Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71533 

(b) Special Local Regulations. The 

regulations of § 100.901 apply. Vessels 

transiting within the regulated area shall 

travel at a no-wake speed and remain 

vigilant for swimmers. Additionally, 

vessels shall yield right-of-way for event 

participants and event safety craft and 

shall follow directions given by event 

representatives during the event. 

(c) Enforcement period. These Special 

Local Regulations will be enforced 

annually. The exact enforcement date 

and times will be published annually in 

the Federal Register via a Notice of 

Enforcement. 

Dated: November 19, 2012. 

J.E. Ogden, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29134 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954; FRL–9757–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing action on a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the State of Michigan 

dated November 5, 2010, addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period (ending in 

2018). This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s rules for states to prevent and 

remedy future and existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas through a 

regional haze program. EPA finds that 

Michigan meets several regional haze 

planning requirements, including 

identification of affected Class I areas, 

provision of a monitoring plan, 

consultation with other parties, and 

adoption of a long-term strategy 

providing for reasonable progress except 

to the extent Michigan’s plan failed to 

require best available retrofit technology 

(BART). As part of this action, EPA 

finds that the State’s submittal 

addressed BART for some sources but 

failed to satisfy BART for two sources, 

namely St. Marys Cement (SMC) and 

Escanaba Paper Company (Escanaba 

Paper). EPA is promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) including 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission limits for 

these two sources in addition to sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission limits for SMC 

to satisfy these requirements. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954. All 

documents are listed on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, at 

312–886–6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov, 

regarding all elements of the action, or 

John Summerhays, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, at 312–886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov, regarding 

issues relating to BART. Both contacts 

may be reached by mail at Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses 

III. What are EPA’s final BART 

determinations? 

A. SMC 

B. Escanaba Paper 

IV. What actions is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

Michigan submitted a plan to address 

regional haze on November 5, 2010. 

This plan was intended to address the 

requirements in Clean Air Act section 

169A, as interpreted in EPA’s Regional 

Haze Rule as codified in Title 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308. 

The Regional Haze Rule was 

promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713), with further significant 

provisions promulgated on July 6, 2005 

(70 FR 39104), that provided guidance 

related to BART. 

On August 6, 2012 (77 FR 46912), 

EPA proposed action on Michigan’s 

submittal addressing the Regional Haze 

Rule for the first implementation period, 

ending in 2018. That action described 

the nature of the regional haze problem 

and the statutory and regulatory 

background for EPA’s review of 

Michigan’s regional haze plan. The 

action also described at length the 

regional haze requirements, including 

requirements for mandating BART, 

consultation with other states in 

establishing goals representing 

reasonable further progress in mitigating 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, 

and adoption of limitations as necessary 

to implement a long-term strategy for 

reducing visibility impairment. 

EPA proposed to approve Michigan’s 

identification of five non-electric 

generating unit (non-EGU) sources as 

having sufficient impact to warrant 

being subject to emission limits 

representing BART. The five non-EGU 

BART-eligible sources included Lafarge 

Midwest, Inc.; SMC; Escanaba Paper 

(referenced in the proposed rulemaking 

as NewPage Paper Company); Smurfit 

Stone Container Corp.; and Tilden 

Mining Company. 

Michigan made source-specific 

determinations of BART for these nonEGU sources. In the August 6, 2012 

proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to 

approve Michigan’s BART requirements 

for some of the non-EGUs, based on a 

Federal consent decree requiring new 

controls for SO2 and NOX emissions for 

the Lafarge Midwest plant and based on 

existing limits at Smurfit Stone. EPA 

proposed to disapprove Michigan’s plan 

for BART at SMC’s facility in Charlevoix 

(SMC-Charlevoix) and at Escanaba 

Paper’s facility in Escanaba. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to 

disapprove the NOX and SO2 BART 

determination for the cement kiln and 

associated equipment at SMCCharlevoix and the NOX BART 

determination for Boiler 8 and 9 at 

Escanaba Paper. Further, EPA proposed 

a FIP to impose BART NOX and SO2

limits for the cement kiln and associated 

equipment for SMC-Charlevoix, and 

BART NOX limits for Boilers 8 and 9 at 

Escanaba Paper. EPA proposed no 

action regarding Tilden Mining, since 

that facility is a taconite plant that is 

being addressed in a separate action that 

also addresses taconite plants in 

Minnesota. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

The publication of EPA’s proposed 

rule initiated a 30-day public comment 

period that ended on September 5, 2012. 

During this public comment period, 

EPA received comments from the 

United States National Park Service 

(National Park Service), the State of 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ), Lafarge Midwest Inc., 

Escanaba Paper, SMC, and Cliffs Natural 

Resources Inc. (Cliffs). 

EPA also offered to hold a public 

hearing, upon request, to provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

provide oral comments on the FIP 

proposal. As discussed below, one 

commenter requested a hearing in order 

to make comments not relevant to the 

FIP proposal for SMC-Charlevoix or 

Escanaba Paper. EPA denied this 

request. As no commenter requested to 

make oral comments on the proposed 

FIP, EPA did not hold a public hearing. 

Following is a summary of the 

comments submitted and EPA’s 

responses. 

National Park Service 

Comment: National Park Service 

commented on EPA’s proposed actions 

regarding BART for electric utilities. 

National Park Service noted that on June 

7, 2012, EPA disapproved Michigan’s 

regional haze plan (and several other 

states’ plans) that relied on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet BART 

for electric utilities, and promulgated 

FIPs that relied on the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to meet BART. 

National Park Service also noted the 

August 21, 2012, decision by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia to vacate CSAPR and to leave 

CAIR temporarily in place. ‘‘Because 

EPA previously disapproved the state 

plans that relied on CAIR to meet BART, 

it appears that EPA cannot finalize the 

proposed approval of BART for electric 

utilities in Michigan.’’ National Park 

Service recommended instead that 

Michigan evaluate BART for those 

electric utilities. 

Response: The rulemaking EPA is 

finalizing today does not address BART 

for EGUs in Michigan. As noted in our 

proposed rulemaking, published on 

August 6, 2012, EPA had already taken 

action on BART for EGUs in Michigan 

and a number of other states in a 

separate rulemaking, published on June 

7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). Thus, the 

comment is not pertinent to this action. 

Comment: National Park Service 

commented that Michigan’s reasonable 

progress goals based on the air quality 

modeling for Seney Wilderness Area 

appear to project that visibility on the 

20 percent best days will be poorer in 

2018 (7.7 deciviews (dv)) than in the 

2000 to 2004 baseline period (7.14 dv). 

Response: As discussed in section 5.2 

of Michigan’s submittal, best-days 

visibility in 2018 is projected to be 

modestly worse than visibility in 2000 

to 2004. Notwithstanding this modeling 

result, EPA has several reasons to 

anticipate that visibility on the best days 

in 2018 may in fact be better and not 

worse than baseline best-days visibility. 

First, as seen in the most recent air 

quality data, best-days visibility in these 

areas has been improving, for example 

improving at Seney from a 2000 to 2004 

average of 7.1 deciviews to a 2005 to 

2009 average of 6.4 deciviews. (See 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/Reports/2011/PDF/ 

Appendix_G.pdf, page G-109.) Second, 

as Michigan noted in its submittal, the 

projection that visibility on the best 

days will worsen reflects an uncertain 

estimate of increasing ammonia 

emissions. Emissions of the other 

emitted pollutants important to 

visibility, especially SO2 and NOX, have 

decreased significantly, and are 

expected to continue to decline. As 

Michigan noted, an alternate plausible 

assumption that ammonia emissions are 

not increasing would be expected to 

support a finding that visibility on bestvisibility days will improve. Third, 

recent modeling that EPA has done in 

support of CSAPR showed that visibility 

on best visibility days at Seney is 

expected to improve by 2014 even 

without CAIR or CSAPR. Fourth, 

oftentimes the air mass on best visibility 

days in Northern Michigan originates in 

Canada, for which the emission 

inventories used in the air quality 

modeling for the SIP are less reliable. 

Finally, Michigan noted some 

unmodeled emission reductions, such 

as those from BART for non-EGUs, that 

would be expected to lead to better 

visibility in 2018 than that shown in its 

SIP. For these reasons, EPA expects that 

Michigan’s plan will yield visibility on 

the best 20 percent of days at its Class 

I areas in 2018 that will be either the 

same as or better than during the 

baseline period. 

MDEQ 

Comment: MDEQ objected to EPA’s 

action proposing a FIP to mandate 

BART for SMC in Charlevoix and 

Escanaba Paper in Escanaba to meet 

regional haze visibility goals and 

simultaneously proposing disapproval 

of Michigan’s plan for these sources. By 

doing so, Michigan commented, EPA is 

circumventing the process laid out in 

the Clean Air Act by not giving the State 

the opportunity to correct deficiencies 

in Michigan’s BART SIP revision. 

Michigan references the August 12, 

2012, opinion of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA 

(addressing CSAPR), an opinion that, in 

Michigan’s view, concluded that a FIPfirst process is not in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. Rather than circumventing 

the Clean Air Act, EPA is in fact 

complying with the Clean Air Act’s 

requirements. Under section 110(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act, EPA must promulgate 

a FIP within 2 years of a finding of 

failure to submit a required SIP 

submittal. This requirement for FIP 

promulgation was triggered by a finding 

published on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 

2392), that Michigan and other states 

had failed to submit the required 

regional haze SIP. Michigan submitted 

its regional haze plan on November 5, 

2010. EPA informed Michigan on 

multiple occasions that it did not expect 

to be able to approve the State’s BART 

determinations for at least SMC and 

Escanaba Paper. Since Michigan did not 

submit a SIP with BART limits that EPA 

could approve as consistent with the 

Clean Air Act, EPA is obligated to 

promulgate FIP limits meeting BART 

requirements. 

This situation is different from the 

situation addressed by the court in the 

EME Homer City Generation opinion. In 

the EME Homer City Generation 

litigation, a key concern raised by the 

court was whether EPA had provided 

states suitable guidance on the pertinent 

requirement and thus whether the states 

had a meaningful opportunity to meet 

the requirement. In this case, EPA 

promulgated regulations defining the 

criteria for meeting the BART 

requirement in 2005, and so there can 

be no question that Michigan had 

adequate opportunity to meet the BART 

requirements, both in its initial 

submittal and after EPA expressed 

concern that Michigan’s submittal 

appeared inadequate. Today’s action is 

more than two years later than the 

State’s submittal, so EPA did not apply 

a ‘‘FIP-first process.’’ The circumstances 

are very different and therefore EPA 

does not agree that the EME Homer City 

Generation opinion is relevant to EPA’s 

proposed rule on August 6, 2012. 

However, EPA would welcome 

Michigan’s submittal of a SIP to replace 

the FIP and will work with the State to 

approve expeditiously a SIP that 

suitably replaces the requirements EPA 

is promulgating today. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71535 

Lafarge Midwest Inc. 

Comment: Steve Kohl (Partner Warner 

Norcross & Judd LLP, Bodman Attorney 

& Associates) commented on behalf of 

his client, Lafarge Midwest Inc., that 

there was a typographic error in EPA’s 

proposed approval of MDEQ’s BART 

determination that compliance with the 

currently applicable Portland Cement— 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) emission standard 

satisfies BART requirements for 

particulate matter (PM). EPA’s proposal, 

as published, erroneously cites an 

emission standard of 0.030 pounds (lb) 

per ton of dry feed. The correct Portland 

Cement MACT emission standard is 

0.30 lb per ton of dry feed. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the 

typographic error and agrees that the 

Portland Cement MACT PM emission 

standard is 0.30 lb per ton of dry feed. 

Escanaba Paper 

EPA received a set of comments from 

Escanaba Paper addressing features of 

the proposed FIP for the Number 8 and 

Number 9 Boilers at the company’s 

Escanaba facility. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper 

commented that on page 46922 of the 

preamble and all instances thereafter, all 

references to NewPage Paper should be 

corrected and revised to reflect the 

correct legal entity—Escanaba Paper 

Company (EPC). The Escanaba Paper 

Company is the correct legal entity and 

is consistent with how the mill is 

identified in various business and 

Michigan regulatory programs (e.g., the 

Title V permit is issued to the Escanaba 

Paper Company). 

Response: Per the company’s request, 

EPA has revised all references to 

identify the company that owns the 

pertinent facility as Escanaba Paper 

Company (or, as shorthand in this 

preamble, Escanaba Paper). 

Comment: Page 46922 of the preamble 

makes mention of the costs associated 

with controlling emissions on the 

Number 8 and Number 9 Boilers at 

Escanaba Paper. Escanaba Paper noted 

that supplemental and updated 

information concerning control 

equipment costs were submitted to both 

MDEQ and EPA Region 5. Escanaba 

Paper believes that the supplemental 

and updated information confirm the 

conclusion that the addition of control 

equipment is unwarranted. 

Response: EPA notes the 

supplemental information, which 

supports EPA’s proposed action, which 

proposed limits that EPA believes can 

be met without additional control 

beyond control Escanaba Paper has 

already installed. 

Comment: On page 46924 of the 

preamble, EPA stated that low NOX

burners would achieve 40 percent 

reduction of emissions on the Number 

8 Boiler and then uses this control 

efficiency to calculate cost effectiveness. 

Escanaba Paper noted that conversations 

with low NOX burner vendors did not 

confirm that an annual 40 percent 

control efficiency is achievable, thus the 

cost effectiveness referenced by EPA 

could be higher. 

Response: EPA used estimates of costs 

and benefits of control to conclude that 

emission control relative to baseline 

emissions would be cost effective. 

Escanaba Paper has implemented 

controls similar to those that EPA 

judged to be cost effective, which, in 

absence of a limit requiring these 

controls, suggests that Escanaba Paper 

also finds these controls to be cost 

effective. Escanaba Paper does not 

suggest specific alternate cost 

effectiveness assumptions. EPA believes 

that low NOX burners can achieve 40 

percent control, supporting EPA’s cost 

effectiveness evaluation, but EPA could 

assume lesser control efficiency and 

higher costs per ton for a low NOX

burner and would still find the limits it 

proposed to be cost effective. 

Comment: On pages 46924 and 46925 

of the preamble, EPA Region 5 stated 

that Escanaba Paper installed a flue gas 

recirculation system on the Number 8 

Boiler to meet MDEQ ozone season NOX

limits. Escanaba Paper noted that it can 

currently meet the ozone season NOX

emission limits with or without 

operation of the flue gas recirculation 

system on the Number 8 Boiler. 

Response: EPA noted that Escanaba 

Paper had installed a flue gas 

recirculation system to point out that it 

gives the company an additional option 

for meeting the limit that EPA is 

promulgating for this boiler. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper noted that 

EPA references a ‘‘worst-case’’ annual 

NOX emission rate of 1,300 tons per year 

for the Number 8 Boiler. This 

annualized rate appears to be 

extrapolated by EPA and is 

unrepresentative of annual actual 

emissions. Escanaba Paper cannot verify 

the basis for this annualized NOX

emission rate but notes that current 

2011 NOX emissions of 33 tons are more 

than 1,200 tons less than those 

referenced by EPA. 

EPA guidance for conducting the 

BART visibility modeling is to use a 

worst-case, short-term emission rate 

(i.e., a 24-hour emission rate) for BART 

applicability determinations but to use 

annual actual emissions for assessing 

cost effectiveness. It is inappropriate to 

interchange these emission rates in 

these analyses. Further, Escanaba Paper 

believes that if current, worst-case shortterm visibility impairing pollutant 

emission rates for all of the BART 

emission units at the mill were 

evaluated in a visibility modeling 

analysis, there would be no days that 

exceed a 0.5 dv level. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

annualizing of a short-term worst case 

emission rate does not necessarily yield 

a realistic estimate of emissions for the 

facility being addressed here. While 

EPA is not speculating on the number 

of days that would exceed 0.5 dv impact 

at current worst case emission rates, 

EPA believes that the uncontrolled 

emissions are sufficiently high and the 

cost of controls sufficiently reasonable 

to warrant a determination that controls 

such as those that Escanaba Paper has 

added represent BART. 

Comment: EPA proposed to limit 

emissions from the Number 8 Boiler 

according to a weighted average of fuel 

specific emission limits, as discussed on 

page 46925 of the preamble. In lieu of 

these limits, Escanaba Paper believes 

that a single emission limit is preferable. 

Escanaba Paper proposed a NOX

emission limit of 0.35 lb of NOX per 

million British Thermal Units (MMBtu). 

To support this NOX emission limit for 

the Number 8 Boiler, Escanaba Paper 

noted the following: 

—The 0.35 lb NOX/MMBtu limit is more 

restrictive than the 0.50 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu limit proposed for fuel oil, 

—The 0.35 lb NOX/MMBtu limit will 

limit Escanaba Paper’s use of fuel oil, 

which has higher SO2 and NOX

emissions than natural gas, 

—A single emission limit decreases 

Escanaba Paper’s recordkeeping 

requirements and improves the 

efficiency of Escanaba Paper’s 

monitoring and reporting, and 

—The 0.35 lb NOX/MMBtu emission 

limit is consistent with EPA’s 

approach to determining an emission 

limit based on continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) data. As 

with the EPA approach used to 

establish a NOX emission factor for 

the SMC kiln, the Escanaba Paper 

CEMS data show that for non-idling 

periods, a 0.35 lb NOX/MMBtu 

emission factor is equivalent to the 

95th percentile 30-day average CEMS 

value with a 5 percent compliance 

margin. 

Response: As recommended by 

Escanaba Paper, EPA is promulgating a 

fixed limit of 0.35 lb of NOX per 

MMBTU, in lieu of the proposed limit 

based on separate values for oil firing 

and gas firing (0.26 lb/MMBTU for gas 

firing and 0.50 lb/MMBTU for oil firing) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

and calculated as an average weighted 

according to the heat input for each fuel. 

While this limit is less restrictive when 

the company is firing only gas, the limit 

is more restrictive when the company is 

firing substantial quantities of oil. Since 

oil firing tends to result in higher 

emissions, a fixed limit will provide 

incentive for the company to fire more 

natural gas and less oil. Finally, since 

this limit simply mandates control that 

is already being implemented, and there 

is no indication in the record that 

Escanaba Paper has any incentive to 

reduce the effectiveness of the existing 

controls system, EPA believes that the 

nature of the limit and its precise level 

in practice will not have a significant 

effect on actual emissions. 

Comment: On page 46925 of the 

preamble at footnote 2, EPA provided an 

assessment of NOX emission factors for 

the Number 8 Boiler for the 2008/2009 

and 2010/2011 periods. Escanaba Paper 

was unable to reproduce the 2008/2009 

value cited by EPA. 

Response: In this footnote, EPA first 

cited 30-day average emission factors for 

2010 and 2011, and then comments that 

‘‘Operation in 2008 and 2009, during 

which the boiler was often oil-fired, 

yielded emission factors up to about 

0.45 [lb]/MMBTU.’’ As implied, this 

comment speaks to 30-day average 

emissions, and indeed the five highest 

average emission rates during 2008 and 

2009 over 30 consecutive calendar days 

ranged from 0.44 to 0.48 lb/MMBTU. 

However, since Boiler Number 8 is 

operated to some degree as a backup to 

a larger (non-BART) boiler at the 

facility, it operates somewhat 

sporadically, so that 30 consecutive 

calendar days can include a substantial 

number of non-operating days. 

Therefore, EPA is expressing the limit in 

terms of 30 consecutive operating days. 

Using this method of calculating 30-day 

averages, the highest value in 2008 to 

2009 was 0.36 lb/MMBTU. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper 

commented, ‘‘The extrapolation of 

visibility impacts is not linear. It is not 

possible to determine what visibility 

impacts associated with the NOX

emissions from the Number 9 Boiler 

would have occurred from improved 

combustion monitoring. Escanaba Paper 

also noted that emissions reported in 

2002 and 2004 were likely overstated. 

Escanaba Paper updated the NOX

emission factor for the Number 9 Boiler 

in 2005 from the previous factors 

developed in 1992 and 1995.’’ 

Response: While deciviews are a 

logarithmic scale, a linear 

approximation is an appropriate means 

of estimating the impact of modest 

emission changes. In the analysis for 

this final rule, EPA has used the 

updated emissions information for the 

Number 9 Boiler. 

Comment: Contrary to the language in 

the preamble, Escanaba Paper does not 

believe that the NOX limits proposed at 

40 CFR 52.1183(i)(4) ‘‘mandate the 

continued operation of the overfire air 

system that the company has installed 

on Boiler 9.’’ Escanaba Paper wanted to 

confirm that there is no applicable 

requirement being imposed that tracks 

the operational status of the overfire air 

system on the Number 9 Boiler. 

Response: EPA confirms that no 

requirement is being imposed that 

directly mandates or tracks operation of 

the overfire air system on the Number 

9 Boiler. Consistent with EPA’s BART 

guidelines, EPA is setting an emission 

limit which requires emission control 

but is not mandating any particular 

means of meeting this limit. The 

statement in the preamble merely 

reflected EPA’s expectation that the 

practical effect of setting the emission 

limit would be that Escanaba Paper 

would have to continue operating its 

overfire air system. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested 

clarification as to whether the 

requirements of 40 CFR 52.1183(i) 

should apply no later than five years 

after EPA approves the FIP per the 

compliance schedule contained in of 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix Y or ‘‘upon the 

effective date of the rulemaking 

promulgating these limits.’’ (See page 

46925 of the preamble of the proposed 

rule.) 

Response: The Clean Air Act requires 

sources to meet BART limits as 

expeditiously as practicable. Escanaba 

Paper does not need to install any 

control devices to achieve the BART 

limit established in our FIP, and so EPA 

believes Escanaba Paper can meet the 

BART limits immediately. Therefore, 

‘‘expeditiously as practicable’’ means 

immediate compliance for Escanaba 

Paper. Thus, the codification of these 

limits provides no delayed compliance 

date, and therefore the limits apply as 

soon as this final rule becomes effective. 

Comment: The reference to 40 CFR 

part 60 appendix B, performance 

specification 2, at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(2) 

is not necessary. Escanaba Paper has 

already conducted the initial start-up of 

the NOX CEMS on the Number 8 Boiler 

and thus the reference to performance 

specification 2 is not appropriate. In 

fact, performance specification 2 states 

that it is not for evaluating CEMS 

performance over a long period as seems 

to be the intention of this requirement. 

Escanaba Paper requests clarification or 

elimination of this specific requirement. 

Response: EPA agrees with Escanaba 

Paper’s comment and in the final FIP is 

not requiring compliance with 

performance specification 2. 

Comment: The reference to 40 CFR 

part 60 appendix B performance 

specification 2 at 40 CFR 52.1183(i)(3) 

should be replaced with a reference to 

40 CFR part 60 appendix F. Escanaba 

Paper requests clarification or 

modification of this specific 

requirement. 

Response: EPA agrees with Escanaba 

Paper’s comment. Requirements for 

ongoing quality assurance of continuous 

emission monitors are specified in 40 

CFR part 60 appendix F, not in 40 CFR 

part 60 appendix B performance 

specification 2. EPA is promulgating 40 

CFR 52.1183(i)(3) with the 

recommended modification. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper requests 

that the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 

part 60 appendix F be used to determine 

the 30-day rolling average. The use of 

appendix F would also be consistent 

with the guidance contained in 40 CFR 

part 51 appendix Y. 

Response: 40 CFR part 60 appendix F 

addresses quality assurance procedures, 

not procedures for 30-day averaging. 

Nevertheless, consistent with the 

apparent intent of this comment, and 

consistent with the guidance in 40 CFR 

part 51 appendix Y, EPA is setting the 

limit for the Number 8 Boiler based on 

the average of emissions for 30 

consecutive boiler operating days, 

where a day is defined as a boiler 

operating day if fuel is combusted at any 

time during the 24-hour period. 

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested 

that the phrasing ‘‘Compliance stack test 

results’’ be used to replace 40 CFR 

52.1183(i)(6)(ii), which as proposed read 

‘‘All stack test results.’’ In a separate 

comment, Escanaba Paper requested 

that the word ‘‘compliance’’ be inserted 

after ‘‘shall submit reports of any’’ at 40 

CFR 52.1183(i)(6)(v). 

Response: The first of these comments 

requests that Escanaba Paper only be 

required to keep records of emission 

tests mandated by EPA or the State for 

purposes of compliance assessment, and 

that Escanaba Paper not be required to 

keep records of tests conducted for the 

company’s own purposes. The second of 

these comments requests that the 

company not be required to report the 

results of such tests to EPA. Consistent 

with its general practice, EPA in this 

final rule is requiring the company to 

keep records of such tests but is not 

requiring the company to report the 

results of such tests. If a subsequent 

compliance test, requested by the State 

or EPA, shows noncompliance, the 

retained record of the nonmandated test 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71537 

1EPA has had a number of meetings and 

discussions with SMC since proposing action on 

Michigan’s regional haze plan and the FIP imposing 

BART limits on SMC and Escanaba Paper. On 

November 12, 2012, SMC electronically submitted 

additional comments in which it asserts that the 

Charlevoix plant is not BART-eligible because 

construction that took place at the plant in 1979 

constituted a ‘‘reconstruction’’ for BART 

applicability purposes. This issue was not raised in 

Michigan’s SIP submittal or in SMC’s previous 

written comments. Nevertheless, EPA will carefully 

review the new comments and take any action 

warranted. However, because it did not receive the 

comments until it was in the last stages of preparing 

this final action, well after the close of the comment 

period, EPA could not consider the comments in 

taking this action. 

would provide useful information, for 

example regarding the duration of 

noncompliance. (If a subsequent test 

shows compliance, the State and EPA 

would have little reason to inquire 

about nonmandated stack tests.) On the 

other hand, in the interests of 

encouraging Escanaba Paper to assess its 

compliance status whenever it has 

concerns about its emission rate, the 

final FIP does not require the company 

routinely to report results of emission 

tests that neither the State nor EPA 

requested, again consistent with its 

general practice. Thus, EPA has made 

the requested modification to 40 CFR 

52.1183(i)(7)(v), but has not modified 40 

CFR 52.1183(i)(6)(ii). 

Comment: Escanaba Paper requested 

that the phrase ‘‘or when Boiler 8 is not 

operating’’ be inserted after ‘‘except for 

zero and span adjustments and 

calibration check’’. As the applicable 

requirement is currently written, if the 

CEMS is not operated because the Boiler 

Number 8 is not operating, a quarterly 

report must document this situation. 

Response: This final rule reflects the 

requested modification. EPA does not 

intend to require Escanaba Paper to 

document non-operation of its CEMS for 

times when its boiler is not operating. 

SMC 

Cortney Schmidt, environmental 

manager at SMC-Charlevoix, submitted 

comments on the proposed rulemaking 

on September 4, 2012. These comments 

elaborated on comments in a separate 

letter that Mr. Schmidt sent on August 

2, 2012. Mr. Schmidt further sent a 

letter on August 8, 2012, responding to 

questions from EPA.1

Comment: SMC found it unfortunate 

that EPA did not communicate directly 

with SMC much earlier in the process, 

because ‘‘surprising SMC at the last 

minute’’ foreclosed opportunities for 

‘‘more deliberate, collaborative action.’’ 

Response: EPA submitted comments 

to Michigan on June 23, 2010, stating, 

‘‘We disagree with MDEQ’s assessment 

that a selective non-catalytic reduction 

system is technically infeasible and not 

cost-effective.’’ EPA provided more 

detailed comments, including an 

assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a 

selective noncatalytic reduction system 

(SNCR), to Michigan by email on 

December 8, 2011. At EPA’s request, 

Michigan forwarded these emailed 

comments to SMC. Finally, EPA sent 

comments to Michigan on May 24, 2012, 

and emailed a copy of the comment 

letter directly to SMC. Thus, EPA has 

ensured that SMC was aware of EPA’s 

position and had opportunities to 

engage in discussions regarding the 

proposed BART determination for SMCCharlevoix. 

Comment: SMC quoted from three 

Federal circuit court opinions that, in 

SMC’s view, demonstrate that EPA’s 

proposal to disapprove ‘‘the portion of 

Michigan’s SIP related to BART 

requirements for [SMC-Charlevoix],’’ 

and ‘‘to substitute EPA’s own limits in 

their place, is impermissible under the 

Clean Air Act.’’ Specifically, SMC 

asserted that the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City 

Generation, LP v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

(D.C. Cir. August 21, 2012) and the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 

Luminant Generation Co. v. EPA, 675 

F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2012) and Texas v. 

EPA, No. 10–60614 (5th Cir. August 13, 

2012) held that if a state plan meets the 

standards required by the Clean Air Act, 

EPA cannot force the states to adopt 

specific control measures. 

Response: These decisions address 

rulemakings that are unrelated to 

regional haze and circumstances that do 

not invoke the same relationship 

between state and federal action. 

Moreover, these courts acknowledge 

that EPA has a valid role in assessing 

whether a state submittal is compliant 

with the Clean Air Act. EPA proposed 

to find that Michigan’s submittal was 

not compliant with the Clean Air Act, 

insofar (in part) as Michigan failed to 

require BART for SMC-Charlevoix. SMC 

appears to be arguing that EPA may not 

disapprove a submittal that meets Clean 

Air Act requirements to force the State 

to adopt an alternative measure that 

EPA prefers, but EPA is not taking such 

an action here. Nor is EPA using the SIP 

process to force Michigan to adopt any 

particular control measure. Instead, EPA 

is simply fulfilling its responsibility to 

evaluate the State’s submittal and, in the 

absence of a state submittal meeting 

applicable requirements, promulgating 

federal limits to meet these 

requirements. 

Comment: SMC noted EPA’s finding 

that Michigan’s SIP ‘‘includes a 

reasonable set of measures that provide 

its appropriate share of reductions 

toward achieving reasonable progress 

goals.’’ (See 77 FR 46919.) SMC 

concluded that, because the emissions 

limits proposed by Michigan allow the 

State to meet the reasonable progress 

goals for improving visibility, ‘‘EPA 

cannot * * * require emissions limits 

for SMC which would go beyond 

allowing the State to meet those 

progress goals.’’ SMC stated that the 

BART requirements are included within 

the set of emission limits that EPA may 

require only as ‘‘necessary to make 

reasonable progress.’’ 

Response: Clean Air Act section 

169A(b)(2) provides that the measures 

that are necessary to provide for 

reasonable progress necessarily include 

measures representing BART. The fact 

that EPA codified BART requirements 

separately from the requirements for 

reasonable progress (in 40 CFR 51.308(e) 

versus 40 CFR 51.308(d)) supports an 

interpretation that BART requirements 

must be satisfied irrespective of whether 

reasonable progress goals are being met. 

Another possible reading of section 

169A(b)(2) is that a plan that lacks 

BART measures by definition fails to 

include all the measures that this 

section mandates be part of the plan for 

achieving reasonable progress. That is, 

under this interpretation, BART is 

necessarily a reasonable measure, and a 

plan, such as Michigan’s, that fails to 

require BART cannot be considered to 

provide for reasonable progress. 

In response to this comment, EPA is 

clarifying that, insofar as Michigan’s 

plan fails to require BART on at least 

two facilities, Michigan’s plan fails to 

include all reasonable measures. To that 

extent, Michigan’s plan may be 

considered to fail to provide for 

reasonable progress, but EPA believes 

that the plan, in combination with the 

FIP (in conjunction with BART limits 

for Tilden Mining, being addressed 

separately), meets reasonable progress 

requirements. 

Comment: SMC cited six factors listed 

in the definition of BART at 40 CFR 

51.301 that are to be taken into 

consideration in determining BART. 

With respect to the first factor, the 

technology available, SMC believes that 

‘‘EPA did not properly evaluate the 

capabilities of technology available for 

NOX control at Charlevoix.’’ SMC 

provided a review of the history of the 

SMC-Charlevoix kiln system design, 

including conversion in the late 1970s 

to a preheater/precalciner design and 

installation of an indirect firing system. 

Response: EPA has considered the 

design of the SMC-Charlevoix kiln 

system in evaluating BART for this 

facility, as discussed more fully below. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: SMC maintained that ‘‘the 

normal variability of NOX formation in 

cement kilns justifies the 6.5 pounds per 

ton NOX emission limit contained in 

Michigan’s SIP.’’ SMC provided a graph 

of emissions data for 2006 to 2008, and 

states that the ‘‘average of [these] data is 

4.56 pounds per ton, but there is a 

significant standard deviation of 0.64 

pounds per ton, leading to a 99.7 

[percent] confidence number of 6.47 

pounds per ton.’’ 

Response: EPA recognizes the 

variability in NOX formation at SMCCharlevoix. EPA addressed this 

variability in its proposal in part by 

proposing a limit in the form of a 30-day 

average. Further discussion of the 

appropriate limit in the context of this 

variability is provided below. 

The statistic SMC cites as being the 

99.7th percentile (the value three 

standard deviations above the mean) is 

in fact an even higher percentile, 

specifically the 99.87th percentile. 

Although EPA is basing its limits on the 

95th percentile baseline emissions, this 

error is worth noting because EPA is 

avoiding the same error in estimating 

the 95th percentile baseline emissions. 

This error presumably reflects confusion 

between two statistical values, one 

being the percent of values within three 

standard deviations both above and 

below the mean, and the other being the 

percent of values between zero and a 

value that is three standard deviations 

above the mean. The latter statistic is 

the appropriate statistic in finding 

percentiles, since a given percentile is 

the value that exceeds that percentage of 

the entire distribution, including values 

down to zero, not just the portion of the 

distribution down to another value for 

example three standard deviations 

below the mean. In a normal 

distribution, 49.87 percent of values are 

between the mean and three standard 

deviations above the mean, and the 

same 49.87 percent of values are 

between three standard deviations 

below the mean and the mean, for a 

total of 99.74 percent of values within 

three standard deviations of the mean. 

In contrast, in determining percentile 

values, one must sum the 49.87 percent 

of values that are below three standard 

deviations above the mean but above the 

mean together with the full 50 percent 

of values that are below the mean. Thus, 

the value three standard deviations 

above the mean in a normal distribution 

is the 99.87th percentile value, not the 

99.74th percentile value. For similar 

reasons, EPA is estimating 95th 

percentile baseline emissions as the 

value 1.645 standard deviations above 

the mean, rather than the value 1.96 

standard deviations above the mean that 

SMC’s approach would suggest. 

Comment: SMC commented that it 

‘‘has put in place more modern 

technology than its competitors, such as 

Lafarge’s Alpena plant.’’ Elsewhere, 

SMC cited other plants with higher 

emission limits which, it claims have 

‘‘not been upgraded to the same degree 

as the Charlevoix plant,’’ and noted that 

‘‘SMC already outperforms those [limits] 

with the improvements it already has 

put in place.’’ 

Response: With the consideration of 

source-specific factors, as required in 

determining BART at each facility, 

dissimilarities among facilities can yield 

dissimilarities in control requirements. 

Lafarge’s Alpena facility has long wet 

kilns, a different design with inherently 

more NOX emissions than SMCCharlevoix’s preheater/pre-calciner kiln. 

In fact, BART at Lafarge requires 

similarly effective SNCR there as at 

SMC-Charlevoix, and BART at Lafarge 

requires sulfur emission control that is 

not required at SMC-Charlevoix. 

Comment: SMC asserted that ‘‘EPA 

will expect compliance with its 

emission limit every day, not just ‘on 

average’ over several years. Therefore, 

EPA also was incorrect when it derived 

its proposed NOX emission limit of 2.3 

[lb per ton] for the Charlevoix plant by 

applying a presumed 50 percent 

reduction against the plant’s 4.56 [lb per 

ton] average, which was achieved over 

several years. * * * An ‘average’ 

value means that half of the actual 

performance is greater than that average. 

Therefore, any proposed reduction 

should not be applied to an average 

performance over several years, but 

instead must take into consideration the 

normal standard deviation from that 

average. This is the same rationale that 

was recently used by EPA in its 

agreement with Holcim’s Montana 

Plant. Consequently, in this instance, if 

there was to be any reduction, it must 

be applied against the 6.5 [lb per ton] 

value which represents the 99.7 percent 

confidence value of SMC’s actual 

performance.’’ 

Response: SMC is noting the 

variability in emissions at SMCCharlevoix, observing that a several year 

period will include many occasions 

with baseline emissions that are above 

average, and commenting that any 

emission limit should be based on those 

elevated baseline emission conditions. 

EPA addressed this concern in its 

proposed rulemaking. EPA proposed a 

limit that would require an average 

control of approximately 50 percent. In 

addition to defining the limit as a 30- 

day rolling average, EPA’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking describes an 

examination of the variability of 

emissions at SMC-Charlevoix and the 

feasibility of achieving the proposed 

limit even during periods with greater 

emissions formation. The proposed 

rulemaking states, ‘‘According to 2006 

to 2008 data from the facility, [the 

proposed limit] would require slightly 

under 60 percent control from St. Marys 

Cement’s 95th percentile 30-day average 

emission rate, which the evidence from 

tests at St. Marys Cement’s facility in 

Dixon, Illinois (SMC-Dixon) indicates is 

readily achievable, particularly since a 

limit of 2.30 lb per ton of clinker would 

only occasionally require this level of 

control.’’ 77 FR 46924. Conversely, at 

the 5th percentile of the 30-day average 

emission rates, or 3.5 lb per ton, the 

proposed limit would require only 

about 35 percent control. In this sense, 

EPA proposed a limit that would 

sometimes require about 60 percent 

control, sometimes require only about 

35 percent control, and on average 

require slightly less than 50 percent 

control. 

Thus, EPA considered the variability 

of baseline emissions but also 

considered the variability of control 

effectiveness in determining its 

proposed emission limit. Nevertheless, 

as discussed below, EPA is modifying 

its view of achievable control 

efficiencies and is modifying its 

approach for determining appropriate 

limits accordingly. 

Comment: ‘‘Although better 

performing than other old plants, 

unique Charlevoix design features 

increase NOX formation compared to the 

most modern kiln designs.’’ SMC 

discussed the ratio of the kiln length to 

kiln diameter at SMC-Charlevoix, as 

well as the need to operate the kiln in 

an oxidizing atmosphere to minimize 

the likelihood of formation and buildup 

of calcium sulfate. SMC concluded that 

these factors raise the amount of energy 

needed to produce a kilogram of clinker 

from about 800 kilocalories to about 930 

kilocalories, which raises expected NOX

emissions per ton of clinker. 

Response: Average NOX emissions at 

SMC-Charlevoix are about 4.5 lb per ton 

of clinker. According to the Compilation 

of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP– 

42), average emissions for a 

representative cement plant of the 

design of SMC-Charlevoix, i.e., a 

preheater/precalciner kiln, is 4.2 lb per 

ton of clinker. Thus, SMC-Charlevoix 

has very typical NOX emissions for a 

facility of its type. 

While it may be true that NOX

emissions at SMC-Charlevoix are 

slightly higher than those at newer 

plants, EPA is also setting a higher limit 

for SMC-Charlevoix than we have set for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71539 

2Normalized stoichiometric ratio expresses the 

ratio of the number of moles of ammonia equivalent 

to the pre-control number of moles of NOX. Each 

molecule of urea yields the equivalent of two 

molecules of ammonia. Thus, for example, if 0.6 

moles of urea (yielding 1.2 moles of ammonia) are 

injected per mole of NOX, NSR = 1.2. 

3 Joe Horton, Suwannee American Cement/ 

Votorantim Cimentos North America, Al Linero, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

and F. MacGregor Miller, Cement Etc., Inc, ‘‘SNCR 

Emission Control,’’ International Cement Review, 

August 2006. 

new cement plants. The new source 

performance standards for cement 

plants require NOX emission rates not to 

exceed 1.5 lb per ton of clinker. Were 

EPA to require similar rates for SMCCharlevoix, but allow for the 16 percent 

increase in heat input noted in the 

comment, EPA would be imposing an 

emission limit of 1.74 lb per ton of 

clinker, rather than the 30-day average 

limit of 2.8 lb per ton of clinker 

finalized in this rule. 

Comment: ‘‘EPA’s conclusion that 

SNCR will allow a 50 percent reduction 

in NOX emissions from the Charlevoix 

plant is incorrect because the plant’s 

design is incompatible with effective 

SNCR use.’’ SMC argued that the 

achievement of emission rates as low as 

2.3 lb per ton requires kiln design 

features ‘‘(e.g., proper kiln length to 

diameter dimensions and increased 

calciner retention time)’’ that are not 

present at SMC-Charlevoix. SMC 

provided a figure identifying 

temperatures and residence times at 

various locations within the kiln 

system, and concludes that ‘‘nowhere in 

the kiln riser or flash calciner regions of 

the system does the plant reach the 

optimum temperature profile to support 

an effective SNCR reaction.’’ SMC also 

found that the ‘‘residence time at 

Charlevoix is not adequate for use of 

SNCR.’’ SMC provided a graph entitled 

‘‘SNCR Efficiency based on Residence 

Time (Lab Trial).’’ SMC stated that at 

SMC-Charlevoix, ‘‘there is only a 0.11 

second retention time between the 

reagent injection point and the time the 

system reaches the low end of efficiency 

point for the SNCR reaction.’’ SMC 

further quotes EPA and other work 

suggesting that ‘‘larger plants had lower 

efficiencies than smaller sized plants.’’ 

SMC stated, ‘‘Actual test results 

demonstrate that SNCR will have only 

limited success in NOX control at 

Charlevoix.’’ SMC presented results of 

trial urea injections conducted in 2005 

to test the NOX reductions that an SNCR 

system might be expected to achieve. 

SMC described these tests as 

demonstrating that urea injection 

achieved less NOX reduction than 

expected. SMC provided results in a 

table that gives average NOX reduction 

percentages for four sets of tests, each 

conducted with urea injection at a 

different location in the kiln system and 

with a different urea injection rate. The 

table also gives urea injection rate in 

terms of the normalized stoichiometric 

ratio (NSR).2 ‘‘In one test run, [with an 

NSR equal to 1.07], the reduction was 

36.8 percent. * * * However, that was 

coupled with a significant amount of 

ammonia slip, based on the theoretical 

calculations from the NOX present. The 

time frames for this trial were short, 

roughly several 10 minute runs to 

consolidate the average, and thus SMC 

is not confident that these reductions 

are sustainable.’’ SMC provided a 

photograph that it considers to 

document excess ammonia (ammonia 

slip) appearing as a visible detached 

plume occurring at SMC-Charlevoix. 

SMC provided a report from DeNOX

Technologies describing the urea trials. 

SMC quoted from this report: 

‘‘Typically, NOX reduction at a NSR of 

1.0 is 40–60 percent; Charlevoix 

demonstrated 25–30 percent.’’ In 

addition, SMC stated, ‘‘DeNOX’s owner 

noted * * * that he had seen SNCR 

effectively solve NOX issues in multiple 

cement plants. However, he commented 

to SMC that he was amazed that SNCR 

is not as efficient in SMC’s system, and 

he believed it must be because of 

Charlevoix’s calciner design.’’ 

Response: EPA believes that the tests 

of SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix do not 

demonstrate that SNCR would be 

ineffective in reducing emissions, and 

in particular do not demonstrate that 

SMC could not meet the emission limits 

established in this final action. EPA 

notes that the tests SMC described were 

performed with urea rather than with 

ammonia, which is both more 

commonly used for this application and 

significantly more effective. 

SMC-Charlevoix’s test results were 

the subject of ‘‘SNCR emission control,’’ 

published in the August 2006 edition of 

the journal International Cement Review 

(the Horton article).3 The article 

presents NOX reductions resulting from 

urea injection at ‘‘Plant B,’’ which are 

the results found at SMC-Charlevoix. 

The article also includes contrasting 

results from testing at ‘‘Plant A,’’ a plant 

with the same type of design as SMCCharlevoix, demonstrating that NOX

reductions of more than 50 percent 

could be achieved with ammonia 

injection at an NSR as low as 0.56 (i.e., 

the injection of only 0.56 moles of 

ammonia per mole of NOX). The article 

includes a graph showing that use of 

ammonia achieves higher NOX

reductions than urea and has maximum 

efficiency at lower temperatures than 

urea. EPA views the 50 percent 

reduction at Plant A as more 

representative of the level of emission 

reduction that a properly designed and 

operated SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix 

could achieve. In fact, at the 

temperatures at SMC-Charlevoix cited 

by SMC, use of ammonia is expected to 

provide at least 40 percent more, and 

possibly greater than twice as much, 

NOX reduction as is expected from use 

of urea. Thus, while SMC’s concerns 

may apply to SNCR using urea, EPA 

believes that SMC can address these 

concerns by using ammonia. 

EPA also believes that the DeNOX

Technologies report cited by SMC 

demonstrates that SMC-Charlevoix can 

achieve significant NOX emission 

reductions even using urea. Table 1 

presents relevant information derived 

from the DeNOX Technologies report. 

During these trials, urea was injected at 

three locations: (1) After the kiln but 

before the tertiary air inlet, (2) in a duct 

after the tertiary air but before the 

precalciner, and (3) after the first stage 

of the preheater that is after the 

precalciner. In Table 1, the reduction 

per mole of reagent (ammonia 

equivalent) is computed by dividing the 

NOX reduction percentage by the NSR. 

TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS AT SMC-CHARLEVOIX FROM INJECTION OF UREA

Location Reagent rate 

(gph) NSR NOX reduction 

(percent) 

Reduction per 

mole reagent 

(percent) 

Before Tertiary Air ......................................................................................... 145 0.38 15.8 41.6 

Before Tertiary Air ......................................................................................... 314 .3 1.07 36.8 34.4 

After Tertiary Air ............................................................................................ 282 0.72 28.9 40.1 

After pre-calciner ........................................................................................... 180 .5 0.54 21.4 39.6 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

These results suggest the relationship 

between the quantity of reagent and the 

NOX reduction. Notably, as increasing 

amounts of urea are injected, the 

resulting NOX reductions increase 

correspondingly. Examined in terms of 

NOX reduction per mole of ammonia 

equivalent injected, while some loss of 

efficiency is expected, the efficiency of 

urea utilization even at the highest urea 

injection rate is similar to the efficiency 

of urea utilization at the lowest urea 

injection rate. These results also suggest 

that the control efficiency is similar 

across several urea injection locations. 

EPA believes that these tests 

demonstrate that SNCR at SMCCharlevoix as it is currently configured 

can readily achieve at least 30 to 37 

percent NOX reduction. As discussed 

above, EPA believes that use of 

ammonia would provide significantly 

greater control than was found in the 

tests at SMC-Charlevoix using urea. The 

tests, being short tests, by definition did 

not test the sustainability of control, but 

SMC provides no evidence that these 

short-term results could not also be 

achieved over longer periods. In 

addition to the change in reagent, SMC 

has a range of options for optimizing 

SNCR effectiveness and addressing the 

potential operational issues arising from 

SNCR use. These include: Use of facility 

design modifications that either reduce 

NOX emissions directly or facilitate use 

of SNCR or both; use of reagent injection 

both before and after the calciner; use of 

lime injection; adjustment of air flows; 

and other changes in operating 

characteristics. SMC in its written 

comments and in discussion during 

meetings with EPA did not address the 

option of using ammonia, either to 

dispute the feasibility of its use or to 

provide evidence regarding its 

effectiveness at SMC-Charlevoix. Since 

the tests at SMC-Charlevoix used urea 

and are not indicative of the NOX

reduction that can be achieved using 

ammonia, the most pertinent evidence 

regarding potential effectiveness of 

SNCR using ammonia is the results of 

tests at SMC-Dixon, corroborated by 

results of tests at ‘‘Plant A’’ in the 

Horton paper and elsewhere. This 

evidence indicates that the 50 percent 

NOX emission reduction required at 

other cement plants is also achievable at 

SMC-Charlevoix. 

The issues raised in SMC’s comments 

suggest that SMC may need more than 

three years to explore the various 

alternatives for reducing NOX emissions 

at SMC-Charlevoix. Therefore, EPA is 

promulgating a compliance deadline for 

SMC that is extended by one year from 

the compliance deadline that EPA 

proposed, requiring compliance within 

approximately four years from the date 

of this rulemaking. 

In response to this comment, EPA also 

reevaluated the appropriate NOX limits. 

While EPA proposed a limit based on 50 

percent control on average, effectively 

requiring 60 percent control when 

emission rates are at the 95th percentile 

level, EPA is promulgating a limit that 

will require only 50 percent control 

when emission rates are at the 95th 

percentile level. 

EPA proposed a single limit, based on 

a 30-day average. Reconsidering the 

basis for determining the level of the 

limit, in particular considering a limit 

based on the 95th percentile emission 

level rather than based on the mean 

emission level, requires reconsidering 

the form of the standard. Whereas the 

proposed limit was intended to require 

a reasonable degree of control at all 

times, a 30-day average limit derived 

from 95th percentile emissions would 

allow substantially less emission 

reduction on other occasions. For 

example, at SMC-Charlevoix, a limit 

requiring 50 percent reduction from 

95th percentile emissions would only 

require about 20 percent emission 

reduction at the 5th percentile emission 

level. 

BART reflects controlling emissions at 

all times, not just on occasions with 

elevated emissions. For this reason, 

along with a 30-day average emission 

limit, EPA is also promulgating a limit 

on 12-month average emissions. In this 

pair of limits, the 30-day average limit 

ensures that days with high baseline 

emissions are well controlled, and the 

12-month average limit ensures that 

BART control is achieved on days with 

lower baseline emissions as well. 

EPA used the most recent three years 

of emissions data available, from 2006 

to 2008, to compute 30-day averages and 

12-month averages. EPA is setting the 

30-day average limit as a daily-rolling 

average limit, based on values 

recomputed every operating day to 

include the most recent 30 operating 

days, and EPA is setting the 12-month 

average as a block average, based on 

values recomputed at the end of each 

calendar month to include the 

preceding 12 calendar months. EPA 

used these averaging approaches to 

determine the distribution of 30-day and 

12-month averages of NOX emissions 

during the 2006 to 2008 period. The 

95th percentiles among these sets of 

values (more precisely, 1.645 standard 

deviations above the means, calculated 

assuming a normal distribution) are a 

30-day average of 5.6 lb per ton of 

clinker and a 12-month average of 4.7 lb 

per ton of clinker. EPA is setting limits 

based on a 50 percent reduction from 

these values, which with rounding 

equal a 30-day average limit of 2.80 lb 

per ton of clinker and a 12-month 

average limit of 2.40 lb per ton of 

clinker. 

EPA had several reasons for selecting 

the 95th percentile of baseline 

emissions as the starting point for 

determining the limits. First, use of the 

95th percentile is an approach that EPA 

commonly uses in setting emission 

limits for similar sources in other 

contexts. For example, the consent 

decree for Lafarge Cement, which 

requires BART at Lafarge’s Alpena 

facility, mandates control at the 95th 

percentile level. That is, this approach 

is responsive to SMC’s concerns about 

EPA providing equity in its regulation of 

SMC and Lafarge. (Lafarge is also 

subject to both a 30-day average limit 

and a 12-month average limit.) Second, 

EPA considers the 95th percentile an 

appropriate compromise between 

setting the limit based on too low a 

percentile, which creates a higher 

percentage of time when the limit is 

more difficult to meet, and setting the 

limit based on too high a percentile, 

which too infrequently requires the 

company to achieve fully effective 

emission control. Third, EPA believes 

that the variability of the emission rates 

after control is likely to be less than the 

current variability. This is in part 

because the emission control can be 

operated in a manner that minimizes the 

difference in emission rates between the 

upper and the lower end of the 

distribution, in part because emissions 

control tends to be more effective when 

emission rates are higher, and in part 

because the limit will give the company 

incentive to use its knowledge about 

operating parameters that influence 

emission rates to minimize emissions on 

occasions with higher emission rates. 

Fourth, since emission rates above the 

95th percentile by definition rarely 

occur, any extra effort needed to achieve 

the limit on such occasions would 

rarely be needed. 

SMC cites the limit for a Holcim plant 

in Montana as precedent for basing a 

limit on an upper point on the 

distribution, and yet SMC recommends 

basing the limit for SMC-Charlevoix on 

a more extreme statistic than was used 

for Holcim in Montana. EPA set the 

NOX limit for Holcim by assuming a 58 

percent reduction from the 99th 

percentile of baseline emissions. In that 

case, EPA had limited information on 

emissions of the facility; in particular, 

EPA did not have information on 95th 

percentile emissions. SMC does not 

explain why it seeks the use of a more 

extreme statistic (supposedly the 99.7th 

percent, but in fact the 99.87th 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71541 

percentile), but the availability of more 

information allows EPA to use a more 

appropriate statistic (the 95th 

percentile) for SMC-Charlevoix. 

Comment: SMC stated that ‘‘ammonia 

slip is a likely result of use of SNCR at 

Charlevoix.’’ SMC quoted from EPA and 

the Portland Cement Association that 

use of SNCR under suboptimal 

conditions can result in unwanted 

ammonia emissions. 

Response: SMC does not demonstrate 

that proper use of SNCR at SMCCharlevoix would cause ammonia slip 

at problematic levels. The photo of a 

detached plume at SMC-Charlevoix 

provided by SMC in its comments does 

not demonstrate that ammonia 

concentrations in the plume were high, 

and SMC does not provide information 

about operating conditions at the time of 

the picture to be able to judge this and 

other potential explanations of a 

detached plume at the facility. A 

theoretical comparison of urea input to 

NOX levels does not establish the 

presence or absence of ammonia slip, 

because such an approach fails to 

consider other factors reducing 

ammonia levels such as oxidation. In 

addition, for reasons discussed in the 

Horton paper cited above, describing the 

relative merits of using ammonia rather 

than urea, evidence that ammonia slip 

occurred during injection of urea does 

not necessarily indicate that ammonia 

slip would occur with a properly 

designed and operated SNCR using 

ammonia. While SMC would have to 

design an SNCR system carefully to 

avoid causing excess ammonia 

emissions, many other cement plants 

have successfully implemented SNCR 

without ammonia slip problems, and 

SMC has provided no evidence that this 

would be a challenge that cannot be 

solved at SMC-Charlevoix. As discussed 

above, EPA anticipates that SMC will 

conduct a variety of trials to assess the 

most effective NOX control program, 

and EPA anticipates that one of the 

parameters to be addressed in these 

trials is to avoid emitting excess 

ammonia. 

Comment: SMC stated that the ‘‘size 

of Charlevoix reduces its ability to 

control NOX using SNCR.’’ SMC quoted 

an EPA report regarding NOX control at 

coal-fired electric utility boilers stating 

that ‘‘whereas smaller boilers may be 

able to achieve >60 percent NOX

reduction, larger boilers may be capable 

of achieving reductions of only ∼30 

percent.’’ SMC comments that a study of 

cement kilns also noted a ‘‘correlation 

between plant size and reduction 

efficiency.’’ SMC provided a graph 

labeled ‘‘SNCR Test Results based on 

Capacity.’’ SMC concludes that SMCCharlevoix ‘‘should not be expected to 

have NOX reduction efficiencies of the 

smaller plants.’’ 

Response: SMC does not clarify its 

size in relation to the other facilities 

addressed in these studies. Since SMCCharlevoix has lower heat input than 

many electric utility boilers, this 

comment would seem to suggest that 

SMC should be able to achieve the 

higher rather than the lower end of the 

range of utility boiler control 

efficiencies. The graph addressing 

cement plants that SMC provided is 

illegible, and so it is indeterminable 

from this graph how the size of SMCCharlevoix compares to the size of other 

cement plants tested. 

However, EPA also examined the size 

of SMC-Charlevoix relative to the size of 

cement plants that have been subject to 

best available control technology 

determinations for new sources or major 

modifications in the last 6 years. These 

facilities have capacities quite similar to 

the capacity of SMC-Charlevoix. As seen 

in the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse, these facilities were 

typically issued permits that allowed 

1.95 lb of NOX emissions per ton of 

clinker. Thus, even if smaller facilities 

are capable of even better NOX control, 

this evidence makes clear that the size 

of SMC-Charlevoix should not prevent 

SMC from achieving the level of control 

that EPA proposed to require. 

Comment: SMC submitted several 

comments regarding the second factor to 

be considered in determining BART, 

namely the costs of compliance. The 

first of these comments reflected 

concerns about material buildup 

exacerbated by injection of urea and the 

costs that SMC would face in addressing 

that problem. SMC commented ‘‘Both 

SMC and EPA recognize that there are 

potential solutions [to this problem.] 

* * * The most effective solution is an 

extensive modification to the flash 

calciner including geometry changes to 

the process ductwork.’’ SMC estimated 

that a new in-line calciner would cost 

$18,000,000. SMC also discussed a 

second option in which SMC uses its 

existing kiln system configuration. In 

conjunction with criticism of EPA’s cost 

estimates, SMC provided its own cost 

estimates for these two options. 

Response: EPA agrees that SMC has 

multiple options for implementing 

SNCR in a way that is both effective in 

reducing NOX emissions and workable 

in avoiding operational problems such 

as material buildup and ammonia slip. 

In addition to the option of a new inline calciner and an option with the 

existing equipment using urea in the 

existing SNCR, other options include 

using ammonia with existing plant 

equipment and making other changes to 

improve flue gas chemistry. In addition 

to these four options, EPA believes that 

SMC has numerous variables that it can 

adjust and design features it can modify 

to maximize control efficiency and 

minimize NOX emissions. 

Specifically concerning material 

buildup, the Horton paper cited above 

provides useful insights from 

comparison of SNCR use at various 

cement plants. The article observes that 

urea decomposes into carbon moNOXide 

(CO) as well as ammonia, documents 

spikes in CO concentrations following 

urea injection, and evaluates the 

consequences of this CO. The article 

notes the propensity of the CO to 

consume hydroxyl radical that 

otherwise would help reduce nitric 

oxide to elemental nitrogen. The article 

concludes that urea is less effective in 

reducing NOX than ammonia at the 

temperatures found at SMC-Charlevoix. 

Further, CO from urea decomposition 

may well cause localized reducing 

environments, potentially causing sulfur 

volatilization, which in turn could 

cause the buildup of sulfates that could 

form material buildup within the kiln 

system. That is, injecting urea may be 

more prone to cause buildup problems 

than injecting ammonia. Many other 

cement plants with similar SO2

emissions have successfully operated 

SNCR without significant material 

buildup issues, and EPA believes that 

SMC too can find appropriate 

operational approaches (presumably 

involving use of ammonia as the NOX

reducing reagent) that will provide 

successful NOX control without 

significant material buildup issues. 

Comment: SMC commented that 

installation of a new in-line calciner 

would be a redesign of the facility that 

is not intended to satisfy BART. SMC 

quotes EPA’s BART guidance: ‘‘We do 

not consider BART as a requirement to 

redesign the source when considering 

available control alternatives. For 

example, where the source subject to 

BART is a coal-fired electric generator, 

we do not require the BART analysis to 

consider building a natural gas-fired 

electric turbine. * * * ’’ 

Response: EPA is not requiring any 

particular kiln system design at SMCCharlevoix, nor does EPA believe that 

the limit it proposed indirectly 

mandates any particular design. EPA is 

promulgating limits that EPA believes 

SMC can meet in several ways. EPA is 

merely observing that replacement of 

the pre-calciner is one of several options 

SMC may choose to employ to meet the 

limits that EPA is promulgating. 

SMC-Charlevoix currently has a precalciner, and so EPA does not view the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4The existing SNCR was installed to provide an 

option to meet State limits on ozone-season NOX

emissions. However, SMC asserts that it is able to 

meet the State limits without operating the SNCR, 

and EPA understands that SMC rarely if ever 

operates the SNCR, so that the SNCR has no 

significant effect on current emissions. 

5SMC’s approach also resembles the approach 

recommended for several other control devices. 

Nevertheless, for simplicity, SMC’s approach may 

be labeled the gas absorber approach. 

modification of the facility to replace 

the existing pre-calciner with an 

improved pre-calciner, in conjunction 

with changes in air flow to reduce the 

likelihood of material buildup, as a 

‘‘redesign’’ of the source. Indeed, unlike 

the example SMC cites, the replacement 

of the pre-calciner at SMC-Charlevoix 

would not change the fundamental 

design of the facility. Similarly, SMC 

may need to replace its SNCR system to 

meet EPA’s limit, but EPA does not 

consider this to change the fundamental 

design of the facility either.4 Both before 

and after the modification, the facility 

would be described as a preheater/precalciner type Portland cement plant. 

SMC, in evaluating how best to meet 

BART limits, may in fact decide that the 

replacement of its calciner and 

associated air flow changes, would be 

‘‘the most effective solution’’ to 

‘‘improve NOX control and address the 

buildup problem.’’ Indeed, as discussed 

below, EPA developed cost estimates 

predicated on SMC installing both a 

replacement calciner and a new SNCR. 

Nevertheless, as SMC implicitly 

concedes, other approaches may also 

suffice for effective operation with 

SNCR. Again, EPA expects that its 

proposed limit will require installation 

and operation of a SNCR system and 

some set of modifications to 

accommodate the system and maintain 

efficient and effective operation, but 

EPA does not believe that its proposed 

limit requires any fundamental redesign 

of SMC-Charlevoix. 

Comment: SMC criticized EPA’s 

estimated number of hours that heat 

input to the urea storage and handling 

system would be needed to assure that 

its urea would not crystallize, which 

SMC asserts would occur at 48° F. SMC 

objected to EPA’s estimate that the 

‘‘cooler season’’ includes 4,000 hours 

requiring heating; SMC asserts that 

review of local meteorological data finds 

that ‘‘heat input would be required 

6,750 hours.’’ 

Response: EPA conducted its own 

analysis of Charlevoix meteorological 

data, available from the web site of the 

MDEQ. EPA’s analysis considered 

actual heating needs each hour, 

reflecting the fact that an hour at 40° F, 

for example, would require less heating 

than an hour at 20° F. That is, EPA 

evaluated a heating degree hour metric, 

rather than SMC’s simpler metric of the 

number of hours requiring heating. 

EPA reviewed the most recent three 

years of data provided, i.e., 2008 to 

2010. EPA examined the number of days 

below 50° F. EPA’s analysis assumed 

that SMC’s envisioned 100 kW heating 

system would suffice down to -30° F, 

and that warmer days would require 

proportionately less electricity. This 

analysis found an average of 4,900 hours 

per year below 50° F, and an average 

temperature among those hours of 31° F. 

That is, the average heating needs 

among those hours is to achieve a 

temperature 19° F above ambient 

temperature. At the company-estimated 

cost of $0.0732 per kilowatt-hour of 

electricity, this translates to an 

estimated electricity cost of $8,600 per 

year. 

Comment: SMC commented on the 

expected lifetime of SMC-Charlevoix. 

‘‘SMC maintains that the EPA air 

pollution cost control manual allows for 

a 10 year equipment life schedule and 

that this would more closely match 

SMC’s short and long-term plans.’’ 

Consequently, SMC implicitly 

recommended amortizing capital costs 

of control equipment over 10 years 

rather than 15 or 20 years. 

Response: The EPA Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual states at page 1–37, 

‘‘an economic lifetime of 20 years is 

assumed for the SNCR system.’’ A 

shorter amortization period would be 

appropriate only if SMC provided 

persuasive evidence that it will be 

shutting down its facility sooner. SMC 

has provided no such evidence. In 

particular, SMC does not appear to be 

subject to any enforceable orders to shut 

down within that period, nor has SMC 

expressed a desire to become subject to 

such an order. To the contrary, SMC has 

been investing in emission control and 

applied for a permit for other plant 

improvements (though SMC cancelled 

the project), suggesting that SMC 

expects its Charlevoix facility to be 

operating well more than 10 years into 

the future. Therefore, the most 

appropriate amortization period for 

capital costs of SNCR at SMCCharlevoix is 20 years. 

Comment: SMC objected to EPA’s 

urea cost estimates. SMC conceded that 

$450 is the cost per ton of (undiluted) 

urea at the Gulf of Mexico, but SMC 

provided a vendor quote to indicate a 

price per gallon in Michigan, equivalent 

to $814 per ton of actual urea ($366/ton 

of 45 percent solution). 

Response: EPA asked the Institute of 

Clean Air Companies about urea prices 

and received a reply from a 

representative of Fuel Tech, Inc., a urea 

supplier. Fuel Tech replied that 

companies have the option to purchase 

pure, dry urea, at a price of $400 to $500 

per ton, which the company could mix 

with water (using purchased mixing 

equipment) before use, but companies 

normally purchase 50 percent urea from 

a supplier. Fuel Tech quoted a price 

range for 50 percent urea solution in 

Central Michigan of $1.60 to $1.80 per 

gallon. The upper end of this range 

equates to about $758 per ton of urea. 

EPA has adjusted its urea-based cost 

estimates (discussed below) to use this 

urea cost. However, use of ammonia is 

cheaper and more effective, so the cost 

of urea was not a significant factor in 

EPA’s evaluation of the cost 

effectiveness of SNCR. 

Comment: As noted above, SMC 

provided cost-effectiveness estimates for 

an option that may be labeled a 

‘‘replacement pre-calciner’’ option and 

for an option that may be labeled an 

‘‘existing equipment’’ option. These 

estimates were that NOX emission 

reduction would cost $6,767 and $6,249 

per ton, respectively, which SMC 

considers too expensive to be found to 

be BART. 

Response: SMC’s estimates include a 

number of elements that SMC includes 

without comment that nevertheless 

warrant review. SMC’s cost estimates 

include a number of ancillary costs 

ostensibly related to installation of a 

purchased SNCR, including 

instrumentation, freight, foundations 

and supports, handling and erection, 

electrical equipment, piping, insulation, 

painting, engineering, construction and 

field expenses, contractor fees, start-up 

costs, performance test costs, and 

contingencies. These cost estimates are 

substantial, adding up to more than 150 

percent of the purchased equipment 

cost, i.e. yielding a total capital cost that 

is more than two and a half times the 

cost of the equipment itself. 

While SMC cites the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual as the 

basis for these cost estimates, SMC used 

an inappropriate method from this 

manual. The EPA Air Pollution Control 

Cost Manual recommends different cost 

estimation approaches for different 

types of control devices, and SMC 

appears to have used the approach 

recommended for estimating costs of gas 

absorbers 5 rather than the approach 

recommended for SNCR. The approach 

recommended in the EPA Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual for estimating costs 

of SNCR does not include all the costs 

listed above for gas absorbers. Instead, 

the Control Cost Manual recommends 

assuming only the following costs: A 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71543 

6The molecular weight of urea is 60. Each 

molecule of urea yields two molecules of ammonia. 

Therefore, 30 pounds of urea yields one poundmole of ammonia. That is, 30 pounds of urea is one 

pound-mole of ammonia equivalent. 

general facilities cost (5 percent of 

SNCR purchase cost), engineering and 

home office fees (10 percent), process 

contingency cost (5 percent), project 

contingency (15 percent of installed 

cost), pre-production cost (2 percent of 

total plant cost), and inventory cost 

(cost of two weeks of reagent). These 

costs are estimated to add about 42 

percent to the purchase cost of the 

SNCR. Thus, the cost estimation 

approach used by SMC significantly 

overestimates SNCR installation costs. 

In using the cost estimation approach 

recommended for gas absorbers rather 

than the approach recommended for 

SNCR, SMC has also overestimated the 

annual cost of operating SNCR. Most 

significantly, as EPA noted in its 

proposed rulemaking notice, EPA 

recommends assuming that overhead for 

operating SNCR is negligible, unlike the 

60 percent of labor and materials that 

the Control Cost Manual recommends 

for gas absorbers. Similarly, the Control 

Cost Manual recommends assuming 

administrative charges and insurance 

for SNCR (unlike for gas absorbers) are 

also negligible. This results in a 

significant difference in cost estimates: 

For the replacement pre-calciner option, 

for example, SMC estimates the sum of 

overhead, administrative charges, and 

insurance to be $4,397,697, whereas 

EPA finds these costs to be negligible. 

In addition, SMC inappropriately 

assumes that the multipliers used to 

estimate ancillary costs associated with 

installation of emission control systems 

based on emission control equipment 

purchase costs may also be applied to 

modifications of SMC’s kiln system 

such as replacement of its pre-calciner. 

SMC provides no justification for 

applying these SNCR-related multipliers 

to the cost of a replacement pre-calciner, 

and EPA believes that installation of a 

replacement pre-calciner would not 

require such costs. 

In many respects, the cost estimates 

EPA provided in its notice of proposed 

rulemaking also mistakenly used the gas 

absorber approach to estimate costs. 

Thus, EPA’s proposed rule also 

substantially overestimated the costs of 

SNCR. An exception concerns overhead 

costs: The gas absorber approach 

recommends significant costs, but the 

notice of proposed rulemaking observed 

that the SNCR approach in the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual 

recommends assuming that overhead 

costs are negligible. (SMC neglected this 

observation and continued in its 

comments to estimate substantial, 

unjustified overhead costs.) 

For this final rule, the primary basis 

of EPA’s views on the cost effectiveness 

of SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix are revised 

cost estimates derived according to the 

approach recommended in the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual for 

estimating costs of SNCR. Nevertheless, 

EPA for this final rule also prepared cost 

estimates using an approach that was 

similar to the approach used in its 

proposed rule. This approach resembled 

the gas absorber approach, except that 

the approach assumed negligible 

overhead costs, which the notice of 

proposed rulemaking observed is the 

recommended assumption for SNCR. 

These estimates assumed the use of 

ammonia as the reagent, based on 

information indicating that urea is a less 

effective reagent. While EPA believes 

this approach overstates likely costs, 

insofar as it includes significant 

estimated installation costs that should 

not be assumed to apply to SNCR 

installations, these cost estimates 

nevertheless provide further perspective 

on the likely cost effectiveness of SNCR 

at SMC-Charlevoix. 

SMC is currently equipped with an 

SNCR system. SMC nevertheless 

includes the cost of new SNCR 

equipment (estimated as $1,371,630) in 

all of its cost estimates. SMC did not 

explain why it would be unable to use 

the existing equipment, except to say 

that $400,000 of the costs would 

provide for winter storage of reagent. 

One possibility is that the remaining 

$971,630 would be necessary to 

purchase a system that works more 

effectively than the system that is 

currently installed. Another possibility 

is that SMC will incur no such expense. 

EPA has evaluated cost effectiveness for 

both possibilities, to assess the range of 

cost effectiveness according to whether 

replacement SNCR equipment is 

necessary. 

A significant factor affecting the cost 

of SNCR is the quantity of reagent 

needed to achieve the expected 

emission reduction. The BART review 

that SMC provided to Michigan 

assumed that 180 gallons per hour of 40 

percent urea solution, costing $1.06 per 

gallon, would be used for 8,000 hours 

and would reduce NOX emissions by 

524 tons per year. Assuming 9.5 lb per 

gallon of urea solution, this translates to 

an estimate that 182,400 pound-moles of 

ammonia-equivalent 6 would be needed 

to achieve a reduction of 22,800 poundmoles of NOX, i.e., that each mole of 

ammonia-equivalent achieves only 

0.125 moles of NOX reduction. This 

efficiency is less than one third of the 

efficiency shown in the DeNOX

Technology trials discussed above. 

For all of its reagent cost estimates, 

EPA estimated reagent usage according 

to the targeted NOX reduction and the 

expected amount of reagent needed per 

mole of NOX reduction. EPA’s expected 

NOX reduction for both the replacement 

calciner option and the existing system 

option differs substantially from SMC’s 

values. SMC apparently used a peak 

allowable baseline (pre-control) NOX

emission rate (5,741 tons per year), 

whereas EPA used a 2006 to 2008 

average actual baseline rate (2,518 tons 

per year). 

Based on comments regarding 

inefficient control at SMC-Charlevoix 

using urea, most of EPA’s cost 

effectiveness estimates were based on 

the use of ammonia, though a few 

estimates were based on the use of urea. 

As discussed above, EPA assumed a 

urea cost of $758 per ton of urea. Based 

on information provided by Fuel Tech, 

EPA assumed an ammonia cost of $600 

per ton. 

EPA then estimated reagent usage 

according to various estimates of the 

quantity of NOX reduced per mole of 

injected or created ammonia. One of 

these estimates used the results of the 

tests conducted at SMC-Dixon, in which 

injection of reagent at an NSR of 0.62 

sufficed to reduce NOX emissions by 50 

percent. These results suggest the need 

for greater use of reagent than is 

indicated in test results at ‘‘Plant A’’ in 

the Horton paper, which indicates on 

average that the NOX reduction is 92 

percent of the amount of ammonia 

injection, so that an NSR of 0.54 would 

suffice to reduce NOX emissions by 50 

percent. Another estimate used the 

average of the tests at SMC-Charlevoix 

using urea, i.e., that the number of 

moles of NOX reduced is 40 percent of 

the number of moles of ammonia that 

the injected urea creates. 

Table 2 shows cost effectiveness 

estimates for an option in which SMC 

uses largely its existing configuration 

and injects ammonia. This option is 

assumed at most to have only minor 

modifications, except for installation of 

a replacement SNCR system and except 

for installation of ammonia storage 

equipment, which is assumed to have 

the same cost as SMC’s estimate for urea 

winter storage equipment. This table 

assumes the effectiveness of ammonia 

found at SMC-Dixon. This table assumes 

that sufficient ammonia is added to 

achieve a 12-month average limit of 2.40 

lb per ton of clinker (the limit in the 

final FIP), which is estimated on average 

to require a 47 percent emission 

reduction, a reduction from baseline 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

NOX emission levels of 1182 tons per 

year. 

TABLE 2—COST EFFECTIVENESS USING AMMONIA WITH EXISTING CONFIGURATION

[With replacement of the SNCR system] 

Capital costs Percent Cost Notes 

SNCR ........................................................................................................................... ................ $1,371,630 Includes winterizing cost. 

General facilities ........................................................................................................... 5 68,582 

Engineering .................................................................................................................. 10 137,163 

Process contingency .................................................................................................... 5 68,582

Project contingency ...................................................................................................... 15 246,893 

Subtotal SNCR ...................................................................................................... ................ 1,892,849 

Preproduction ............................................................................................................... 2 37,857 

Ammonia inventory ...................................................................................................... ................ 12,465 2 weeks inventory. 

Total Capital cost ........................................................................................... ................ 1,943,171 

Annual costs: 

Ammonia ............................................................................................................... ................ 324,970 

Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 1.5 28,393

Electricity ............................................................................................................... ................ 8,600 

Power loss ............................................................................................................ ................ 16,427 

Total direct Annual ......................................................................................... ................ 378,389 

Capital recovery ............................................................................................. ................ 183,435 Amortizes over 20 years. 

Total ............................................................................................................... ................ 561,825 

Cost per ton .......................................................................................................... ................ 475 Reduction is 1182 tons/yr. 

This cost effectiveness estimate in 

Table 2 assumes that SMC will need to 

replace its existing SNCR. Alternatively, 

EPA estimated cost effectiveness for the 

possibility that SMC will be able to use 

its existing SNCR. This evaluation 

assumed the same estimate of ancillary 

costs (e.g., general facilities costs, 

engineering, and contingency costs) as 

are shown in Table 2 but assumed that 

the equipment purchase cost would 

only be $400,000 for a reagent winter 

storage system. This resulted in a cost 

effectiveness estimate of $398 per ton of 

NOX, somewhat below the $475 per ton 

of NOX estimated assuming the need for 

a replacement SNCR. 

Although EPA, consistent with the 

Horton paper, believes that ammonia 

would be considerably more efficient at 

reducing NOX than urea, EPA also 

estimated ammonia costs assuming that 

SMC achieved the same efficiency with 

ammonia as it achieved with urea. 

Specifically, these cost estimates 

assumed that each mole of ammonia 

reduced 0.4 moles of NOX. To achieve 

a reduction of 1182 tons per year, this 

resulted in an estimate that ammonia 

costs would be $655,181, leading to a 

total annualized cost of $893,032, or 

$756 per ton of NOX reduced. 

These estimates reflect considerably 

less expense for using ammonia than for 

using urea. This is partly because 

ammonia is likely to be more effective, 

but this is also because ammonia is 

somewhat cheaper per ton and because 

the ammonia content of a ton of 

ammonia is almost twice the amount of 

ammonia yielded by a ton of urea. For 

the plant as currently configured, EPA 

did not estimate costs using urea. 

A second set of scenarios EPA 

evaluated reflect an option noted by 

SMC involving replacing the precalciner, which would provide 

conditions more suitable for use of urea 

for reducing NOX emissions. SMC 

estimated that this replacement would 

cost $18,000,000. Although SMC does 

not document the basis for this estimate, 

EPA nevertheless used SMC’s estimate 

of this cost. EPA viewed this as an 

estimate of total installed cost. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the typical 

approach in the EPA Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual, starting with the 

cost of purchasing control equipment 

and adding multipliers to account for 

various installation costs, would double 

count these installation costs. 

Arguably, much of the cost of 

replacing the pre-calciner at SMCCharlevoix would be offset by savings to 

the company through more efficient 

operation and ability to use cheaper 

fuels. Indeed, the fact that SMC applied 

for and received a permit to replace its 

pre-calciner but then cancelled the 

permit suggests that the company 

believed that this replacement would 

have had benefits that mostly but not 

entirely would have offset the costs of 

its implementation. To address this 

issue, EPA evaluated cost effectiveness 

both for a scenario in which none of the 

costs of a replacement pre-calciner are 

offset and for a scenario in which all of 

the costs are offset, in order to evaluate 

the range of cost effectiveness estimates 

according to the range of possible 

degrees to which the costs of a 

replacement pre-calciner would be 

offset by economic benefits to SMC. 

EPA estimated costs both for the use of 

ammonia and for the use of urea. EPA 

agrees with SMC’s view that a 

redesigned pre-calciner would address 

the issues that SMC asserts make urea 

usage problematic under the current 

plant design, and so EPA’s cost 

estimates for this option assumed that 

NOX removal efficiency under this 

option would match that found at SMCDixon. 

The resulting estimates were that the 

option using a replaced pre-calciner, 

with no cost offset, would cost $2,252 

per ton of NOX removed using urea and 

$1,901 per ton using ammonia. With a 

full cost offset, using urea as the reagent, 

the cost was estimated to be $815 per 

ton of NOX removed. The derivation of 

these estimates is shown in more detail 

in a technical support document for this 

rulemaking. 

SMC’s comments indicate that the 

replacement calciner will improve the 

efficiency of SMC-Charlevoix and 

reduce the baseline NOX emission rate 

to 3.9 lb per ton of clinker. This suggests 

that achievement of a limit of 2.4 lb per 

ton of clinker on average would require 

about a 40 percent NOX emission 

reduction rather than about a 50 percent 

reduction, requiring correspondingly 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71545 

less reagent. EPA estimated reagent 

costs accordingly, yielding an estimate 

of $1,835 per ton of NOX removed using 

ammonia as the reagent. 

As discussed above, EPA believes that 

SMC has a variety of options for meeting 

the limits EPA is promulgating. Thus, 

EPA prepared additional cost estimates 

reflecting other scenarios that may be 

associated with achievement of the 

limits EPA is promulgating. One 

scenario involves various physical 

changes to the plant to facilitate use of 

SNCR, such as straightening flows to 

minimize the likelihood of problems 

from material buildup. EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking reflected consideration of 

such an option, and SMC’s comments 

include cost estimates for such an 

option as well. EPA and SMC assumed 

that these physical changes would 

require a capital expenditure equal to 

half the cost of the SNCR plus the urea 

winter storage system. (SMC 

commented that this cost estimate was 

unjustified, but SMC used this estimate 

nevertheless, and EPA believes that this 

cost estimate provides a useful 

indication of whether control options 

that involve varying degrees of plant 

modifications would be cost effective.) 

As proposed by SMC, the cost estimates 

for this scenario also assumed that the 

use of SNCR would result in the need 

for two additional days of shutdown to 

address material buildup, costing SMC 

$387,200 of production. As noted above, 

EPA believes that SMC can implement 

SNCR at SMC-Charlevoix without 

significant material buildup or 

production loss, particularly if it uses 

ammonia as the reagent, to achieve the 

successful SNCR operation that other 

companies have achieved. However, 

EPA prepared this estimate to assess 

whether such production loss would 

significantly alter the cost effectiveness 

of SNCR use. Finally, while this 

scenario could involve use of either urea 

or ammonia, EPA estimated costs for 

this scenario using ammonia because 

available evidence suggests that the 

promulgated emission limits are most 

likely to be met using ammonia. To 

obtain conservative cost estimates, EPA 

assumed the NOX removal efficiency 

found in the DeNOX Technologies tests 

at SMC-Charlevoix, even though EPA 

expects SMC to be able to achieve better 

efficiency through use of ammonia. As 

discussed in the technical support 

document, EPA estimated that this 

scenario would cost $1,138 per ton of 

NOX removed. 

Another scenario EPA examined 

involved lime injection. Material 

buildup is a function of the chemistry 

of the gases within the kiln system, and 

one option for addressing material 

buildup may be to inject lime at an 

appropriate point to minimize the sulfur 

concentration in the gases, to reduce the 

potential for sulfate formation. SMC has 

provided material to EPA suggesting 

that it already operates a bypass system 

to achieve this purpose. Nevertheless, 

EPA believes that it may be helpful to 

supplement this bypass system with 

lime injection, and in any case the costs 

for a scenario involving lime injection 

may be viewed as a representation of 

likely costs for a broad range of options 

(including, for example, the use of 

additional excess air) that may be 

warranted for optimizing gas chemistry 

to optimize SNCR effectiveness. This 

scenario involved capital costs of 

$300,000 to install a lime injection 

system and an annual cost of $300,000 

for lime. (To the extent that SMC could 

use lime it produces itself without loss 

of production, the annual cost could be 

considerably lower.) Again, to obtain 

conservative cost estimates, EPA made 

these estimates assuming the NOX

reduction efficiency found in the 

DeNOX Technologies tests, even though 

EPA anticipates that SMC will be able 

to obtain better efficiency. The resulting 

estimate, based on the use of ammonia, 

was that annualized costs would be 

$1,034 per ton of NOX removed. 

In discussions between SMC and 

EPA, SMC raised the possibility that it 

could achieve 10 percent reduction of 

NOX emissions through facility 

modifications and operational changes. 

These might include mid-kiln firing, 

other burner changes, water 

suppression, tire firing, and other 

changes that might reduce NOX

formation. EPA did not attempt to 

estimate the costs of these approaches. 

Nevertheless, these approaches 

constitute additional options that SMC 

has to achieve the limits that EPA is 

promulgating. Some of these approaches 

may well be cheaper for SMC to 

implement than SNCR, in which case 

the use of the approaches would allow 

SMC to reduce NOX more cost 

effectively. 

As noted above, the cost effectiveness 

estimates underlying EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking in most respects reflected 

the method recommended in the EPA 

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual for 

estimating costs of gas absorbers. The 

technical support document describes 

two cost estimates using this method, 

reflecting the efficiency found at SMCDixon and the efficiency found using 

urea at SMC-Charlevoix, respectively. 

Both cost estimates amortize capital 

costs over 20 years, both use ammonia 

as the reagent, and both assume that 

new SNCR equipment will be needed. 

These resulting cost effectiveness 

estimates were $720 and $999 per ton of 

NOX removed, respectively. Thus, using 

the gas absorber method, like using the 

more appropriate SNCR method, leads 

to the conclusion that control using 

SNCR is cost effective. 

Comment: SMC stated, ‘‘The 

economic impact of EPA’s proposed 

NOX limit would be devastating to 

northern Michigan.’’ SMC cited 

statistics regarding the employment and 

taxes paid by SMC-Charlevoix. SMC 

commented on the fragile economy. ‘‘In 

particular, the cement industry has been 

hit hard.’’ SMC noted that it ‘‘was forced 

to shift production from its Dixon, 

Illinois facility to Charlevoix * * * to 

make a return on its investment.’’ SMC 

raised the possibility of SMC 

suspending or ceasing operations in 

Charlevoix, and comments on the 

devastating effect this would have on 

the northern Michigan economy. 

Response: EPA has thoroughly 

considered the expected costs of several 

available options for controlling NOX at 

SMC, evaluating SMC’s estimates and 

information we gathered from vendors 

and analyses performed for other 

comparable facilities. SMC has not 

justified a statement that implementing 

a set of controls that many other 

facilities are currently implementing, 

and incurring the costs to do so, would 

make SMC-Charlevoix unprofitable to 

operate or otherwise cause SMC to 

suspend or cease operations. EPA 

believes further that the costs of control 

would be considerably lower than SMC 

estimates. EPA does not believe that 

meeting the BART limits in the FIP 

would lead to the shutdown of SMCCharlevoix. 

Comment: SMC cited a third factor in 

determining BART, namely the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance. SMC 

commented that addition of urea would 

cause ammonia slip. 

Response: As stated above, SMC has 

not demonstrated that ammonia slip 

would be a problem at SMC-Charlevoix. 

Numerous cement plants are 

successfully operating SNCR in a 

manner that does not cause significant 

ammonia slip, and EPA believes that 

SMC would be able to operate SMCCharlevoix in a manner that avoids 

significant ammonia slip as well. 

Comment: SMC cited a fourth factor 

in determining BART, namely any 

pollution control equipment in use or in 

existence at the source. SMC noted that 

it has ‘‘purchased and installed a state 

of the art fabric filter baghouse and has 

installed an Indirect Fire system which 

includes low NOX burners.’’ 

Response: EPA recognizes the 

presence of these control systems. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Indeed, the indirect fire system 

facilitates the achievement of lower 

NOX emissions, and EPA believes that 

this system in combination with SNCR 

is necessary to achieve the BART 

emission limit that EPA proposed. 

Given the availability and costs 

effectiveness of additional NOX

controls, however, these existing 

controls alone do not meet the BART 

requirement. 

Comment: SMC cited a fifth factor in 

determining BART, namely the 

remaining useful life of the source. SMC 

repeated its statement, addressed above, 

that the EPA Control Cost Manual 

allows for 10 year equipment life 

schedules which more closely match 

SMC’s short- and long-term plans. 

Response: EPA has addressed this 

comment above. The consolidation of 

cement production at SMC-Charlevoix, 

mentioned in SMC’s comments, further 

suggests that SMC-Charlevoix is 

unlikely to be shut down in 10 years. 

Comment: SMC commented, ‘‘EPA is 

not empowered to substitute its 

judgment for that of the State of 

Michigan as to the appropriate BART 

limit.’’ 

Response: The Clean Air Act gives 

EPA the authority and responsibility to 

determine whether Michigan has met 

the applicable requirements. In selected 

circumstances, such as apply here, if the 

state plan does not meet the 

requirements, the Clean Air Act does 

empower EPA to promulgate limits in 

lieu of those proposed by the state. 

Further discussion of this topic is 

provided in response to a similar 

comment by Michigan. As noted above, 

however, EPA prefers SIPs to FIPs, and 

will work with Michigan if it wants to 

submit a SIP to replace the FIP. 

Comment: SMC cited a sixth factor in 

determining BART, namely the degree 

of improvement in visibility that a 

control option would yield. SMC did 

not dispute EPA’s estimate of the benefit 

of SNCR but argues that a reduction of 

permitted emission levels would yield 

greater visibility benefits. 

SMC ‘‘proposes to reduce its 

permitted emission levels to meet a 30- 

day rolling average limit for NOX of 4.85 

[lb per ton, which] represents a 25 

percent reduction in potential NOX

emissions.’’ SMC also ‘‘proposes that it 

meet a 30-day rolling average limit for 

SO2 of 7.5 [lb per ton, which] represents 

a 16 percent reduction in potential SO2

emissions.’’ Finally, ‘‘SMC proposes a 

cap on its clinker production,’’ 

representing ‘‘a 9.4 percent reduction 

from its current maximum.’’ 

SMC conducted CALPUFF modeling 

to assess the visibility improvement 

associated with its proposed reduction 

in permitted emissions. ‘‘The results 

show an improvement of 1.6 dv at 

Seney, which is significantly better than 

the 0.4 dv improvement EPA projected 

would be achieved with its proposed 

NOX limit.’’ 

Response: SMC proposes a reduction 

in permitted emissions, but its proposed 

limits would only require minimal 

actual emission reductions. According 

to emissions data for 2006 to 2008, 

which is the most recent detailed data 

that SMC has provided to EPA, most 30- 

day average emission levels are well 

below SMC’s proposed limit. For the 

occasions in 2006 to 2008 in which the 

30-day averages exceeded 4.85 lb per 

ton of clinker, the emission reductions 

that would have been needed to meet 

this limit are only about 3 percent of 

annual total emissions. EPA’s proposed 

SO2 limit, which SMC proposes to apply 

on a 30-day average basis, expressly 

requires no actual emission reductions. 

SMC’s proposed production cap is well 

above 2006 to 2008 production levels, 

and thus also would require no actual 

emission reductions. 

In contrast, EPA proposed a limit that 

would require approximately a 50 

percent reduction in actual NOX

emissions. EPA’s assessment of the 

visibility benefits of BART was based on 

projected actual emission reductions. A 

comparable analysis of SMC’s proposal 

would find no reductions and thus no 

benefits for the SO2 limit or the 

production cap. SMC’s proposal is 

estimated to require about a 3 percent 

NOX emission reduction, compared to 

EPA’s approximately 50 percent, and so 

an assessment using EPA’s methodology 

would likely estimate a real visibility 

benefit of about 0.02 dv. 

SMC does not explain why its 

proposal, which clearly requires less 

emission reduction than EPA’s 

proposal, nevertheless would show 

significantly more visibility benefit. 

While SMC does not provide sufficient 

information about its modeling to make 

a complete comparison, the disparity 

reflects significant differences between 

the two benefit assessments, in 

particular including the fact that SMC 

compared its suggested limits to current 

allowable emissions, whereas EPA 

assessed the benefits of actual emission 

reductions that would be expected with 

imposition of EPA’s proposed limits. 

Cliffs 

Comment: Cliffs objected to EPA 

addressing Tilden Mining in a separate 

rulemaking focused on Michigan and 

Minnesota taconite facilities (August 15, 

2012 rulemaking) rather than in the 

rulemaking addressing most of the rest 

of Michigan’s plan. Cliffs commented 

‘‘EPA fails to provide an adequate basis 

for regulating Tilden separately.’’ Cliffs 

acknowledged that EPA stated that this 

approach was ‘‘to ensure that the Tilden 

Mining taconite plant and similar 

facilities in Minnesota are subject to 

similar requirements.’’ However, Cliffs 

objected that EPA provided neither 

factual data nor explanation of its legal 

interpretations in support of this 

approach. Furthermore, Cliffs objected 

to EPA’s rationale for rulemaking on 

Tilden Mining in conjunction with 

rulemaking on other taconite plants, 

arguing that the Regional Haze Rule 

requires case-by-case BART 

determinations. 

Response: The Clean Air Act requires 

that EPA complete rulemaking on 

Michigan’s submittal but does not limit 

EPA’s flexibility in choosing to conduct 

rulemakings on selected elements of the 

State’s submittal, potentially in 

combination with similar elements of 

other states’ submittals, even simply for 

EPA’s administrative convenience. 

Cliffs provides no rationale to the 

contrary. Moreover, Cliffs identifies no 

basis for concluding that rulemaking on 

Tilden Mining along with the Minnesota 

taconite plants could be expected to 

yield an inappropriate conclusion 

regarding Tilden Mining or is otherwise 

harmful to Cliffs’ interests. EPA believes 

that case-by-case review of sources 

should reach similar conclusions for 

similar facilities, but EPA need not find 

Tilden Mining similar to Cliffs’ other 

taconite facilities to have the discretion 

to conduct rulemaking on all of the 

taconite facilities together. 

Comment: Cliffs stated, ‘‘EPA does 

not give Michigan’s [BART] 

determinations the requisite deference.’’ 

Further, ‘‘EPA can only disapprove a 

SIP where it fails to meet minimum 

Clean Air Act requirements.’’ Cliffs 

noted its intent to identify its detailed 

concerns regarding BART for Tilden 

Mining in comments addressing the 

August 15, 2012, rulemaking that in fact 

prompts these concerns. Nevertheless, 

Cliffs commented that ‘‘EPA improperly 

tries to substitute its own judgment for 

Michigan’s.’’ 

Response: EPA has not tried in this 

rulemaking to ‘‘substitute its own 

judgment for Michigan’s’’ with respect 

to Cliff’s facility, because EPA is taking 

no action with respect to this facility in 

this rulemaking. More generally, this 

proposal was promulgated more than 

three years after EPA published a notice 

in which EPA found that Michigan 

failed to submit the required regional 

haze SIP. (74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009) 

In the absence of an adequate state 

submittal, more than two years after this 

finding, the Clean Air Act mandates that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71547 

EPA promulgate a federal plan. See 

Clean Air Act section 110(c). A more 

detailed response is provided in 

response to a similar comment by 

Michigan. To the extent that Cliffs’ 

comment pertains to EPA’s proposal on 

the separate rulemaking that 

promulgates federal limits for taconite 

plants including the Tilden Mining 

facility, this comment is not germane to 

this rulemaking. 

Comment: Cliffs requested that EPA 

hold ‘‘the public hearing proposed for 

September 19, 2012. That hearing must 

be broad enough to address both 

comments on this Proposed Rule and 

concerns associated with EPA’s related 

determinations for the Tilden taconite 

facility.’’ Cliffs commented that a 

hearing with this alternate purpose ‘‘is 

necessary * * * to allow local parties 

[in Michigan] to provide feedback on 

the proposed Tilden implementation 

plan.’’ 

Response: By letter dated September 

14, 2012, EPA denied Cliffs’ request 

because it related to matters addressed 

in the separate proposed rulemaking 

published August 15, 2012. Under Clean 

Air Act section 307(d), EPA must offer 

interested parties the opportunity for 

oral presentation of their comments on 

a proposed FIP but need not offer such 

opportunity for comments relevant to 

reviews of state plans, such as the 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the Michigan SIP. Cliffs 

requested that EPA hold a public 

hearing in Michigan, but Cliffs urged 

that this hearing be held to provide 

Cliffs opportunity to provide extensive 

comments regarding Tilden Mining. 

Cliffs expressed no intent to comment 

on the proposed FIP elements for BART 

for SMC or Escanaba Paper. That is, 

Cliffs in its request did not demonstrate 

that it was an interested party with 

respect to the proposed federal limits for 

SMC or Escanaba Paper. 

Implicit in EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking was that EPA was offering to 

hold a public hearing for purposes of 

receiving oral comments on its proposed 

federal limits for SMC and Escanaba 

Paper. This purpose was clarified in 

EPA’s letter to Cliffs and in EPA’s Web 

site announcing terms of the potential 

hearing, which stated, ‘‘EPA is 

providing the public the opportunity to 

request a public hearing regarding its 

proposal to establish emission limits for 

two facilities in Michigan: St. Mary’s 

Cement facility in Charlevoix, and 

NewPage Paper in Escanaba.’’ 

Finally, Cliffs has had multiple 

opportunities to provide oral comments 

on EPA’s proposed actions regarding 

Tilden Mining and Cliffs’ other taconite 

facilities and on any other issues Cliffs 

may have wished to address. These 

opportunities included a public hearing 

on August 29, 2012, in St. Paul, 

Minnesota (at which a Cliffs 

representative testified) and multiple 

meetings with EPA. 

III. What are EPA’s final BART 

determinations? 

As noted above, in absence of a state 

submittal that satisfies the BART 

requirements for SMC-Charlevoix and 

for Escanaba Paper’s Escanaba facility, 

EPA is under an obligation to 

promulgate a FIP satisfying these 

requirements. The following summary 

reflects EPA’s final evaluation of 

appropriate limits that satisfy the BART 

requirement for these facilities. As 

noted above, EPA is addressing Tilden 

Mining’s facility near Ishpeming in a 

separate rulemaking. 

A. SMC 

EPA proposed to determine that 

BART for SMC-Charlevoix includes 

operation of SNCR achieving an average 

of 50 percent reduction of NOX

emissions. EPA continues to believe that 

BART for this facility includes 

operation of SNCR. SMC provided 

results of tests using urea showing 

achievement of only 30 to 37 percent 

reduction of NOX, which SMC believes 

reflect conditions that yield suboptimal 

results for use of urea. Available 

evidence suggests that use of ammonia 

is likely to be considerably more 

effective at SMC-Charlevoix, and in fact 

most cement plants using SNCR use 

ammonia as the NOX control reagent. 

EPA finds this control to be cost 

effective, and a review of relevant 

factors supports the conclusion that 

effective implementation of SNCR is 

BART for this facility. EPA continues to 

believe that a requirement for 50 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions is 

warranted. 

However, the proposed limit would 

have required approximately 60 percent 

NOX reduction on occasions when the 

emission rates equaled the 95th 

percentile of baseline emission rates. In 

response to comments, EPA is 

promulgating a limit that requires 50 

percent control of such emissions, in 

order to provide increased confidence 

that the limit can be met. To limit peak 

emissions, EPA is promulgating a limit 

based on the rolling average emissions 

of 30 consecutive operating days. In 

addition, to ensure BART level control 

on days with typical emissions as well 

as on days with elevated emissions, EPA 

is also promulgating a limit on 12- 

month average emissions. These limits 

are 2.8 lb of NOX per ton of clinker and 

2.4 lb of NOX per ton of clinker, 

respectively. EPA is requiring that SMC 

comply with these limits by January 1, 

2017, such that the averaging periods 

beginning on January 1, 2017, are the 

first periods for which emissions must 

be at or below the required level. This 

provides a four year period for 

compliance instead of three years as 

proposed, because EPA believes that 

four years represents the most 

expeditious schedule for SMC to install 

appropriate controls to meet the limit. 

EPA proposed to limit SO2 emissions 

at SMC-Charlevoix to 7.5 lbs per ton of 

clinker, based on a view that add-on 

control is not warranted under current 

circumstances but would be warranted 

if higher sulfur feed materials were 

used. EPA’s proposed rule cited 

estimated costs of $3,500 and $4,500 per 

ton of SO2 removed (estimated for 

emissions at permitted levels), but this 

proposal reflected consideration of a 

variety of factors that needed to be 

considered in assessing BART at SMCCharlevoix, including the fact that at 

normal emission rates for this facility, 

costs per ton of SO2 removed would be 

much higher. EPA is promulgating its 

proposed SO2 emission limit. 

B. Escanaba Paper 

In its proposed rulemaking, EPA 

proposed to determine that BART for 

boilers 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper’s 

Escanaba facility included combustion 

control as a means of reducing NOX

emissions. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking provides detailed discussion 

of particular control options and the 

cost effectiveness of these options. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking further 

observed that Escanaba Paper has 

already implemented improvements in 

its combustion control, such that EPA 

proposed to establish limits that merely 

mandated that Escanaba continue to 

maintain the current level of NOX

emission control. 

No commenters objected to this 

proposed BART determination, and EPA 

has no reason to change its views 

regarding BART for Escanaba Paper. As 

discussed above, EPA received various 

comments from Escanaba Paper 

regarding the emission limits that are to 

be established to require BART and the 

test method, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements that are to be 

established. Pursuant to these 

comments, EPA is promulgating a 

modified form of the limit for Boiler 

Number 8, based on a fixed limit of 0.35 

lb of NOX per MMBTU, rather than limit 

emissions based on the weighted 

average of separate limits for emissions 

from oil firing and for emissions from 

gas firing. The limits for Boilers Number 

8 and Number 9 are effective 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

immediately upon the effective date of 

this rule, as proposed. As discussed 

above, EPA is also modifying assorted 

elements of the test methods, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements that will apply to 

Escanaba Paper. 

IV. What actions is EPA Taking? 

EPA is finalizing approval of elements 

of Michigan’s SIP submittal, submitted 

on November 5, 2010, addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. The submittal 

was intended to satisfy Clean Air Act 

and Regional Haze Rule requirements 

for states to remedy any existing 

anthropogenic and prevent future 

impairment of visibility at Class I areas. 

EPA finds that Michigan’s submission 

satisfies BART requirements for some of 

the non-EGUs, based in part on existing 

SIP emission limits and most notably 

based on a Federal consent decree 

requiring new controls for SO2 and NOX

emissions for the Lafarge plant. On the 

other hand, EPA is finalizing 

disapproval of the NOX and SO2 BART 

determination for the cement kiln and 

associated equipment at SMCCharlevoix and of the NOX BART 

determination for boilers Number 8 and 

Number 9 at Escanaba Paper. Further, 

EPA is promulgating a FIP that imposes 

NOX and SO2 limits mandating BART 

for the cement kiln and associated 

equipment for the SMC-Charlevoix and 

NOX limits mandating BART for boilers 

Numbers 8 and 9 at Escanaba Paper. 

EPA is not addressing Michigan’s 

BART determination for Tilden Mining 

taconite plant in this action. EPA has 

proposed separate action and plans 

separate final action regarding this 

facility in separate rulemaking action 

that also addresses taconite facilities in 

Minnesota. 

Michigan’s submission provides an 

approvable analysis of the emission 

reductions needed to satisfy reasonable 

progress and other regional haze 

planning requirements. Michigan’s 

submittal includes a long-term strategy 

that provides for reasonable progress 

except to the extent that the deficiencies 

with respect to BART for SMC and 

Escanaba Paper (and, according to a 

separate proposed rule, Tilden Mining) 

constitute shortfalls in the set of 

measures needed to provide reasonable 

progress. EPA is approving Michigan’s 

submittal as meeting other regional haze 

planning requirements including 

identification of affected Class I areas, 

provision of a monitoring plan, and 

consultation with other parties. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action will promulgate 

requirements for two facilities and is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. This type of action is 

exempt from review under Executive 

Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because this 

FIP only applies to two facilities, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act does not 

apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The net result of this FIP action is that 

EPA is promulgating emission controls 

on selected units at only two facilities. 

The facilities in question are a large 

cement plant and a large paper mill that 

are not owned by small entities, and 

therefore are not small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. It 

is a rule of particular applicability that 

affects only two facilities in Michigan. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule only applies to two facilities in 

Michigan. 

E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

addresses Michigan not meeting its 

obligation to adopt a SIP that meets the 

regional haze requirements under the 

Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action, EPA 

did consult with Michigan in 

developing this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the action EPA is taking 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

government. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

However, to the extent this rule will 

limit emissions, the rule will have a 

beneficial effect on tribal health by 

reducing air pollution. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71549 

extent this rule will limit emissions, the 

rule will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Today’s action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. Therefore, EPA 

did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This rule limits 

emissions from two facilities. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) Rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 1, 2013. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 

307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the 

requirements of Clean Air Act section 

307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under 

Clean Air Act section 110(c). Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See Clean Air 

Act section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 26, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 

Federal regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Section 52.1170 is amended by 

adding a new entry at the end of the 

table in paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional 

Haze Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approved date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ..... statewide ........... 11/5/2010 12/3/2012 [Insert 

page number 

where the document begins].

Addresses all regional haze plan elements except BART 

emission limitations for EGUs, St. Marys Cement, Escanaba Paper, and Tilden Mining 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
71550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. Section 52.1183 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1183 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(g) The requirements of section 169A 

of the Clean Air Act are not met because 

the regional haze plan submitted on 

November 5, 2010, does not meet the 

best available retrofit technology 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) with 

respect to emissions of NOX and SO2

from Saint Marys Cement in Charlevoix 

and NOX from Escanaba Paper Company 

in Escanaba. These requirements for 

these two facilities are satisfied by 40 

CFR 52.1183(h) and 40 CFR 52.1183(i), 

respectively. 

(h)(1) For the 30-day period beginning 

January 1, 2017, and thereafter, Saint 

Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner 

or operator of the Saint Marys Cement 

facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, 

shall not cause or permit the emission 

of oxides of nitrogen (expressed as NO2) 

to exceed 2.80 lb per ton of clinker as 

a 30-day rolling average. 

(2) For the 12-month period beginning 

January 1, 2017, and thereafter, Saint 

Marys Cement, or any subsequent owner 

or operator of the Saint Marys Cement 

facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, 

shall not cause or permit the emission 

of NOX (expressed as NO2) to exceed 

2.40 lb per ton of clinker as a 12-month 

average. 

(3) Saint Marys Cement, or any 

subsequent owner or operator of the 

Saint Marys Cement facility located in 

Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not cause or 

permit the emission of SO2 to exceed 

7.50 lb per ton of clinker as a 12-month 

average. 

(4) Saint Marys Cement, or any 

subsequent owner or operator of the 

Saint Marys Cement facility located in 

Charlevoix, Michigan, shall operate 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems to measure NOX and SO2

emissions from its kiln system in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60 

appendix F procedure 1. 

(5) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall be 

use of a continuous emission 

monitoring system operated in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, procedure 1. A new 30-day 

average shall be computed at the end of 

each calendar day in which the kiln 

operates, based on the following 

procedure: First, sum the total pounds 

of NOX (expressed as NO2) emitted 

during the operating day and the 

previous twenty-nine operating days, 

second, sum the total tons of clinker 

produced during the same period, and 

third, divide the total number of pounds 

by the total clinker produced during the 

thirty operating days. 

(6) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this 

section shall be use of a continuous 

emission monitoring system operated in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, procedure 1. A new 12- 

month average shall be computed at the 

end of each calendar month, based on 

the following procedure: First, sum the 

total pounds of NOX or SO2, as 

applicable, emitted from the unit during 

the month and the previous eleven 

calendar months, second, sum the total 

tons of clinker production during the 

same period, and third, divide the total 

number of pounds of emissions of NOX

or SO2, as applicable, by the total 

clinker production during the twelve 

calendar months. 

(7) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator shall maintain the following 

records for at least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(ii) All records of clinker production, 

which shall be monitored in accordance 

with 40 CFR 60.63. 

(iii) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(iv) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, CEMS 

and clinker production measurement 

devices. 

(v) Any other records required by 40 

CFR part 60, subpart F, or 40 CFR part 

60, appendix F, procedure 1. 

(8) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to Chief, Air 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE–17J, 77 

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604– 

3590. 

(i) The owner/operator shall submit 

quarterly excess emissions reports for 

SO2 and NOX BART limits no later than 

the 30th day following the end of each 

calendar quarter. Excess emissions 

means emissions that exceed the 

emissions limits specified in paragraph 

(h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this section. 

The reports shall include the 

magnitude, date(s), and duration of each 

period of excess emissions, specific 

identification of each period of excess 

emissions that occurs during startups, 

shutdowns, and malfunctions of the 

unit, the nature and cause of any 

malfunction (if known), and the 

corrective action taken or preventative 

measures adopted. 

(ii) Owner/operator of each unit shall 

submit quarterly CEMS performance 

reports, to include dates and duration of 

each period during which the CEMS 

was inoperative (except for zero and 

span adjustments and calibration 

checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments. 

(iii) The owner/operator shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(iv) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by paragraphs (h)(7)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) Escanaba Paper Company, or any 

subsequent owner or operator of the 

Escanaba Paper Company facility in 

Escanaba, Michigan, shall meet the 

following requirements and shall not 

cause or permit the emission of NOX

(expressed as NOX) to exceed the 

following limits: 

(1) For Boiler 8, designated as 

EU8B13, a rolling 30-day average limit 

of 0.35 lb per MMBTU. 

(2) A continuous emission monitoring 

system shall be operated to measure 

NOX emissions from Boiler 8 in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F. 

(3) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section shall be 

a continuous emission monitoring 

system operated in conformance with 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F. A new 30-day 

average shall be computed at the end of 

each calendar day in which the boiler 

operated, based on the following 

procedure: first, sum the total pounds of 

NOX emitted from the unit during the 

operating day and the previous twentynine operating days, second sum the 

total heat input to the unit in MMBTU 

during the same period, and third, 

divide the total number of pounds of 

NOX emitted by the total heat input 

during the thirty operating days. 

(4) For Boiler 9, also identified as 

EU9B03, a limit of 0.27 lb per MMBTU. 

(5) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (i)(4) of this section shall be 

a test conducted in accordance with 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, Method 7. 

(6) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator shall maintain the following 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71551 

records regarding Boiler 8 and Boiler 9 

for at least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(ii) All stack test results. 

(iii) Daily records of fuel usage, heat 

input, and data used to determine heat 

content. 

(iv) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(v) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(vi) Any other records identified in 40 

CFR 60.49b(g) or 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(7) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the Chief, 

Air Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code 

AE–17J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

IL 60604–3590. 

(i) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for the limit in paragraph (i)(1) 

no later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limit specified in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The 

reports shall include the magnitude, 

date(s), and duration of each period of 

excess emissions, specific identification 

of each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(ii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly CEMS performance 

reports, to include dates and duration of 

each period during which the CEMS 

was inoperative (except for zero and 

span adjustments and calibration checks 

or when Boiler 8 is not operating), 

reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments. 

(iii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

also submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(iv) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by paragraph (i)(7) of this 

section. 

(v) Owner/operator of Boiler 9 shall 

submit reports of any compliance test 

measuring NOX emissions from Boiler 9 

within 60 days of the last day of the test. 

If owner/operator commences operation 

of a continuous NOX emission 

monitoring system for Boiler 9, owner/ 

operator shall submit reports for Boiler 

9 as specified for Boiler 8 in paragraphs 

(i)(7)(i) to (i)(7)(iv) of this section. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29014 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0492; FRL–9757–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Determinations of Attainment for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making a number of 

determinations relating to 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California. 

First, EPA is determining that six 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California 

(Amador and Calaveras Counties, Chico, 

Kern County, Mariposa and Tuolumne 

Counties, Nevada County, and Sutter 

County) (‘‘six CA areas’’) attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) by their 

applicable attainment dates. Second, in 

conjunction with its determinations for 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties and 

Nevada County, EPA is granting these 

areas one-year attainment date 

extensions. Lastly, EPA is determining 

that the six CA areas and the Ventura 

County 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area in CA have attained and continue 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on the most recent three years of 

data. Under the provisions of EPA’s 

ozone implementation rule, these 

determinations suspend the 

requirements to submit revisions to the 

state implementation plans (SIP) for 

these areas related to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard for as long 

as these areas continue to meet the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on January 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R09–OAR– 

2011–0492. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material) and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

location (e.g., confidential business 

information). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR–2, 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

telephone number (415) 972–3963, or 

email ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. We are providing the following 

outline to aid in locating information in 

this final rule. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determinations is EPA making? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed rule? 

IV. What are the effects of these actions? 

A. Attainment Date Extensions 

B. Determinations of Attainment by Areas’ 

Applicable Attainment Dates 

C. Determinations of Current Attainment 

and 40 CFR 51.918 

V. EPA’s Final Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What determinations is EPA making? 

EPA is making a number of 

determinations with respect to 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas in 

California. First, pursuant to section 

181(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

EPA is determining that the Amador 

and Calaveras Counties (Central 

Mountain Counties), Chico (Butte 

County), Kern County (Eastern Kern), 

Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties 

(Southern Mountain Counties), Nevada 

County (Western Nevada County), and 

Sutter County (Sutter Buttes) 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas in California 

(herein referred to as the ‘‘six CA areas’’) 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by their respective applicable 

attainment dates. Second, in connection 

with these determinations, EPA is also 

granting, pursuant to section 181(a)(5) 

and 40 CFR 51.907, applications 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) for extensions 

to the applicable attainment dates for 

the Southern Mountain Counties and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES