest group
(March 22, 2013) and a private citizen
(April 18, 2013). Both IDEM and
ArcelorMittal disagreed with the
proposal to disapprove the SIP revision
request. IDEM submitted its comments
on April 18, 2013. ArcelorMittal
submitted its comments on April 19,
2013. Their comments are addressed
below.
Comment: The flare limit represents
an inequity in the state’s treatment of
blast furnace gas flares; a similar facility
nearby does not have SO2 limits on its
functionally identical flares. The limits
for Lake County, Indiana, were
established after the limits for Porter
County, where ArcelorMittal is located.
Emission inventories and modeling
parameters had improved, and through
extensive consultation with EPA, it was
determined to be unnecessary to
establish SO2 emission limits specific to
the flares for similar facilities in Lake
County (i.e. U.S. Steel Gary Works).
IDEM was able to establish SIP limits for
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78721
sources such as U.S. Steel Gary Works
which did not include SO2 limits on the
flares. EPA approved those limits. There
is no material reason for ArcelorMittal’s
blast furnace gas flares in Porter County
to be treated different from the blast
furnace gas flares operated by U.S. Steel
in Lake County. It would be arbitrary for
EPA to disapprove the Porter County
SIP revision to remove blast furnace gas
flare limits as unnecessary and
redundant limits after approving the
2005 Lake County SO2 SIP that did not
include blast furnace gas flare limits
because they were unnecessary and
redundant. IDEM’s attempt to remove
this arbitrary difference between
neighboring counties should be
considered an appropriate correction to
a historic error and approved. This SIP
revision would harmonize the Lake and
Porter County treatment of flares
combusting excess blast furnace gas.
Response: Indiana’s December 10,
2009, submission did not demonstrate
that ArcelorMittal’s revised SO2 SIP
would continue to protect the SO2
NAAQS or meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the SIP
revision cannot be approved. Emission
limits, or the lack thereof, at other
facilities are not relevant to this
demonstration. The fact that SO2 SIPs
have been approved without the need
for SO2 limits on certain flares is not in
itself a justification for removing SO2
limits on flares from other sources in the
absence of a showing that the removal
will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Comment: This should not be
considered a matter of backsliding or
relaxation of the SIP, but a technical
correction that is necessary to establish
consistency. The limit should have been
excluded from the start; therefore, this
corrective action has no impact on the
approved SIP or the modeling
conducted to support it.
Response: The state established
ArcelorMittal’s flare limit in the SIP as
part of its strategy to attain and maintain
the SO2 NAAQS in Porter County. The
SIP was approved by EPA in 1989 and
has remained in effect. CAA section
110(l) does not provide an exception for
‘‘technical corrections.’’ Even if it did, it
would not be appropriate to treat the
state’s December 10, 2009, SIP revision
request as a technical correction because
it can be expected to affect air quality
and because the state has not provided
a demonstration that in 1989 it did not
intend to establish an SO2 limit
applicable to the blast furnace flare now
operated by ArcelorMittal. Likewise, to
the extent that the commenter is
suggesting the SIP provision was
approved in error and should be
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78722
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
corrected pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(6), EPA notes that the state has
not provided a basis for concluding that
the approval of this provision in 1989
was an error. In addition, EPA does not
believe that emission limit relaxations
can be justified on the basis of
establishing consistency without also
satisfying the requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, the proposed
SIP revision’s effects on the existing SIP
and on the state’s maintenance of the
NAAQS must be evaluated in
accordance with CAA section 110(l).
Comment: IDEM and ArcelorMittal
were led in 2007–2009 to believe that
the flare limit removal would be
approvable. IDEM and ArcelorMittal
received no information to the contrary
until 2012. EPA was unwilling to
establish fruitful dialogue with the state
prior to proposing disapproval. In its
proposed disapproval, EPA did not cite
or recognize the wealth of information
provided to supplement the SIP
revision.
Response: EPA’s concerns with this
SIP revision did not arise until EPA
received and began review of Indiana’s
December 10, 2009, SIP submittal.
Following a thorough review of the
submittal and additional information
subsequently provided by Indiana, EPA
concluded that the submittal did not
meet the requirements of CAA section
110(l). EPA regularly communicated the
progress of EPA’s review of the
submittal during monthly conference
calls with IDEM and offered
opportunities for further dialogue,
which is documented in call summaries
prepared by IDEM.
As early as January 2010, EPA
identified potential issues with this SIP
revision request. EPA acknowledges that
IDEM and ArcelorMittal provided EPA
with additional information in response
to its questions, which EPA carefully
considered. However, the state’s
submittal, including supplemental
information, did not demonstrate that
the proposed SIP revision would satisfy
CAA section 110(l). IDEM’s monthly
call summaries indicate that EPA had
begun working on a disapproval in
January 2012, after expressing
continuing concerns in September 2011.
EPA formally communicated the
deficiencies of the revision in the March
20, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking
(78 FR 17157). EPA’s proposal was
based on an evaluation of the state’s
official submittal using the applicable
requirements of the CAA, related
regulations and guidance.
Comment: The flares should not have
a limit, especially a mass limit (pounds
per hour), because the flare needs to be
available for full usage to maintain
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
operational safety. Additionally, a flare
limit presents a major hardship for
compliance testing and enforcement.
Response: EPA agrees that the
ArcelorMittal flare must be allowed to
operate as necessary for operational
safety and proper disposal of waste
gases. EPA also agrees that direct
compliance testing of flare emissions
can be difficult. ArcelorMittal’s existing
flare emission limit would not limit the
flare’s actual usage while the blast
furnace gas generated by the facility
continued to meet the flare emission
limit. Deleting the flare limit, however,
has additional consequences for the SIP
which Indiana did not adequately
address in its SIP revision request.
Comment: The commenter states that
the Montana Sulphur case which EPA
cited does not apply to this SIP revision
because Indiana’s SIP includes limits on
all the emissions from blast furnace gas
combustion that were used in the
modeling to demonstrate attainment.
The flares were not attributed any mass
emissions in the modeling
demonstration or the SIP. The Montana
Sulphur case involved a state’s decision
to include flares in the modeling
demonstration but not include
corresponding emission limits in the
SIP rule.
Response: The Montana Sulphur case
affirms that flares are not exempt from
having SIP emission limits, particularly
where flare emissions were quantified
in an attainment demonstration that
assumed flare emissions would occur at
a certain level. Indiana has submitted
information to EPA indicating that the
blast furnace flare was included in the
original modeled attainment
demonstration for the Porter County SO2
SIP, with its SO2 emissions calculated
from blast furnace gas with a sulfur
content of 0.07 pounds SO2 per million
British Thermal Units (lb/mmBtu).
Allowing higher-sulfur blast furnace gas
would affect SO2 emissions at several
emission points, including the flare,
which could affect the adequacy of the
prior modeled attainment
demonstration, which relied upon the
use of blast furnace gas with a sulfur
content of 0.07 lb/mmBtu. Therefore, it
is reasonable for the SIP to require the
flare and the other sources using blast
furnace gas to meet that emission rate or
demonstrate compliance with
applicable emission limits based on that
emission rate. Indiana has not provided
a demonstration which fully addresses
the effect on the attainment
demonstration of relaxing the SIP
requirements to allow the facility to
generate, use, and flare higher-sulfur
blast furnace gas. Likewise, in the SIP
disapproval that was the subject of the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Montana Sulphur case, the state’s
attainment demonstration had assumed
SO2 emissions from flares would occur
at a certain rate, but had not shown in
its enforceable SIP emissions limits how
the assumed emissions would be
achieved. It is true that EPA has not
required all flares in all SO2 SIPs to be
subjected to emission limits. But where
an attainment demonstration relies
upon SO2 emissions to occur at certain
levels, including those from flares, the
SIP must contain adequate emission
limits to support the demonstration. The
problem both in Montana Sulphur and
here was that the attainment
demonstration submitted by the state
could not be so supported. (The blast
furnace flare limit helped support
Indiana’s demonstration for the
ArcelorMittal facility when the SO2 SIP
was approved in 1989.) Consequently,
EPA’s disapproval of the proposed SIP
relaxation is fully consistent with the
Court’s reasoning in the Montana
Sulphur case and with EPA’s SIP
disapproval action that was the subject
of that case.
Comment: The flare SO2 limit is in
units of lb/mmBtu. This is not a mass
limit, which would be given as pounds
of SO2 per hour (lb/hr). Therefore the
form of the limit is not designed to be
protective of the NAAQS. Only the mass
based lb/hr limits are relevant to
ensuring SO2 NAAQS attainment in the
SIP. The 0.07 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission
rate is a factor that is no longer
necessary or relevant after the lb/hr
limits were established and included in
the SIP. Exclusion of this limit is no less
protective than the current SIP limit.
Response: Emission limits given in
units of lb/mmBtu are common in SO2
SIPs. By directly limiting the sulfur
content of the fuels combusted in a
given unit or facility, this type of limit
allows flexibility of unit operations.
When the individual units are modeled
at their maximum heat input rates (in
units of million British Thermal Units
per hour), assuming fuel at the lb/
mmBtu limit, the SIP can be shown to
protect the NAAQS for any actual heat
input rate, including continual
maximum operations, with compliant
fuel. The removal of a lb/mmBtu
emission limit would enable the
burning of a higher-sulfur fuel, which
could result in SO2 concentrations in
excess of the NAAQS and adversely
affect public health.
Comment: Given the existing flare SIP
limit of 0.07 lb/mmBtu, an emission rate
of 8.9 lb/hr could be assumed for the
flare, for modeling purposes. Over a
year of continuous operation, this
would total less than 39 tons per year,
which is below the Significant Emission
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Rate for SO2 (40 tons per year). Actual
emissions would be lower, because
flares operate intermittently. Since the
facility is in an attainment area, the flare
would normally be excluded from
modeling because it was considered de
minimis. Recent EPA guidance suggests
that intermittent sources can be
excluded from modeling.
Response: The commenter’s
statements regarding the relative
importance of the flare’s SO2 emissions
do not eliminate the need for a CAA
section 110(l) demonstration addressing
the full effects of the proposed SIP
revision. The comment references the
flare’s total annual emissions while in
compliance with the current SO2
emission limit, but it does not consider
the increase in annual SO2 emissions
which the proposed SIP revision would
allow. In comparing the flare’s total
annual emissions to the Significant
Emission Rate, the commenter appears
to be referencing New Source Review/
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program requirements which are not
relevant to this SIP action. The
designation of an area as attainment of
the NAAQS does not automatically
exempt emission sources from inclusion
in SIP attainment demonstrations. It is
not clear that ArcelorMittal’s blast
furnace flare would qualify as an
intermittent source under EPA’s March
1, 2011, memorandum Additional
Clarification Regarding Application of
Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the
1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (which is what EPA
assumes the commenter is referencing),
or that it would be appropriate to
disregard the flare’s emissions in a SIP
modeling analysis per this
memorandum, and the state did not
provide an analysis justifying such an
approach within a modeled
demonstration for the 1-hour SO2
standard.
Comment: The pressure surge events
that concern EPA are rare and
unexpected events that cannot be
quantified. The allowable SO2 emission
rates are sufficiently conservative to
account for all such surges within the
current allowable emissions inventory.
Therefore, the commenter disagrees
with EPA’s assertion that the SIP
revision would enable an increase in
allowable SO2 emissions.
Response: EPA referenced pressure
surges in the March 20, 2013, notice of
proposed rulemaking because the
documentation provided by the state
indicated that the blast furnace flare gas
generation or distribution systems were
known to experience pressure surge
events. However, the state’s declarations
regarding flare usage and worst-case
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
facility operations did not address these
events. We acknowledge the
commenter’s additional assurances
regarding the frequency and magnitude
of pressure surges. As discussed above,
EPA is not solely concerned with
pressure surge events, but also with the
effect on air quality of removing the
blast furnace flare limit from the SIP.
Comment: The commenter declared a
strong economic incentive to use this
gas as fuel, flaring as little of it as
possible.
Response: EPA understands that it is
ArcelorMittal’s intent to use its blast
furnace gas as fuel rather than flaring it,
thus minimizing flare emissions.
However, the company has
acknowledged the need to use the flare
for the safe operation of the blast
furnace gas operating system, regardless
of the economic incentives to do
otherwise. Whether the flare is used
frequently or not, the full effect of
removing the flare’s emission limit must
be addressed. The state did not provide
a CAA section 110(l) demonstration
which adequately addressed the effect
of the proposed SIP revision on air
quality, taking into consideration the
facility’s ability to continue using all of
its generated gases as fuel and the lack
of a sulfur limit on blast furnace gas.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the amount of process gas generation is
limited by enforceable restrictions. The
facility’s Part 70 operating permit places
a limit on the amount of hot metal that
can be produced in the blast furnace,
which effectively limits the amount of
blast furnace gas that can be produced
by the facility. The coke oven batteries
have enforceable SIP limits on the
amount of coke oven gas that can be
produced. The commenter said that the
maximum amount of blast furnace gas
and coke oven gas that can be generated
within these restrictions can be
consumed in the existing combustion
units when operated at maximum
capacity. When IDEM modeled the
allowable emissions from the facility,
combustion of all the blast furnace gas
and coke oven gas is properly included
and there is no additional blast furnace
gas to attribute to the flare.
Response: The commenter referred to
hot metal production limits within the
facility’s Part 70 permit which were
originally derived from a construction
permit and are therefore permanent. The
commenter stated that these restrictions
would affect blast furnace gas
production, but did not provide
calculations or documentation which
identified the maximum amount of blast
furnace gas that can be generated while
in compliance with the hot metal
limitation in the facility’s Part 70
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78723
permit. The total coke oven gas
production allowable under the cited
coke battery limits was not given. The
SIP includes SO2 emission limits for
various fuel combustion units at
ArcelorMittal which can use blast
furnace gas and coke oven gas, such as
the blast furnace stoves, coke battery
underfire, slab mill soaking pits, and
power station boilers, which are referred
to in this document as ‘‘the combustion
units.’’ No calculations were provided
to show the amount of process gas by
volume which can be burned in the
combustion units at their maximum
heat input capacities, for comparison
with maximum gas production in
support of the commenter’s assertion.
The state’s submittal did not address the
amounts of each fuel gas which
corresponded to the emission rates used
in the dispersion modeling analysis
which the state cited in support of the
SIP revision. Therefore, EPA does not
have sufficient information to confirm
that the maximum amount of blast
furnace gas and coke oven gas which
can be generated within the facility’s
enforceable production restrictions can
be entirely consumed in the combustion
units when operated in compliance with
the SO2 SIP emission limits.
Comment: The sum of allowable SO2
lb/hr rates for all combustion units
burning process gases at the
ArcelorMittal facility is 8,692 lb/hr.
This rate is more than double the
maximum SO2 emissions from
combustion of all the process gases that
can be produced at the facility within
current enforceable restrictions on hot
metal and coke oven gas. The
commenter provided calculations to
support this assertion.
Response: The calculations which the
commenter provided appear to be based
on actual annual facility gas production
data, rather than a calculated maximum
value which would be allowed by the
enforceable limits, as suggested by the
comment. The comment letter contains
a table of calculated SO2 emissions from
blast furnace gas and coke oven gas.
This table is identical to a table in
ArcelorMittal’s June 29, 2011, letter to
IDEM. In that letter, the blast furnace
gas production data was identified as
the facility’s highest recent annual
production amount (2004), and the coke
oven gas was identified as the highest
recent annual production amount
(2009). EPA has already considered this
information. The June 29, 2011, letter
did not indicate that the 2004 blast
furnace gas production totals
represented the maximum amount of
process gas that could be generated
while in compliance with the hot metal
limit in the Part 70 permit. The
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78724
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
comment on EPA’s March 20, 2013,
proposed disapproval does not provide
additional calculations or
documentation to identify the true
maximum blast furnace gas production
which would be possible within the hot
metal limitation in ArcelorMittal’s Part
70 permit, or to demonstrate that the
2004 actual production value is equal to
the maximum possible production rate.
EPA therefore concludes that the
comment continues to cite actual
production data from 2004, which is not
sufficient to prove that the existing SIP
limits will continue to accommodate all
of the gas ArcelorMittal can generate,
when the blast furnace gas sulfur
content is no longer restricted by the
flare limit.
Comment: Since the worst-case
scenario attributes no blast furnace gas
to the flare, a change in the actual
emissions at the flare is irrelevant for
purposes of attainment and
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. Any
increase in emissions at the flare reflects
a corresponding reduction from another
source already modeled and must be
considered a departure from the worstcase scenario that must be modeled for
the attainment demonstration. This is
how EPA endorsed modeling similar
sources in Lake County.
Response: A change in actual SO2
emissions at the flare is only irrelevant
if the SIP truly covers all possible blast
furnace gas production and sulfur
content increases which would be
allowed under the revised SIP. The
range of potential blast furnace gas
sulfur content at this facility has not
been established. When blast furnace
gas is no longer assured of meeting 0.07
lb/mmBtu, the new worst-case operating
scenario may differ from the scenario
which was previously modeled to
support the original SO2 SIP for this
facility. The state has not demonstrated
that the SIP fully covers new potential
operating scenarios which could occur.
Comment: One of the commenters
disagreed with EPA’s statement that the
limitations on the sulfur content of the
process gases need to be addressed in
the SIP. The comment stated that the
purpose of the SIP is to attain and
maintain the NAAQS and ensure
reasonable further progress, and for this
purpose, IDEM established the SO2 lb/
hr emission limits for all fuel burning
sources that use process gases when
operating at their full utilization rates.
These rates were modeled and
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS was
demonstrated at the time of adoption of
326 IAC 7–4–14 as noted in 53 FR 34314
(September 6, 1988). The modeled rates
were included as emission limits in the
SIP. The conservative modeled scenario
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
provides an adequate margin of safety to
ensure than the attainment
demonstration remains valid and
protective of the NAAQS. The modeled
emission rates for the combustion units
remain unchanged and are not affected
by the SIP revision. Therefore, the
revision does not interfere with
protection of the NAAQS. The other
commenter added the statement that the
limits established to support
compliance of the NAAQS are
applicable regardless of the sulfur
content in the fuel used.
Response: The SIP revision request
removes an emission limit which is
directly linked to the sulfur content of
the blast furnace gas generated and used
at ArcelorMittal. The sulfur content of
the blast furnace gas is directly linked
to the facility’s compliance with its
remaining lb/hr SIP emission limits,
because the emissions from many of
those units correspond directly to the
sulfur content of the blast furnace gas
and coke oven gas which are allowed to
be used together as fuel. The state has
not demonstrated how ArcelorMittal
will continue to meet and demonstrate
continuous compliance with these
limits if blast furnace gas is no longer
assured of meeting a sulfur content of
0.07 lb/mmBtu. The state has not
limited or quantified the expected
increase in blast furnace gas sulfur
content under the revised SIP. The
existing SIP does not require the sulfur
content of blast furnace gas to be
analyzed for compliance purposes. The
facility’s sampling and analysis plan
under 326 IAC 7–4–14(1)(F) would
allow ArcelorMittal to calculate its
combustion unit SO2 emissions by
assuming that its blast furnace gas sulfur
content is 0.07 lb/mmBtu, even though
the SIP would no longer require the gas
to meet that limit at any combustion
unit. The state has not shown that 0.07
lb/mmBtu will continue to be a
representative SO2 emission factor for
ArcelorMittal’s blast furnace gas. The
compliance requirements for the
combustion units have not been revised.
The state has not provided a basis for
EPA to conclude that the revised SIP
will have no effect on the operation of
the combustion sources or on the
facility’s need to flare excess fuel gases.
Therefore, the state has not
demonstrated that relaxing
ArcelorMittal’s SIP will satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 110(l).
Comment: The commenter disagrees
that actual flaring data is needed for the
SIP revision. Actual flaring events
reflect something other than the worstcase operating scenario for blast furnace
gas combustion and are therefore
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
irrelevant for establishing attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Response: As the commenter states,
actual flaring data is not in itself a
requirement for SIP approval. The
state’s arguments for removing the flare
limit hinge on the concept that the
facility intends to and is able to use all
of its process gas in its combustion
units, minimizing flare usage, and that
flare usage events correspond to overall
facility emissions below the SIP
allowable levels. EPA’s proposed
disapproval simply pointed out that no
historical flaring data was provided.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is disapproving Indiana’s
December 10, 2009, submittal requesting
a SIP revision to remove the SO2
emission limit on the blast furnace gas
flare at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in
Porter County. The commenters on the
proposed disapproval contend primarily
that the facility’s blast furnace gas flare
does not need an emission limit in order
to maintain the NAAQS. The comments
did not demonstrate that the revised SIP
satisfactorily addresses the results of
removing an emission limit that had had
the effect of requiring the facility to
maintain a specific sulfur content in its
blast furnace gas. Nor did other
information in the record provide a
basis to conclude that this SIP revision
satisfies the requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Accordingly, EPA is
disapproving the submittal.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This site-specific action is exempt
from review under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state
law as not meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain an
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
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 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA.
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
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 is not
an economically significant regulatory
action based on health or safety risks
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP
disapproval under section 110 will not
in-and-of itself create any new rules but
simply disapproves a state rule
proposed for inclusion into the SIP.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 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.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this
action. In reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove
state choices, based on the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely
disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section
110 and will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements. Accordingly, it
does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
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
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:49 Dec 26, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
78725
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by February 25, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule 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 section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52–APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.781 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.781
Rules and regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving
the December 10, 2009 submittal of 326
IAC 7–4–14 as a revision to the Indiana
SIP.
[FR Doc. 2013–30885 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\27DER1.SGM
27DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78720-78725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965; FRL-9904-71-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, Indiana submitted a request for a
revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state implementation
plan (SIP) for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC (ArcelorMittal)
facility in Porter County, Indiana. This revision would remove the
SO2 emission limit for the blast furnace gas flare at the
facility. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to
disapprove this requested revision on March 20, 2013. The EPA is
addressing comments and finalizing the disapproval action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 27, 2014.
[[Page 78721]]
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be 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 Mary Portanova,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-5954 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, Portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received, and what is EPA's response?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
On December 10, 2009, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for revision of its
SO2 SIP. This revision would amend 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 7-4-14, Porter County SO2 Emission
Limitations, by removing the SO2 limit for the blast furnace
flare at the ArcelorMittal steel mill. To be approved, this SIP
revision request must comply with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), which states that the Administrator shall not approve a SIP
revision if it would interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reasonable further
progress, and any other applicable requirements. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
After reviewing the state's submittal, EPA determined that the
proposed SIP revision does not meet the requirements of CAA section
110(l). Removal of the flare limit eliminates the only requirement
which directly addresses the sulfur content of the blast furnace gas
which ArcelorMittal uses to fuel other combustion units in the
facility. Although blast furnace gas is considered to be a low-sulfur
fuel, the state's submittal indicates that the sulfur content of blast
furnace gas can vary, and the proposed SIP revision would allow
ArcelorMittal's blast furnace gas to increase in sulfur content without
limit. This would be inconsistent with the state's prior attainment
demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS.
The state has not fully evaluated the ambient impact of new
operating scenarios in which ArcelorMittal generates and uses higher-
sulfur blast furnace gas. It did not provide sufficient information for
EPA to confirm the assertion that the SIP emission limits would
continue to be met, with or without the use of the flare, under maximum
blast furnace capacity without limitations on blast furnace gas sulfur
content. Since the state's SIP submittal did not meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l), EPA published a notice of proposed disapproval
for this SIP revision request on March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17157). EPA
received four letters commenting on the proposed disapproval.
II. What comments were received, and what is EPA's response?
EPA received two comments in support of the proposed disapproval,
from an Indiana public interest group (March 22, 2013) and a private
citizen (April 18, 2013). Both IDEM and ArcelorMittal disagreed with
the proposal to disapprove the SIP revision request. IDEM submitted its
comments on April 18, 2013. ArcelorMittal submitted its comments on
April 19, 2013. Their comments are addressed below.
Comment: The flare limit represents an inequity in the state's
treatment of blast furnace gas flares; a similar facility nearby does
not have SO2 limits on its functionally identical flares.
The limits for Lake County, Indiana, were established after the limits
for Porter County, where ArcelorMittal is located. Emission inventories
and modeling parameters had improved, and through extensive
consultation with EPA, it was determined to be unnecessary to establish
SO2 emission limits specific to the flares for similar
facilities in Lake County (i.e. U.S. Steel Gary Works). IDEM was able
to establish SIP limits for sources such as U.S. Steel Gary Works which
did not include SO2 limits on the flares. EPA approved those
limits. There is no material reason for ArcelorMittal's blast furnace
gas flares in Porter County to be treated different from the blast
furnace gas flares operated by U.S. Steel in Lake County. It would be
arbitrary for EPA to disapprove the Porter County SIP revision to
remove blast furnace gas flare limits as unnecessary and redundant
limits after approving the 2005 Lake County SO2 SIP that did
not include blast furnace gas flare limits because they were
unnecessary and redundant. IDEM's attempt to remove this arbitrary
difference between neighboring counties should be considered an
appropriate correction to a historic error and approved. This SIP
revision would harmonize the Lake and Porter County treatment of flares
combusting excess blast furnace gas.
Response: Indiana's December 10, 2009, submission did not
demonstrate that ArcelorMittal's revised SO2 SIP would
continue to protect the SO2 NAAQS or meet the requirements
of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the SIP revision cannot be approved.
Emission limits, or the lack thereof, at other facilities are not
relevant to this demonstration. The fact that SO2 SIPs have
been approved without the need for SO2 limits on certain
flares is not in itself a justification for removing SO2
limits on flares from other sources in the absence of a showing that
the removal will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Comment: This should not be considered a matter of backsliding or
relaxation of the SIP, but a technical correction that is necessary to
establish consistency. The limit should have been excluded from the
start; therefore, this corrective action has no impact on the approved
SIP or the modeling conducted to support it.
Response: The state established ArcelorMittal's flare limit in the
SIP as part of its strategy to attain and maintain the SO2
NAAQS in Porter County. The SIP was approved by EPA in 1989 and has
remained in effect. CAA section 110(l) does not provide an exception
for ``technical corrections.'' Even if it did, it would not be
appropriate to treat the state's December 10, 2009, SIP revision
request as a technical correction because it can be expected to affect
air quality and because the state has not provided a demonstration that
in 1989 it did not intend to establish an SO2 limit
applicable to the blast furnace flare now operated by ArcelorMittal.
Likewise, to the extent that the commenter is suggesting the SIP
provision was approved in error and should be
[[Page 78722]]
corrected pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA notes that the state
has not provided a basis for concluding that the approval of this
provision in 1989 was an error. In addition, EPA does not believe that
emission limit relaxations can be justified on the basis of
establishing consistency without also satisfying the requirements of
CAA section 110(l). Therefore, the proposed SIP revision's effects on
the existing SIP and on the state's maintenance of the NAAQS must be
evaluated in accordance with CAA section 110(l).
Comment: IDEM and ArcelorMittal were led in 2007-2009 to believe
that the flare limit removal would be approvable. IDEM and
ArcelorMittal received no information to the contrary until 2012. EPA
was unwilling to establish fruitful dialogue with the state prior to
proposing disapproval. In its proposed disapproval, EPA did not cite or
recognize the wealth of information provided to supplement the SIP
revision.
Response: EPA's concerns with this SIP revision did not arise until
EPA received and began review of Indiana's December 10, 2009, SIP
submittal. Following a thorough review of the submittal and additional
information subsequently provided by Indiana, EPA concluded that the
submittal did not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(l). EPA
regularly communicated the progress of EPA's review of the submittal
during monthly conference calls with IDEM and offered opportunities for
further dialogue, which is documented in call summaries prepared by
IDEM.
As early as January 2010, EPA identified potential issues with this
SIP revision request. EPA acknowledges that IDEM and ArcelorMittal
provided EPA with additional information in response to its questions,
which EPA carefully considered. However, the state's submittal,
including supplemental information, did not demonstrate that the
proposed SIP revision would satisfy CAA section 110(l). IDEM's monthly
call summaries indicate that EPA had begun working on a disapproval in
January 2012, after expressing continuing concerns in September 2011.
EPA formally communicated the deficiencies of the revision in the March
20, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 17157). EPA's proposal
was based on an evaluation of the state's official submittal using the
applicable requirements of the CAA, related regulations and guidance.
Comment: The flares should not have a limit, especially a mass
limit (pounds per hour), because the flare needs to be available for
full usage to maintain operational safety. Additionally, a flare limit
presents a major hardship for compliance testing and enforcement.
Response: EPA agrees that the ArcelorMittal flare must be allowed
to operate as necessary for operational safety and proper disposal of
waste gases. EPA also agrees that direct compliance testing of flare
emissions can be difficult. ArcelorMittal's existing flare emission
limit would not limit the flare's actual usage while the blast furnace
gas generated by the facility continued to meet the flare emission
limit. Deleting the flare limit, however, has additional consequences
for the SIP which Indiana did not adequately address in its SIP
revision request.
Comment: The commenter states that the Montana Sulphur case which
EPA cited does not apply to this SIP revision because Indiana's SIP
includes limits on all the emissions from blast furnace gas combustion
that were used in the modeling to demonstrate attainment. The flares
were not attributed any mass emissions in the modeling demonstration or
the SIP. The Montana Sulphur case involved a state's decision to
include flares in the modeling demonstration but not include
corresponding emission limits in the SIP rule.
Response: The Montana Sulphur case affirms that flares are not
exempt from having SIP emission limits, particularly where flare
emissions were quantified in an attainment demonstration that assumed
flare emissions would occur at a certain level. Indiana has submitted
information to EPA indicating that the blast furnace flare was included
in the original modeled attainment demonstration for the Porter County
SO2 SIP, with its SO2 emissions calculated from
blast furnace gas with a sulfur content of 0.07 pounds SO2
per million British Thermal Units (lb/mmBtu). Allowing higher-sulfur
blast furnace gas would affect SO2 emissions at several
emission points, including the flare, which could affect the adequacy
of the prior modeled attainment demonstration, which relied upon the
use of blast furnace gas with a sulfur content of 0.07 lb/mmBtu.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the SIP to require the flare and the
other sources using blast furnace gas to meet that emission rate or
demonstrate compliance with applicable emission limits based on that
emission rate. Indiana has not provided a demonstration which fully
addresses the effect on the attainment demonstration of relaxing the
SIP requirements to allow the facility to generate, use, and flare
higher-sulfur blast furnace gas. Likewise, in the SIP disapproval that
was the subject of the Montana Sulphur case, the state's attainment
demonstration had assumed SO2 emissions from flares would
occur at a certain rate, but had not shown in its enforceable SIP
emissions limits how the assumed emissions would be achieved. It is
true that EPA has not required all flares in all SO2 SIPs to
be subjected to emission limits. But where an attainment demonstration
relies upon SO2 emissions to occur at certain levels,
including those from flares, the SIP must contain adequate emission
limits to support the demonstration. The problem both in Montana
Sulphur and here was that the attainment demonstration submitted by the
state could not be so supported. (The blast furnace flare limit helped
support Indiana's demonstration for the ArcelorMittal facility when the
SO2 SIP was approved in 1989.) Consequently, EPA's
disapproval of the proposed SIP relaxation is fully consistent with the
Court's reasoning in the Montana Sulphur case and with EPA's SIP
disapproval action that was the subject of that case.
Comment: The flare SO2 limit is in units of lb/mmBtu.
This is not a mass limit, which would be given as pounds of
SO2 per hour (lb/hr). Therefore the form of the limit is not
designed to be protective of the NAAQS. Only the mass based lb/hr
limits are relevant to ensuring SO2 NAAQS attainment in the
SIP. The 0.07 lb/mmBtu SO2 emission rate is a factor that is
no longer necessary or relevant after the lb/hr limits were established
and included in the SIP. Exclusion of this limit is no less protective
than the current SIP limit.
Response: Emission limits given in units of lb/mmBtu are common in
SO2 SIPs. By directly limiting the sulfur content of the
fuels combusted in a given unit or facility, this type of limit allows
flexibility of unit operations. When the individual units are modeled
at their maximum heat input rates (in units of million British Thermal
Units per hour), assuming fuel at the lb/mmBtu limit, the SIP can be
shown to protect the NAAQS for any actual heat input rate, including
continual maximum operations, with compliant fuel. The removal of a lb/
mmBtu emission limit would enable the burning of a higher-sulfur fuel,
which could result in SO2 concentrations in excess of the
NAAQS and adversely affect public health.
Comment: Given the existing flare SIP limit of 0.07 lb/mmBtu, an
emission rate of 8.9 lb/hr could be assumed for the flare, for modeling
purposes. Over a year of continuous operation, this would total less
than 39 tons per year, which is below the Significant Emission
[[Page 78723]]
Rate for SO2 (40 tons per year). Actual emissions would be
lower, because flares operate intermittently. Since the facility is in
an attainment area, the flare would normally be excluded from modeling
because it was considered de minimis. Recent EPA guidance suggests that
intermittent sources can be excluded from modeling.
Response: The commenter's statements regarding the relative
importance of the flare's SO2 emissions do not eliminate the
need for a CAA section 110(l) demonstration addressing the full effects
of the proposed SIP revision. The comment references the flare's total
annual emissions while in compliance with the current SO2
emission limit, but it does not consider the increase in annual
SO2 emissions which the proposed SIP revision would allow.
In comparing the flare's total annual emissions to the Significant
Emission Rate, the commenter appears to be referencing New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration program requirements
which are not relevant to this SIP action. The designation of an area
as attainment of the NAAQS does not automatically exempt emission
sources from inclusion in SIP attainment demonstrations. It is not
clear that ArcelorMittal's blast furnace flare would qualify as an
intermittent source under EPA's March 1, 2011, memorandum Additional
Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for
the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (which
is what EPA assumes the commenter is referencing), or that it would be
appropriate to disregard the flare's emissions in a SIP modeling
analysis per this memorandum, and the state did not provide an analysis
justifying such an approach within a modeled demonstration for the 1-
hour SO2 standard.
Comment: The pressure surge events that concern EPA are rare and
unexpected events that cannot be quantified. The allowable
SO2 emission rates are sufficiently conservative to account
for all such surges within the current allowable emissions inventory.
Therefore, the commenter disagrees with EPA's assertion that the SIP
revision would enable an increase in allowable SO2
emissions.
Response: EPA referenced pressure surges in the March 20, 2013,
notice of proposed rulemaking because the documentation provided by the
state indicated that the blast furnace flare gas generation or
distribution systems were known to experience pressure surge events.
However, the state's declarations regarding flare usage and worst-case
facility operations did not address these events. We acknowledge the
commenter's additional assurances regarding the frequency and magnitude
of pressure surges. As discussed above, EPA is not solely concerned
with pressure surge events, but also with the effect on air quality of
removing the blast furnace flare limit from the SIP.
Comment: The commenter declared a strong economic incentive to use
this gas as fuel, flaring as little of it as possible.
Response: EPA understands that it is ArcelorMittal's intent to use
its blast furnace gas as fuel rather than flaring it, thus minimizing
flare emissions. However, the company has acknowledged the need to use
the flare for the safe operation of the blast furnace gas operating
system, regardless of the economic incentives to do otherwise. Whether
the flare is used frequently or not, the full effect of removing the
flare's emission limit must be addressed. The state did not provide a
CAA section 110(l) demonstration which adequately addressed the effect
of the proposed SIP revision on air quality, taking into consideration
the facility's ability to continue using all of its generated gases as
fuel and the lack of a sulfur limit on blast furnace gas.
Comment: The commenter stated that the amount of process gas
generation is limited by enforceable restrictions. The facility's Part
70 operating permit places a limit on the amount of hot metal that can
be produced in the blast furnace, which effectively limits the amount
of blast furnace gas that can be produced by the facility. The coke
oven batteries have enforceable SIP limits on the amount of coke oven
gas that can be produced. The commenter said that the maximum amount of
blast furnace gas and coke oven gas that can be generated within these
restrictions can be consumed in the existing combustion units when
operated at maximum capacity. When IDEM modeled the allowable emissions
from the facility, combustion of all the blast furnace gas and coke
oven gas is properly included and there is no additional blast furnace
gas to attribute to the flare.
Response: The commenter referred to hot metal production limits
within the facility's Part 70 permit which were originally derived from
a construction permit and are therefore permanent. The commenter stated
that these restrictions would affect blast furnace gas production, but
did not provide calculations or documentation which identified the
maximum amount of blast furnace gas that can be generated while in
compliance with the hot metal limitation in the facility's Part 70
permit. The total coke oven gas production allowable under the cited
coke battery limits was not given. The SIP includes SO2
emission limits for various fuel combustion units at ArcelorMittal
which can use blast furnace gas and coke oven gas, such as the blast
furnace stoves, coke battery underfire, slab mill soaking pits, and
power station boilers, which are referred to in this document as ``the
combustion units.'' No calculations were provided to show the amount of
process gas by volume which can be burned in the combustion units at
their maximum heat input capacities, for comparison with maximum gas
production in support of the commenter's assertion. The state's
submittal did not address the amounts of each fuel gas which
corresponded to the emission rates used in the dispersion modeling
analysis which the state cited in support of the SIP revision.
Therefore, EPA does not have sufficient information to confirm that the
maximum amount of blast furnace gas and coke oven gas which can be
generated within the facility's enforceable production restrictions can
be entirely consumed in the combustion units when operated in
compliance with the SO2 SIP emission limits.
Comment: The sum of allowable SO2 lb/hr rates for all
combustion units burning process gases at the ArcelorMittal facility is
8,692 lb/hr. This rate is more than double the maximum SO2
emissions from combustion of all the process gases that can be produced
at the facility within current enforceable restrictions on hot metal
and coke oven gas. The commenter provided calculations to support this
assertion.
Response: The calculations which the commenter provided appear to
be based on actual annual facility gas production data, rather than a
calculated maximum value which would be allowed by the enforceable
limits, as suggested by the comment. The comment letter contains a
table of calculated SO2 emissions from blast furnace gas and
coke oven gas. This table is identical to a table in ArcelorMittal's
June 29, 2011, letter to IDEM. In that letter, the blast furnace gas
production data was identified as the facility's highest recent annual
production amount (2004), and the coke oven gas was identified as the
highest recent annual production amount (2009). EPA has already
considered this information. The June 29, 2011, letter did not indicate
that the 2004 blast furnace gas production totals represented the
maximum amount of process gas that could be generated while in
compliance with the hot metal limit in the Part 70 permit. The
[[Page 78724]]
comment on EPA's March 20, 2013, proposed disapproval does not provide
additional calculations or documentation to identify the true maximum
blast furnace gas production which would be possible within the hot
metal limitation in ArcelorMittal's Part 70 permit, or to demonstrate
that the 2004 actual production value is equal to the maximum possible
production rate. EPA therefore concludes that the comment continues to
cite actual production data from 2004, which is not sufficient to prove
that the existing SIP limits will continue to accommodate all of the
gas ArcelorMittal can generate, when the blast furnace gas sulfur
content is no longer restricted by the flare limit.
Comment: Since the worst-case scenario attributes no blast furnace
gas to the flare, a change in the actual emissions at the flare is
irrelevant for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS. Any increase in emissions at the flare reflects a
corresponding reduction from another source already modeled and must be
considered a departure from the worst-case scenario that must be
modeled for the attainment demonstration. This is how EPA endorsed
modeling similar sources in Lake County.
Response: A change in actual SO2 emissions at the flare
is only irrelevant if the SIP truly covers all possible blast furnace
gas production and sulfur content increases which would be allowed
under the revised SIP. The range of potential blast furnace gas sulfur
content at this facility has not been established. When blast furnace
gas is no longer assured of meeting 0.07 lb/mmBtu, the new worst-case
operating scenario may differ from the scenario which was previously
modeled to support the original SO2 SIP for this facility.
The state has not demonstrated that the SIP fully covers new potential
operating scenarios which could occur.
Comment: One of the commenters disagreed with EPA's statement that
the limitations on the sulfur content of the process gases need to be
addressed in the SIP. The comment stated that the purpose of the SIP is
to attain and maintain the NAAQS and ensure reasonable further
progress, and for this purpose, IDEM established the SO2 lb/
hr emission limits for all fuel burning sources that use process gases
when operating at their full utilization rates. These rates were
modeled and attainment of the SO2 NAAQS was demonstrated at
the time of adoption of 326 IAC 7-4-14 as noted in 53 FR 34314
(September 6, 1988). The modeled rates were included as emission limits
in the SIP. The conservative modeled scenario provides an adequate
margin of safety to ensure than the attainment demonstration remains
valid and protective of the NAAQS. The modeled emission rates for the
combustion units remain unchanged and are not affected by the SIP
revision. Therefore, the revision does not interfere with protection of
the NAAQS. The other commenter added the statement that the limits
established to support compliance of the NAAQS are applicable
regardless of the sulfur content in the fuel used.
Response: The SIP revision request removes an emission limit which
is directly linked to the sulfur content of the blast furnace gas
generated and used at ArcelorMittal. The sulfur content of the blast
furnace gas is directly linked to the facility's compliance with its
remaining lb/hr SIP emission limits, because the emissions from many of
those units correspond directly to the sulfur content of the blast
furnace gas and coke oven gas which are allowed to be used together as
fuel. The state has not demonstrated how ArcelorMittal will continue to
meet and demonstrate continuous compliance with these limits if blast
furnace gas is no longer assured of meeting a sulfur content of 0.07
lb/mmBtu. The state has not limited or quantified the expected increase
in blast furnace gas sulfur content under the revised SIP. The existing
SIP does not require the sulfur content of blast furnace gas to be
analyzed for compliance purposes. The facility's sampling and analysis
plan under 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(F) would allow ArcelorMittal to calculate
its combustion unit SO2 emissions by assuming that its blast
furnace gas sulfur content is 0.07 lb/mmBtu, even though the SIP would
no longer require the gas to meet that limit at any combustion unit.
The state has not shown that 0.07 lb/mmBtu will continue to be a
representative SO2 emission factor for ArcelorMittal's blast
furnace gas. The compliance requirements for the combustion units have
not been revised. The state has not provided a basis for EPA to
conclude that the revised SIP will have no effect on the operation of
the combustion sources or on the facility's need to flare excess fuel
gases. Therefore, the state has not demonstrated that relaxing
ArcelorMittal's SIP will satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(l).
Comment: The commenter disagrees that actual flaring data is needed
for the SIP revision. Actual flaring events reflect something other
than the worst-case operating scenario for blast furnace gas combustion
and are therefore irrelevant for establishing attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Response: As the commenter states, actual flaring data is not in
itself a requirement for SIP approval. The state's arguments for
removing the flare limit hinge on the concept that the facility intends
to and is able to use all of its process gas in its combustion units,
minimizing flare usage, and that flare usage events correspond to
overall facility emissions below the SIP allowable levels. EPA's
proposed disapproval simply pointed out that no historical flaring data
was provided.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is disapproving Indiana's December 10, 2009, submittal
requesting a SIP revision to remove the SO2 emission limit
on the blast furnace gas flare at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in Porter
County. The commenters on the proposed disapproval contend primarily
that the facility's blast furnace gas flare does not need an emission
limit in order to maintain the NAAQS. The comments did not demonstrate
that the revised SIP satisfactorily addresses the results of removing
an emission limit that had had the effect of requiring the facility to
maintain a specific sulfur content in its blast furnace gas. Nor did
other information in the record provide a basis to conclude that this
SIP revision satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
Accordingly, EPA is disapproving the submittal.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This site-specific action is exempt from review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law
[[Page 78725]]
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain an unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
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 is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This SIP disapproval under section 110 will not in-and-of itself create
any new rules but simply disapproves a state rule proposed for
inclusion into the SIP.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide
EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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 section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
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.
0
2. Section 52.781 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.781 Rules and regulations.
* * * * *
(h) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the December 10, 2009
submittal of 326 IAC 7-4-14 as a revision to the Indiana SIP.
[FR Doc. 2013-30885 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P