Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal Implementation Plan, 64159-64189 [2015-25023]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 204
October 22, 2015
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal
Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64160
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0196; FRL–9934–15–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and
Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to
a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
addressing the requirement for best
available retrofit technology (BART) for
taconite plants in Minnesota and
Michigan. In response to petitions for
reconsideration, we are proposing to
revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits
for taconite furnaces at facilities owned
and operated by Cliffs Natural
Resources (Cliffs) and ArcelorMittal
USA LLC (ArcelorMittal). We are also
proposing to revise the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) requirements at two of Cliffs’
facilities. We are proposing these
changes because new information has
come to light that was not available
when we originally promulgated the FIP
on February 6, 2013.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0196, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408–2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano,
Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–
0196. EPA’s policy is that all comments
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60604, (312) 886–6052,
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This notice is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Background
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013
Taconite FIP
V. EPA’s Basis for Granting Reconsideration
VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013
Taconite FIP Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as i prepare
my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What action is EPA taking?
On February 6, 2013, EPA
promulgated a FIP that included BART
limits for certain taconite furnaces in
Minnesota and Michigan (2013 Taconite
FIP; 78 FR 8706). EPA is proposing to
revise the 2013 Taconite FIP with
respect to the BART emission
limitations and compliance schedules
for the following taconite plants: United
Taconite, Hibbing Taconite, Tilden
Mining, and ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine. Cliffs is the owner and operator
of the United Taconite and Tilden
Mining facilities and part owner and
operator of Hibbing Taconite.
ArcelorMittal is the owner and operator
of the Minorca Mine facility and a part
owner of the Hibbing Taconite facility.
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, EPA is proposing to revise
the NOX limits and compliance
schedules for these four facilities and is
also proposing to revise the SO2
requirements for Tilden Mining and
United Taconite.
III. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the Clean Air Act
(CAA), Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas.
This section of the CAA establishes as
a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 which
impairment results from manmade air
pollution.’’ Congress added section
169B to the CAA in 1990 to address
regional haze issues. EPA promulgated
a rule to address regional haze on July
1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999),
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P
(herein after referred to as the ‘‘Regional
haze Rule’’). The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility
regulations to add provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states, or EPA if developing a FIP, to
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires EPA to develop a FIP
that contains such measures as may be
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary
sources 2 built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best
Available Retrofit Technology’’ as
determined by EPA. Under the Regional
Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP,
EPA) are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states and EPA in
determining which sources should be
subject to the BART requirements and
in determining appropriate emission
limits for each applicable source. 70 FR
39104.
The process of establishing BART
emission limitations follows three steps:
First, identify those sources which meet
the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’
set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; 3 second,
determine which of these sources
‘‘emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, identify the best
available type and level of control for
reducing emissions.
States, or EPA if developing a FIP,
must address all visibility-impairing
pollutants emitted by a source in the
BART determination process. The most
significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and particulate
matter (PM).
A state implementation plan (SIP) or
FIP addressing regional haze must
include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for
each source subject to BART. Once a
state or EPA has made a BART
determination, the BART controls must
be installed and operated as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five years after the date of the final
SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4)
and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
2 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7),
and includes ‘‘taconite ore processing facilities.’’
3 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64161
to what is required by the Regional Haze
Rule, general SIP requirements mandate
that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source. See CAA
section 110(a).
C. Regulatory and Legal History of the
2013 Taconite FIP
On February 6, 2013, EPA
promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that
included BART limits for taconite
furnaces subject to BART in Minnesota
and Michigan. EPA took this action
because Minnesota and Michigan had
failed to meet a statutory deadline to
submit their Regional Haze SIPs and
subsequently failed to require BART at
the taconite facilities. Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and the State of Michigan
petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the FIP, and, on
May 17, 2013, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal
filed a joint motion for stay of the final
rule, which was granted by the Eighth
Circuit on June 14, 2013, and is still in
effect.
EPA received petitions for
reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP
from the National Mining Association
on March 8, 2013, ArcelorMittal on
March 22, 2013, the State of Michigan
on April 1, 2013, Cliffs on April 3, 2013,
Congressman Richard M. Nolan on
April 8, 2013, the State of Minnesota on
April 8, 2013, and United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel) on November
26, 2013.
In a related action, EPA published a
final partial disapproval of the Michigan
and Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs on
September 30, 2013 (78 FR 59825), for
failure to require BART for SO2 and
NOX emissions from taconite furnaces
subject to BART. By petitions dated
November 26, 2013, Cliffs and U.S. Steel
petitioned EPA pursuant to section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for
reconsideration of EPA’s partial
disapproval of the Michigan and
Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs. Further,
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, Michigan and U.S.
Steel petitioned the Eight Circuit Court
of Appeals for review of the final rule
partially disapproving the Michigan and
Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs.
EPA subsequently reached a
settlement agreement with Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and Michigan regarding
issues raised by these parties in their
petitions for review and
reconsideration. Notice of the settlement
was published in the Federal Register
on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5111), and
the settlement agreement was fully
executed on April 9, 2015. Pursuant to
the settlement agreement, EPA granted
partial reconsideration of the 2013
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64162
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Taconite FIP on July 2, 2015, based on
new information raised in Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and Michigan’s petitions
for reconsideration. EPA did not grant
reconsideration of the 2013 SIP
disapprovals because EPA continues to
believe that BART for taconite plants
involves significant reductions of NOX
and SO2 emissions that were not
required in the Michigan and Minnesota
SIPs.
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of
2013 Taconite FIP
A. Summary of Petitions for
Reconsideration
1. National Mining Association
petitioned for reconsideration because
EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP before
finalizing its disapproval of the
Michigan and Minnesota regional haze
SIPs.
2. Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
petitioned for reconsideration because,
in its view: (1) There was no
information available prior to the close
of Michigan’s public comment period
on June 23, 2010, indicating that low
NOX burners (LNBs) had been
successfully utilized on indurating
furnaces; (2) the FIP schedule for
compliance did not provide sufficient
time for the permitting process
necessary for the installation of the
LNBs; and (3) EPA had not followed
proper procedure by finalizing the FIP
for Tilden while at the same time asking
for additional comment on the SIP
disapproval for Tilden.
3. Congressman Richard M. Nolan
petitioned for reconsideration because,
in his view: (1) New information came
to his attention concerning the accuracy
of EPA’s visibility modeling; (2) the
feasibility of LNB technology was not
established at the time EPA intervened
in the process; and (3) it was doubtful
that LNBs could be successfully
installed and operated in the 26 months
called for in the FIP.
4. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) petitioned for
reconsideration of the compliance
schedules in the FIP and asked for a 10month extension of the compliance
deadlines for affected facilities with
more than one affected process line to
provide adequate time for MPCA to
issue the required air quality permits.
5. Cliffs petitioned for reconsideration
because of perceived procedural defects
in EPA’s decision to issue the FIP rule
while it was simultaneously evaluating
Minnesota and Michigan’s SIPs. Cliffs
also raised technical issues based on
new information not available at the
time EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP.
These technical issues included the
following: (a) The FIP imposed a new
0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at
United Taconite that was not proposed
and was inappropriate because it would
require the use of a new type of coal that
the facility is not designed to handle, (b)
the 2013 FIP restricts Tilden to
combusting natural gas instead of coal,
and (c) installation of LNBs will require
a minimum of 34 months for the first
straight-grate furnace and a minimum of
39 months for the first grate kiln
furnace, instead of the 26 months
provided in the original 2013 FIP
compliance schedule. Cliffs also
provided additional evidence that, in its
view, indicates that installation and
operation of LNBs would be more costly
and would require more time to install
than EPA estimated, including (1)
estimates by furnace engineers and
burner manufacturers that LNB capital
costs for Cliffs’ furnaces will be a
minimum of 4–5 times higher than
EPA’s Minntac-based cost estimate,(2)
estimates by Cliffs’ furnace designer,
Metso Minerals (Metso), and burner
manufacturer, Fives North America
(Fives), that there would be an energy
penalty of 20–40% while operating the
LNBs, and (3) an analysis by Metso
indicating that Cliffs would lose
approximately $195 million in
production costs across its six lines
because installing LNB cannot be
accomplished within normal annual
outage time and will also impair
production during the shakedown
period after installation.
6. ArcelorMittal petitioned for
reconsideration because of perceived
procedural defects in EPA’s decision to
finalize the 2013 Taconite FIP while
still working to evaluate Minnesota’s
SIP. ArcelorMittal claimed that EPA can
only issue a FIP after it has fully and
properly evaluated the SIP, found it to
be deficient, and provided a reasonable
opportunity for the state to address
EPA’s concerns. ArcelorMittal also
raised the following technical issues in
the attachment to its petition for
reconsideration: (1) The costs of LNBs,
(2) the lack of any existing straight-grate
furnaces with LNB technology and the
resulting unwillingness of vendors to
provide performance guarantees, (3)
significant production losses because of
the downtime resulting from installation
and adjustment of LNBs at Hibbing, and
(4) energy penalties due to the need for
25% more natural gas at Hibbing and
10% to 20% more natural gas at
Minorca to operate the LNBs.
7. U.S. Steel petitioned for
reconsideration because it had obtained
new information showing that
variations in kiln configuration may
have a substantial impact on the cost
and performance of LNBs installed on
grate-kiln furnaces. In its November 26,
2013 petition for reconsideration of the
September 30, 2013 partial disapproval
of the Michigan and Minnesota regional
haze SIPs, Cliffs referenced U.S. Steel’s
petition for reconsideration in which it
cited concerns related to the high costs
and energy penalties associated with the
installation of LNBs, as well as pellet
quality issues.
B. Issues for Which EPA Has Granted
Reconsideration
EPA believes that the new
information contained in the petitions
for reconsideration, as well as other
supporting information provided by
Cliffs, represents significant new
information that warrants
reconsideration of many of the emission
limits that EPA promulgated for the
taconite facilities in 2013. As a result,
on July 2, 2015, EPA sent letters to
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan
granting portions of their petitions for
reconsideration. Specifically, EPA is
granting reconsideration, pursuant to
section 307(d)(7)(b) of the CAA, of the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for the
grate-kiln furnaces and the NOX
emission limits for the straight-grate
furnaces listed in the following table.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
State
Facility—owner
Unit(s)
Minnesota ................................................
Minnesota ................................................
Minnesota ................................................
United Taconite—Cliffs ..........................
Minora Mine—ArcelorMittal ....................
Hibbing Taconite—Cliffs (operator and
part owner).
ArcelorMittal (part owner)
U.S. Steel (part owner)
Tilden Mining—Cliffs ..............................
Grate-Kiln Lines 1 and 2 ........................
Straight-Grate Line 1 .............................
Straight-Grate Lines 1–3 ........................
NOX and SO2.
NOX.
NOX.
Grate-Kiln Line 1 ....................................
NOX and SO2.
Michigan ..................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
Pollutant(s)
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to serious technical hurdles. In addition,
we granted reconsideration of the SO2
limits for the United Taconite and
Tilden grate-kilns because of
information that became available after
the close of the public comment period
regarding the inability of United
Taconite to handle and burn very low
sulfur coal and Tilden’s intent to burn
mixed fuels.
In determining whether to grant
reconsideration of certain provisions of
the 2013 Taconite FIP, the requirements
of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
apply. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides a
two-step test to determine whether
reconsideration should be granted. The
petitioner must first show that it was
impracticable to raise the comment or
objection within the time period for
public comment of the rule, or, that the
grounds for the comment or objection
arose after the period for public
comment. Secondly, the petitioner must
show that the comment or objection is
of ‘‘central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.’’
Cliffs and ArcelorMittal provided
significant new information in their
petitions for reconsideration and
supplemental submittals directly
relevant to the outcome of the 2013
Taconite FIP. The following discussion
details the new information upon which
EPA is relying to base reconsideration of
the BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for these
facilities, and how the information
meets the criteria of section 307(d)(7)(B)
of the CAA.
V. EPA’s Basis for Granting
Reconsideration
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The U.S. taconite iron ore industry
uses two types of pelletizing machines
or processes: Straight-grate kilns and
grate-kilns. In a straight-grate kiln, a
continuous bed of agglomerated green
pellets is carried through different
temperature zones with upward draft or
downward draft blown through the
pellets on the metal grate. The grate-kiln
system consists of a traveling grate, a
rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. A
significant difference between these
designs is that straight-grate kilns do not
burn coal and therefore have a much
lower potential for emitting SO2.
Further, even within the same kiln type
or process, individual (referred to as
indurating or pelletizing) furnaces or
processes have distinct equipment and
process characteristics that may affect
the compatibility and performance of
certain types of burners. The differences
between these kilns and processes form
a key basis for the changes to the
emissions limits proposed in this action.
EPA is not reconsidering all elements
of its 2013 FIP. The 2013 FIP contains
SO2 and NOX limits for U.S. Steel’s
Minntac and Keetac taconite furnaces in
Minnesota. EPA has not granted U.S.
Steel’s petition and is not proposing any
revisions of the BART limits for these
U.S. Steel facilities at this time. Also,
EPA is not reconsidering the NOX limits
at Cliffs’ Northshore taconite plant
because this facility is already
complying with the 1.2 pounds per
million Btu (lb/mmBtu) NOX limit in
the 2013 FIP. Finally, EPA is not
reconsidering the SO2 limits at the
Hibbing, ArcelorMittal, or Northshore
straight-grate furnaces.
1. NOX Emission Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP established
BART NOX limits for all straight-grate
and grate-kiln taconite furnaces. The
limits are 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu
when burning a gas/coal mix. These
limits were based upon the performance
of high stoichiometric (high-stoich)
LNBs 4 at two of U.S. Steel Minntac’s
grate-kilns. As explained in more detail
below, we granted reconsideration of
the NOX limits for the United Taconite
and Tilden grate-kilns, as well as for the
Hibbing and ArcelorMittal straight-grate
kilns, because information that became
available after the close of the public
comment period (September 28, 2012)
suggests that the installation of highstoich LNBs at these furnaces could lead
4 Stoichiometry refers to the relationship between
the actual quantity of combustion air to the
theoretical minimum quantity of air needed for 100
percent combustion of the fuel.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
A. United Taconite
EPA determined the NOX emission
limits for BART in the 2013 Taconite
FIP primarily from data arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel Minntac’s furnaces 6 and 7.
Although the United Taconite furnaces
and the Minntac furnaces are all gratekiln furnaces, Cliffs provided new
information after the close of the
comment period that described various
differences between the furnaces. These
differences included the structure of the
kiln, the use of pre-heaters, and the
types of ore and pellets processed. Cliffs
indicated that because of these
differences, the installation of highstoich LNBs at United Taconite would
likely result in the impairment of pellet
quality and production, as well as
increased fuel usage and emissions.
Cliffs subsequently provided modeling
analyses that detailed the impacts
arising from the installation of highstoich LNBs at United Taconite.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64163
Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric
Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26,
2013, which describes the differences
relevant to NOX emissions between US
Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, upon
which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits
were based, and Cliffs’ grate-kiln
furnaces at United Taconite. The
declaration describes several differences
that EPA believes are relevant to the
development of BART NOX emission
limits. For example, whereas United
Taconite uses a single large kiln burner,
Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate
preheat burners, which supply about
one-third of the heat input from fuel, in
addition to a large kiln burner. The
smaller preheat burners at Minntac
achieve very low NOX rates (0.1–0.3 lbs/
MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX
reduction combustion environment in
the preheat zone as compared to the
firing end of the kiln. Correspondingly,
the lower NOX emissions from the
preheaters result in a lower combined
NOX emission rate than the emissions
arising from a large single kiln LNB.
Another example in the declaration
notes that the ore processed at the
facilities is different, resulting in
different heat values. U.S. Steel’s
Minntac facility processes an ore high in
magnetite that contributes heat to the
kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly,
by processing high magnetite ore at
Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel is
able to effectively use ported kilns to
maximize the benefit of the ore. Ported
kilns allow the introduction of
additional air directly to the kilns which
helps oxidize the high magnetite ore,
and changes the heat balance of the
furnace. In contrast, United Taconite
processes ores with a lower
concentration of magnetite than the ore
processed at Minntac, and
correspondingly, cannot effectively use
ported kilns. Because ported kilns
change the heat balance of the furnace,
U.S Steel’s experience with high-stoich
LNBs at the Minntac furnaces may not
be directly applicable to the United
Taconite furnaces.
A final example from the declaration
states that the application of high-stoich
LNB technology at United Taconite
would require additional air to reduce
burner flame temperature, which would
result in increased airflow through the
grate drying section and increased
pressure drop across the greenballs,
which are the raw feed to the indurating
furnace. This higher bed pressure would
result in deformed pellets, reduced
pellet quality, and lost production.
Further, the increased air flow would
also likely cause pellet breakage that
would reduce production. The
declaration notes that to avoid these
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64164
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
impacts, United Taconite likely would
have to limit the dryer section air flow
and drying rate by reducing the amount
of recovered heat from the cooler.
However, any unrecovered heat would
have to be replaced with additional heat
from the burner, with corresponding
increased fuel usage and emissions.
Subsequent to the submission of the
declaration, Cliffs provided a modeling
analysis that supported the information
provided in the declaration. A report by
Metso dated August 7, 2014, entitled
‘‘Technical Analysis for applying LNB
technology to (United Taconite) UTAC
Line 2 Grate-Kiln,’’ provides a detailed
analysis of expected impacts from using
high-stoich LNBs on pellet quality, fuel
usage, and emissions. Metso analyzed
the effects of LNB technology on the
United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln by
using simulation modeling in which
Metso compared Line 2’s normal
operating conditions, which result in
the production of quality pellets, with
simulations performed using high-stoich
LNBs (which are the basis of the 2013
Taconite FIP limits). The report
indicates that to maintain airflow,
temperature, and pressures sufficient to
minimize pellet quality issues would
require a significant increase in fuel
rates and corresponding emissions.
Further, the use of high-stoich LNBs
would result in decreased oxygen in the
preheat zone gases from the kiln. The
corresponding reduction in the
oxidation heat on the grate would result
in lower pellet temperatures at the point
where the pellets leave the grate and
enter the kiln. This would likely result
in pellet breakage and a corresponding
reduction in production.
Finally, Cliffs provided additional
information to EPA in a July 28, 2014
meeting, which Cliffs summarized in an
August 8, 2014 letter to EPA. The
information provided included data
comparing performance, costs, and fuel
usage between high-stoich LNBs and
low-stoich LNBs. Much of the
information set forth in the August 8
letter is presented in section VI of this
notice, pertaining to the NOX BART
analysis. In general, the information
pertains to advantages of the low-stoich
LNBs over the high-stoich LNBs.
The information provided by Cliffs in
its petition for reconsideration and
subsequent submittals arose from
recent, time-consuming research and
analysis that could not have been
completed and made available during
the public comment period. Therefore,
Cliffs has met the first requirement of
the criteria for reconsideration set forth
at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.
Significantly, the information that Cliffs
provided is of central relevance to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. EPA
extensively based its NOX BART
analysis on the results arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step
one of a BART analysis requires the
identification of all available retrofit
control technologies. Step two of a
BART analysis requires the elimination
of technically infeasible control
technologies. The new information
provided by Cliffs directly bears on the
evaluation of the selection and
feasibility of high-stoich LNBs for use in
the grate-kiln indurating furnaces at the
United Taconite facility. On this basis,
we granted reconsideration of the NOX
determination for United Taconite
(Lines 1 and 2) and for the
corresponding emission limits and
compliance schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP set a 0.60%
sulfur limit on coal combusted at United
Taconite. We promulgated this limit in
response to a proposal by Cliffs to use
low sulfur fuel at United Taconite to
decrease baseline SO2 emissions.
However, Cliffs did not have an
opportunity to comment on the specific
numeric stringency of the limit we
promulgated. In other words, it was
impracticable for Cliffs to comment on
the final sulfur limit prior to the close
of the public comment period.
In its petition for reconsideration,
Cliffs also presented new information
directly pertaining to the criteria for
determining BART limits. Cliffs stated
that the United Taconite facility had
been designed to handle and burn
eastern bituminous coal, not the low
sulfur, western subbituminous coals
from the Powder River Basin (PRB) that
Cliffs would be required to use to meet
the 0.60% sulfur content limit. For
example, PRB coal is more prone to
explosion and fire and has a lower heat
value than eastern bituminous coal.
These differences, among others, would
require Cliffs to expend significant costs
to change operations, address safety
issues, and increase the amount of coal
required to be burned to meet furnace
and pellet temperature requirements.
The information that Cliffs presented
pertains to the feasibility and costs of
implementing the sulfur limit, which
are criteria to be used in determining
BART. Therefore, the information
provided by Cliffs after the close of the
comment period is of central relevance
to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP.
On this basis, we granted
reconsideration of the 0.60% sulfur
limit on coal combusted at United
Taconite.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B. Tilden
1. NOX Emission Limit
EPA determined the NOX emission
limits for BART in the 2013 Taconite
FIP primarily from data arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7.
Although the Tilden furnace and the
Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln
furnaces, Cliffs provided new
information after the close of the
comment period that described various
differences between the furnaces. These
differences included the structure of the
kiln, the use of pre-heaters, and the ore
and pellet types processed. Cliffs
indicated that because of these
differences, the installation of highstoich LNBs at Tilden would likely
result in the impairment of pellet
quality and production, as well as
increased fuel usage and emissions.
Cliffs subsequently provided a modeling
analysis that detailed the impacts
arising from the installation of highstoich LNBs at Tilden.
Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric
Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26,
2013, which describes the differences
relevant to NOX emissions between U.S.
Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, upon
which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits
were based, and Cliffs’ grate-kiln
furnaces at Tilden. The declaration
describes several differences that EPA
believes are relevant to the development
of BART NOX emission limits. For
example, whereas Tilden uses a single
large kiln burner, Minntac furnaces 6
and 7 operate preheat burners, which
supply about one third of the heat input
from fuel, in addition to a large kiln
burner. The smaller preheat burners at
Minntac achieve very low NOX rates
(0.1–0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more
favorable NOX reduction combustion
environment in the preheat zone as
compared to the firing end of the kiln.
Correspondingly, the lower NOX
emissions from the preheaters result in
a lower combined NOX emission rate
than the emissions arising from a large
single kiln LNB.
Another example in the declaration
notes that the ore processed at the
facilities is different, resulting in
different heat values. U.S. Steel’s
Minntac facility processes an ore high in
magnetite that contributes heat to the
kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly,
by processing high magnetite ore at
Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel is
able to effectively use ported kilns to
maximize the benefit of the ore. Ported
kilns allow the introduction of
additional air directly to the kilns,
which helps oxidize the high magnetite
ore and changes the heat balance of the
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
furnace. In contrast, Tilden primarily
processes hematite, which is not a
source of heat for kilns.
Correspondingly, Tilden cannot
effectively use ported kilns. Because
ported kilns change the heat balance of
the furnace, U.S. Steel’s experience with
high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac
furnaces may not be directly applicable
to the Tilden furnace.
A final example from the declaration
states that the application of high-stoich
LNB technology at Tilden would require
additional air to reduce burner flame
temperature, which would result in
increased airflow through the grate
drying section and increased pressure
drop across the greenballs. This higher
bed pressure would result in deformed
pellets and reduced pellet quality.
Further, the increased air flow would
also likely cause pellet breakage which
would reduce production. The
declaration notes that to likely avoid
these impacts, Tilden would have to
limit the dryer section air flow and
drying rate by reducing the amount of
recovered heat from the cooler.
However, any unrecovered heat would
have to be replaced with additional heat
from the burner, with corresponding
increased fuel usage and emissions.
In addition to the submission of the
November 26, 2013 declaration, Cliffs
provided modeling and technical
analyses that supported the comments
made in the declaration. In reports
prepared by Metso dated September 14,
2012, and January 13, 2015, Cliffs
provided technical analyses for
applying LNB technology to the Tilden
Line 1 grate kiln through modeling
simulations that compare current
operations to operations using highstoich LNBs. Current operating
conditions at Tilden 1 were simulated
using such factors as existing air flow
studies, operating parameters, and feed
mineralogy. This baseline model was
then modified to simulate LNB
operating conditions. The current
operating parameters and anticipated
high-stoich LNB operating conditions
were then compared.
High-stoich LNBs reduce NOX
emissions by introducing comparatively
large amounts of cooler ambient air
through the main burner. Less NOX is
produced at lower temperatures. The
FIP NOX limits were established based
upon high-stoich LNBs operating with
air flow at 100 percent of stoichiometric
through the primary burner. Tilden
currently operates with primary
combustion air at 15.5 percent of
stoichiometric, and Metso estimated
that primary combustion air at 100 to
110 percent of the stoichiometric rate is
required to meet the 2013 Taconite FIP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
limits. Metso performed three
simulations in which it maintained peak
pellet temperature and final product
temperature. The total air supplied to
the cooler was adjusted as needed to
maintain final product temperature
across all three simulations. These
simulations were intended to isolate the
effects of various process parameters
when applying high-stoich LNB
technology to Tilden 1.
The analysis indicated, among other
things, that high-stoich LNB technology
would alter the flame temperature
profile, which may adversely affect
pellet quality, and that the fuel usage
rate would increase by approximately
25 to 35 percent. Further, higher
temperatures and air flow rates through
the grate would result in a 10 to 20
percent increase in exhaust gas
volumes.
The Metso comparative analysis dated
January 2015 applies current operating
data to the high-stoich LNB design
conditions, required for NOX reduction,
provided by COEN Company (COEN), a
burner manufacturer, in its Final Report
for Tilden Line 1. The engineering
simulations held key process parameters
constant, including pellet production
rate, greenball moisture, bentonite, and
flux rate. The total air supplied to the
cooler was adjusted as needed to
maintain final product temperature
across all simulations. Maintaining
these parameters ensures that fuel
changes are not due to altered
processing requirements.
The engineering simulations and
comparisons reveal a number of
significant operational and
environmental impacts arising from the
installation of a COEN high-stoich LNB.
These impacts include a significant
change to the use of primary and
secondary cooling air, which will alter
the cooling down cycle of pellets, create
an imbalance between primary and
secondary cooling, and likely affect
pellet quality. The volume of secondary
cooling air exiting the cooler vent stack
is projected to increase between 415 and
360 percent. This may adversely affect
the process and pellet quality and also
increase dust loading. Further, the
increase in unheated primary
combustion air to the burner will
require an increase in fuel to replace the
heat not used from heated secondary
combustion air. It is expected that this
will result in an increase in the fuel rate
from between 21 to 28 percent. In
addition, the high-stoich LNB will alter
the flame temperature profile, which
may affect pellet quality.
The information provided by Cliffs in
its petition for reconsideration and
subsequent submittals arose from
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64165
recent, time-consuming research and
analysis that could not have been
completed and made available during
the public comment period. Therefore,
Cliffs has met the first requirement of
the criteria for reconsideration set forth
in section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.
Significantly, the information that Cliffs
provided is of central relevance to the
outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. EPA
extensively based its NOX BART
analysis on the results arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step
one of a BART analysis requires the
identification of all available retrofit
control technologies. Step two of a
BART analysis requires the elimination
of technically infeasible control
technologies. The new information
provided by Cliffs directly bears on the
selection and feasibility of high-stoich
LNBs for use in the grate-kiln indurating
furnace at the Tilden facility. On this
basis, we granted reconsideration of the
NOX determination for Tilden (gratekiln line 1) and for the corresponding
emission limits and compliance
schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP required the
Tilden grate-kiln Line 1 to burn 100%
natural gas. However, although
mentioned in discussions with Cliffs,
this requirement had not been proposed
before the final rule. Therefore, it was
impracticable for Cliffs to comment on
the final BART requirement to burn
solely natural gas.
Cliffs more recent intent to burn
mixed fuels at Tilden is new
information that we did not consider in
determining BART for Tilden. The
burning of mixed fuels will significantly
increase SO2 emissions, resulting in
Cliffs’ inability to meet the BART limit.
Therefore, the new information is of
central relevance to the outcome of the
2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we
granted reconsideration to the 2013
Taconite FIP requirement to burn only
natural gas at the Tilden grate-kiln Line
1.
C. ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and
Hibbing Taconite: NOX Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP established
NOX emission limits for both grate-kiln
and straight-grate kiln taconite furnaces.
The limits that EPA developed were
based solely upon the performance of
high-stoich LNBs installed at two of
U.S. Steel Minntac’s grate-kilns.
However, as explained above, there are
significant differences between straightgrate kiln and grate-kiln furnaces that
must be considered in setting emissions
limits.
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64166
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ArcelorMittal’s Minorca taconite
facility and the Hibbing taconite facility,
which is jointly owned by Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and U.S. Steel, operate
straight-grate furnaces that are required
to meet the 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBT BART
limit under the 2013 Taconite FIP. In
the petitions for reconsideration
submitted by ArcelorMittal and Cliffs,
the petitioners provided new
information directly bearing on the
criteria used to establish BART NOX
limits. Their comments reflected similar
issues to those that Cliffs presented in
its analysis of grate-kiln furnaces at the
United Taconite and Tilden facilities,
including cost, increased fuel usage, the
potential impact on production, and the
feasibility of meeting the BART NOX
limit. Further, it is significant that at the
time of promulgation of the 2013
Taconite FIP, no LNB had been installed
on a straight grate furnace.
Correspondingly, ArcelorMittal reported
that none of the vendors it had
contacted were willing to guarantee the
successful installation or operation of a
LNB on a straight-grate furnace.
The information provided by
ArcelorMittal and Cliffs in their
petitions for reconsideration and
subsequent submittals arose from
recent, time-consuming research and
analysis that was not and could not
have been completed and made
available during the public comment
period. Therefore, they have met the
first requirement of the criteria for
reconsideration set forth at section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The new
information provided by the petitioners
directly addresses the costs and
feasibility of LNB controls, which are
criteria to be used in determining BART.
The cost and feasibility of the LNB
controls are of central relevance to the
outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On
this basis, we granted reconsideration to
the NOX BART limits for straight grate
taconite furnaces at the ArcelorMittal
Minorca facility and the Hibbing
facility.
VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to
2013 Taconite FIP Requirements
A. Revised BART Determinations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. United Taconite and Tilden GrateKilns—Five Step BART Evaluation for
NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit
Control Technologies
As discussed in the August 15, 2012
proposed FIP, the following control
technologies were identified: external
flue gas recirculation, low-NOX burners,
induced flue gas recirculation burners,
energy efficiency projects, ported kilns,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
and selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
High-stoich and low-stoich low-NOX
burners were subsequently considered
separately.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options
External flue gas recirculation and
induced flue gas recirculation burners
were eliminated from consideration
since they are technically infeasible for
the specific application to pellet
furnaces due to the high oxygen content
of the flue gas. Energy efficiency
projects were eliminated due to the
difficulty of assigning a general
potential emission reduction for this
category. EPA agrees that SCR controls
are infeasible for indurating furnaces
based on two SCR vendors declining to
bid on NOX reduction testing at
Minntac. The following three Metso
reports provide detailed analyses of
expected adverse impacts of using highstoich LNBs, which are in use at U.S.
Steel Minntac, on both pellet quality
and increased fuel use: an August 7,
2014, report entitled ‘‘Technical
Analysis for applying LNB technology
to United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln,’’
a September 14, 2012 report titled
‘‘Technical Analysis for Appling LNB
Technology to Tilden 1 Grate Kiln
System,’’ and a January 13, 2015 report
titled ‘‘Technical Analysis for Tilden
Phase III Additional Simulations while
Applying COEN LNB Technology.’’ A
summary of the results from these Metso
reports is contained in an August 13,
2015 technical support document.
A mass emission rate comparison
between high-stoich and low-stoich
LNB options was presented by Metso,
during a July 28, 2014 meeting between
EPA and Cliffs and summarized in a
subsequent August 8, 2014 letter to
EPA. Metso’s analysis compared the
amount of NOX that would be generated
when a furnace is retrofitted with a
high-stoich LNB and low-stoich staged
combustion LNB options. This analysis
demonstrated that although the lbs
NOX/MMBtu may be lower from a highstoich burner, the high-stoich LNB will
require more fuel (and BTUs) and result
in higher NOX emissions. A more
detailed discussion of this analysis is
contained in an August 13, 2015
technical support document.
The declaration by Eric Wagner (of
Metso) dated November 26, 2013
consists mainly of a description of
differences relevant to NOX emissions
between U.S. Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6
and 7, upon which the 2013 Taconite
FIP NOX limits were based, and Cliffs’
grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden and United
Taconite. The declaration noted these
differences:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate
preheat burners, which supply about
one third of the heat input from fuel,
in addition to the large kiln burner.
United Taconite and Tilden use a
single kiln burner. These smaller
preheat burners can achieve very low
NOX rates (0.1–0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to
a more favorable NOX reduction
combustion environment in the
preheat zone as compared to the firing
end of the kiln. These lower NOX
emissions produce a lower combined
NOX rate than from the large kiln
LNB.
—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 process
high magnetite ore that contributes
heat to the kiln when oxidized.
Tilden’s ores are primarily hematite,
which is not a source of heat for the
kilns, and United Taconite processes
ores with a lower concentration of
magnetite than Minntac. Therefore,
Tilden and United Taconite’s furnaces
must add more fuel to achieve final
product requirements than Minntac.
The associated energy penalties are
predicted to remain 25–45 percent for
Cliffs’ grate-kiln furnaces even after
energy efficiency improvements at
United Taconite and Tilden.
—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 use ported
kilns to maximize the benefit of their
high magnetite ore bodies. Ported
kilns allow the introduction of
additional air directly to the kilns
where it helps to oxidize the high
magnetite ore that Minntac processes.
United Taconite and Tilden do not
use ported kilns because porting will
not produce significant benefits for
the type of ore they process. Ported
kilns significantly change the heat
balance of the furnace, making it
difficult to generalize from Minntac’s
experience.
—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 are also
unique because they produce high
flux magnetite pellets. By contrast,
United Taconite produces primarily
standard (low flux) magnetite pellets,
and Tilden produces high flux
hematite pellets. Retrofitting a furnace
with the Coen-type high-stoich LNB
burner introduces more air, requires
more fuel, and at different locations.
As a result, the high-stoich LNB
retrofit must be evaluated in the
context of the unique furnace design
for that specific pellet product from
that specific ore type. The Minntac
experience cannot therefore be
generalized to other furnaces.
—The application of high-stoich LNB
technology at Tilden and United
Taconite would require additional air
to reduce burner flame temperature,
which would result in increased
airflow through the grate drying
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
section and increased pressure drop
across the greenballs. This higher bed
pressure would result in deformed
pellets and reduced pellet quality.
The increased air flow would also
cause pellet breakage leading to
decreased production. In order to
maintain pellet quality and
production rate, the overall dryer
section air flow and drying rate must
be limited by reducing the amount of
recovered heat from the cooler. This
unrecovered heat must be replaced
with additional burner fuel, further
increasing fuel requirements.
EPA agrees with the results of the
Metso reports and declaration and have
therefore determined that high-stoich
LNBs are technically infeasible for the
United Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns.
Low-stoich grate-kilns remain
technically feasible for grate-kilns.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
Low-stoich burners, as designed by
FCT Combustion (FCT), are expected to
avoid the previously described
drawbacks from high-stoich burners and
can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu
when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/
MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix.
This technology is described in the
‘‘FCT Combustion Cliffs UTAC Line 2
Phase 3 Modeling Report’’ and August
8, 2014 letter from Douglas McWilliams.
FCT supplies a LNB, called the FCT
COMBUSTION Gyro-Therm MKII
burner. This FCT low-stoich GyroTherm burner design achieves NOX
reductions by reducing flame
temperature by mixing fuel and air to
simulate the effects of staged
combustion for NOX reduction. This
burner uses a special gas nozzle that
injects the gas in a stirring type of
motion. The fluid mechanics resulting
from use of this nozzle create a
dramatically different flame and NOX is
greatly reduced through natural staging
of the fuel-air mixing. This FCT lowstoich LNB would not require additional
primary air, which would eliminate the
air velocity and pressure contributions
to pellet quality problems. FCT’s
proposed low-stoich burner also does
not require substantial additional fuel
because it is not introducing cool
primary air that must be heated to
sustain critical furnace temperatures.
FCT performed CFD modeling at
United Taconite in order to design a
new burner that will reduce NOX, but
maintain product quality, production
and optimize fuel efficiency. The
modeling for combusting solely natural
gas indicated a reduction from a base
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
case of 5.3–6.4 lb NOX/MMBtu to 2.91
lbs NOX/MMBtu; the modeling for cofiring at 30 percent gas and 70 percent
coal indicated a reduction from a base
case of 1.6–5.4 (although the upper
bound is generally closer to 2.8 lbs/
MMBtu), with a typical baseline value
of 2.5 lbs/MMBtu, to 2.04 lbs NOX/
MMBtu. The NOX reduction technology
appropriate for United Taconite would
also be appropriate for Tilden (and vice
versa) because they have similar gratekilns.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of
Remaining Control Technologies
There will be an estimated total of
3000 tons per year of NOX reductions
from the use of the low-stoich
technology at Tilden and United
Taconite. There are no significant costs
or environmental impacts associated
with this technology that would
necessitate its elimination from
consideration as BART.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease
in the amount of NOX and SO2
reductions anticipated as a result of the
control technologies (and resulting
emission limits) required by this
rulemaking, as compared to the 2013
FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART
technologies would be expected to
achieve substantial visibility
improvements, although slightly less
than what would be achieved from the
2013 FIP by an amount roughly
corresponding to the decrease in
emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
In EPA’s view, the CFD modeling that
FCT has conducted provides the best
currently available evidence as to the
NOX emission levels that this
technology will achieve. According to
this modeling and engineering reports
provided by (the burner manufacturer)
Coen, a low-stoich burner can be
designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu
when burning a gas/coal mix. BART
requires that the burners be designed to
meet these limits and we expect that
these limits will be met. However,
because of the lack of experience with
these low-stoich burners, including
their impact on pellet quality, we are
proposing to increase the final limits up
to 3.0 lbs/MMBtu when burning natural
gas only, and up to 2.5 lbs/MMBtu
when burning a gas/coal mix if a
rigorous demonstration is made that the
2.8 lbs/MMBtu and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu
limits cannot be met.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64167
ii. Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine Straight-Grate Kilns—
Five Step BART Evaluation for NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit
Control Technologies
As discussed in the August 15, 2012
proposed FIP, the following control
technologies were identified: external
flue gas recirculation, low-NOX burners
(including both high-stoich and lowstoich), induced flue gas recirculation
burners, energy efficiency projects,
ported kilns, and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). Water injection in the
preheat zone, a pre-combustion
approach at the main burners and steam
injection to the fuel stream were
subsequently considered technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options
External flue gas recirculation and
induced flue gas recirculation burners
were eliminated from consideration
because they are technically infeasible
for the specific application to pellet
furnaces due to the high oxygen content
of the flue gas. Energy efficiency
projects were eliminated due to the
difficulty of assigning a general
potential emission reduction for this
category. EPA agrees that SCR controls
are infeasible for indurating furnaces
based on two SCR vendors declining to
bid on NOX reduction testing at
Minntac.
In addition, LNBs were eliminated
from consideration due to the technical
challenges associated with their
installation and operation on the
straight-grate kilns at Minorca Mine and
Hibbing, which we explained in detail
in section V above—especially the fact
that high-stoich burners have never
been used on any straight-grate kilns.
Low-stoich burners have also been
eliminated from consideration because
they have never been used on straightgrate kilns and also because they would
be expected to result in higher NOX
emissions than the technologies being
assessed by ArcelorMittal. As described
in more detail below, water injection in
the preheat zone, a pre-combustion
approach at the main burners, and
steam injection to the fuel stream are
considered to be feasible technologies.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
ArcelorMittal has retained
engineering firms to assess NOX
reduction technologies for Minorca’s
straight-grate indurating furnace. The
results of this assessment are described
in an August 11, 2014 report titled
‘‘ArcelorMittal Straight-Grate NOX
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64168
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Reduction Technology Development
Efforts.’’ Testing has revealed that NOX
can be reduced using water injection in
the preheat and the main burners,
although it is significantly more
effective at reducing NOX in the preheat
burners than the main burners.
Additional options for NOX reduction at
straight grate furnaces are: precombustion optimizations, steam
injection, and multiple point injection.
The viability of these options will be
based on NOX reduction potential,
impacts to pellet quality and process,
installation and operational downtime,
and any energy penalty and capital and
operating costs.
Test results have raised the prospect
of optimizing NOX reductions using
both water injection in the preheat zone
(where it appears more effective) and a
pre-combustion approach at the main
burners. This approach resulted in a
70% or greater reduction on a lbs/
MMBtu basis. Efforts have also been
made to evaluate steam injection to the
fuel stream, which has the potential to
provide better mixing in the flame zone
with increasing NOX reductions where
distribution concerns exist. Another
alternative to reduce NOX formation at
the main combustion chambers is
through a number of smaller ‘‘surface
spray’’ injectors.
In conclusion, combined modeling
indicates that water injection in the
preheat zone, a pre-combustion
approach at the main burners and steam
injection to the fuel stream technologies
can reasonably be expected to achieve a
70% NOX reduction on a lbs/MMBtu
basis. EPA expects these technologies to
be equally effective at reducing NOX
emissions at Hibbing as well as at
Minorca Mine.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of
Remaining Control Technologies
There will be a total estimated 7,400
tons per year of NOX reductions from
water injection in the preheat zone, a
pre-combustion approach at the main
burners, and steam injection to the fuel
stream at Minorca Mine and Hibbing.
There are no significant costs or
environmental impacts associated with
these control technologies.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease
in the amount of NOX and SO2
reductions anticipated as a result of the
control technologies (and resulting
emission limits) required by this
rulemaking, as compared to the 2013
FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART
technologies would be expected to
achieve substantial visibility
improvements, although slightly less
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
than what would be achieved from the
2013 FIP by an amount roughly
corresponding to the decrease in
emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
Based upon the engineering report
prepared for ArcelorMittal in which the
use of water and steam injection and
pre-combustion technologies is
described, EPA is confident that
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and
Hibbing Taconite can meet a limit of 1.2
lbs NOX/MMBtu. BART requires that
these technologies be designed to meet
a limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu and we expect
that these limits will be met. However,
because the particular combination of
water and steam injection and precombustion technologies being
considered has not previously been
used on straight-grate kilns, and there is
some uncertainty with respect to their
effect on pellet quality, we are
proposing to increase the final limit up
to 1.8 lbs/MMBtu if a rigorous
demonstration is made that the 1.2 lbs/
MMBtu limit cannot be met.
iii. United Taconite—Five Step BART
Evaluation for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control
Technologies
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and
use of low sulfur fuels are the most
appropriate available technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are
both technically feasible.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
FGD can achieve 90 percent control
and the reduction from the use of low
sulfur fuels varies depending upon the
fuel mix and the sulfur content of the
fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of
Remaining Control Technologies
Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions
of about 3600 tons per year from lines
1 and 2. Based upon information
supplied by Cliffs in its response to
comments on the proposed 2013
Taconite FIP, EPA subsequently
determined the annualized dollars per
ton for FGD controls to be $5,911/ton for
Line 1 and $5,303/ton for Line 2. These
cost-effectiveness values were based
upon prior baseline SO2 emission levels.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ton for Line 1 and $7,680 per ton for
Line 2. Thus, EPA believes that the
installation of such controls is not
economically feasible.
United Taconite subsequently
proposed an alternate BART definition
based on burning low sulfur fuels,
including increased use of natural gas.
This alternative will result in about
1,900 tons per year of SO2 reductions.
There are no other significant impacts or
costs associated with this alternative.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease
in the amount of NOX and SO2
reductions anticipated as a result of the
control technologies (and resulting
emission limits) required by this
rulemaking, as compared to the 2013
FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART
technologies would be expected to
achieve substantial visibility
improvements, although slightly less
than what would be achieved from the
2013 FIP by an amount roughly
corresponding to the decrease in
emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
The proposed BART is based on
burning low sulfur fuels, including
increased use of natural gas, sufficient
to meet a Federally enforceable
aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/
hr, based on a 30-day rolling average.
This alternative will result in about
1900 tons per year of SO2 reductions. 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 establishing a
limitation on the coal to be used by
requiring the coal have a sulfur content
no greater than 1.50 percent sulfur by
weight based on a monthly block
average.
The 529 lbs SO2/hour and 1.5 percent
sulfur limit constitute BART because of
the economic infeasibility of FGD
controls and also because the facility is
not designed to handle lower sulfur
coal.
iv. Tilden—Five Step BART Evaluation
for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control
Technologies
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are
the most appropriate available
technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are
both technically feasible.
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
FGD can achieve 90 percent control
and the reduction from the use of low
sulfur fuels varies depending upon the
fuel mix and the sulfur content of the
fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of
Remaining Control Technologies
Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions
of about 1100 tons per year from
Tilden’s line 1. In its September 28,
2012 comments on the proposed 2013
Taconite FIP, Cliffs documented dry
FGD costs of between $11,450 and
$15,750 per ton of SO2 removed. These
costs are not economically reasonable.
The use of low sulfur fuels, consisting
of the use of either natural gas or coal
with no more than 0.6 percent sulfur, is
expected to result in a reduction in SO2
emissions of about 300 tons per year
from baseline conditions. There are no
significant costs or energy impacts
associated with use of these low sulfur
fuels.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease
in the amount of NOX and SO2
reductions anticipated as a result of the
control technologies (and resulting
emission limits) required by this
rulemaking, as compared to the 2013
FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART
technologies would be expected to
achieve substantial visibility
improvements, although slightly less
than what would be achieved from the
2013 FIP by an amount roughly
corresponding to the decrease in
emission reductions.
(6) Proposed BART
BART for SO2 at Tilden’s Grate Kiln
Line 1 furnace is proposed to be met by
the use of low sulfur coal and natural
gas. Beginning six months after the
effective date of the rule, any coal
burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1
shall have no more than 0.60 percent
sulfur by weight based on a monthly
block average. This furnace shall also
meet an initial emission limit of 500 lbs
SO2/hr based on a 30-day rolling
average beginning six months after the
effective date of the rule. The owner or
operator must subsequently calculate a
permanent lbs SO2/hr mass emission
limit based on 12 continuous months of
CEMS emissions data.
In light of the reduction in SO2
emissions that will result from the use
of low-sulfur fuels at Tilden, it is
expected that the dollars per ton of SO2
reduction through FGD would be even
higher than previously estimated. Thus,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
EPA believes that the installation of
such controls is no longer economically
reasonable. The use of low sulfur fuels
is therefore the most viable option and
a 0.6 percent sulfur content represents
the use of very low sulfur coal. The
initial mass limit of 500 lbs/hr is
expected to be reduced after obtaining a
year’s worth of CEMS data.
B. Compliance Schedule
The staggered NOX compliance
schedule proposed in this action is
generally consistent with the schedule
in the February 6, 2013 FIP, as to the
number of months to achieve
compliance from the effective date of
the rule. The main differences are that
under this proposed revised FIP, at
Tilden, installation of controls is
required after 50 months, not the 26
months in the 2013 Taconite FIP, and at
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine,
installation of controls is required
within 44 months, not 26 months. The
following summarizes the dates
following the effective date of the final
action on reconsideration by which EPA
plans to publish notices making the
NOX emission limits effective:
Tilden—60 months
Hibbing Line 1—37 months
Hibbing Line 2—55 months
Hibbing Line 3—60 months
United Taconite Line 2—55 months
United Taconite Line 1—37 months
ArcelorMittal—55 months
The staggered schedule is necessary
because there is a limited downtime
each year for each furnace during which
the low NOX burner(s) can be installed
without interfering with production,
experience gained on the earlier
installations can be applied to the ones
installed later, and installation costs
may be spread out.
The staggered schedule, including
additional time at Tilden and
ArcelorMittal, is even more necessary
for the proposed revisions to the 2013
Taconite FIP because, although the NOX
controls that are expected to be
implemented as a result of the
settlement agreement and this proposed
action have been subject to extensive
engineering studies, they have not been
used on taconite furnaces in the US.
There will also be an eight month
period after installation of controls
during which emission and pellet
quality data will be evaluated and a
subsequent three month period during
which a final emission limit will be set
by EPA based upon this data. The
controls are being designed to meet the
lower end of the range and it is expected
that the limits will be set close to the
lower end. The actual limit will be
based upon the UPL statistical test.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64169
C. Averaging Times
The limits in the 2013 Taconite FIP
were expressed in terms of a 30-day
average. A 30-day period in many cases
would involve both operation with only
natural gas and operation with at least
some firing of coal. EPA prefers to
require the companies to meet the limits
with a coal/gas mix and with only
natural gas independently, rather than
imposing a variable limit computed as
a composite of the limits with a gas/coal
mix and with only natural gas weighted
according to time in each operating
mode. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
require separate compliance with two
limits. One of these limits would govern
the emissions averaged over 720
successive hours in which the unit
burns only natural gas. The other limit
would govern emissions averaged over
the 720 successive hours in which the
unit burns a gas/coal mix. These 720hour rolling average would correspond
to a 30-day rolling average, as used in
the 2013 Taconite FIP, in cases when
the fuel use remains either natural gas
or a gas/coal mix over 30 days.
However, a 720-hour rolling average
ensures that the NOX emission rate will
be properly compared with the
appropriate fuel based limit.
An example helps illustrate the nature
of these limits. Suppose that a subject
facility burns only natural gas on Days
1–12, burns a coal/gas mix on Days 13–
16, burns gas again on Days 17–30, does
not operate on Days 31 and 32, burns
gas on Days 33–40, then burns a coal/
gas mix from Days 41–70. This example
assumes 24 hours/day operation for
each operating day. In this case,
compliance with the natural gas-based
limit would be determined by dividing
total NOX emissions by total heat input
for the 720 hours on Days 1–12, Days
17–30, and Days 33–36, as well as on
each of the 96 additional sets of 720
successive hours of burning natural gas
up to and including the period ending
at the end of Day 40. Compliance with
the coal or gas/coal mixed fuel limit
would be determined by dividing total
NOX emissions by total heat input for
the 720 hours on Days 13–16 and Days
41–66, as well as on each of the 96
additional sets of 720 successive hours
of burning coal or mixed fuel up to and
including the period ending at the end
of day 70.
D. Procedures for Promulgating Revised
FIP Limits
The regulatory text that follows
specifies a process for establishing
limits to which the identified facilities
shall become subject. While the text
identifies limits that are to apply, the
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64170
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
text also states that these limits shall
become enforceable only after EPA
publishes notice either confirming these
limits or modifying the limits within a
range that EPA is proposing here to
establish. The regulatory text also
specifies equations that are to be used
to establish any adjusted limit. Stated
more generally, this action is proposing
not just a final action that will initiate
a process to lead to establishment of
emission limits; today’s action is also
proposing the criteria for determining
the level of the ultimate limits and the
procedure by which these limits are to
be made enforceable.
EPA is proposing for the publication
of the final rule to trigger a number of
subsequent requirements for
implementing BART controls on the
affected taconite plants. Specific dates,
defined as a given number of months
following the effective date of the final
rule, are given for deadlines for
commencing operation of CEMS for
NOX and SO2, for submitting a report
describing planned NOX emission
controls, for installing the planned NOX
emission controls, for reporting results
of pellet quality analyses and
simultaneous NOX emission data, for
the source to submit any report
recommending confirmation of
modification of the emission limit, and
for EPA to publish a notice either
confirming the limit promulgated in
2016 or establishing an alternate limit
(within a range proposed here). The
following summarizes the dates
following the effective date of the final
action on reconsideration by which EPA
plans to publish notices making the
NOX emission limits effective:
Tilden—60 months
Hibbing Line 1—37 months
Hibbing Line 2—55 months
Hibbing Line 3—60 months
United Taconite Line 2—55 months
United Taconite Line 1—37 months
ArcelorMittal—55 months
Based on the above schedule, EPA
anticipates publishing a notice 37
months (addressing 2 units), 55 months
(addressing 3 units), and 60 months
(addressing 1 unit) after the effective
date of the final rule on reconsideration.
In each case, the rulemaking will cause
a limit to become enforceable. EPA is
proposing here that the limit will be
either the limit that is promulgated in
the final rule on reconsideration or a
revised limit. In either case, EPA
anticipates that the limit to which each
unit will ultimately be subject will be in
accordance with the equations being
proposed here, within the upper and
lower bounds promulgated in the final
rule on reconsideration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
EPA is proposing that these
subsequent notices will constitute
subsequent final actions to this proposal
that require no further opportunity for
public comment. Accordingly, today’s
notice of proposed rulemaking provides
adequate information about the basis
and timing of the final limits such that
no further proposals will be necessary.
EPA is taking this approach in order to
expedite the establishment of final,
enforceable limits for these facilities,
within the context of a process that
provides reasonable time to design and
install emission controls, to obtain data
for determining control effectiveness,
and to minimize the time then needed
to establish final, enforceable limits.
Therefore, commenters should provide
comments during the comment period
for today’s proposed rulemaking on any
issues that might be anticipated to arise
at any point in the process described in
this notice, up to and including during
the publication of final action as
described above establishing confirmed
or modified limits as fully enforceable.
The following is an example, based on
Hibbing Line 1, of the process for setting
the final limit. The limits and schedules
vary by line but the steps are the same
for all:
1. A presumptive limit of 1.2 lbs/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, is established.
2. The owner or operator must install
CEMS within 6 months of the effective
date of the rule.
3. After installation of the CEMS,
CEMS data must be submitted to EPA
no later than 30 days from the end of
each calendar quarter until 34 months
from the effective date of the rule.
4. Within 24 months of the effective
date a final report must be submitted to
EPA containing a detailed engineering
analysis and modeling of the NOX
reduction technology (which must be
designed to meet 1.2 lbs/MMBtu) being
installed.
5. The NOX reduction control
technology must be installed no later
than 26 months after the effective date
of the rule.
6. Within the earlier of 6 months of
the installation of the NOX reduction
control technology or 26 months from
the effective date of the rule the results
of pellet quality analyses must be
provided to EPA no later than 30 days
from the end of each calendar quarter
pellet quality analyses must be provided
to EPA until 34 months from the
effective date of the rule. For each pellet
quality analysis factor, e.g. compression
and reducibilty, the following must be
provided: (a) The defined acceptable
range for each factor as contained in
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
system, and (b) pellet quality testing
results that state the date and time when
pellets were produced outside of the
defined acceptable range for the
indicated pellet quality factors.
7. No later than 34 months after the
effective date of the rule, a report may
be submitted to EPA either confirming
the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu presumptive limit or
requesting a modification of the limit up
to the upper end of the range (1.8 lbs/
MMBtu in this case).
8. The final limit will be based on the
CEMS data from the eight month period
from the end of month 26 to the end of
month 34, excluding any time in which
the pellet quality standards are not met.
The final limit will be based upon the
95 percent upper predictive limit (UPL).
The UPL is a statistical technique that
examines an existing set of data points
and predicts the chances (i.e., the
probability) of future data points (in this
case, emission rates). In general terms,
the UPL is a value that is calculated
from a data set that identifies the
emission rate that a source is meeting
and would be expected to meet a
specified percent of the time that the
source is operating. For example, the 95
percent UPL value is the emission level
that the source would be predicted to be
below during 95 out of 100 hourly
intervals. The UPL is calculated using
an equation based on the average and
variance of a data set, the distribution of
the data, and quantity of data points.
9. EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limit in the
Federal Register no later than 37
months after the effective date of the
rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As
discussed in detail in section VI. C
below, the proposed FIP applies to only
four sources. It is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a
‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as
a requirement for ‘‘answers to . . .
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on ten or more
persons . . . .’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
Because the proposed FIP applies to just
six facilities, the Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. The OMB
control numbers for our regulations in
40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
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 proposed 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this proposed
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. EPA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
proposal adds additional controls to
certain sources. The Regional Haze FIP
that EPA is proposing for purposes of
the regional haze program consists of
imposing Federal control requirements
to meet the BART requirement for NOX
and SO2 emissions on specific units at
three sources in Minnesota and one in
Michigan. The net result of the FIP
action is that EPA is proposing emission
controls on the indurating furnaces at
four taconite facilities and none of these
sources are owned by small entities, and
therefore are not small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 of UMRA do not apply when they
are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective, or
least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64171
not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures that exceed the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of
$100 million by State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector in any
one year. In addition, this proposed rule
does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described
by section 203 of UMRA nor does it
contain any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, 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 State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely addresses the State not fully
meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other
states measures to protect visibility
established in the CAA. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action. In the spirit of Executive Order
13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between
EPA and State and local governments,
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64172
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
However, EPA did discuss this action in
a June 28 conference call with the
Michigan and Minnesota Tribes.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA specifically solicits comment on
this proposed rule from State and local
officials.
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical.
VCS are inapplicable to this action
because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. EPA
interprets EO 13045 as applying only to
those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. This
proposed action addresses regional haze
and visibility protection. Further,
because this proposed amendment to
the current regulation will require
controls that will cost an amount equal
to or less than the cost of controls
required under the current regulation, it
is not an economically significant
regulatory action. However, to the
extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
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
proposed rule, if finalized, 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.
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: September 8, 2015.
Susan Hedman
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 52.1183 is amended by
revising paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n)
and adding paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1183
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
(i) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln
Line 1 when burning natural gas, and an
emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average,
shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1
when burning coal or a mixture of coal
and natural gas. These emission limits
will become enforceable 60 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
and only after EPA’s confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in
accordance with the procedures set
forth below.
(ii) Compliance with these emission
limits shall be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator must start collecting
CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from
the end of each calendar quarter. Any
remaining data through the end of the
57th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than 7 days from the end
of the 57th month. Although CEMS data
must continue to be collected, it does
not need to be submitted to EPA starting
57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(iii) No later than 48 months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on Tilden
Grate Kiln Line 1. This report must
include a list of all variables that can
reasonably be expected to have an
impact on NOX emission control
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
technology performance, as well as a
description of how these variables can
be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to
meet the NOX design emission limit.
This NOx reduction control technology
must be designed to meet emission
limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture
of coal and natural gas.
(iv) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on Tilden
Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than
50 months from the effective date of the
rule.
(v) Commencing on the earlier of:
(A) Six months from the installation
of the NOX reduction control
technology; or
(B) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 57 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 57th month, that do not
fall within a calendar quarter, must be
submitted to EPA no later than seven
days from the end of the 57th month.
The pellet quality analyses shall include
results for the following factors:
Compression, reducibility, before
tumble, after tumble, and low
temperature disintegration. For each of
the pellet quality analysis factors, the
owner or operator must explain the
pellet quality analysis factor, as well as
the defined acceptable range for each
factor using the applicable product
quality standards based upon
customers’ pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality
management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality
analysis testing results that state the
date and time of the analysis and, in
order to define the time period when
pellets were produced outside of the
defined acceptable range for the pellet
quality factors listed, provide copies of
the production logs that document the
starting and ending times for such
periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for
pellet samples that fail to meet the
acceptable range for any pellet quality
analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(vi) No later than 57 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for Tilden Grate Kiln
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
Line 1 within the upper and lower
bounds described below. EPA will
review the report and either confirm or
modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods
between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (o) of this section. If the
CEMS data collected during operating
periods between months 50 and 57 that
both meet pellet quality specifications
and proper furnace/burner operation are
not normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (o) of this
section. The data set for the
determination shall exclude periods
when pellet quality did not fall within
the defined acceptable ranges of the
pellet quality factors identified pursuant
to paragraph (k)(1)(v) of this section and
for any subsequent period when
production had been reduced in
response to pellet quality concerns
consistent with Tilden’s ISO 9001
operating standards. Any excluded
period will commence at the time
documented on the production log
demonstrating pellet quality did not fall
within the defined acceptable range,
and shall end when pellet quality
within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned
production levels, which will presumed
to be the level that existed immediately
prior to the reduction in production due
to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also
exclude data where operations are
inconsistent with the reported design
parameters of the NOX reduction control
technology that were installed.
(vii) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 60
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning only natural
gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, and may not exceed 3.0 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a
mixture of coal and natural gas may be
no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average, and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64173
may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average.
(viii) If the owner or operator submits
a report proposing a single NOX limit for
all fuels, EPA may approve the
proposed NOX limit for all fuels based
on a 30-day rolling average. The
confirmed or modified limit will be
established and enforceable within 60
months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(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 three
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
Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall
meet an emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/
hr based on a 30-day rolling average
beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Compliance
with these emission limits shall be
demonstrated with data collected by a
CEMS for SO2. The owner or operator
must start collecting CEMS data for SO2
beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from
the end of each calendar quarter. The
Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall
not be limited to natural gas fuel.
Beginning 6 months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], any coal
burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1
shall have no more than 0.60 percent
sulfur by weight based on a monthly
block average. The sampling and
calculation methodology for
determining the sulfur content of coal
must be described in the monitoring
plan required for this furnace. The
owner or operator must calculate an SO2
limit based on twelve continuous
months of CEMS emissions data and
submit such limit, calculations, and
CEMS data to EPA no later than 36
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. If the submitted CEMS
SO2 hourly data is normally distributed,
the SO2 lbs/hr emission rate shall be
based on the appropriate (depending
upon whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 99% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equation. If the
submitted CEMS SO2 hourly data is not
normally distributed, the SO2 lbs/hr
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64174
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
emission rate shall be based on the nonparametric equation provided in
paragraph (o) of this section.
Compliance to the SO2 lbs/hr emission
rate shall be determined on a 30-day
rolling average basis. EPA will take final
agency action by publishing a
confirmation or modification of the SO2
limit in the Federal Register no later
than 39 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE]. EPA may adjust the
500 lbs/hr SO2 limit downward to
reflect the calculated SO2 emission rate;
however, EPA will not increase the SO2
limit above 500 lbs/hr.
(4) Starting 26 months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
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
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the SO2 limit for Grate Kiln Line 1 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 CEMS
for NOX on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1.
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 Grate
Kiln Line 1. 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 Grate
Kiln Line 1 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
(4) For purposes of this section, all
CEMS required by this regulation must
meet the requirements of paragraphs
(l)(4)(i) through (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 upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. All CEMS associated
with monitoring SO2 must be installed
and operational no later than six months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. 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)
through (C) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle
of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) for each successive 15minute 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)
through (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 29 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 29
operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds
of the pollutant in question emitted
during the 30 operating days by the total
heat input (or actual hours of operation
depending on the emission limit
selected) during the 30 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
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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 five hours during a 24-hour
period, then the actual operating hours
for that day are five. 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 720-hour rolling average
emission rate determined from data
derived from the CEMS required by this
section (in lbs/MMBtu) must be
calculated in accordance with
paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A) through (C) of
this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX
emitted from the unit every hour and
the previous (not necessarily
consecutive) 719 hours for which that
type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed
coal and natural gas) was used.
(B) Sum the total heat input to the
unit (in MMBtu) every hour and the
previous (not necessarily consecutive)
719 hours for which that type of fuel
(either natural gas or mixed coal and
natural gas) was used.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds
of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as
defined above, by the total heat input
during the same 720 hour period. This
calculation must be done separately for
each fuel type (either for natural gas or
mixed coal and natural gas).
(xii) Data substitution must not be
used for purposes of determining
compliance under this regulation.
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
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) through (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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64175
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 in 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.
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 (n)(2)(i)
through (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
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64176
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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 startup date
for control devices and burners installed
as a result of this section postmarked no
later than 30 days after the startup date.
(vi) A notification of the startup date
for CEMS required by this section
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 in paragraphs (n)(2)(viii)
(A) through (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 in 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 (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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
(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 of
paragraphs (n)(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,
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
processes, or controls since the last
reporting period.
(x) A table summarizing the total
duration of excess emissions, as defined
in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A) through (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 in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(C) of
this section.
(A) For purposes of section, an excess
emission is defined as any 30-day or
720-hour rolling average period,
including periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction, during which the 30day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling
average emissions of either regulated
pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured
by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable
emission standards in this section.
(B)(1) 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.
(2) For purposes of this section, if a
facility calculates a 720-hour 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 24th
following 720-hour rolling average
emission rate is calculated and found to
exceed the applicable emission
standards of the rule 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 720-hour rolling average
period and no additional excess
emissions are calculated until 360 hours
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 with 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 (n)(7)(xi)(A) of this section,
for the reporting period broken down by
the cause of the monitor downtime
(monitor equipment malfunctions, nonmonitor 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 in 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64177
paragraphs (n)(7)(xii)(A) through (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 paragraph
(n)(7)(xiii)(A) through (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 in
paragraphs (n)(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.
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64178
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(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 720-hour rolling averages
and example calculations which shows
the algorithms used by the CEMS to
calculate 30-day rolling averages and
720-hour 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.
(o) Equations for Establishing the
Upper Predictive Limit
(1) Equation for Normal Distribution
and Statistically Independent Data
Where:
¯
x = average or mean of test run data;
t[(n–1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value of
the Student’s t distribution for a specific
degree of freedom (n–1) and a confidence
level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden SO2)
s2 = variance of the dataset;
n = number of values
m = number of values used to calculate the
test average (m = 720 as per averaging
time)
Assessment: Statistical Methods for
Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S.
(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann
test to determine if data are dependent,
data are dependent if t test value is
greater than t critical value, where:
Where:
r = correlation between data points
a specific degree of freedom (n–2) and a
confidence level (0.95)
UPL = xm = xmi.md = xmi + 0.md (xmi ∂
1 ¥ xmi)
(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m
Not Normally Distributed
m = (n + 1) * a
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when
data is sorted smallest to largest
n = number of data points
a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile
If m is a whole number, then the
limit, UPL, shall be computed as:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of
lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBtu, 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.
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
3. Section 52.1235 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v),(b)(2)(iv),
(c), (d), and (e) and by adding paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1235
UPL = Xm
VerDate Sep<11>2014
truncated at zero decimal places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
Regional haze.
(a) [Reserved]
(b)(1) NOX emission limits.
(i) * * *
(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company.
(A) Hibbing Line 1.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 1
when burning natural gas. This
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) If data are dependent then use the
following equation.
Equation for Normal Distribution and
Data not Statistically Independent
emission limit will become enforceable
37 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s
confirmation or modification of the
emission limit in accordance with the
procedures set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission
limit will be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator of Hibbing Line 1
must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2
within six months from the effective
date of the rule. The owner or operator
must start collecting CEMS data and
submit the data to EPA no later than 30
days from the end of each calendar
quarter after that installation deadline.
Any remaining data through the end of
the 34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall
within a calendar quarter, must be
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
EP22OC15.003</GPH>
r = correlation between data points
t critical = t[(n–2),(0.95)] = t score, the two-tailed
t value of the Student’s t distribution for
EP22OC15.001</GPH> EP22OC15.002</GPH>
(2)(i) To determine if statistically
independent, use the Rank von
Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
submitted to EPA no later than seven
days from the end of the 34th month.
Although CEMS data must continue to
be collected, it does not need to be
submitted to EPA starting 34 months
after the effective date of the rule.
(3) No later than 24 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on Hibbing
Line 1. The NOX reduction control
technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu.
This report must include a list of all
process and control technology
variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX
emissions control technology
performance, as well as a description of
how these variables can be adjusted to
reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX
design emission limit.
(4) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on Hibbing
Line 1 furnace no later than 26 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(ii) 26 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 34 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 34th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that do not fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 34th month. The pellet quality
analyses shall include results for the
following factors: Compression,
reducibility, before tumble, after tumble,
low temperature disintegration, and
swelling. For each of the pellet quality
analysis factors, the owner or operator
must explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable
range for each factor using the
applicable product quality standards
based upon customers’ pellet
specifications that are contained in
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management
system. The owner or operator shall
provide pellet quality analysis testing
results that state the date and time of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
analysis and, in order to define the time
period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range
for the pellet quality factors listed,
provide copies of the production logs
that document the starting and ending
times for such periods. The owner or
operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to
meet the acceptable range for any pellet
quality analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(6) No later than 34 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 1
furnace within the upper and lower
bounds described below. EPA will
review the report and either confirm or
modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods
between months 26 and 34 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods
between months 26 and 34 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any
subsequent period when production has
been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards.
Any excluded period will commence at
the time documented on the production
log demonstrating that pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
range and shall end when pellet quality
within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned
production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed
immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality
concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with
the reported design parameters of the
NOX reduction control technology
installed.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64179
(7) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limit in the
Federal Register no later than 37
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 1
when burning only natural gas may be
no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average, and
may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average.
(B) Hibbing Line 2.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 2
when burning natural gas. This
emission limit will become enforceable
55 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s
confirmation or modification of the
emission limit in accordance with the
procedures set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission
limit will be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator of Hibbing Line 2
must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2
within six months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or
operator must start collecting CEMS
data and submit the data to EPA no later
than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter after that installation
deadline. Any remaining data through
the end of the 52nd month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that doesn’t fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 52nd month. Although CEMS data
must continue to be collected, it does
not need to be submitted to EPA starting
52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(3) No later than 42 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on Hibbing
Line 2. The NOX reduction control
technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu.
This report must include a list of all
process and control technology
variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX
emissions control technology
performance, as well as a description of
how these variables can be adjusted to
reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX
design emission limit.
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64180
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(4) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on Hibbing
Line 2 furnace no later than 44 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 52 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 52nd month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that do not fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 52nd month. The pellet quality
analyses shall include results for the
following factors: Compression,
reducibility, before tumble, after tumble,
low temperature disintegration, and
swelling. For each of the pellet quality
analysis factors, the owner or operator
must explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable
range for each factor using the
applicable product quality standards
based upon customers’ pellet
specifications that are contained in
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management
system. The owner or operator shall
provide pellet quality analysis testing
results that state the date and time of the
analysis and, in order to define the time
period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range
for the pellet quality factors listed,
provide copies of the production logs
that document the starting and ending
times for such periods. The owner or
operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to
meet the acceptable range for any pellet
quality analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(6) No later than 52 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 2
furnace within the upper and lower
bounds described below. EPA will
review the report and either confirm or
modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods
between months 44 and 52 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods
between months 44 and 52 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any
subsequent period when production has
been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards.
Any excluded period will commence at
the time documented on the production
log demonstrating that pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
range and shall end when pellet quality
within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned
production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed
immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality
concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with
the reported design parameters of the
NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limit in the
Federal Register no later than 55
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 2
when burning only natural gas may be
no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average, and
may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average.
(C) Hibbing Line 3.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 3
when burning natural gas. This
emission limit will become enforceable
60 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s
confirmation or modification of the
emission limit in accordance with the
procedures set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission
limit will be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator of Hibbing Line 3
must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within six months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or
operator must start collecting CEMS
data and submit the data to EPA no later
than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter after that installation
deadline. Any remaining data through
the end of the 57th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that doesn’t fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 57th month. Although CEMS data
must continue to be collected, it does
not need to be submitted to EPA starting
57 months after the effective date of the
rule.
(3) No later than 48 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on Hibbing
Line 3. The NOX reduction control
technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu.
This report must include a list of all
process and control technology
variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX
emissions control technology
performance, as well as a description of
how these variables can be adjusted to
reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX
design emission limit.
(4) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on Hibbing
Line 3 furnace no later than 50 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(ii) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 57 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 57th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that do not fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 57th month. The pellet quality
analyses shall include results for the
following factors: compression,
reducibility, before tumble, after tumble,
low temperature disintegration, and
swelling. For each of the pellet quality
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
analysis factors, the owner or operator
must explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable
range for each factor using the
applicable product quality standards
based upon customers’ pellet
specifications that are contained in
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management
system. The owner or operator shall
provide pellet quality analysis testing
results that state the date and time of the
analysis and, in order to define the time
period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range
for the pellet quality factors listed,
provide copies of the production logs
that document the starting and ending
times for such periods. The owner or
operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to
meet the acceptable range for any pellet
quality analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(6) No later than 57 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 3
furnace within the upper and lower
bounds described below. EPA will
review the report and either confirm or
modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods
between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods
between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any
subsequent period when production has
been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards.
Any excluded period will commence at
the time documented on the production
log demonstrating that pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
range and shall end when pellet quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned
production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed
immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality
concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with
the reported design parameters of the
NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limit in the
Federal Register no later than 60
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 3
when burning only natural gas may be
no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average, and
may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 30-day rolling average.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) United Taconite.
(A) United Taconite Line 1.
(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, shall apply to United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning natural
gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average, shall apply to United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when
burning coal or a mixture of coal and
natural gas. These emission limits will
become enforceable 37 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
and only after EPA’s confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in
accordance with the procedures set
forth below.
(2) Compliance with these emission
limits shall be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator must start collecting
CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from
the end of each calendar quarter. Any
remaining data through the end of the
34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than 7 days from the end
of the 34th month. Although CEMS data
must continue to be collected, it does
not need to be submitted to EPA starting
34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(3) No later than 24 months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64181
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1. This report
must include a list of all variables that
can reasonably be expected to have an
impact on NOX emission control
technology performance, as well as a
description of how these variables can
be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to
meet the NOX design emission limit.
This NOX reduction control technology
must be designed to meet emission
limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture
of coal and natural gas.
(4) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no
later than 26 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of
(i) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(ii) 26 months from the effective date
of the rule, the owner or operator must
provide to EPA the results from pellet
quality analyses. The owner or operator
shall provide the results from pellet
quality analyses no later than 30 days
from the end of each calendar quarter
up until 34 months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 34th
month, that do not fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 34th month. The pellet quality
analyses shall include results for the
following factors: Compression,
reducibility, before tumble, after tumble,
and low temperature disintegration. For
each of the pellet quality analysis
factors, the owner or operator must
explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable
range for each factor using the
applicable product quality standards
based upon customers’ pellet
specifications that are contained in
Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality management
system. The owner or operator shall
provide pellet quality analysis testing
results that state the date and time of the
analysis and, in order to define the time
period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range
for the pellet quality factors listed,
provide copies of the production logs
that document the starting and ending
times for such periods. The owner or
operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to
meet the acceptable range for any pellet
quality analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64182
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(6) No later than 34 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 1 within the upper and
lower bounds described below. EPA
will review the report and either
confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the
CEMS data collected during operating
periods between months 26 and 34 that
both meet pellet quality specifications
and proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods
between months 26 and 34 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(iv)(A)(5) of this section and for
any subsequent period when production
had been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with United
Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating
standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on
the production log demonstrating pellet
quality did not fall within the defined
acceptable range, and shall end when
pellet quality within the defined
acceptable range has been re-established
at planned production levels, which
will presumed to be the level that
existed immediately prior to the
reduction in production due to pellet
quality concerns. EPA may also exclude
data where operations are inconsistent
with the reported design parameters of
the NOX reduction control technology
that were installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 37
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning only
natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average, and may not exceed 3.0
lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average. The confirmed or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
modified NOX limit for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or
a mixture of coal and natural gas may
be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average, and
may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average.
(8) If the owner or operator submits a
report proposing a single NOX limit for
all fuels, EPA may approve the
proposed NOX limit for all fuels based
on a 30-day rolling average. The
confirmed or modified limit will be
established and enforceable within 37
months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(B) United Taconite Line 2
(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, shall apply to United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning natural
gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average, shall apply to United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when
burning coal or a mixture of coal and
natural gas. These emission limits will
become enforceable 55 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
and only after EPA’s confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in
accordance with the procedures set
forth below.
(2) Compliance with these emission
limits shall be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator must start collecting
CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from
the end of each calendar quarter. Any
remaining data through the end of the
52nd month from [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall
within a calendar quarter, must be
submitted to EPA no later than 7 days
from the end of the 52nd month.
Although CEMS data must continue to
be collected, it does not need to be
submitted to EPA starting 52 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(3) No later than 42 months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2. This report
must include a list of all variables that
can reasonably be expected to have an
impact on NOX emission control
technology performance, as well as a
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
description of how these variables can
be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to
meet the NOX design emission limit.
This NOX reduction control technology
must be designed to meet emission
limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when
burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture
of coal and natural gas.
(4) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 furnace no
later than 44 months from the effective
date of the rule.
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 52 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 52nd month, that do not
fall within a calendar quarter, must be
submitted to EPA no later than seven
days from the end of the 52nd month.
The pellet quality analyses shall include
results for the following factors:
Compression, reducibility, before
tumble, after tumble, and low
temperature disintegration. For each of
the pellet quality analysis factors, the
owner or operator must explain the
pellet quality analysis factor, as well as
the defined acceptable range for each
factor using the applicable product
quality standards based upon
customers’ pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality
management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality
analysis testing results that state the
date and time of the analysis and, in
order to define the time period when
pellets were produced outside of the
defined acceptable range for the pellet
quality factors listed, provide copies of
the production logs that document the
starting and ending times for such
periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for
pellet samples that fail to meet the
acceptable range for any pellet quality
analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(6) No later than 52 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 2 within the upper and
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
lower bounds described below. EPA
will review the report and either
confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the
CEMS data collected during operating
periods between months 44 and 52 that
both meet pellet quality specifications
and proper furnace/burner operation is
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods
between months 44 and 52 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and
proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(iv)(B)(5) of this section and for
any subsequent period when production
had been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with United
Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating
standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on
the production log demonstrating pellet
quality did not fall within the defined
acceptable range, and shall end when
pellet quality within the defined
acceptable range has been re-established
at planned production levels, which
will presumed to be the level that
existed immediately prior to the
reduction in production due to pellet
quality concerns. EPA may also exclude
data where operations are inconsistent
with the reported design parameters of
the NOX reduction control technology
that were installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 55
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning only
natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average, and may not exceed 3.0
lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour
rolling average. The confirmed or
modified NOX limit for United Taconite
Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning coal or
a mixture of coal and natural gas may
be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average, and
may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
(8) If the owner or operator submits a
report proposing a single NOX limit for
all fuels, EPA may approve the
proposed NOX limit for all fuels based
on a 30-day rolling average. The
confirmed or modified limit will be
established and enforceable within 55
months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
(A) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, shall apply to the ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine indurating furnace when
burning natural gas. This emission limit
will become enforceable 55 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
and only after EPA’s confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in
accordance with the procedures set
forth below.
(B) Compliance with this emission
limit will be demonstrated with data
collected by a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The
owner or operator of the ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine indurating furnace must
install a CEMS for NOX and SO2 within
six months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. The owner or operator
must start collecting CEMS data and
submit the data to EPA no later than 30
days from the end of each calendar
quarter after that installation deadline.
Any remaining data through the end of
the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t
fall within a calendar quarter, must be
submitted to EPA no later than seven
days from the end of the 52nd month.
Although CEMS data must continue to
be collected, it does not need to be
submitted to EPA starting 52 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(C) No later than 42 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to
EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX
reduction technology supplier and
furnace retrofit engineer, containing a
detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction control
technology being installed on the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating
furnace. The NOX reduction control
technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu.
This report must include a list of all
process and control technology
variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX
emissions control technology
performance, as well as a description of
how these variables can be adjusted to
reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX
design emission limit.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64183
(D) The NOX reduction control
technology shall be installed on the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating
furnace no later than 44 months after
the effective date of the rule.
(E) Commencing on the earlier of:
(1) Six months from the installation of
the NOX reduction control technology;
or
(2) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the
results from pellet quality analyses. The
owner or operator shall provide the
results from pellet quality analyses no
later than 30 days from the end of each
calendar quarter up until 52 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. Any remaining results through
the end of the 52nd month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
that do not fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no
later than seven days from the end of
the 52nd month. The pellet quality
analyses shall include results for the
following factors: Compression,
reducibility, before tumble, after tumble,
low temperature disintegration, and
contraction. For each of the pellet
quality analysis factors, the owner or
operator must explain the pellet quality
analysis factor, as well as the defined
acceptable range for each factor using
the applicable product quality standards
based upon customers’ pellet
specifications that are contained in the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine’s Standard
Product Parameters. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality
analysis testing results that state the
date and time of the analysis and, in
order to define the time period when
pellets were produced outside of the
defined acceptable range for the pellet
quality factors listed, provide copies of
production or scale data that document
the starting and ending times for such
periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for
pellet samples that fail to meet the
acceptable range for any pellet quality
analysis factor. Pellet quality
information and data may be submitted
to EPA as Confidential Business
Information.
(F) No later than 52 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to
EPA a report to either confirm or modify
the NOX limits for the ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine indurating furnace within
the upper and lower bounds described
below. EPA will review the report and
either confirm or modify the NOX limits.
If the CEMS data collected during
operating periods between months 44
and 52 that both meet pellet quality
specifications and proper furnace/
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64184
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
burner operation is normally
distributed, the limit adjustment
determination shall be based on the
appropriate (depending upon whether
data are statistically independent or
dependent) 95% upper predictive limit
(UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this
section. If the CEMS data collected
during operating periods between
months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet
quality specifications and proper
furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit
adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation
provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did
not fall within the defined acceptable
ranges of the pellet quality factors
identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(v)(5) of this section and for any
subsequent period when production has
been reduced in response to pellet
quality concerns consistent with the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine’s Standard
Product Parameters. Any excluded
period will commence at the time
documented in related quality reports
demonstrating that pellet quality did not
fall within the defined acceptable range
and shall end when pellet quality
within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned
production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed
immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality
concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with
the reported design parameters of the
NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(G) EPA will take final agency action
by publishing its final confirmation or
modification of the NOX limit in the
Federal Register no later than 55
months [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX
limit for the ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine indurating furnace when burning
only natural gas may be no lower than
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average, and may not exceed 1.8
lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day
rolling average.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) SO2 emission limits
*
*
*
*
*
(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 six months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE] the effective date of the rule.
Compliance with this aggregate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
emission limit shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for SO2. The owner or operator must
start collecting CEMS data for SO2
beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from
the end of each calendar quarter.
Beginning 6 months after the effective
date of the rule, any coal burned on
UTAC Grate Kiln Line 1 or Line 2 shall
have no more than 1.5 percent sulfur by
weight based on a monthly block
average. The sampling and calculation
methodology for determining the sulfur
content of coal must be described in the
monitoring plan required for this
furnace.
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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) CEMS must be installed and
operational as follows:
(A) All CEMS associated with
monitoring NOX (including the NOX
monitor and necessary diluent and flow
rate monitors) at the following facilities:
U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac,
and Northshore Mining Company-Silver
Bay, must be installed and operational
no later than the unit specific
compliance dates for the emission limits
identified at paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (iii)
and (vi) of this section, respectively.
(B) All CEMS associated with
monitoring NOX (including the NOX
monitor and necessary diluent and flow
rate monitors) at the following facilities:
Hibbing Taconite Company, United
Taconite, and ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine, must be installed and operational
no later than the unit specific
installation dates for the installation and
operation of CEMS identified at
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (iv) and (v) of this
section, respectively.
(C) All CEMS associated with
monitoring SO2 at the following
facilities: U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel
Minntac, and Northshore Mining
Company-Silver Bay, must be installed
and operational no later than six months
after March 8, 2013.
(D) All CEMS associated with
monitoring SO2 at the following
facilities: Hibbing Taconite Company,
United Taconite, and ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine, must be installed and
operational no later than six months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE].
(E) The operational status of the
CEMS identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section shall be verified
by, as a minimum, 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
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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) through (C) of this section.
(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle
of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) for each successive 15minute 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
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 29 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 29
operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds
of the pollutant in question emitted
during the 30 operating days by the total
heat input (or actual hours of operation
depending on the emission limit
selected) during the 30 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 720-hour rolling average
emission rate determined from data
derived from the CEMS required by this
section (in lbs/MMBtu) must be
calculated in accordance with
(c)(4)(xi)(A)–(C) of this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX
emitted from the unit every hour and
the previous (not necessarily
consecutive) 719 hours for which that
type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed
coal and natural gas) was used.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64185
(B) Sum the total heat input to the
unit (in MMBtu) every hour and the
previous (not necessarily consecutive)
719 hours for which that type of fuel
(either natural gas or mixed coal and
natural gas) was used.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds
of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as
defined above, by the total heat input
during the same 720 hour period. This
calculation must be done separately for
each fuel type (either for natural gas or
mixed coal and natural gas).
(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.
(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,
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64186
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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 in
lbs/MMBTUs or lbs/hr (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)(vii)
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
reports must be postmarked by the 30th
day following the end of each threemonth 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)
through (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) to (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 30day or 720-hour rolling average period,
including periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction, during which the 30day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling
average emissions of either regulated
pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured
by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable
emission standards in this section.
(B)(1) 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 =
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64187
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.
(2) For purposes of this section, if a
facility calculates a 720-hour 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 24th
following 720-hour rolling average
emission rate is calculated and found to
exceed the applicable emission
standards of the rule 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 720-hour rolling average
period and no additional excess
emissions are calculated until 360 hours
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 with 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
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
64188
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(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 (e)(8)(i) through (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 720-hour rolling averages
and example calculations which shows
the algorithms used by the CEMS to
calculate 30-day rolling averages and
720-hour 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.
(f) Equations for Establishing the
Upper Predictive Limit
(1) Equation for Normal Distribution
and Statistically Independent Data
Where:
x = average or mean of test run data;
t[(n ¥ 1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value
of the Student’s t distribution for a
specific degree of freedom (n ¥ 1)and a
confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden
SO2)
s2 = variance of the dataset;
n = number of values
m = number of values used to calculate the
test average (m = 720 as per averaging
time)
Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality
Assessment: Statistical Methods for
Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S.
(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann
test to determine if data are dependent,
data are dependent if t test value is
greater than t critical value, where:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:40 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
(2)(i) To determine if statistically
independent, use the Rank von
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
EP22OC15.004</GPH> EP22OC15.005</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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) through (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) through (D) of
this section.
(A) The date of each period of monitor
downtime.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules
r = correlation between data points
t critical = t[(n ¥ 2),(0.95)] = t score, the twotailed t value of the Student’s t
distribution for a specific degree of
freedom (n ¥ 2) and a confidence level
(0.95)
64189
(3) If data are dependent then use the
following equation.
Equation for Normal Distribution and
Data not Statistically Independent
Where:
r = correlation between data points
UPL = xm = xmi•md = xmi + 0.md (xmi∂1 ¥
xmi)
m = (n + 1) * a
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m
truncated at zero decimal places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
m = the rank of the ordered data point, when
data is sorted smallest to largest
n = number of data points
a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Oct 21, 2015
Jkt 238001
Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of
lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBtu, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–25023 Filed 10–21–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22OCP2.SGM
22OCP2
EP22OC15.006</GPH>
If m is a whole number, then the
limit, UPL, shall be computed as:
(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data UPL = Xm
Where:
Not Normally Distributed
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64159-64189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25023]
[[Page 64159]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 204
October 22, 2015
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal
Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64160]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0196; FRL-9934-15-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite
Federal Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
revisions to a Federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing the
requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for taconite
plants in Minnesota and Michigan. In response to petitions for
reconsideration, we are proposing to revise the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) limits for taconite furnaces at facilities owned and
operated by Cliffs Natural Resources (Cliffs) and ArcelorMittal USA LLC
(ArcelorMittal). We are also proposing to revise the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) requirements at two of Cliffs' facilities. We are
proposing these changes because new information has come to light that
was not available when we originally promulgated the FIP on February 6,
2013.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0196, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-
2015-0196. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in 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 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,
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This notice is arranged as
follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Background
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013 Taconite FIP
V. EPA's Basis for Granting Reconsideration
VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013 Taconite FIP Requirements
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as i prepare my comments for EPA?
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What action is EPA taking?
On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP that included BART
limits for certain taconite furnaces in Minnesota and Michigan (2013
Taconite FIP; 78 FR 8706). EPA is proposing to revise the 2013 Taconite
FIP with respect to the BART emission limitations and compliance
schedules for the following taconite plants: United Taconite, Hibbing
Taconite, Tilden Mining, and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine. Cliffs is the
owner and operator of the United Taconite and Tilden Mining facilities
and part owner and operator of Hibbing Taconite. ArcelorMittal is the
owner and operator of the Minorca Mine facility and a part owner of the
Hibbing Taconite facility.
[[Page 64161]]
Specifically, EPA is proposing to revise the NOX limits and
compliance schedules for these four facilities and is also proposing to
revise the SO2 requirements for Tilden Mining and United
Taconite.
III. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA),
Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's
national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I Federal areas \1\ which impairment results from manmade air
pollution.'' Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address
regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze
on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P (herein after referred to as the ``Regional haze Rule'').
The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to
add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or EPA if developing a FIP,
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the
CAA requires EPA to develop a FIP that contains such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources \2\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by
EPA. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP,
EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7), and includes ``taconite
ore processing facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states and EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations follows three
steps: First, identify those sources which meet the definition of
``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \3\ second,
determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this description is
``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject to BART,
identify the best available type and level of control for reducing
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States, or EPA if developing a FIP, must address all visibility-
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
A state implementation plan (SIP) or FIP addressing regional haze
must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance
schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state or EPA has made
a BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and operated
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
date of the final SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the Regional Haze
Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a).
C. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2013 Taconite FIP
On February 6, 2013, EPA promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that
included BART limits for taconite furnaces subject to BART in Minnesota
and Michigan. EPA took this action because Minnesota and Michigan had
failed to meet a statutory deadline to submit their Regional Haze SIPs
and subsequently failed to require BART at the taconite facilities.
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and the State of Michigan petitioned the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the FIP, and, on May 17, 2013,
Cliffs and ArcelorMittal filed a joint motion for stay of the final
rule, which was granted by the Eighth Circuit on June 14, 2013, and is
still in effect.
EPA received petitions for reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP
from the National Mining Association on March 8, 2013, ArcelorMittal on
March 22, 2013, the State of Michigan on April 1, 2013, Cliffs on April
3, 2013, Congressman Richard M. Nolan on April 8, 2013, the State of
Minnesota on April 8, 2013, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S.
Steel) on November 26, 2013.
In a related action, EPA published a final partial disapproval of
the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs on September 30, 2013 (78
FR 59825), for failure to require BART for SO2 and
NOX emissions from taconite furnaces subject to BART. By
petitions dated November 26, 2013, Cliffs and U.S. Steel petitioned EPA
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for reconsideration of
EPA's partial disapproval of the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze
SIPs. Further, Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, Michigan and U.S. Steel
petitioned the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals for review of the final
rule partially disapproving the Michigan and Minnesota Regional Haze
SIPs.
EPA subsequently reached a settlement agreement with Cliffs,
ArcelorMittal, and Michigan regarding issues raised by these parties in
their petitions for review and reconsideration. Notice of the
settlement was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015
(80 FR 5111), and the settlement agreement was fully executed on April
9, 2015. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, EPA granted partial
reconsideration of the 2013
[[Page 64162]]
Taconite FIP on July 2, 2015, based on new information raised in
Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan's petitions for reconsideration.
EPA did not grant reconsideration of the 2013 SIP disapprovals because
EPA continues to believe that BART for taconite plants involves
significant reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions
that were not required in the Michigan and Minnesota SIPs.
IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013 Taconite FIP
A. Summary of Petitions for Reconsideration
1. National Mining Association petitioned for reconsideration
because EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP before finalizing its disapproval
of the Michigan and Minnesota regional haze SIPs.
2. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) petitioned
for reconsideration because, in its view: (1) There was no information
available prior to the close of Michigan's public comment period on
June 23, 2010, indicating that low NOX burners (LNBs) had
been successfully utilized on indurating furnaces; (2) the FIP schedule
for compliance did not provide sufficient time for the permitting
process necessary for the installation of the LNBs; and (3) EPA had not
followed proper procedure by finalizing the FIP for Tilden while at the
same time asking for additional comment on the SIP disapproval for
Tilden.
3. Congressman Richard M. Nolan petitioned for reconsideration
because, in his view: (1) New information came to his attention
concerning the accuracy of EPA's visibility modeling; (2) the
feasibility of LNB technology was not established at the time EPA
intervened in the process; and (3) it was doubtful that LNBs could be
successfully installed and operated in the 26 months called for in the
FIP.
4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) petitioned for
reconsideration of the compliance schedules in the FIP and asked for a
10-month extension of the compliance deadlines for affected facilities
with more than one affected process line to provide adequate time for
MPCA to issue the required air quality permits.
5. Cliffs petitioned for reconsideration because of perceived
procedural defects in EPA's decision to issue the FIP rule while it was
simultaneously evaluating Minnesota and Michigan's SIPs. Cliffs also
raised technical issues based on new information not available at the
time EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP. These technical issues included the
following: (a) The FIP imposed a new 0.60% sulfur limit on coal
combusted at United Taconite that was not proposed and was
inappropriate because it would require the use of a new type of coal
that the facility is not designed to handle, (b) the 2013 FIP restricts
Tilden to combusting natural gas instead of coal, and (c) installation
of LNBs will require a minimum of 34 months for the first straight-
grate furnace and a minimum of 39 months for the first grate kiln
furnace, instead of the 26 months provided in the original 2013 FIP
compliance schedule. Cliffs also provided additional evidence that, in
its view, indicates that installation and operation of LNBs would be
more costly and would require more time to install than EPA estimated,
including (1) estimates by furnace engineers and burner manufacturers
that LNB capital costs for Cliffs' furnaces will be a minimum of 4-5
times higher than EPA's Minntac-based cost estimate,(2) estimates by
Cliffs' furnace designer, Metso Minerals (Metso), and burner
manufacturer, Fives North America (Fives), that there would be an
energy penalty of 20-40% while operating the LNBs, and (3) an analysis
by Metso indicating that Cliffs would lose approximately $195 million
in production costs across its six lines because installing LNB cannot
be accomplished within normal annual outage time and will also impair
production during the shakedown period after installation.
6. ArcelorMittal petitioned for reconsideration because of
perceived procedural defects in EPA's decision to finalize the 2013
Taconite FIP while still working to evaluate Minnesota's SIP.
ArcelorMittal claimed that EPA can only issue a FIP after it has fully
and properly evaluated the SIP, found it to be deficient, and provided
a reasonable opportunity for the state to address EPA's concerns.
ArcelorMittal also raised the following technical issues in the
attachment to its petition for reconsideration: (1) The costs of LNBs,
(2) the lack of any existing straight-grate furnaces with LNB
technology and the resulting unwillingness of vendors to provide
performance guarantees, (3) significant production losses because of
the downtime resulting from installation and adjustment of LNBs at
Hibbing, and (4) energy penalties due to the need for 25% more natural
gas at Hibbing and 10% to 20% more natural gas at Minorca to operate
the LNBs.
7. U.S. Steel petitioned for reconsideration because it had
obtained new information showing that variations in kiln configuration
may have a substantial impact on the cost and performance of LNBs
installed on grate-kiln furnaces. In its November 26, 2013 petition for
reconsideration of the September 30, 2013 partial disapproval of the
Michigan and Minnesota regional haze SIPs, Cliffs referenced U.S.
Steel's petition for reconsideration in which it cited concerns related
to the high costs and energy penalties associated with the installation
of LNBs, as well as pellet quality issues.
B. Issues for Which EPA Has Granted Reconsideration
EPA believes that the new information contained in the petitions
for reconsideration, as well as other supporting information provided
by Cliffs, represents significant new information that warrants
reconsideration of many of the emission limits that EPA promulgated for
the taconite facilities in 2013. As a result, on July 2, 2015, EPA sent
letters to Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan granting portions of
their petitions for reconsideration. Specifically, EPA is granting
reconsideration, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(b) of the CAA, of the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for the grate-kiln
furnaces and the NOX emission limits for the straight-grate
furnaces listed in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Facility--owner Unit(s) Pollutant(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota.......................... United Taconite-- Grate-Kiln Lines 1 and NOX and SO2.
Cliffs. 2.
Minnesota.......................... Minora Mine-- Straight-Grate Line 1. NOX.
ArcelorMittal.
Minnesota.......................... Hibbing Taconite-- Straight-Grate Lines 1- NOX.
Cliffs (operator and 3.
part owner).
ArcelorMittal (part
owner).
U.S. Steel (part
owner).
Michigan........................... Tilden Mining--Cliffs. Grate-Kiln Line 1..... NOX and SO2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64163]]
The U.S. taconite iron ore industry uses two types of pelletizing
machines or processes: Straight-grate kilns and grate-kilns. In a
straight-grate kiln, a continuous bed of agglomerated green pellets is
carried through different temperature zones with upward draft or
downward draft blown through the pellets on the metal grate. The grate-
kiln system consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an
annular cooler. A significant difference between these designs is that
straight-grate kilns do not burn coal and therefore have a much lower
potential for emitting SO2. Further, even within the same
kiln type or process, individual (referred to as indurating or
pelletizing) furnaces or processes have distinct equipment and process
characteristics that may affect the compatibility and performance of
certain types of burners. The differences between these kilns and
processes form a key basis for the changes to the emissions limits
proposed in this action.
EPA is not reconsidering all elements of its 2013 FIP. The 2013 FIP
contains SO2 and NOX limits for U.S. Steel's
Minntac and Keetac taconite furnaces in Minnesota. EPA has not granted
U.S. Steel's petition and is not proposing any revisions of the BART
limits for these U.S. Steel facilities at this time. Also, EPA is not
reconsidering the NOX limits at Cliffs' Northshore taconite
plant because this facility is already complying with the 1.2 pounds
per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) NOX limit in the 2013 FIP.
Finally, EPA is not reconsidering the SO2 limits at the
Hibbing, ArcelorMittal, or Northshore straight-grate furnaces.
V. EPA's Basis for Granting Reconsideration
The 2013 Taconite FIP established BART NOX limits for
all straight-grate and grate-kiln taconite furnaces. The limits are 1.2
lbs NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu
when burning a gas/coal mix. These limits were based upon the
performance of high stoichiometric (high-stoich) LNBs \4\ at two of
U.S. Steel Minntac's grate-kilns. As explained in more detail below, we
granted reconsideration of the NOX limits for the United
Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns, as well as for the Hibbing and
ArcelorMittal straight-grate kilns, because information that became
available after the close of the public comment period (September 28,
2012) suggests that the installation of high-stoich LNBs at these
furnaces could lead to serious technical hurdles. In addition, we
granted reconsideration of the SO2 limits for the United
Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns because of information that became
available after the close of the public comment period regarding the
inability of United Taconite to handle and burn very low sulfur coal
and Tilden's intent to burn mixed fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Stoichiometry refers to the relationship between the actual
quantity of combustion air to the theoretical minimum quantity of
air needed for 100 percent combustion of the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether to grant reconsideration of certain
provisions of the 2013 Taconite FIP, the requirements of section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA apply. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides a two-step
test to determine whether reconsideration should be granted. The
petitioner must first show that it was impracticable to raise the
comment or objection within the time period for public comment of the
rule, or, that the grounds for the comment or objection arose after the
period for public comment. Secondly, the petitioner must show that the
comment or objection is of ``central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.''
Cliffs and ArcelorMittal provided significant new information in
their petitions for reconsideration and supplemental submittals
directly relevant to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. The
following discussion details the new information upon which EPA is
relying to base reconsideration of the BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for these facilities, and how the information
meets the criteria of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.
A. United Taconite
1. NOX Emission Limit
EPA determined the NOX emission limits for BART in the
2013 Taconite FIP primarily from data arising from the installation of
high-stoich LNBs at U.S. Steel Minntac's furnaces 6 and 7. Although the
United Taconite furnaces and the Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln
furnaces, Cliffs provided new information after the close of the
comment period that described various differences between the furnaces.
These differences included the structure of the kiln, the use of pre-
heaters, and the types of ore and pellets processed. Cliffs indicated
that because of these differences, the installation of high-stoich LNBs
at United Taconite would likely result in the impairment of pellet
quality and production, as well as increased fuel usage and emissions.
Cliffs subsequently provided modeling analyses that detailed the
impacts arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at United
Taconite.
Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated
November 26, 2013, which describes the differences relevant to
NOX emissions between US Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at United Taconite. The declaration
describes several differences that EPA believes are relevant to the
development of BART NOX emission limits. For example,
whereas United Taconite uses a single large kiln burner, Minntac
furnaces 6 and 7 operate preheat burners, which supply about one-third
of the heat input from fuel, in addition to a large kiln burner. The
smaller preheat burners at Minntac achieve very low NOX
rates (0.1-0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX
reduction combustion environment in the preheat zone as compared to the
firing end of the kiln. Correspondingly, the lower NOX
emissions from the preheaters result in a lower combined NOX
emission rate than the emissions arising from a large single kiln LNB.
Another example in the declaration notes that the ore processed at
the facilities is different, resulting in different heat values. U.S.
Steel's Minntac facility processes an ore high in magnetite that
contributes heat to the kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, by
processing high magnetite ore at Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel
is able to effectively use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of the
ore. Ported kilns allow the introduction of additional air directly to
the kilns which helps oxidize the high magnetite ore, and changes the
heat balance of the furnace. In contrast, United Taconite processes
ores with a lower concentration of magnetite than the ore processed at
Minntac, and correspondingly, cannot effectively use ported kilns.
Because ported kilns change the heat balance of the furnace, U.S
Steel's experience with high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac furnaces may
not be directly applicable to the United Taconite furnaces.
A final example from the declaration states that the application of
high-stoich LNB technology at United Taconite would require additional
air to reduce burner flame temperature, which would result in increased
airflow through the grate drying section and increased pressure drop
across the greenballs, which are the raw feed to the indurating
furnace. This higher bed pressure would result in deformed pellets,
reduced pellet quality, and lost production. Further, the increased air
flow would also likely cause pellet breakage that would reduce
production. The declaration notes that to avoid these
[[Page 64164]]
impacts, United Taconite likely would have to limit the dryer section
air flow and drying rate by reducing the amount of recovered heat from
the cooler. However, any unrecovered heat would have to be replaced
with additional heat from the burner, with corresponding increased fuel
usage and emissions.
Subsequent to the submission of the declaration, Cliffs provided a
modeling analysis that supported the information provided in the
declaration. A report by Metso dated August 7, 2014, entitled
``Technical Analysis for applying LNB technology to (United Taconite)
UTAC Line 2 Grate-Kiln,'' provides a detailed analysis of expected
impacts from using high-stoich LNBs on pellet quality, fuel usage, and
emissions. Metso analyzed the effects of LNB technology on the United
Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln by using simulation modeling in which Metso
compared Line 2's normal operating conditions, which result in the
production of quality pellets, with simulations performed using high-
stoich LNBs (which are the basis of the 2013 Taconite FIP limits). The
report indicates that to maintain airflow, temperature, and pressures
sufficient to minimize pellet quality issues would require a
significant increase in fuel rates and corresponding emissions.
Further, the use of high-stoich LNBs would result in decreased oxygen
in the preheat zone gases from the kiln. The corresponding reduction in
the oxidation heat on the grate would result in lower pellet
temperatures at the point where the pellets leave the grate and enter
the kiln. This would likely result in pellet breakage and a
corresponding reduction in production.
Finally, Cliffs provided additional information to EPA in a July
28, 2014 meeting, which Cliffs summarized in an August 8, 2014 letter
to EPA. The information provided included data comparing performance,
costs, and fuel usage between high-stoich LNBs and low-stoich LNBs.
Much of the information set forth in the August 8 letter is presented
in section VI of this notice, pertaining to the NOX BART
analysis. In general, the information pertains to advantages of the
low-stoich LNBs over the high-stoich LNBs.
The information provided by Cliffs in its petition for
reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from recent, time-
consuming research and analysis that could not have been completed and
made available during the public comment period. Therefore, Cliffs has
met the first requirement of the criteria for reconsideration set forth
at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Significantly, the information that
Cliffs provided is of central relevance to the outcome of the 2013
Taconite FIP. EPA extensively based its NOX BART analysis on
the results arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step one of a BART analysis requires
the identification of all available retrofit control technologies. Step
two of a BART analysis requires the elimination of technically
infeasible control technologies. The new information provided by Cliffs
directly bears on the evaluation of the selection and feasibility of
high-stoich LNBs for use in the grate-kiln indurating furnaces at the
United Taconite facility. On this basis, we granted reconsideration of
the NOX determination for United Taconite (Lines 1 and 2)
and for the corresponding emission limits and compliance schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP set a 0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at
United Taconite. We promulgated this limit in response to a proposal by
Cliffs to use low sulfur fuel at United Taconite to decrease baseline
SO2 emissions. However, Cliffs did not have an opportunity
to comment on the specific numeric stringency of the limit we
promulgated. In other words, it was impracticable for Cliffs to comment
on the final sulfur limit prior to the close of the public comment
period.
In its petition for reconsideration, Cliffs also presented new
information directly pertaining to the criteria for determining BART
limits. Cliffs stated that the United Taconite facility had been
designed to handle and burn eastern bituminous coal, not the low
sulfur, western subbituminous coals from the Powder River Basin (PRB)
that Cliffs would be required to use to meet the 0.60% sulfur content
limit. For example, PRB coal is more prone to explosion and fire and
has a lower heat value than eastern bituminous coal. These differences,
among others, would require Cliffs to expend significant costs to
change operations, address safety issues, and increase the amount of
coal required to be burned to meet furnace and pellet temperature
requirements.
The information that Cliffs presented pertains to the feasibility
and costs of implementing the sulfur limit, which are criteria to be
used in determining BART. Therefore, the information provided by Cliffs
after the close of the comment period is of central relevance to the
outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we granted
reconsideration of the 0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at United
Taconite.
B. Tilden
1. NOX Emission Limit
EPA determined the NOX emission limits for BART in the
2013 Taconite FIP primarily from data arising from the installation of
high-stoich LNBs at U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Although the
Tilden furnace and the Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln furnaces,
Cliffs provided new information after the close of the comment period
that described various differences between the furnaces. These
differences included the structure of the kiln, the use of pre-heaters,
and the ore and pellet types processed. Cliffs indicated that because
of these differences, the installation of high-stoich LNBs at Tilden
would likely result in the impairment of pellet quality and production,
as well as increased fuel usage and emissions. Cliffs subsequently
provided a modeling analysis that detailed the impacts arising from the
installation of high-stoich LNBs at Tilden.
Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated
November 26, 2013, which describes the differences relevant to
NOX emissions between U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden. The declaration describes
several differences that EPA believes are relevant to the development
of BART NOX emission limits. For example, whereas Tilden
uses a single large kiln burner, Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate
preheat burners, which supply about one third of the heat input from
fuel, in addition to a large kiln burner. The smaller preheat burners
at Minntac achieve very low NOX rates (0.1-0.3 lbs/MMBtu)
due to a more favorable NOX reduction combustion environment
in the preheat zone as compared to the firing end of the kiln.
Correspondingly, the lower NOX emissions from the preheaters
result in a lower combined NOX emission rate than the
emissions arising from a large single kiln LNB.
Another example in the declaration notes that the ore processed at
the facilities is different, resulting in different heat values. U.S.
Steel's Minntac facility processes an ore high in magnetite that
contributes heat to the kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, by
processing high magnetite ore at Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel
is able to effectively use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of the
ore. Ported kilns allow the introduction of additional air directly to
the kilns, which helps oxidize the high magnetite ore and changes the
heat balance of the
[[Page 64165]]
furnace. In contrast, Tilden primarily processes hematite, which is not
a source of heat for kilns. Correspondingly, Tilden cannot effectively
use ported kilns. Because ported kilns change the heat balance of the
furnace, U.S. Steel's experience with high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac
furnaces may not be directly applicable to the Tilden furnace.
A final example from the declaration states that the application of
high-stoich LNB technology at Tilden would require additional air to
reduce burner flame temperature, which would result in increased
airflow through the grate drying section and increased pressure drop
across the greenballs. This higher bed pressure would result in
deformed pellets and reduced pellet quality. Further, the increased air
flow would also likely cause pellet breakage which would reduce
production. The declaration notes that to likely avoid these impacts,
Tilden would have to limit the dryer section air flow and drying rate
by reducing the amount of recovered heat from the cooler. However, any
unrecovered heat would have to be replaced with additional heat from
the burner, with corresponding increased fuel usage and emissions.
In addition to the submission of the November 26, 2013 declaration,
Cliffs provided modeling and technical analyses that supported the
comments made in the declaration. In reports prepared by Metso dated
September 14, 2012, and January 13, 2015, Cliffs provided technical
analyses for applying LNB technology to the Tilden Line 1 grate kiln
through modeling simulations that compare current operations to
operations using high-stoich LNBs. Current operating conditions at
Tilden 1 were simulated using such factors as existing air flow
studies, operating parameters, and feed mineralogy. This baseline model
was then modified to simulate LNB operating conditions. The current
operating parameters and anticipated high-stoich LNB operating
conditions were then compared.
High-stoich LNBs reduce NOX emissions by introducing
comparatively large amounts of cooler ambient air through the main
burner. Less NOX is produced at lower temperatures. The FIP
NOX limits were established based upon high-stoich LNBs
operating with air flow at 100 percent of stoichiometric through the
primary burner. Tilden currently operates with primary combustion air
at 15.5 percent of stoichiometric, and Metso estimated that primary
combustion air at 100 to 110 percent of the stoichiometric rate is
required to meet the 2013 Taconite FIP limits. Metso performed three
simulations in which it maintained peak pellet temperature and final
product temperature. The total air supplied to the cooler was adjusted
as needed to maintain final product temperature across all three
simulations. These simulations were intended to isolate the effects of
various process parameters when applying high-stoich LNB technology to
Tilden 1.
The analysis indicated, among other things, that high-stoich LNB
technology would alter the flame temperature profile, which may
adversely affect pellet quality, and that the fuel usage rate would
increase by approximately 25 to 35 percent. Further, higher
temperatures and air flow rates through the grate would result in a 10
to 20 percent increase in exhaust gas volumes.
The Metso comparative analysis dated January 2015 applies current
operating data to the high-stoich LNB design conditions, required for
NOX reduction, provided by COEN Company (COEN), a burner
manufacturer, in its Final Report for Tilden Line 1. The engineering
simulations held key process parameters constant, including pellet
production rate, greenball moisture, bentonite, and flux rate. The
total air supplied to the cooler was adjusted as needed to maintain
final product temperature across all simulations. Maintaining these
parameters ensures that fuel changes are not due to altered processing
requirements.
The engineering simulations and comparisons reveal a number of
significant operational and environmental impacts arising from the
installation of a COEN high-stoich LNB. These impacts include a
significant change to the use of primary and secondary cooling air,
which will alter the cooling down cycle of pellets, create an imbalance
between primary and secondary cooling, and likely affect pellet
quality. The volume of secondary cooling air exiting the cooler vent
stack is projected to increase between 415 and 360 percent. This may
adversely affect the process and pellet quality and also increase dust
loading. Further, the increase in unheated primary combustion air to
the burner will require an increase in fuel to replace the heat not
used from heated secondary combustion air. It is expected that this
will result in an increase in the fuel rate from between 21 to 28
percent. In addition, the high-stoich LNB will alter the flame
temperature profile, which may affect pellet quality.
The information provided by Cliffs in its petition for
reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from recent, time-
consuming research and analysis that could not have been completed and
made available during the public comment period. Therefore, Cliffs has
met the first requirement of the criteria for reconsideration set forth
in section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Significantly, the information that
Cliffs provided is of central relevance to the outcome of the 2013
Taconite FIP. EPA extensively based its NOX BART analysis on
the results arising from the installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S.
Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step one of a BART analysis requires
the identification of all available retrofit control technologies. Step
two of a BART analysis requires the elimination of technically
infeasible control technologies. The new information provided by Cliffs
directly bears on the selection and feasibility of high-stoich LNBs for
use in the grate-kiln indurating furnace at the Tilden facility. On
this basis, we granted reconsideration of the NOX
determination for Tilden (grate-kiln line 1) and for the corresponding
emission limits and compliance schedule.
2. SO2 Emission Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP required the Tilden grate-kiln Line 1 to burn
100% natural gas. However, although mentioned in discussions with
Cliffs, this requirement had not been proposed before the final rule.
Therefore, it was impracticable for Cliffs to comment on the final BART
requirement to burn solely natural gas.
Cliffs more recent intent to burn mixed fuels at Tilden is new
information that we did not consider in determining BART for Tilden.
The burning of mixed fuels will significantly increase SO2
emissions, resulting in Cliffs' inability to meet the BART limit.
Therefore, the new information is of central relevance to the outcome
of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we granted reconsideration to
the 2013 Taconite FIP requirement to burn only natural gas at the
Tilden grate-kiln Line 1.
C. ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and Hibbing Taconite: NOX
Limit
The 2013 Taconite FIP established NOX emission limits
for both grate-kiln and straight-grate kiln taconite furnaces. The
limits that EPA developed were based solely upon the performance of
high-stoich LNBs installed at two of U.S. Steel Minntac's grate-kilns.
However, as explained above, there are significant differences between
straight-grate kiln and grate-kiln furnaces that must be considered in
setting emissions limits.
[[Page 64166]]
ArcelorMittal's Minorca taconite facility and the Hibbing taconite
facility, which is jointly owned by Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and U.S.
Steel, operate straight-grate furnaces that are required to meet the
1.2 lbs NOX/MMBT BART limit under the 2013 Taconite FIP. In
the petitions for reconsideration submitted by ArcelorMittal and
Cliffs, the petitioners provided new information directly bearing on
the criteria used to establish BART NOX limits. Their
comments reflected similar issues to those that Cliffs presented in its
analysis of grate-kiln furnaces at the United Taconite and Tilden
facilities, including cost, increased fuel usage, the potential impact
on production, and the feasibility of meeting the BART NOX
limit. Further, it is significant that at the time of promulgation of
the 2013 Taconite FIP, no LNB had been installed on a straight grate
furnace. Correspondingly, ArcelorMittal reported that none of the
vendors it had contacted were willing to guarantee the successful
installation or operation of a LNB on a straight-grate furnace.
The information provided by ArcelorMittal and Cliffs in their
petitions for reconsideration and subsequent submittals arose from
recent, time-consuming research and analysis that was not and could not
have been completed and made available during the public comment
period. Therefore, they have met the first requirement of the criteria
for reconsideration set forth at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The
new information provided by the petitioners directly addresses the
costs and feasibility of LNB controls, which are criteria to be used in
determining BART. The cost and feasibility of the LNB controls are of
central relevance to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On this
basis, we granted reconsideration to the NOX BART limits for
straight grate taconite furnaces at the ArcelorMittal Minorca facility
and the Hibbing facility.
VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013 Taconite FIP Requirements
A. Revised BART Determinations
i. United Taconite and Tilden Grate-Kilns--Five Step BART Evaluation
for NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies
As discussed in the August 15, 2012 proposed FIP, the following
control technologies were identified: external flue gas recirculation,
low-NOX burners, induced flue gas recirculation burners,
energy efficiency projects, ported kilns, and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). High-stoich and low-stoich low-NOX burners
were subsequently considered separately.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
External flue gas recirculation and induced flue gas recirculation
burners were eliminated from consideration since they are technically
infeasible for the specific application to pellet furnaces due to the
high oxygen content of the flue gas. Energy efficiency projects were
eliminated due to the difficulty of assigning a general potential
emission reduction for this category. EPA agrees that SCR controls are
infeasible for indurating furnaces based on two SCR vendors declining
to bid on NOX reduction testing at Minntac. The following
three Metso reports provide detailed analyses of expected adverse
impacts of using high-stoich LNBs, which are in use at U.S. Steel
Minntac, on both pellet quality and increased fuel use: an August 7,
2014, report entitled ``Technical Analysis for applying LNB technology
to United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln,'' a September 14, 2012 report
titled ``Technical Analysis for Appling LNB Technology to Tilden 1
Grate Kiln System,'' and a January 13, 2015 report titled ``Technical
Analysis for Tilden Phase III Additional Simulations while Applying
COEN LNB Technology.'' A summary of the results from these Metso
reports is contained in an August 13, 2015 technical support document.
A mass emission rate comparison between high-stoich and low-stoich
LNB options was presented by Metso, during a July 28, 2014 meeting
between EPA and Cliffs and summarized in a subsequent August 8, 2014
letter to EPA. Metso's analysis compared the amount of NOX
that would be generated when a furnace is retrofitted with a high-
stoich LNB and low-stoich staged combustion LNB options. This analysis
demonstrated that although the lbs NOX/MMBtu may be lower
from a high-stoich burner, the high-stoich LNB will require more fuel
(and BTUs) and result in higher NOX emissions. A more
detailed discussion of this analysis is contained in an August 13, 2015
technical support document.
The declaration by Eric Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26, 2013
consists mainly of a description of differences relevant to
NOX emissions between U.S. Steel's Minntac furnaces 6 and 7,
upon which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits were based, and
Cliffs' grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden and United Taconite. The
declaration noted these differences:
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate preheat burners, which supply about
one third of the heat input from fuel, in addition to the large kiln
burner. United Taconite and Tilden use a single kiln burner. These
smaller preheat burners can achieve very low NOX rates (0.1-
0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX reduction
combustion environment in the preheat zone as compared to the firing
end of the kiln. These lower NOX emissions produce a lower
combined NOX rate than from the large kiln LNB.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 process high magnetite ore that contributes
heat to the kiln when oxidized. Tilden's ores are primarily hematite,
which is not a source of heat for the kilns, and United Taconite
processes ores with a lower concentration of magnetite than Minntac.
Therefore, Tilden and United Taconite's furnaces must add more fuel to
achieve final product requirements than Minntac. The associated energy
penalties are predicted to remain 25-45 percent for Cliffs' grate-kiln
furnaces even after energy efficiency improvements at United Taconite
and Tilden.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 use ported kilns to maximize the benefit of
their high magnetite ore bodies. Ported kilns allow the introduction of
additional air directly to the kilns where it helps to oxidize the high
magnetite ore that Minntac processes. United Taconite and Tilden do not
use ported kilns because porting will not produce significant benefits
for the type of ore they process. Ported kilns significantly change the
heat balance of the furnace, making it difficult to generalize from
Minntac's experience.
--Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 are also unique because they produce high
flux magnetite pellets. By contrast, United Taconite produces primarily
standard (low flux) magnetite pellets, and Tilden produces high flux
hematite pellets. Retrofitting a furnace with the Coen-type high-stoich
LNB burner introduces more air, requires more fuel, and at different
locations. As a result, the high-stoich LNB retrofit must be evaluated
in the context of the unique furnace design for that specific pellet
product from that specific ore type. The Minntac experience cannot
therefore be generalized to other furnaces.
--The application of high-stoich LNB technology at Tilden and United
Taconite would require additional air to reduce burner flame
temperature, which would result in increased airflow through the grate
drying
[[Page 64167]]
section and increased pressure drop across the greenballs. This higher
bed pressure would result in deformed pellets and reduced pellet
quality. The increased air flow would also cause pellet breakage
leading to decreased production. In order to maintain pellet quality
and production rate, the overall dryer section air flow and drying rate
must be limited by reducing the amount of recovered heat from the
cooler. This unrecovered heat must be replaced with additional burner
fuel, further increasing fuel requirements.
EPA agrees with the results of the Metso reports and declaration
and have therefore determined that high-stoich LNBs are technically
infeasible for the United Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns. Low-stoich
grate-kilns remain technically feasible for grate-kilns.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
Low-stoich burners, as designed by FCT Combustion (FCT), are
expected to avoid the previously described drawbacks from high-stoich
burners and can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when burning natural
gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix. This technology is
described in the ``FCT Combustion Cliffs UTAC Line 2 Phase 3 Modeling
Report'' and August 8, 2014 letter from Douglas McWilliams. FCT
supplies a LNB, called the FCT COMBUSTION Gyro-Therm MKII burner. This
FCT low-stoich Gyro-Therm burner design achieves NOX
reductions by reducing flame temperature by mixing fuel and air to
simulate the effects of staged combustion for NOX reduction.
This burner uses a special gas nozzle that injects the gas in a
stirring type of motion. The fluid mechanics resulting from use of this
nozzle create a dramatically different flame and NOX is
greatly reduced through natural staging of the fuel-air mixing. This
FCT low-stoich LNB would not require additional primary air, which
would eliminate the air velocity and pressure contributions to pellet
quality problems. FCT's proposed low-stoich burner also does not
require substantial additional fuel because it is not introducing cool
primary air that must be heated to sustain critical furnace
temperatures.
FCT performed CFD modeling at United Taconite in order to design a
new burner that will reduce NOX, but maintain product
quality, production and optimize fuel efficiency. The modeling for
combusting solely natural gas indicated a reduction from a base case of
5.3-6.4 lb NOX/MMBtu to 2.91 lbs NOX/MMBtu; the
modeling for co-firing at 30 percent gas and 70 percent coal indicated
a reduction from a base case of 1.6-5.4 (although the upper bound is
generally closer to 2.8 lbs/MMBtu), with a typical baseline value of
2.5 lbs/MMBtu, to 2.04 lbs NOX/MMBtu. The NOX
reduction technology appropriate for United Taconite would also be
appropriate for Tilden (and vice versa) because they have similar
grate-kilns.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
There will be an estimated total of 3000 tons per year of
NOX reductions from the use of the low-stoich technology at
Tilden and United Taconite. There are no significant costs or
environmental impacts associated with this technology that would
necessitate its elimination from consideration as BART.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
In EPA's view, the CFD modeling that FCT has conducted provides the
best currently available evidence as to the NOX emission
levels that this technology will achieve. According to this modeling
and engineering reports provided by (the burner manufacturer) Coen, a
low-stoich burner can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when burning
natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix. BART
requires that the burners be designed to meet these limits and we
expect that these limits will be met. However, because of the lack of
experience with these low-stoich burners, including their impact on
pellet quality, we are proposing to increase the final limits up to 3.0
lbs/MMBtu when burning natural gas only, and up to 2.5 lbs/MMBtu when
burning a gas/coal mix if a rigorous demonstration is made that the 2.8
lbs/MMBtu and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu limits cannot be met.
ii. Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine Straight-Grate
Kilns--Five Step BART Evaluation for NOX
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Technologies
As discussed in the August 15, 2012 proposed FIP, the following
control technologies were identified: external flue gas recirculation,
low-NOX burners (including both high-stoich and low-stoich),
induced flue gas recirculation burners, energy efficiency projects,
ported kilns, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection
in the preheat zone, a pre-combustion approach at the main burners and
steam injection to the fuel stream were subsequently considered
technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
External flue gas recirculation and induced flue gas recirculation
burners were eliminated from consideration because they are technically
infeasible for the specific application to pellet furnaces due to the
high oxygen content of the flue gas. Energy efficiency projects were
eliminated due to the difficulty of assigning a general potential
emission reduction for this category. EPA agrees that SCR controls are
infeasible for indurating furnaces based on two SCR vendors declining
to bid on NOX reduction testing at Minntac.
In addition, LNBs were eliminated from consideration due to the
technical challenges associated with their installation and operation
on the straight-grate kilns at Minorca Mine and Hibbing, which we
explained in detail in section V above--especially the fact that high-
stoich burners have never been used on any straight-grate kilns. Low-
stoich burners have also been eliminated from consideration because
they have never been used on straight-grate kilns and also because they
would be expected to result in higher NOX emissions than the
technologies being assessed by ArcelorMittal. As described in more
detail below, water injection in the preheat zone, a pre-combustion
approach at the main burners, and steam injection to the fuel stream
are considered to be feasible technologies.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
ArcelorMittal has retained engineering firms to assess
NOX reduction technologies for Minorca's straight-grate
indurating furnace. The results of this assessment are described in an
August 11, 2014 report titled ``ArcelorMittal Straight-Grate
NOX
[[Page 64168]]
Reduction Technology Development Efforts.'' Testing has revealed that
NOX can be reduced using water injection in the preheat and
the main burners, although it is significantly more effective at
reducing NOX in the preheat burners than the main burners.
Additional options for NOX reduction at straight grate
furnaces are: pre-combustion optimizations, steam injection, and
multiple point injection. The viability of these options will be based
on NOX reduction potential, impacts to pellet quality and
process, installation and operational downtime, and any energy penalty
and capital and operating costs.
Test results have raised the prospect of optimizing NOX
reductions using both water injection in the preheat zone (where it
appears more effective) and a pre-combustion approach at the main
burners. This approach resulted in a 70% or greater reduction on a lbs/
MMBtu basis. Efforts have also been made to evaluate steam injection to
the fuel stream, which has the potential to provide better mixing in
the flame zone with increasing NOX reductions where
distribution concerns exist. Another alternative to reduce
NOX formation at the main combustion chambers is through a
number of smaller ``surface spray'' injectors.
In conclusion, combined modeling indicates that water injection in
the preheat zone, a pre-combustion approach at the main burners and
steam injection to the fuel stream technologies can reasonably be
expected to achieve a 70% NOX reduction on a lbs/MMBtu
basis. EPA expects these technologies to be equally effective at
reducing NOX emissions at Hibbing as well as at Minorca
Mine.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
There will be a total estimated 7,400 tons per year of
NOX reductions from water injection in the preheat zone, a
pre-combustion approach at the main burners, and steam injection to the
fuel stream at Minorca Mine and Hibbing. There are no significant costs
or environmental impacts associated with these control technologies.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
Based upon the engineering report prepared for ArcelorMittal in
which the use of water and steam injection and pre-combustion
technologies is described, EPA is confident that ArcelorMittal Minorca
Mine and Hibbing Taconite can meet a limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu. BART requires that these technologies be designed to meet a
limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu and we expect that these limits will be met.
However, because the particular combination of water and steam
injection and pre-combustion technologies being considered has not
previously been used on straight-grate kilns, and there is some
uncertainty with respect to their effect on pellet quality, we are
proposing to increase the final limit up to 1.8 lbs/MMBtu if a rigorous
demonstration is made that the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu limit cannot be met.
iii. United Taconite--Five Step BART Evaluation for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control Technologies
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and use of low sulfur fuels are the
most appropriate available technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are both technically feasible.
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
FGD can achieve 90 percent control and the reduction from the use
of low sulfur fuels varies depending upon the fuel mix and the sulfur
content of the fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions of about 3600 tons
per year from lines 1 and 2. Based upon information supplied by Cliffs
in its response to comments on the proposed 2013 Taconite FIP, EPA
subsequently determined the annualized dollars per ton for FGD controls
to be $5,911/ton for Line 1 and $5,303/ton for Line 2. These cost-
effectiveness values were based upon prior baseline SO2
emission levels. 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 not economically feasible.
United Taconite subsequently proposed an alternate BART definition
based on burning low sulfur fuels, including increased use of natural
gas. This alternative will result in about 1,900 tons per year of
SO2 reductions. There are no other significant impacts or
costs associated with this alternative.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Propose BART
The proposed BART is based on burning low sulfur fuels, including
increased use of natural gas, sufficient to meet a Federally
enforceable aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/hr,
based on a 30-day rolling average. This alternative will result in
about 1900 tons per year of SO2 reductions. 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 establishing a limitation
on the coal to be used by requiring the coal have a sulfur content no
greater than 1.50 percent sulfur by weight based on a monthly block
average.
The 529 lbs SO2/hour and 1.5 percent sulfur limit
constitute BART because of the economic infeasibility of FGD controls
and also because the facility is not designed to handle lower sulfur
coal.
iv. Tilden--Five Step BART Evaluation for SO2
(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control Technologies
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are the most appropriate available
technologies.
(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options
FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are both technically feasible.
[[Page 64169]]
(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
FGD can achieve 90 percent control and the reduction from the use
of low sulfur fuels varies depending upon the fuel mix and the sulfur
content of the fuel.
(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of Remaining Control Technologies
Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions of about 1100 tons
per year from Tilden's line 1. In its September 28, 2012 comments on
the proposed 2013 Taconite FIP, Cliffs documented dry FGD costs of
between $11,450 and $15,750 per ton of SO2 removed. These
costs are not economically reasonable.
The use of low sulfur fuels, consisting of the use of either
natural gas or coal with no more than 0.6 percent sulfur, is expected
to result in a reduction in SO2 emissions of about 300 tons
per year from baseline conditions. There are no significant costs or
energy impacts associated with use of these low sulfur fuels.
(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts
There is about a 16% overall decrease in the amount of
NOX and SO2 reductions anticipated as a result of
the control technologies (and resulting emission limits) required by
this rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 FIP. EPA finds that the
candidate BART technologies would be expected to achieve substantial
visibility improvements, although slightly less than what would be
achieved from the 2013 FIP by an amount roughly corresponding to the
decrease in emission reductions.
(6) Proposed BART
BART for SO2 at Tilden's Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace is
proposed to be met by the use of low sulfur coal and natural gas.
Beginning six months after the effective date of the rule, any coal
burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 shall have no more than 0.60 percent
sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average. This furnace shall
also meet an initial emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/hr based
on a 30-day rolling average beginning six months after the effective
date of the rule. The owner or operator must subsequently calculate a
permanent lbs SO2/hr mass emission limit based on 12
continuous months of CEMS emissions data.
In light of the reduction in SO2 emissions that will
result from the use of low-sulfur fuels at Tilden, it is expected that
the dollars per ton of SO2 reduction through FGD would be
even higher than previously estimated. Thus, EPA believes that the
installation of such controls is no longer economically reasonable. The
use of low sulfur fuels is therefore the most viable option and a 0.6
percent sulfur content represents the use of very low sulfur coal. The
initial mass limit of 500 lbs/hr is expected to be reduced after
obtaining a year's worth of CEMS data.
B. Compliance Schedule
The staggered NOX compliance schedule proposed in this
action is generally consistent with the schedule in the February 6,
2013 FIP, as to the number of months to achieve compliance from the
effective date of the rule. The main differences are that under this
proposed revised FIP, at Tilden, installation of controls is required
after 50 months, not the 26 months in the 2013 Taconite FIP, and at
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, installation of controls is required within
44 months, not 26 months. The following summarizes the dates following
the effective date of the final action on reconsideration by which EPA
plans to publish notices making the NOX emission limits
effective:
Tilden--60 months
Hibbing Line 1--37 months
Hibbing Line 2--55 months
Hibbing Line 3--60 months
United Taconite Line 2--55 months
United Taconite Line 1--37 months
ArcelorMittal--55 months
The staggered schedule is necessary because there is a limited downtime
each year for each furnace during which the low NOX
burner(s) can be installed without interfering with production,
experience gained on the earlier installations can be applied to the
ones installed later, and installation costs may be spread out.
The staggered schedule, including additional time at Tilden and
ArcelorMittal, is even more necessary for the proposed revisions to the
2013 Taconite FIP because, although the NOX controls that
are expected to be implemented as a result of the settlement agreement
and this proposed action have been subject to extensive engineering
studies, they have not been used on taconite furnaces in the US. There
will also be an eight month period after installation of controls
during which emission and pellet quality data will be evaluated and a
subsequent three month period during which a final emission limit will
be set by EPA based upon this data. The controls are being designed to
meet the lower end of the range and it is expected that the limits will
be set close to the lower end. The actual limit will be based upon the
UPL statistical test.
C. Averaging Times
The limits in the 2013 Taconite FIP were expressed in terms of a
30-day average. A 30-day period in many cases would involve both
operation with only natural gas and operation with at least some firing
of coal. EPA prefers to require the companies to meet the limits with a
coal/gas mix and with only natural gas independently, rather than
imposing a variable limit computed as a composite of the limits with a
gas/coal mix and with only natural gas weighted according to time in
each operating mode. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require separate
compliance with two limits. One of these limits would govern the
emissions averaged over 720 successive hours in which the unit burns
only natural gas. The other limit would govern emissions averaged over
the 720 successive hours in which the unit burns a gas/coal mix. These
720-hour rolling average would correspond to a 30-day rolling average,
as used in the 2013 Taconite FIP, in cases when the fuel use remains
either natural gas or a gas/coal mix over 30 days. However, a 720-hour
rolling average ensures that the NOX emission rate will be
properly compared with the appropriate fuel based limit.
An example helps illustrate the nature of these limits. Suppose
that a subject facility burns only natural gas on Days 1-12, burns a
coal/gas mix on Days 13-16, burns gas again on Days 17-30, does not
operate on Days 31 and 32, burns gas on Days 33-40, then burns a coal/
gas mix from Days 41-70. This example assumes 24 hours/day operation
for each operating day. In this case, compliance with the natural gas-
based limit would be determined by dividing total NOX
emissions by total heat input for the 720 hours on Days 1-12, Days 17-
30, and Days 33-36, as well as on each of the 96 additional sets of 720
successive hours of burning natural gas up to and including the period
ending at the end of Day 40. Compliance with the coal or gas/coal mixed
fuel limit would be determined by dividing total NOX
emissions by total heat input for the 720 hours on Days 13-16 and Days
41-66, as well as on each of the 96 additional sets of 720 successive
hours of burning coal or mixed fuel up to and including the period
ending at the end of day 70.
D. Procedures for Promulgating Revised FIP Limits
The regulatory text that follows specifies a process for
establishing limits to which the identified facilities shall become
subject. While the text identifies limits that are to apply, the
[[Page 64170]]
text also states that these limits shall become enforceable only after
EPA publishes notice either confirming these limits or modifying the
limits within a range that EPA is proposing here to establish. The
regulatory text also specifies equations that are to be used to
establish any adjusted limit. Stated more generally, this action is
proposing not just a final action that will initiate a process to lead
to establishment of emission limits; today's action is also proposing
the criteria for determining the level of the ultimate limits and the
procedure by which these limits are to be made enforceable.
EPA is proposing for the publication of the final rule to trigger a
number of subsequent requirements for implementing BART controls on the
affected taconite plants. Specific dates, defined as a given number of
months following the effective date of the final rule, are given for
deadlines for commencing operation of CEMS for NOX and
SO2, for submitting a report describing planned
NOX emission controls, for installing the planned
NOX emission controls, for reporting results of pellet
quality analyses and simultaneous NOX emission data, for the
source to submit any report recommending confirmation of modification
of the emission limit, and for EPA to publish a notice either
confirming the limit promulgated in 2016 or establishing an alternate
limit (within a range proposed here). The following summarizes the
dates following the effective date of the final action on
reconsideration by which EPA plans to publish notices making the
NOX emission limits effective:
Tilden--60 months
Hibbing Line 1--37 months
Hibbing Line 2--55 months
Hibbing Line 3--60 months
United Taconite Line 2--55 months
United Taconite Line 1--37 months
ArcelorMittal--55 months
Based on the above schedule, EPA anticipates publishing a notice 37
months (addressing 2 units), 55 months (addressing 3 units), and 60
months (addressing 1 unit) after the effective date of the final rule
on reconsideration. In each case, the rulemaking will cause a limit to
become enforceable. EPA is proposing here that the limit will be either
the limit that is promulgated in the final rule on reconsideration or a
revised limit. In either case, EPA anticipates that the limit to which
each unit will ultimately be subject will be in accordance with the
equations being proposed here, within the upper and lower bounds
promulgated in the final rule on reconsideration.
EPA is proposing that these subsequent notices will constitute
subsequent final actions to this proposal that require no further
opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, today's notice of proposed
rulemaking provides adequate information about the basis and timing of
the final limits such that no further proposals will be necessary. EPA
is taking this approach in order to expedite the establishment of
final, enforceable limits for these facilities, within the context of a
process that provides reasonable time to design and install emission
controls, to obtain data for determining control effectiveness, and to
minimize the time then needed to establish final, enforceable limits.
Therefore, commenters should provide comments during the comment period
for today's proposed rulemaking on any issues that might be anticipated
to arise at any point in the process described in this notice, up to
and including during the publication of final action as described above
establishing confirmed or modified limits as fully enforceable.
The following is an example, based on Hibbing Line 1, of the
process for setting the final limit. The limits and schedules vary by
line but the steps are the same for all:
1. A presumptive limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, is established.
2. The owner or operator must install CEMS within 6 months of the
effective date of the rule.
3. After installation of the CEMS, CEMS data must be submitted to
EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter until
34 months from the effective date of the rule.
4. Within 24 months of the effective date a final report must be
submitted to EPA containing a detailed engineering analysis and
modeling of the NOX reduction technology (which must be
designed to meet 1.2 lbs/MMBtu) being installed.
5. The NOX reduction control technology must be
installed no later than 26 months after the effective date of the rule.
6. Within the earlier of 6 months of the installation of the
NOX reduction control technology or 26 months from the
effective date of the rule the results of pellet quality analyses must
be provided to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter pellet quality analyses must be provided to EPA until 34 months
from the effective date of the rule. For each pellet quality analysis
factor, e.g. compression and reducibilty, the following must be
provided: (a) The defined acceptable range for each factor as contained
in Hibbing's ISO 9001 quality management system, and (b) pellet quality
testing results that state the date and time when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range for the indicated pellet
quality factors.
7. No later than 34 months after the effective date of the rule, a
report may be submitted to EPA either confirming the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu
presumptive limit or requesting a modification of the limit up to the
upper end of the range (1.8 lbs/MMBtu in this case).
8. The final limit will be based on the CEMS data from the eight
month period from the end of month 26 to the end of month 34, excluding
any time in which the pellet quality standards are not met. The final
limit will be based upon the 95 percent upper predictive limit (UPL).
The UPL is a statistical technique that examines an existing set of
data points and predicts the chances (i.e., the probability) of future
data points (in this case, emission rates). In general terms, the UPL
is a value that is calculated from a data set that identifies the
emission rate that a source is meeting and would be expected to meet a
specified percent of the time that the source is operating. For
example, the 95 percent UPL value is the emission level that the source
would be predicted to be below during 95 out of 100 hourly intervals.
The UPL is calculated using an equation based on the average and
variance of a data set, the distribution of the data, and quantity of
data points.
9. EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 37 months after the effective date of the rule.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section
VI. C below, the proposed FIP applies to only four sources. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . .
[[Page 64171]]
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons . . . .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just six facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
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 proposed 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 proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA's proposal adds additional controls to certain sources. The
Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional
haze program consists of imposing Federal control requirements to meet
the BART requirement for NOX and SO2 emissions on
specific units at three sources in Minnesota and one in Michigan. The
net result of the FIP action is that EPA is proposing emission controls
on the indurating furnaces at four taconite facilities and none of
these sources are owned by small entities, and therefore are not small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of
UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, 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 State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments,
[[Page 64172]]
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, EPA did discuss this
action in a June 28 conference call with the Michigan and Minnesota
Tribes.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed
action addresses regional haze and visibility protection. Further,
because this proposed amendment to the current regulation will require
controls that will cost an amount equal to or less than the cost of
controls required under the current regulation, it is not an
economically significant regulatory action. However, to the extent this
proposed rule will limit emissions of NOX, SO2,
and PM, 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
VCS are inapplicable to this action because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
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 proposed rule, if finalized, 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.
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: September 8, 2015.
Susan Hedman
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 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 52.1183 is amended by revising paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and
(n) and adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1183 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(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.
(i) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average, shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 when
burning natural gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, shall apply to Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural gas.
These emission limits will become enforceable 60 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's confirmation or
modification of the emission limit in accordance with the procedures
set forth below.
(ii) Compliance with these emission limits shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for NOX. The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS
data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. Any remaining data through the end of the 57th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than 7 days from the end of
the 57th month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it
does not need to be submitted to EPA starting 57 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(iii) No later than 48 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. This
report must include a list of all variables that can reasonably be
expected to have an impact on NOX emission control
[[Page 64173]]
technology performance, as well as a description of how these variables
can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet the
NOX design emission limit. This NOx reduction control
technology must be designed to meet emission limits of 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas.
(iv) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than 50 months
from the effective date of the rule.
(v) Commencing on the earlier of:
(A) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(B) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 57th month, that do not fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than seven days
from the end of the 57th month. The pellet quality analyses shall
include results for the following factors: Compression, reducibility,
before tumble, after tumble, and low temperature disintegration. For
each of the pellet quality analysis factors, the owner or operator must
explain the pellet quality analysis factor, as well as the defined
acceptable range for each factor using the applicable product quality
standards based upon customers' pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden's ISO 9001 quality management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality analysis testing results that
state the date and time of the analysis and, in order to define the
time period when pellets were produced outside of the defined
acceptable range for the pellet quality factors listed, provide copies
of the production logs that document the starting and ending times for
such periods. The owner or operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to meet the acceptable range for
any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet quality information and data
may be submitted to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
(vi) No later than 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 within
the upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report
and either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods between months 50 and 57 that
both meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner
operation is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination
shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are
statistically independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit
(UPL) equations in paragraph (o) of this section. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
are not normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall
be based on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (o) of
this section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods
when pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges
of the pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph
(k)(1)(v) of this section and for any subsequent period when production
had been reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with
Tilden's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range, and
shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned production levels, which will presumed
to be the level that existed immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with the reported design parameters
of the NOX reduction control technology that were installed.
(vii) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 60 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate
Kiln Line 1 when burning only natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, and may not
exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Tilden
Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-
hour rolling average, and may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu,
based on a 720-hour rolling average.
(viii) If the owner or operator submits a report proposing a single
NOX limit for all fuels, EPA may approve the proposed
NOX limit for all fuels based on a 30-day rolling average.
The confirmed or modified limit will be established and enforceable
within 60 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(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 three 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 Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace
shall meet an emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/hr based on a
30-day rolling average beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. Compliance with these emission limits shall be
demonstrated with data collected by a CEMS for SO2. The
owner or operator must start collecting CEMS data for SO2
beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. The Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall not be limited to
natural gas fuel. Beginning 6 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], any coal burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 shall have no more
than 0.60 percent sulfur by weight based on a monthly block average.
The sampling and calculation methodology for determining the sulfur
content of coal must be described in the monitoring plan required for
this furnace. The owner or operator must calculate an SO2
limit based on twelve continuous months of CEMS emissions data and
submit such limit, calculations, and CEMS data to EPA no later than 36
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. If the submitted CEMS
SO2 hourly data is normally distributed, the SO2
lbs/hr emission rate shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon
whether data are statistically independent or dependent) 99% upper
predictive limit (UPL) equation. If the submitted CEMS SO2
hourly data is not normally distributed, the SO2 lbs/hr
[[Page 64174]]
emission rate shall be based on the non-parametric equation provided in
paragraph (o) of this section. Compliance to the SO2 lbs/hr
emission rate shall be determined on a 30-day rolling average basis.
EPA will take final agency action by publishing a confirmation or
modification of the SO2 limit in the Federal Register no
later than 39 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. EPA may
adjust the 500 lbs/hr SO2 limit downward to reflect the
calculated SO2 emission rate; however, EPA will not increase
the SO2 limit above 500 lbs/hr.
(4) Starting 26 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 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 [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the
SO2 limit for Grate Kiln Line 1 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 CEMS for NOX on
Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. 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 Grate Kiln
Line 1. 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 Grate Kiln Line 1 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
regulation must meet the requirements of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) through
(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 upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]. All CEMS associated with monitoring SO2 must be
installed and operational no later than six months after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 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) through (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) through (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 29 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 29 operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question
emitted during the 30 operating days by the total heat input (or actual
hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected) during the
30 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
[[Page 64175]]
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
five hours during a 24-hour period, then the actual operating hours for
that day are five. 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 720-hour rolling average emission rate determined from
data derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu) must
be calculated in accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A) through (C)
of this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit
every hour and the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for
which that type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural
gas) was used.
(B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) every hour and
the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for which that
type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas) was
used.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted
during the 720 hours, as defined above, by the total heat input during
the same 720 hour period. This calculation must be done separately for
each fuel type (either for natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas).
(xii) Data substitution must not be used for purposes of
determining compliance under this regulation.
(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) through (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 in
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. 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 (n)(2)(i) through (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
[[Page 64176]]
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 startup date for control devices and
burners installed as a result of this section postmarked no later than
30 days after the startup date.
(vi) A notification of the startup date for CEMS required by this
section 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 in
paragraphs (n)(2)(viii) (A) through (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 in
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 (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.
(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 of paragraphs (n)(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,
[[Page 64177]]
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(x) A table summarizing the total duration of excess emissions, as
defined in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A) through (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 in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(C) of this section.
(A) For purposes of section, an excess emission is defined as any
30-day or 720-hour rolling average period, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day or 720-hour
(as appropriate) rolling average emissions of either regulated
pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured by a CEMS,
exceeds the applicable emission standards in this section.
(B)(1) 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.
(2) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 720-
hour 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 24th
following 720-hour rolling average emission rate is calculated and
found to exceed the applicable emission standards of the rule 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
720-hour rolling average period and no additional excess emissions are
calculated until 360 hours 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 with 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 (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 in 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) through (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
paragraph (n)(7)(xiii)(A) through (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 in
paragraphs (n)(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.
[[Page 64178]]
(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 720-hour rolling averages and example
calculations which shows the algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate
30-day rolling averages and 720-hour 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.
(o) Equations for Establishing the Upper Predictive Limit
(1) Equation for Normal Distribution and Statistically Independent
Data
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.001
Where:
x = average or mean of test run data;
t[(n-1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value of the
Student's t distribution for a specific degree of freedom (n-1) and
a confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden SO2)
s\2\ = variance of the dataset;
n = number of values
m = number of values used to calculate the test average (m = 720 as
per averaging time)
(2)(i) To determine if statistically independent, use the Rank von
Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods
for Practitioners EPA QA/G-9S.
(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann test to determine if data are
dependent, data are dependent if t test value is greater than t
critical value, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.002
[rho] = correlation between data points
t critical = t[(n-2),(0.95)] = t score, the
two-tailed t value of the Student's t distribution for a specific
degree of freedom (n-2) and a confidence level (0.95)
(3) If data are dependent then use the following equation.
Equation for Normal Distribution and Data not Statistically
Independent
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.003
Where:
[rho] = correlation between data points
(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data Not Normally Distributed
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
or lbs NOX/MMBtu, 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.
UPL = xm = xmi.md = xmi + 0.md (xmi + 1 - xmi)
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
0
3. Section 52.1235 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v),(b)(2)(iv), (c), (d), and (e) and by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1235 Regional haze.
(a) [Reserved]
(b)(1) NOX emission limits.
(i) * * *
(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company.
(A) Hibbing Line 1.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 1 when burning
natural gas. This emission limit will become enforceable 37 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's confirmation
or modification of the emission limit in accordance with the procedures
set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission limit will be demonstrated with
data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for
NOX. The owner or operator of Hibbing Line 1 must install a
CEMS for NOX and SO2 within six months from the
effective date of the rule. The owner or operator must start collecting
CEMS data and submit the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end
of each calendar quarter after that installation deadline. Any
remaining data through the end of the 34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar quarter, must be
[[Page 64179]]
submitted to EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 34th
month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it does not
need to be submitted to EPA starting 34 months after the effective date
of the rule.
(3) No later than 24 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on Hibbing Line 1. The
NOX reduction control technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. This report must
include a list of all process and control technology variables that can
reasonably be expected to have an impact on NOX emissions
control technology performance, as well as a description of how these
variables can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet
the NOX design emission limit.
(4) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on Hibbing Line 1 furnace no later than 26 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(ii) 26 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], that do not fall within a calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 34th month. The pellet
quality analyses shall include results for the following factors:
Compression, reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, low temperature
disintegration, and swelling. For each of the pellet quality analysis
factors, the owner or operator must explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable range for each factor using
the applicable product quality standards based upon customers' pellet
specifications that are contained in Hibbing's ISO 9001 quality
management system. The owner or operator shall provide pellet quality
analysis testing results that state the date and time of the analysis
and, in order to define the time period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range for the pellet quality factors
listed, provide copies of the production logs that document the
starting and ending times for such periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for pellet samples that fail to meet
the acceptable range for any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet
quality information and data may be submitted to EPA as Confidential
Business Information.
(6) No later than 34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 1 furnace within the
upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report and
either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 26 and 34 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be
based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS data collected during
operating periods between months 26 and 34 that both meet pellet
quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (f) of this
section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods when
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges of the
pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E)
of this section and for any subsequent period when production has been
reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
that pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range
and shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range
has been re-established at planned production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed immediately prior to the
reduction in production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also
exclude data where operations are inconsistent with the reported design
parameters of the NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 37 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 1 when
burning only natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average.
(B) Hibbing Line 2.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 2 when burning
natural gas. This emission limit will become enforceable 55 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's confirmation
or modification of the emission limit in accordance with the procedures
set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission limit will be demonstrated with
data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for
NOX. The owner or operator of Hibbing Line 2 must install a
CEMS for NOX and SO2 within six months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or operator must start
collecting CEMS data and submit the data to EPA no later than 30 days
from the end of each calendar quarter after that installation deadline.
Any remaining data through the end of the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar quarter, must
be submitted to EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 52nd
month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it does not
need to be submitted to EPA starting 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE].
(3) No later than 42 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on Hibbing Line 2. The
NOX reduction control technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. This report must
include a list of all process and control technology variables that can
reasonably be expected to have an impact on NOX emissions
control technology performance, as well as a description of how these
variables can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet
the NOX design emission limit.
[[Page 64180]]
(4) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on Hibbing Line 2 furnace no later than 44 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], that do not fall within a calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 52nd month. The pellet
quality analyses shall include results for the following factors:
Compression, reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, low temperature
disintegration, and swelling. For each of the pellet quality analysis
factors, the owner or operator must explain the pellet quality analysis
factor, as well as the defined acceptable range for each factor using
the applicable product quality standards based upon customers' pellet
specifications that are contained in Hibbing's ISO 9001 quality
management system. The owner or operator shall provide pellet quality
analysis testing results that state the date and time of the analysis
and, in order to define the time period when pellets were produced
outside of the defined acceptable range for the pellet quality factors
listed, provide copies of the production logs that document the
starting and ending times for such periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for pellet samples that fail to meet
the acceptable range for any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet
quality information and data may be submitted to EPA as Confidential
Business Information.
(6) No later than 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 2 furnace within the
upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report and
either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 44 and 52 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be
based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS data collected during
operating periods between months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet
quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (f) of this
section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods when
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges of the
pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E)
of this section and for any subsequent period when production has been
reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
that pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range
and shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range
has been re-established at planned production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed immediately prior to the
reduction in production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also
exclude data where operations are inconsistent with the reported design
parameters of the NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 55 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 2 when
burning only natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average.
(C) Hibbing Line 3.
(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 3 when burning
natural gas. This emission limit will become enforceable 60 months
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's confirmation
or modification of the emission limit in accordance with the procedures
set forth below.
(2) Compliance with this emission limit will be demonstrated with
data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for
NOX. The owner or operator of Hibbing Line 3 must install a
CEMS for NOX and SO2 within six months from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or operator must start
collecting CEMS data and submit the data to EPA no later than 30 days
from the end of each calendar quarter after that installation deadline.
Any remaining data through the end of the 57th month from [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar quarter, must
be submitted to EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 57th
month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it does not
need to be submitted to EPA starting 57 months after the effective date
of the rule.
(3) No later than 48 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on Hibbing Line 3. The
NOX reduction control technology must be designed to meet an
emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. This report must
include a list of all process and control technology variables that can
reasonably be expected to have an impact on NOX emissions
control technology performance, as well as a description of how these
variables can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet
the NOX design emission limit.
(4) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on Hibbing Line 3 furnace no later than 50 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(ii) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 57th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], that do not fall within a calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 57th month. The pellet
quality analyses shall include results for the following factors:
compression, reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, low temperature
disintegration, and swelling. For each of the pellet quality
[[Page 64181]]
analysis factors, the owner or operator must explain the pellet quality
analysis factor, as well as the defined acceptable range for each
factor using the applicable product quality standards based upon
customers' pellet specifications that are contained in Hibbing's ISO
9001 quality management system. The owner or operator shall provide
pellet quality analysis testing results that state the date and time of
the analysis and, in order to define the time period when pellets were
produced outside of the defined acceptable range for the pellet quality
factors listed, provide copies of the production logs that document the
starting and ending times for such periods. The owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of causes for pellet samples that fail to meet
the acceptable range for any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet
quality information and data may be submitted to EPA as Confidential
Business Information.
(6) No later than 57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 3 furnace within the
upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report and
either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 50 and 57 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be
based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are statistically
independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit (UPL) equations in
paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS data collected during
operating periods between months 50 and 57 that both meet pellet
quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation are not
normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be based
on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (f) of this
section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods when
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges of the
pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(E)
of this section and for any subsequent period when production has been
reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with
Hibbing's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
that pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range
and shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range
has been re-established at planned production levels, which will be
presumed to be the level that existed immediately prior to the
reduction in production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also
exclude data where operations are inconsistent with the reported design
parameters of the NOX reduction control technology
installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 60 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
The confirmed or modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 3 when
burning only natural gas may be no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling average.
* * * * *
(iv) United Taconite.
(A) United Taconite Line 1.
(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average, shall apply to United Taconite Grate Kiln
Line 1 when burning natural gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, shall apply
to United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a mixture of
coal and natural gas. These emission limits will become enforceable 37
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's
confirmation or modification of the emission limit in accordance with
the procedures set forth below.
(2) Compliance with these emission limits shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for NOX. The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS
data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. Any remaining data through the end of the 34th month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than 7 days from the end of
the 34th month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it
does not need to be submitted to EPA starting 34 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(3) No later than 24 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on United Taconite Grate Kiln Line
1. This report must include a list of all variables that can reasonably
be expected to have an impact on NOX emission control
technology performance, as well as a description of how these variables
can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet the
NOX design emission limit. This NOX reduction
control technology must be designed to meet emission limits of 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas.
(4) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than 26
months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(5) Commencing on the earlier of
(i) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(ii) 26 months from the effective date of the rule, the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 34th month, that do not fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than seven days
from the end of the 34th month. The pellet quality analyses shall
include results for the following factors: Compression, reducibility,
before tumble, after tumble, and low temperature disintegration. For
each of the pellet quality analysis factors, the owner or operator must
explain the pellet quality analysis factor, as well as the defined
acceptable range for each factor using the applicable product quality
standards based upon customers' pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden's ISO 9001 quality management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality analysis testing results that
state the date and time of the analysis and, in order to define the
time period when pellets were produced outside of the defined
acceptable range for the pellet quality factors listed, provide copies
of the production logs that document the starting and ending times for
such periods. The owner or operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to meet the acceptable range for
any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet quality information and data
may be submitted
[[Page 64182]]
to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
(6) No later than 34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1
within the upper and lower bounds described below. EPA will review the
report and either confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the
CEMS data collected during operating periods between months 26 and 34
that both meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner
operation is normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination
shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon whether data are
statistically independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit
(UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS data
collected during operating periods between months 26 and 34 that both
meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation
are not normally distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall
be based on the non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (f) of
this section. The data set for the determination shall exclude periods
when pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges
of the pellet quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1)(iv)(A)(5) of this section and for any subsequent period when
production had been reduced in response to pellet quality concerns
consistent with United Taconite's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any
excluded period will commence at the time documented on the production
log demonstrating pellet quality did not fall within the defined
acceptable range, and shall end when pellet quality within the defined
acceptable range has been re-established at planned production levels,
which will presumed to be the level that existed immediately prior to
the reduction in production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may
also exclude data where operations are inconsistent with the reported
design parameters of the NOX reduction control technology
that were installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 37 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning only natural gas may be no
lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, and may not exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average. The confirmed or modified NOX
limit for United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a
mixture of coal and natural gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, and may not
exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average.
(8) If the owner or operator submits a report proposing a single
NOX limit for all fuels, EPA may approve the proposed
NOX limit for all fuels based on a 30-day rolling average.
The confirmed or modified limit will be established and enforceable
within 37 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(B) United Taconite Line 2
(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average, shall apply to United Taconite Grate Kiln
Line 2 when burning natural gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, shall apply
to United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning coal or a mixture of
coal and natural gas. These emission limits will become enforceable 55
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and only after EPA's
confirmation or modification of the emission limit in accordance with
the procedures set forth below.
(2) Compliance with these emission limits shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for NOX. The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS
data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit
the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar
quarter. Any remaining data through the end of the 52nd month from
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall within a calendar
quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than 7 days from the end of
the 52nd month. Although CEMS data must continue to be collected, it
does not need to be submitted to EPA starting 52 months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(3) No later than 42 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on United Taconite Grate Kiln Line
2. This report must include a list of all variables that can reasonably
be expected to have an impact on NOX emission control
technology performance, as well as a description of how these variables
can be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to meet the
NOX design emission limit. This NOX reduction
control technology must be designed to meet emission limits of 2.8 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture of coal and natural
gas.
(4) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 furnace no later than 44
months from the effective date of the rule.
(5) Commencing on the earlier of:
(i) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 52nd month, that do not fall within a
calendar quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than seven days
from the end of the 52nd month. The pellet quality analyses shall
include results for the following factors: Compression, reducibility,
before tumble, after tumble, and low temperature disintegration. For
each of the pellet quality analysis factors, the owner or operator must
explain the pellet quality analysis factor, as well as the defined
acceptable range for each factor using the applicable product quality
standards based upon customers' pellet specifications that are
contained in Tilden's ISO 9001 quality management system. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality analysis testing results that
state the date and time of the analysis and, in order to define the
time period when pellets were produced outside of the defined
acceptable range for the pellet quality factors listed, provide copies
of the production logs that document the starting and ending times for
such periods. The owner or operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to meet the acceptable range for
any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet quality information and data
may be submitted to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
(6) No later than 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2
within the upper and
[[Page 64183]]
lower bounds described below. EPA will review the report and either
confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data collected
during operating periods between months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet
quality specifications and proper furnace/burner operation is normally
distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be based on the
appropriate (depending upon whether data are statistically independent
or dependent) 95% upper predictive limit (UPL) equations in paragraph
(f) of this section. If the CEMS data collected during operating
periods between months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet quality
specifications and proper furnace/burner operation are not normally
distributed, the limit adjustment determination shall be based on the
non-parametric equation provided in paragraph (f) of this section. The
data set for the determination shall exclude periods when pellet
quality did not fall within the defined acceptable ranges of the pellet
quality factors identified pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B)(5) of
this section and for any subsequent period when production had been
reduced in response to pellet quality concerns consistent with United
Taconite's ISO 9001 operating standards. Any excluded period will
commence at the time documented on the production log demonstrating
pellet quality did not fall within the defined acceptable range, and
shall end when pellet quality within the defined acceptable range has
been re-established at planned production levels, which will presumed
to be the level that existed immediately prior to the reduction in
production due to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also exclude data
where operations are inconsistent with the reported design parameters
of the NOX reduction control technology that were installed.
(7) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limits in the
Federal Register no later than 55 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX limit for United
Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning only natural gas may be no
lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average, and may not exceed 3.0 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
720-hour rolling average. The confirmed or modified NOX
limit for United Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning coal or a
mixture of coal and natural gas may be no lower than 1.5 lbs
NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling average, and may not
exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling
average.
(8) If the owner or operator submits a report proposing a single
NOX limit for all fuels, EPA may approve the proposed
NOX limit for all fuels based on a 30-day rolling average.
The confirmed or modified limit will be established and enforceable
within 55 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
(A) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average, shall apply to the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
indurating furnace when burning natural gas. This emission limit will
become enforceable 55 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and
only after EPA's confirmation or modification of the emission limit in
accordance with the procedures set forth below.
(B) Compliance with this emission limit will be demonstrated with
data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for
NOX. The owner or operator of the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
indurating furnace must install a CEMS for NOX and
SO2 within six months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS data and submit the
data to EPA no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter
after that installation deadline. Any remaining data through the end of
the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn't fall
within a calendar quarter, must be submitted to EPA no later than seven
days from the end of the 52nd month. Although CEMS data must continue
to be collected, it does not need to be submitted to EPA starting 52
months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(C) No later than 42 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
the owner or operator must submit to EPA a report, including any final
report(s) completed by the selected NOX reduction technology
supplier and furnace retrofit engineer, containing a detailed
engineering analysis and modeling of the NOX reduction
control technology being installed on the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
indurating furnace. The NOX reduction control technology
must be designed to meet an emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/
MMBtu. This report must include a list of all process and control
technology variables that can reasonably be expected to have an impact
on NOX emissions control technology performance, as well as
a description of how these variables can be adjusted to reduce
NOX emissions to meet the NOX design emission
limit.
(D) The NOX reduction control technology shall be
installed on the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating furnace no later
than 44 months after the effective date of the rule.
(E) Commencing on the earlier of:
(1) Six months from the installation of the NOX
reduction control technology; or
(2) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or
operator must provide to EPA the results from pellet quality analyses.
The owner or operator shall provide the results from pellet quality
analyses no later than 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter up
until 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining
results through the end of the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], that do not fall within a calendar quarter, must be submitted to
EPA no later than seven days from the end of the 52nd month. The pellet
quality analyses shall include results for the following factors:
Compression, reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, low temperature
disintegration, and contraction. For each of the pellet quality
analysis factors, the owner or operator must explain the pellet quality
analysis factor, as well as the defined acceptable range for each
factor using the applicable product quality standards based upon
customers' pellet specifications that are contained in the
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine's Standard Product Parameters. The owner or
operator shall provide pellet quality analysis testing results that
state the date and time of the analysis and, in order to define the
time period when pellets were produced outside of the defined
acceptable range for the pellet quality factors listed, provide copies
of production or scale data that document the starting and ending times
for such periods. The owner or operator shall provide an explanation of
causes for pellet samples that fail to meet the acceptable range for
any pellet quality analysis factor. Pellet quality information and data
may be submitted to EPA as Confidential Business Information.
(F) No later than 52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
the owner or operator may submit to EPA a report to either confirm or
modify the NOX limits for the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine
indurating furnace within the upper and lower bounds described below.
EPA will review the report and either confirm or modify the
NOX limits. If the CEMS data collected during operating
periods between months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet quality
specifications and proper furnace/
[[Page 64184]]
burner operation is normally distributed, the limit adjustment
determination shall be based on the appropriate (depending upon whether
data are statistically independent or dependent) 95% upper predictive
limit (UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS
data collected during operating periods between months 44 and 52 that
both meet pellet quality specifications and proper furnace/burner
operation are not normally distributed, the limit adjustment
determination shall be based on the non-parametric equation provided in
paragraph (f) of this section. The data set for the determination shall
exclude periods when pellet quality did not fall within the defined
acceptable ranges of the pellet quality factors identified pursuant to
paragraph (b)(1)(v)(5) of this section and for any subsequent period
when production has been reduced in response to pellet quality concerns
consistent with the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine's Standard Product
Parameters. Any excluded period will commence at the time documented in
related quality reports demonstrating that pellet quality did not fall
within the defined acceptable range and shall end when pellet quality
within the defined acceptable range has been re-established at planned
production levels, which will be presumed to be the level that existed
immediately prior to the reduction in production due to pellet quality
concerns. EPA may also exclude data where operations are inconsistent
with the reported design parameters of the NOX reduction
control technology installed.
(G) EPA will take final agency action by publishing its final
confirmation or modification of the NOX limit in the Federal
Register no later than 55 months [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The
confirmed or modified NOX limit for the ArcelorMittal
Minorca Mine indurating furnace when burning only natural gas may be no
lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling
average, and may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a
30-day rolling average.
* * * * *
(2) SO2 emission limits
* * * * *
(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 six months after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] the effective date of the rule.
Compliance with this aggregate emission limit shall be demonstrated
with data collected by a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
for SO2. The owner or operator must start collecting CEMS
data for SO2 beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] and submit the data to EPA no later than 30 days from the
end of each calendar quarter. Beginning 6 months after the effective
date of the rule, any coal burned on UTAC Grate Kiln Line 1 or Line 2
shall have no more than 1.5 percent sulfur by weight based on a monthly
block average. The sampling and calculation methodology for determining
the sulfur content of coal must be described in the monitoring plan
required for this furnace.
* * * * *
(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) CEMS must be installed and operational as follows:
(A) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate
monitors) at the following facilities: U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel
Minntac, and Northshore Mining Company-Silver Bay, must be installed
and operational no later than the unit specific compliance dates for
the emission limits identified at paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (iii) and (vi)
of this section, respectively.
(B) All CEMS associated with monitoring NOX (including
the NOX monitor and necessary diluent and flow rate
monitors) at the following facilities: Hibbing Taconite Company, United
Taconite, and ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, must be installed and
operational no later than the unit specific installation dates for the
installation and operation of CEMS identified at paragraphs (b)(1)(ii),
(iv) and (v) of this section, respectively.
(C) All CEMS associated with monitoring SO2 at the
following facilities: U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac, and
Northshore Mining Company-Silver Bay, must be installed and operational
no later than six months after March 8, 2013.
(D) All CEMS associated with monitoring SO2 at the
following facilities: Hibbing Taconite Company, United Taconite, and
ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, must be installed and operational no later
than six months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
(E) The operational status of the CEMS identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section shall be verified by, as a minimum,
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
[[Page 64185]]
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) through (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 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 29 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 29 operating days.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of the pollutant in question
emitted during the 30 operating days by the total heat input (or actual
hours of operation depending on the emission limit selected) during the
30 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 720-hour rolling average emission rate determined from
data derived from the CEMS required by this section (in lbs/MMBtu) must
be calculated in accordance with (c)(4)(xi)(A)-(C) of this section.
(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit
every hour and the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for
which that type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural
gas) was used.
(B) Sum the total heat input to the unit (in MMBtu) every hour and
the previous (not necessarily consecutive) 719 hours for which that
type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas) was
used.
(C) Divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted
during the 720 hours, as defined above, by the total heat input during
the same 720 hour period. This calculation must be done separately for
each fuel type (either for natural gas or mixed coal and natural gas).
(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.
(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,
[[Page 64186]]
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 in lbs/MMBTUs or lbs/
hr (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)(vii) 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
[[Page 64187]]
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 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 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 (e)(7)(i) through (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) to (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 or 720-hour rolling average period, including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction, during which the 30-day or 720-hour
(as appropriate) rolling average emissions of either regulated
pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured by a CEMS,
exceeds the applicable emission standards in this section.
(B)(1) 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.
(2) For purposes of this section, if a facility calculates a 720-
hour 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 24th
following 720-hour rolling average emission rate is calculated and
found to exceed the applicable emission standards of the rule 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
720-hour rolling average period and no additional excess emissions are
calculated until 360 hours 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 with 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
[[Page 64188]]
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) through (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) through (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 (e)(8)(i) through (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 720-hour rolling averages and example
calculations which shows the algorithms used by the CEMS to calculate
30-day rolling averages and 720-hour 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.
(f) Equations for Establishing the Upper Predictive Limit
(1) Equation for Normal Distribution and Statistically Independent
Data
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.004
Where:
x = average or mean of test run data;
t[(n - 1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t
value of the Student's t distribution for a specific degree of
freedom (n - 1)and a confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden
SO2)
s2 = variance of the dataset;
n = number of values
m = number of values used to calculate the test average (m = 720 as
per averaging time)
(2)(i) To determine if statistically independent, use the Rank von
Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality Assessment: Statistical Methods
for Practitioners EPA QA/G-9S.
(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann test to determine if data are
dependent, data are dependent if t test value is greater than t
critical value, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.005
[[Page 64189]]
[rho] = correlation between data points
t critical = t[(n - 2),(0.95)] = t score, the
two-tailed t value of the Student's t distribution for a specific
degree of freedom (n - 2) and a confidence level (0.95)
(3) If data are dependent then use the following equation.
Equation for Normal Distribution and Data not Statistically
Independent
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC15.006
Where:
[rho] = correlation between data points
(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data Not Normally Distributed
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
or lbs NOX/MMBtu, 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.
UPL = xm = xmimd = xmi + 0.md (xmi+1 - xmi)
Where:
mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m truncated at zero decimal
places, and
md = the decimal portion of m
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-25023 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
