Vol. 80 Thursday, 

No. 204 October 22, 2015 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal 

Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0196; FRL–9934–15– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota and 

Michigan; Revision to Taconite Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to 

a Federal implementation plan (FIP) 

addressing the requirement for best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

taconite plants in Minnesota and 

Michigan. In response to petitions for 

reconsideration, we are proposing to 

revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits 

for taconite furnaces at facilities owned 

and operated by Cliffs Natural 

Resources (Cliffs) and ArcelorMittal 

USA LLC (ArcelorMittal). We are also 

proposing to revise the sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) requirements at two of Cliffs’ 

facilities. We are proposing these 

changes because new information has 

come to light that was not available 

when we originally promulgated the FIP 

on February 6, 2013. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0196, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– 

0196. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal at (312) 886–6052 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning & 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This notice is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Background 

IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 2013 

Taconite FIP 

V. EPA’s Basis for Granting Reconsideration 

VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 2013 

Taconite FIP Requirements 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as i prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

On February 6, 2013, EPA 

promulgated a FIP that included BART 

limits for certain taconite furnaces in 

Minnesota and Michigan (2013 Taconite 

FIP; 78 FR 8706). EPA is proposing to 

revise the 2013 Taconite FIP with 

respect to the BART emission 

limitations and compliance schedules 

for the following taconite plants: United 

Taconite, Hibbing Taconite, Tilden 

Mining, and ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine. Cliffs is the owner and operator 

of the United Taconite and Tilden 

Mining facilities and part owner and 

operator of Hibbing Taconite. 

ArcelorMittal is the owner and operator 

of the Minorca Mine facility and a part 

owner of the Hibbing Taconite facility. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64161 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

2The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7), 

and includes ‘‘taconite ore processing facilities.’’ 

3BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to revise 

the NOX limits and compliance 

schedules for these four facilities and is 

also proposing to revise the SO2

requirements for Tilden Mining and 

United Taconite. 

III. Background 

A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

This section of the CAA establishes as 

a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ Congress added section 

169B to the CAA in 1990 to address 

regional haze issues. EPA promulgated 

a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P 

(herein after referred to as the ‘‘Regional 

haze Rule’’). The Regional Haze Rule 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to add provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states, or EPA if developing a FIP, to 

evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires EPA to develop a FIP 

that contains such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

toward the natural visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources 2 built between 1962 and 1977 

procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best 

Available Retrofit Technology’’ as 

determined by EPA. Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, states (or in the case of a FIP, 

EPA) are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states and EPA in 

determining which sources should be 

subject to the BART requirements and 

in determining appropriate emission 

limits for each applicable source. 70 FR 

39104. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations follows three steps: 

First, identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; 3 second, 

determine which of these sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject to BART, identify the best 

available type and level of control for 

reducing emissions. 

States, or EPA if developing a FIP, 

must address all visibility-impairing 

pollutants emitted by a source in the 

BART determination process. The most 

significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and particulate 

matter (PM). 

A state implementation plan (SIP) or 

FIP addressing regional haze must 

include source-specific BART emission 

limits and compliance schedules for 

each source subject to BART. Once a 

state or EPA has made a BART 

determination, the BART controls must 

be installed and operated as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date of the final 

SIP or FIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 

to what is required by the Regional Haze 

Rule, general SIP requirements mandate 

that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). 

C. Regulatory and Legal History of the 

2013 Taconite FIP 

On February 6, 2013, EPA 

promulgated a FIP (78 FR 8706) that 

included BART limits for taconite 

furnaces subject to BART in Minnesota 

and Michigan. EPA took this action 

because Minnesota and Michigan had 

failed to meet a statutory deadline to 

submit their Regional Haze SIPs and 

subsequently failed to require BART at 

the taconite facilities. Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and the State of Michigan 

petitioned the Eighth Circuit Court of 

Appeals for review of the FIP, and, on 

May 17, 2013, Cliffs and ArcelorMittal 

filed a joint motion for stay of the final 

rule, which was granted by the Eighth 

Circuit on June 14, 2013, and is still in 

effect. 

EPA received petitions for 

reconsideration of the 2013 Taconite FIP 

from the National Mining Association 

on March 8, 2013, ArcelorMittal on 

March 22, 2013, the State of Michigan 

on April 1, 2013, Cliffs on April 3, 2013, 

Congressman Richard M. Nolan on 

April 8, 2013, the State of Minnesota on 

April 8, 2013, and United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel) on November 

26, 2013. 

In a related action, EPA published a 

final partial disapproval of the Michigan 

and Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs on 

September 30, 2013 (78 FR 59825), for 

failure to require BART for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from taconite furnaces 

subject to BART. By petitions dated 

November 26, 2013, Cliffs and U.S. Steel 

petitioned EPA pursuant to section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for 

reconsideration of EPA’s partial 

disapproval of the Michigan and 

Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs. Further, 

Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, Michigan and U.S. 

Steel petitioned the Eight Circuit Court 

of Appeals for review of the final rule 

partially disapproving the Michigan and 

Minnesota Regional Haze SIPs. 

EPA subsequently reached a 

settlement agreement with Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and Michigan regarding 

issues raised by these parties in their 

petitions for review and 

reconsideration. Notice of the settlement 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5111), and 

the settlement agreement was fully 

executed on April 9, 2015. Pursuant to 

the settlement agreement, EPA granted 

partial reconsideration of the 2013 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Taconite FIP on July 2, 2015, based on 

new information raised in Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and Michigan’s petitions 

for reconsideration. EPA did not grant 

reconsideration of the 2013 SIP 

disapprovals because EPA continues to 

believe that BART for taconite plants 

involves significant reductions of NOX

and SO2 emissions that were not 

required in the Michigan and Minnesota 

SIPs. 

IV. Petitions for Reconsideration of 

2013 Taconite FIP 

A. Summary of Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

1. National Mining Association 

petitioned for reconsideration because 

EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP before 

finalizing its disapproval of the 

Michigan and Minnesota regional haze 

SIPs. 

2. Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

petitioned for reconsideration because, 

in its view: (1) There was no 

information available prior to the close 

of Michigan’s public comment period 

on June 23, 2010, indicating that low 

NOX burners (LNBs) had been 

successfully utilized on indurating 

furnaces; (2) the FIP schedule for 

compliance did not provide sufficient 

time for the permitting process 

necessary for the installation of the 

LNBs; and (3) EPA had not followed 

proper procedure by finalizing the FIP 

for Tilden while at the same time asking 

for additional comment on the SIP 

disapproval for Tilden. 

3. Congressman Richard M. Nolan 

petitioned for reconsideration because, 

in his view: (1) New information came 

to his attention concerning the accuracy 

of EPA’s visibility modeling; (2) the 

feasibility of LNB technology was not 

established at the time EPA intervened 

in the process; and (3) it was doubtful 

that LNBs could be successfully 

installed and operated in the 26 months 

called for in the FIP. 

4. Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA) petitioned for 

reconsideration of the compliance 

schedules in the FIP and asked for a 10- 

month extension of the compliance 

deadlines for affected facilities with 

more than one affected process line to 

provide adequate time for MPCA to 

issue the required air quality permits. 

5. Cliffs petitioned for reconsideration 

because of perceived procedural defects 

in EPA’s decision to issue the FIP rule 

while it was simultaneously evaluating 

Minnesota and Michigan’s SIPs. Cliffs 

also raised technical issues based on 

new information not available at the 

time EPA promulgated the 2013 FIP. 

These technical issues included the 

following: (a) The FIP imposed a new 

0.60% sulfur limit on coal combusted at 

United Taconite that was not proposed 

and was inappropriate because it would 

require the use of a new type of coal that 

the facility is not designed to handle, (b) 

the 2013 FIP restricts Tilden to 

combusting natural gas instead of coal, 

and (c) installation of LNBs will require 

a minimum of 34 months for the first 

straight-grate furnace and a minimum of 

39 months for the first grate kiln 

furnace, instead of the 26 months 

provided in the original 2013 FIP 

compliance schedule. Cliffs also 

provided additional evidence that, in its 

view, indicates that installation and 

operation of LNBs would be more costly 

and would require more time to install 

than EPA estimated, including (1) 

estimates by furnace engineers and 

burner manufacturers that LNB capital 

costs for Cliffs’ furnaces will be a 

minimum of 4–5 times higher than 

EPA’s Minntac-based cost estimate,(2) 

estimates by Cliffs’ furnace designer, 

Metso Minerals (Metso), and burner 

manufacturer, Fives North America 

(Fives), that there would be an energy 

penalty of 20–40% while operating the 

LNBs, and (3) an analysis by Metso 

indicating that Cliffs would lose 

approximately $195 million in 

production costs across its six lines 

because installing LNB cannot be 

accomplished within normal annual 

outage time and will also impair 

production during the shakedown 

period after installation. 

6. ArcelorMittal petitioned for 

reconsideration because of perceived 

procedural defects in EPA’s decision to 

finalize the 2013 Taconite FIP while 

still working to evaluate Minnesota’s 

SIP. ArcelorMittal claimed that EPA can 

only issue a FIP after it has fully and 

properly evaluated the SIP, found it to 

be deficient, and provided a reasonable 

opportunity for the state to address 

EPA’s concerns. ArcelorMittal also 

raised the following technical issues in 

the attachment to its petition for 

reconsideration: (1) The costs of LNBs, 

(2) the lack of any existing straight-grate 

furnaces with LNB technology and the 

resulting unwillingness of vendors to 

provide performance guarantees, (3) 

significant production losses because of 

the downtime resulting from installation 

and adjustment of LNBs at Hibbing, and 

(4) energy penalties due to the need for 

25% more natural gas at Hibbing and 

10% to 20% more natural gas at 

Minorca to operate the LNBs. 

7. U.S. Steel petitioned for 

reconsideration because it had obtained 

new information showing that 

variations in kiln configuration may 

have a substantial impact on the cost 

and performance of LNBs installed on 

grate-kiln furnaces. In its November 26, 

2013 petition for reconsideration of the 

September 30, 2013 partial disapproval 

of the Michigan and Minnesota regional 

haze SIPs, Cliffs referenced U.S. Steel’s 

petition for reconsideration in which it 

cited concerns related to the high costs 

and energy penalties associated with the 

installation of LNBs, as well as pellet 

quality issues. 

B. Issues for Which EPA Has Granted 

Reconsideration 

EPA believes that the new 

information contained in the petitions 

for reconsideration, as well as other 

supporting information provided by 

Cliffs, represents significant new 

information that warrants 

reconsideration of many of the emission 

limits that EPA promulgated for the 

taconite facilities in 2013. As a result, 

on July 2, 2015, EPA sent letters to 

Cliffs, ArcelorMittal, and Michigan 

granting portions of their petitions for 

reconsideration. Specifically, EPA is 

granting reconsideration, pursuant to 

section 307(d)(7)(b) of the CAA, of the 

NOX and SO2 emission limits for the 

grate-kiln furnaces and the NOX

emission limits for the straight-grate 

furnaces listed in the following table. 

State Facility—owner Unit(s) Pollutant(s) 

Minnesota ................................................ United Taconite—Cliffs .......................... Grate-Kiln Lines 1 and 2 ........................ NOX and SO2. 

Minnesota ................................................ Minora Mine—ArcelorMittal .................... Straight-Grate Line 1 ............................. NOX. 

Minnesota ................................................ Hibbing Taconite—Cliffs (operator and 

part owner).

ArcelorMittal (part owner) 

U.S. Steel (part owner) 

Straight-Grate Lines 1–3 ........................ NOX. 

Michigan .................................................. Tilden Mining—Cliffs .............................. Grate-Kiln Line 1 .................................... NOX and SO2. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64163 

4Stoichiometry refers to the relationship between 

the actual quantity of combustion air to the 

theoretical minimum quantity of air needed for 100 

percent combustion of the fuel. 

The U.S. taconite iron ore industry 

uses two types of pelletizing machines 

or processes: Straight-grate kilns and 

grate-kilns. In a straight-grate kiln, a 

continuous bed of agglomerated green 

pellets is carried through different 

temperature zones with upward draft or 

downward draft blown through the 

pellets on the metal grate. The grate-kiln 

system consists of a traveling grate, a 

rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. A 

significant difference between these 

designs is that straight-grate kilns do not 

burn coal and therefore have a much 

lower potential for emitting SO2.

Further, even within the same kiln type 

or process, individual (referred to as 

indurating or pelletizing) furnaces or 

processes have distinct equipment and 

process characteristics that may affect 

the compatibility and performance of 

certain types of burners. The differences 

between these kilns and processes form 

a key basis for the changes to the 

emissions limits proposed in this action. 

EPA is not reconsidering all elements 

of its 2013 FIP. The 2013 FIP contains 

SO2 and NOX limits for U.S. Steel’s 

Minntac and Keetac taconite furnaces in 

Minnesota. EPA has not granted U.S. 

Steel’s petition and is not proposing any 

revisions of the BART limits for these 

U.S. Steel facilities at this time. Also, 

EPA is not reconsidering the NOX limits 

at Cliffs’ Northshore taconite plant 

because this facility is already 

complying with the 1.2 pounds per 

million Btu (lb/mmBtu) NOX limit in 

the 2013 FIP. Finally, EPA is not 

reconsidering the SO2 limits at the 

Hibbing, ArcelorMittal, or Northshore 

straight-grate furnaces. 

V. EPA’s Basis for Granting 

Reconsideration 

The 2013 Taconite FIP established 

BART NOX limits for all straight-grate 

and grate-kiln taconite furnaces. The 

limits are 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu 

when burning a gas/coal mix. These 

limits were based upon the performance 

of high stoichiometric (high-stoich) 

LNBs 4 at two of U.S. Steel Minntac’s 

grate-kilns. As explained in more detail 

below, we granted reconsideration of 

the NOX limits for the United Taconite 

and Tilden grate-kilns, as well as for the 

Hibbing and ArcelorMittal straight-grate 

kilns, because information that became 

available after the close of the public 

comment period (September 28, 2012) 

suggests that the installation of highstoich LNBs at these furnaces could lead 

to serious technical hurdles. In addition, 

we granted reconsideration of the SO2

limits for the United Taconite and 

Tilden grate-kilns because of 

information that became available after 

the close of the public comment period 

regarding the inability of United 

Taconite to handle and burn very low 

sulfur coal and Tilden’s intent to burn 

mixed fuels. 

In determining whether to grant 

reconsideration of certain provisions of 

the 2013 Taconite FIP, the requirements 

of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

apply. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides a 

two-step test to determine whether 

reconsideration should be granted. The 

petitioner must first show that it was 

impracticable to raise the comment or 

objection within the time period for 

public comment of the rule, or, that the 

grounds for the comment or objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment. Secondly, the petitioner must 

show that the comment or objection is 

of ‘‘central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ 

Cliffs and ArcelorMittal provided 

significant new information in their 

petitions for reconsideration and 

supplemental submittals directly 

relevant to the outcome of the 2013 

Taconite FIP. The following discussion 

details the new information upon which 

EPA is relying to base reconsideration of 

the BART emission limits and 

compliance schedules for these 

facilities, and how the information 

meets the criteria of section 307(d)(7)(B) 

of the CAA. 

A. United Taconite 

1. NOX Emission Limit 

EPA determined the NOX emission 

limits for BART in the 2013 Taconite 

FIP primarily from data arising from the 

installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S. 

Steel Minntac’s furnaces 6 and 7. 

Although the United Taconite furnaces 

and the Minntac furnaces are all gratekiln furnaces, Cliffs provided new 

information after the close of the 

comment period that described various 

differences between the furnaces. These 

differences included the structure of the 

kiln, the use of pre-heaters, and the 

types of ore and pellets processed. Cliffs 

indicated that because of these 

differences, the installation of highstoich LNBs at United Taconite would 

likely result in the impairment of pellet 

quality and production, as well as 

increased fuel usage and emissions. 

Cliffs subsequently provided modeling 

analyses that detailed the impacts 

arising from the installation of highstoich LNBs at United Taconite. 

Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric 

Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26, 

2013, which describes the differences 

relevant to NOX emissions between US 

Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, upon 

which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits 

were based, and Cliffs’ grate-kiln 

furnaces at United Taconite. The 

declaration describes several differences 

that EPA believes are relevant to the 

development of BART NOX emission 

limits. For example, whereas United 

Taconite uses a single large kiln burner, 

Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate 

preheat burners, which supply about 

one-third of the heat input from fuel, in 

addition to a large kiln burner. The 

smaller preheat burners at Minntac 

achieve very low NOX rates (0.1–0.3 lbs/ 

MMBtu) due to a more favorable NOX

reduction combustion environment in 

the preheat zone as compared to the 

firing end of the kiln. Correspondingly, 

the lower NOX emissions from the 

preheaters result in a lower combined 

NOX emission rate than the emissions 

arising from a large single kiln LNB. 

Another example in the declaration 

notes that the ore processed at the 

facilities is different, resulting in 

different heat values. U.S. Steel’s 

Minntac facility processes an ore high in 

magnetite that contributes heat to the 

kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, 

by processing high magnetite ore at 

Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel is 

able to effectively use ported kilns to 

maximize the benefit of the ore. Ported 

kilns allow the introduction of 

additional air directly to the kilns which 

helps oxidize the high magnetite ore, 

and changes the heat balance of the 

furnace. In contrast, United Taconite 

processes ores with a lower 

concentration of magnetite than the ore 

processed at Minntac, and 

correspondingly, cannot effectively use 

ported kilns. Because ported kilns 

change the heat balance of the furnace, 

U.S Steel’s experience with high-stoich 

LNBs at the Minntac furnaces may not 

be directly applicable to the United 

Taconite furnaces. 

A final example from the declaration 

states that the application of high-stoich 

LNB technology at United Taconite 

would require additional air to reduce 

burner flame temperature, which would 

result in increased airflow through the 

grate drying section and increased 

pressure drop across the greenballs, 

which are the raw feed to the indurating 

furnace. This higher bed pressure would 

result in deformed pellets, reduced 

pellet quality, and lost production. 

Further, the increased air flow would 

also likely cause pellet breakage that 

would reduce production. The 

declaration notes that to avoid these 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

impacts, United Taconite likely would 

have to limit the dryer section air flow 

and drying rate by reducing the amount 

of recovered heat from the cooler. 

However, any unrecovered heat would 

have to be replaced with additional heat 

from the burner, with corresponding 

increased fuel usage and emissions. 

Subsequent to the submission of the 

declaration, Cliffs provided a modeling 

analysis that supported the information 

provided in the declaration. A report by 

Metso dated August 7, 2014, entitled 

‘‘Technical Analysis for applying LNB 

technology to (United Taconite) UTAC 

Line 2 Grate-Kiln,’’ provides a detailed 

analysis of expected impacts from using 

high-stoich LNBs on pellet quality, fuel 

usage, and emissions. Metso analyzed 

the effects of LNB technology on the 

United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln by 

using simulation modeling in which 

Metso compared Line 2’s normal 

operating conditions, which result in 

the production of quality pellets, with 

simulations performed using high-stoich 

LNBs (which are the basis of the 2013 

Taconite FIP limits). The report 

indicates that to maintain airflow, 

temperature, and pressures sufficient to 

minimize pellet quality issues would 

require a significant increase in fuel 

rates and corresponding emissions. 

Further, the use of high-stoich LNBs 

would result in decreased oxygen in the 

preheat zone gases from the kiln. The 

corresponding reduction in the 

oxidation heat on the grate would result 

in lower pellet temperatures at the point 

where the pellets leave the grate and 

enter the kiln. This would likely result 

in pellet breakage and a corresponding 

reduction in production. 

Finally, Cliffs provided additional 

information to EPA in a July 28, 2014 

meeting, which Cliffs summarized in an 

August 8, 2014 letter to EPA. The 

information provided included data 

comparing performance, costs, and fuel 

usage between high-stoich LNBs and 

low-stoich LNBs. Much of the 

information set forth in the August 8 

letter is presented in section VI of this 

notice, pertaining to the NOX BART 

analysis. In general, the information 

pertains to advantages of the low-stoich 

LNBs over the high-stoich LNBs. 

The information provided by Cliffs in 

its petition for reconsideration and 

subsequent submittals arose from 

recent, time-consuming research and 

analysis that could not have been 

completed and made available during 

the public comment period. Therefore, 

Cliffs has met the first requirement of 

the criteria for reconsideration set forth 

at section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. 

Significantly, the information that Cliffs 

provided is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. EPA 

extensively based its NOX BART 

analysis on the results arising from the 

installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S. 

Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step 

one of a BART analysis requires the 

identification of all available retrofit 

control technologies. Step two of a 

BART analysis requires the elimination 

of technically infeasible control 

technologies. The new information 

provided by Cliffs directly bears on the 

evaluation of the selection and 

feasibility of high-stoich LNBs for use in 

the grate-kiln indurating furnaces at the 

United Taconite facility. On this basis, 

we granted reconsideration of the NOX

determination for United Taconite 

(Lines 1 and 2) and for the 

corresponding emission limits and 

compliance schedule. 

2. SO2 Emission Limit 

The 2013 Taconite FIP set a 0.60% 

sulfur limit on coal combusted at United 

Taconite. We promulgated this limit in 

response to a proposal by Cliffs to use 

low sulfur fuel at United Taconite to 

decrease baseline SO2 emissions. 

However, Cliffs did not have an 

opportunity to comment on the specific 

numeric stringency of the limit we 

promulgated. In other words, it was 

impracticable for Cliffs to comment on 

the final sulfur limit prior to the close 

of the public comment period. 

In its petition for reconsideration, 

Cliffs also presented new information 

directly pertaining to the criteria for 

determining BART limits. Cliffs stated 

that the United Taconite facility had 

been designed to handle and burn 

eastern bituminous coal, not the low 

sulfur, western subbituminous coals 

from the Powder River Basin (PRB) that 

Cliffs would be required to use to meet 

the 0.60% sulfur content limit. For 

example, PRB coal is more prone to 

explosion and fire and has a lower heat 

value than eastern bituminous coal. 

These differences, among others, would 

require Cliffs to expend significant costs 

to change operations, address safety 

issues, and increase the amount of coal 

required to be burned to meet furnace 

and pellet temperature requirements. 

The information that Cliffs presented 

pertains to the feasibility and costs of 

implementing the sulfur limit, which 

are criteria to be used in determining 

BART. Therefore, the information 

provided by Cliffs after the close of the 

comment period is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. 

On this basis, we granted 

reconsideration of the 0.60% sulfur 

limit on coal combusted at United 

Taconite. 

B. Tilden 

1. NOX Emission Limit 

EPA determined the NOX emission 

limits for BART in the 2013 Taconite 

FIP primarily from data arising from the 

installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S. 

Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. 

Although the Tilden furnace and the 

Minntac furnaces are all grate-kiln 

furnaces, Cliffs provided new 

information after the close of the 

comment period that described various 

differences between the furnaces. These 

differences included the structure of the 

kiln, the use of pre-heaters, and the ore 

and pellet types processed. Cliffs 

indicated that because of these 

differences, the installation of highstoich LNBs at Tilden would likely 

result in the impairment of pellet 

quality and production, as well as 

increased fuel usage and emissions. 

Cliffs subsequently provided a modeling 

analysis that detailed the impacts 

arising from the installation of highstoich LNBs at Tilden. 

Cliffs submitted a declaration by Eric 

Wagner (of Metso) dated November 26, 

2013, which describes the differences 

relevant to NOX emissions between U.S. 

Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, upon 

which the 2013 Taconite FIP NOX limits 

were based, and Cliffs’ grate-kiln 

furnaces at Tilden. The declaration 

describes several differences that EPA 

believes are relevant to the development 

of BART NOX emission limits. For 

example, whereas Tilden uses a single 

large kiln burner, Minntac furnaces 6 

and 7 operate preheat burners, which 

supply about one third of the heat input 

from fuel, in addition to a large kiln 

burner. The smaller preheat burners at 

Minntac achieve very low NOX rates 

(0.1–0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to a more 

favorable NOX reduction combustion 

environment in the preheat zone as 

compared to the firing end of the kiln. 

Correspondingly, the lower NOX

emissions from the preheaters result in 

a lower combined NOX emission rate 

than the emissions arising from a large 

single kiln LNB. 

Another example in the declaration 

notes that the ore processed at the 

facilities is different, resulting in 

different heat values. U.S. Steel’s 

Minntac facility processes an ore high in 

magnetite that contributes heat to the 

kiln when oxidized. Correspondingly, 

by processing high magnetite ore at 

Minntac furnaces 6 and 7, U.S. Steel is 

able to effectively use ported kilns to 

maximize the benefit of the ore. Ported 

kilns allow the introduction of 

additional air directly to the kilns, 

which helps oxidize the high magnetite 

ore and changes the heat balance of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64165 

furnace. In contrast, Tilden primarily 

processes hematite, which is not a 

source of heat for kilns. 

Correspondingly, Tilden cannot 

effectively use ported kilns. Because 

ported kilns change the heat balance of 

the furnace, U.S. Steel’s experience with 

high-stoich LNBs at the Minntac 

furnaces may not be directly applicable 

to the Tilden furnace. 

A final example from the declaration 

states that the application of high-stoich 

LNB technology at Tilden would require 

additional air to reduce burner flame 

temperature, which would result in 

increased airflow through the grate 

drying section and increased pressure 

drop across the greenballs. This higher 

bed pressure would result in deformed 

pellets and reduced pellet quality. 

Further, the increased air flow would 

also likely cause pellet breakage which 

would reduce production. The 

declaration notes that to likely avoid 

these impacts, Tilden would have to 

limit the dryer section air flow and 

drying rate by reducing the amount of 

recovered heat from the cooler. 

However, any unrecovered heat would 

have to be replaced with additional heat 

from the burner, with corresponding 

increased fuel usage and emissions. 

In addition to the submission of the 

November 26, 2013 declaration, Cliffs 

provided modeling and technical 

analyses that supported the comments 

made in the declaration. In reports 

prepared by Metso dated September 14, 

2012, and January 13, 2015, Cliffs 

provided technical analyses for 

applying LNB technology to the Tilden 

Line 1 grate kiln through modeling 

simulations that compare current 

operations to operations using highstoich LNBs. Current operating 

conditions at Tilden 1 were simulated 

using such factors as existing air flow 

studies, operating parameters, and feed 

mineralogy. This baseline model was 

then modified to simulate LNB 

operating conditions. The current 

operating parameters and anticipated 

high-stoich LNB operating conditions 

were then compared. 

High-stoich LNBs reduce NOX

emissions by introducing comparatively 

large amounts of cooler ambient air 

through the main burner. Less NOX is 

produced at lower temperatures. The 

FIP NOX limits were established based 

upon high-stoich LNBs operating with 

air flow at 100 percent of stoichiometric 

through the primary burner. Tilden 

currently operates with primary 

combustion air at 15.5 percent of 

stoichiometric, and Metso estimated 

that primary combustion air at 100 to 

110 percent of the stoichiometric rate is 

required to meet the 2013 Taconite FIP 

limits. Metso performed three 

simulations in which it maintained peak 

pellet temperature and final product 

temperature. The total air supplied to 

the cooler was adjusted as needed to 

maintain final product temperature 

across all three simulations. These 

simulations were intended to isolate the 

effects of various process parameters 

when applying high-stoich LNB 

technology to Tilden 1. 

The analysis indicated, among other 

things, that high-stoich LNB technology 

would alter the flame temperature 

profile, which may adversely affect 

pellet quality, and that the fuel usage 

rate would increase by approximately 

25 to 35 percent. Further, higher 

temperatures and air flow rates through 

the grate would result in a 10 to 20 

percent increase in exhaust gas 

volumes. 

The Metso comparative analysis dated 

January 2015 applies current operating 

data to the high-stoich LNB design 

conditions, required for NOX reduction, 

provided by COEN Company (COEN), a 

burner manufacturer, in its Final Report 

for Tilden Line 1. The engineering 

simulations held key process parameters 

constant, including pellet production 

rate, greenball moisture, bentonite, and 

flux rate. The total air supplied to the 

cooler was adjusted as needed to 

maintain final product temperature 

across all simulations. Maintaining 

these parameters ensures that fuel 

changes are not due to altered 

processing requirements. 

The engineering simulations and 

comparisons reveal a number of 

significant operational and 

environmental impacts arising from the 

installation of a COEN high-stoich LNB. 

These impacts include a significant 

change to the use of primary and 

secondary cooling air, which will alter 

the cooling down cycle of pellets, create 

an imbalance between primary and 

secondary cooling, and likely affect 

pellet quality. The volume of secondary 

cooling air exiting the cooler vent stack 

is projected to increase between 415 and 

360 percent. This may adversely affect 

the process and pellet quality and also 

increase dust loading. Further, the 

increase in unheated primary 

combustion air to the burner will 

require an increase in fuel to replace the 

heat not used from heated secondary 

combustion air. It is expected that this 

will result in an increase in the fuel rate 

from between 21 to 28 percent. In 

addition, the high-stoich LNB will alter 

the flame temperature profile, which 

may affect pellet quality. 

The information provided by Cliffs in 

its petition for reconsideration and 

subsequent submittals arose from 

recent, time-consuming research and 

analysis that could not have been 

completed and made available during 

the public comment period. Therefore, 

Cliffs has met the first requirement of 

the criteria for reconsideration set forth 

in section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. 

Significantly, the information that Cliffs 

provided is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. EPA 

extensively based its NOX BART 

analysis on the results arising from the 

installation of high-stoich LNBs at U.S. 

Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 and 7. Step 

one of a BART analysis requires the 

identification of all available retrofit 

control technologies. Step two of a 

BART analysis requires the elimination 

of technically infeasible control 

technologies. The new information 

provided by Cliffs directly bears on the 

selection and feasibility of high-stoich 

LNBs for use in the grate-kiln indurating 

furnace at the Tilden facility. On this 

basis, we granted reconsideration of the 

NOX determination for Tilden (gratekiln line 1) and for the corresponding 

emission limits and compliance 

schedule. 

2. SO2 Emission Limit 

The 2013 Taconite FIP required the 

Tilden grate-kiln Line 1 to burn 100% 

natural gas. However, although 

mentioned in discussions with Cliffs, 

this requirement had not been proposed 

before the final rule. Therefore, it was 

impracticable for Cliffs to comment on 

the final BART requirement to burn 

solely natural gas. 

Cliffs more recent intent to burn 

mixed fuels at Tilden is new 

information that we did not consider in 

determining BART for Tilden. The 

burning of mixed fuels will significantly 

increase SO2 emissions, resulting in 

Cliffs’ inability to meet the BART limit. 

Therefore, the new information is of 

central relevance to the outcome of the 

2013 Taconite FIP. On this basis, we 

granted reconsideration to the 2013 

Taconite FIP requirement to burn only 

natural gas at the Tilden grate-kiln Line 

1. 

C. ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and 

Hibbing Taconite: NOX Limit 

The 2013 Taconite FIP established 

NOX emission limits for both grate-kiln 

and straight-grate kiln taconite furnaces. 

The limits that EPA developed were 

based solely upon the performance of 

high-stoich LNBs installed at two of 

U.S. Steel Minntac’s grate-kilns. 

However, as explained above, there are 

significant differences between straightgrate kiln and grate-kiln furnaces that 

must be considered in setting emissions 

limits. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ArcelorMittal’s Minorca taconite 

facility and the Hibbing taconite facility, 

which is jointly owned by Cliffs, 

ArcelorMittal, and U.S. Steel, operate 

straight-grate furnaces that are required 

to meet the 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBT BART 

limit under the 2013 Taconite FIP. In 

the petitions for reconsideration 

submitted by ArcelorMittal and Cliffs, 

the petitioners provided new 

information directly bearing on the 

criteria used to establish BART NOX

limits. Their comments reflected similar 

issues to those that Cliffs presented in 

its analysis of grate-kiln furnaces at the 

United Taconite and Tilden facilities, 

including cost, increased fuel usage, the 

potential impact on production, and the 

feasibility of meeting the BART NOX

limit. Further, it is significant that at the 

time of promulgation of the 2013 

Taconite FIP, no LNB had been installed 

on a straight grate furnace. 

Correspondingly, ArcelorMittal reported 

that none of the vendors it had 

contacted were willing to guarantee the 

successful installation or operation of a 

LNB on a straight-grate furnace. 

The information provided by 

ArcelorMittal and Cliffs in their 

petitions for reconsideration and 

subsequent submittals arose from 

recent, time-consuming research and 

analysis that was not and could not 

have been completed and made 

available during the public comment 

period. Therefore, they have met the 

first requirement of the criteria for 

reconsideration set forth at section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The new 

information provided by the petitioners 

directly addresses the costs and 

feasibility of LNB controls, which are 

criteria to be used in determining BART. 

The cost and feasibility of the LNB 

controls are of central relevance to the 

outcome of the 2013 Taconite FIP. On 

this basis, we granted reconsideration to 

the NOX BART limits for straight grate 

taconite furnaces at the ArcelorMittal 

Minorca facility and the Hibbing 

facility. 

VI. Basis for Proposed Revisions to 

2013 Taconite FIP Requirements 

A. Revised BART Determinations 

i. United Taconite and Tilden GrateKilns—Five Step BART Evaluation for 

NOX

(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit 

Control Technologies 

As discussed in the August 15, 2012 

proposed FIP, the following control 

technologies were identified: external 

flue gas recirculation, low-NOX burners, 

induced flue gas recirculation burners, 

energy efficiency projects, ported kilns, 

and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). 

High-stoich and low-stoich low-NOX

burners were subsequently considered 

separately. 

(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options 

External flue gas recirculation and 

induced flue gas recirculation burners 

were eliminated from consideration 

since they are technically infeasible for 

the specific application to pellet 

furnaces due to the high oxygen content 

of the flue gas. Energy efficiency 

projects were eliminated due to the 

difficulty of assigning a general 

potential emission reduction for this 

category. EPA agrees that SCR controls 

are infeasible for indurating furnaces 

based on two SCR vendors declining to 

bid on NOX reduction testing at 

Minntac. The following three Metso 

reports provide detailed analyses of 

expected adverse impacts of using highstoich LNBs, which are in use at U.S. 

Steel Minntac, on both pellet quality 

and increased fuel use: an August 7, 

2014, report entitled ‘‘Technical 

Analysis for applying LNB technology 

to United Taconite Line 2 Grate-Kiln,’’ 

a September 14, 2012 report titled 

‘‘Technical Analysis for Appling LNB 

Technology to Tilden 1 Grate Kiln 

System,’’ and a January 13, 2015 report 

titled ‘‘Technical Analysis for Tilden 

Phase III Additional Simulations while 

Applying COEN LNB Technology.’’ A 

summary of the results from these Metso 

reports is contained in an August 13, 

2015 technical support document. 

A mass emission rate comparison 

between high-stoich and low-stoich 

LNB options was presented by Metso, 

during a July 28, 2014 meeting between 

EPA and Cliffs and summarized in a 

subsequent August 8, 2014 letter to 

EPA. Metso’s analysis compared the 

amount of NOX that would be generated 

when a furnace is retrofitted with a 

high-stoich LNB and low-stoich staged 

combustion LNB options. This analysis 

demonstrated that although the lbs 

NOX/MMBtu may be lower from a highstoich burner, the high-stoich LNB will 

require more fuel (and BTUs) and result 

in higher NOX emissions. A more 

detailed discussion of this analysis is 

contained in an August 13, 2015 

technical support document. 

The declaration by Eric Wagner (of 

Metso) dated November 26, 2013 

consists mainly of a description of 

differences relevant to NOX emissions 

between U.S. Steel’s Minntac furnaces 6 

and 7, upon which the 2013 Taconite 

FIP NOX limits were based, and Cliffs’ 

grate-kiln furnaces at Tilden and United 

Taconite. The declaration noted these 

differences: 

—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 operate 

preheat burners, which supply about 

one third of the heat input from fuel, 

in addition to the large kiln burner. 

United Taconite and Tilden use a 

single kiln burner. These smaller 

preheat burners can achieve very low 

NOX rates (0.1–0.3 lbs/MMBtu) due to 

a more favorable NOX reduction 

combustion environment in the 

preheat zone as compared to the firing 

end of the kiln. These lower NOX

emissions produce a lower combined 

NOX rate than from the large kiln 

LNB. 

—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 process 

high magnetite ore that contributes 

heat to the kiln when oxidized. 

Tilden’s ores are primarily hematite, 

which is not a source of heat for the 

kilns, and United Taconite processes 

ores with a lower concentration of 

magnetite than Minntac. Therefore, 

Tilden and United Taconite’s furnaces 

must add more fuel to achieve final 

product requirements than Minntac. 

The associated energy penalties are 

predicted to remain 25–45 percent for 

Cliffs’ grate-kiln furnaces even after 

energy efficiency improvements at 

United Taconite and Tilden. 

—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 use ported 

kilns to maximize the benefit of their 

high magnetite ore bodies. Ported 

kilns allow the introduction of 

additional air directly to the kilns 

where it helps to oxidize the high 

magnetite ore that Minntac processes. 

United Taconite and Tilden do not 

use ported kilns because porting will 

not produce significant benefits for 

the type of ore they process. Ported 

kilns significantly change the heat 

balance of the furnace, making it 

difficult to generalize from Minntac’s 

experience. 

—Minntac furnaces 6 and 7 are also 

unique because they produce high 

flux magnetite pellets. By contrast, 

United Taconite produces primarily 

standard (low flux) magnetite pellets, 

and Tilden produces high flux 

hematite pellets. Retrofitting a furnace 

with the Coen-type high-stoich LNB 

burner introduces more air, requires 

more fuel, and at different locations. 

As a result, the high-stoich LNB 

retrofit must be evaluated in the 

context of the unique furnace design 

for that specific pellet product from 

that specific ore type. The Minntac 

experience cannot therefore be 

generalized to other furnaces. 

—The application of high-stoich LNB 

technology at Tilden and United 

Taconite would require additional air 

to reduce burner flame temperature, 

which would result in increased 

airflow through the grate drying 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64167 

section and increased pressure drop 

across the greenballs. This higher bed 

pressure would result in deformed 

pellets and reduced pellet quality. 

The increased air flow would also 

cause pellet breakage leading to 

decreased production. In order to 

maintain pellet quality and 

production rate, the overall dryer 

section air flow and drying rate must 

be limited by reducing the amount of 

recovered heat from the cooler. This 

unrecovered heat must be replaced 

with additional burner fuel, further 

increasing fuel requirements. 

EPA agrees with the results of the 

Metso reports and declaration and have 

therefore determined that high-stoich 

LNBs are technically infeasible for the 

United Taconite and Tilden grate-kilns. 

Low-stoich grate-kilns remain 

technically feasible for grate-kilns. 

(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies 

Low-stoich burners, as designed by 

FCT Combustion (FCT), are expected to 

avoid the previously described 

drawbacks from high-stoich burners and 

can be designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu 

when burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/ 

MMBtu when burning a gas/coal mix. 

This technology is described in the 

‘‘FCT Combustion Cliffs UTAC Line 2 

Phase 3 Modeling Report’’ and August 

8, 2014 letter from Douglas McWilliams. 

FCT supplies a LNB, called the FCT 

COMBUSTION Gyro-Therm MKII 

burner. This FCT low-stoich GyroTherm burner design achieves NOX

reductions by reducing flame 

temperature by mixing fuel and air to 

simulate the effects of staged 

combustion for NOX reduction. This 

burner uses a special gas nozzle that 

injects the gas in a stirring type of 

motion. The fluid mechanics resulting 

from use of this nozzle create a 

dramatically different flame and NOX is 

greatly reduced through natural staging 

of the fuel-air mixing. This FCT lowstoich LNB would not require additional 

primary air, which would eliminate the 

air velocity and pressure contributions 

to pellet quality problems. FCT’s 

proposed low-stoich burner also does 

not require substantial additional fuel 

because it is not introducing cool 

primary air that must be heated to 

sustain critical furnace temperatures. 

FCT performed CFD modeling at 

United Taconite in order to design a 

new burner that will reduce NOX, but 

maintain product quality, production 

and optimize fuel efficiency. The 

modeling for combusting solely natural 

gas indicated a reduction from a base 

case of 5.3–6.4 lb NOX/MMBtu to 2.91 

lbs NOX/MMBtu; the modeling for cofiring at 30 percent gas and 70 percent 

coal indicated a reduction from a base 

case of 1.6–5.4 (although the upper 

bound is generally closer to 2.8 lbs/

MMBtu), with a typical baseline value 

of 2.5 lbs/MMBtu, to 2.04 lbs NOX/

MMBtu. The NOX reduction technology 

appropriate for United Taconite would 

also be appropriate for Tilden (and vice 

versa) because they have similar gratekilns. 

(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of 

Remaining Control Technologies 

There will be an estimated total of 

3000 tons per year of NOX reductions 

from the use of the low-stoich 

technology at Tilden and United 

Taconite. There are no significant costs 

or environmental impacts associated 

with this technology that would 

necessitate its elimination from 

consideration as BART. 

(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts 

There is about a 16% overall decrease 

in the amount of NOX and SO2

reductions anticipated as a result of the 

control technologies (and resulting 

emission limits) required by this 

rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 

FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART 

technologies would be expected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvements, although slightly less 

than what would be achieved from the 

2013 FIP by an amount roughly 

corresponding to the decrease in 

emission reductions. 

(6) Propose BART 

In EPA’s view, the CFD modeling that 

FCT has conducted provides the best 

currently available evidence as to the 

NOX emission levels that this 

technology will achieve. According to 

this modeling and engineering reports 

provided by (the burner manufacturer) 

Coen, a low-stoich burner can be 

designed to meet 2.8 lbs/MMBtu when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu 

when burning a gas/coal mix. BART 

requires that the burners be designed to 

meet these limits and we expect that 

these limits will be met. However, 

because of the lack of experience with 

these low-stoich burners, including 

their impact on pellet quality, we are 

proposing to increase the final limits up 

to 3.0 lbs/MMBtu when burning natural 

gas only, and up to 2.5 lbs/MMBtu 

when burning a gas/coal mix if a 

rigorous demonstration is made that the 

2.8 lbs/MMBtu and 1.5 lbs/MMBtu 

limits cannot be met. 

ii. Hibbing Taconite and ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine Straight-Grate Kilns— 

Five Step BART Evaluation for NOX

(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit 

Control Technologies 

As discussed in the August 15, 2012 

proposed FIP, the following control 

technologies were identified: external 

flue gas recirculation, low-NOX burners 

(including both high-stoich and lowstoich), induced flue gas recirculation 

burners, energy efficiency projects, 

ported kilns, and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). Water injection in the 

preheat zone, a pre-combustion 

approach at the main burners and steam 

injection to the fuel stream were 

subsequently considered technologies. 

(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options 

External flue gas recirculation and 

induced flue gas recirculation burners 

were eliminated from consideration 

because they are technically infeasible 

for the specific application to pellet 

furnaces due to the high oxygen content 

of the flue gas. Energy efficiency 

projects were eliminated due to the 

difficulty of assigning a general 

potential emission reduction for this 

category. EPA agrees that SCR controls 

are infeasible for indurating furnaces 

based on two SCR vendors declining to 

bid on NOX reduction testing at 

Minntac. 

In addition, LNBs were eliminated 

from consideration due to the technical 

challenges associated with their 

installation and operation on the 

straight-grate kilns at Minorca Mine and 

Hibbing, which we explained in detail 

in section V above—especially the fact 

that high-stoich burners have never 

been used on any straight-grate kilns. 

Low-stoich burners have also been 

eliminated from consideration because 

they have never been used on straightgrate kilns and also because they would 

be expected to result in higher NOX

emissions than the technologies being 

assessed by ArcelorMittal. As described 

in more detail below, water injection in 

the preheat zone, a pre-combustion 

approach at the main burners, and 

steam injection to the fuel stream are 

considered to be feasible technologies. 

(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies 

ArcelorMittal has retained 

engineering firms to assess NOX

reduction technologies for Minorca’s 

straight-grate indurating furnace. The 

results of this assessment are described 

in an August 11, 2014 report titled 

‘‘ArcelorMittal Straight-Grate NOX


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64168 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Reduction Technology Development 

Efforts.’’ Testing has revealed that NOX

can be reduced using water injection in 

the preheat and the main burners, 

although it is significantly more 

effective at reducing NOX in the preheat 

burners than the main burners. 

Additional options for NOX reduction at 

straight grate furnaces are: precombustion optimizations, steam 

injection, and multiple point injection. 

The viability of these options will be 

based on NOX reduction potential, 

impacts to pellet quality and process, 

installation and operational downtime, 

and any energy penalty and capital and 

operating costs. 

Test results have raised the prospect 

of optimizing NOX reductions using 

both water injection in the preheat zone 

(where it appears more effective) and a 

pre-combustion approach at the main 

burners. This approach resulted in a 

70% or greater reduction on a lbs/

MMBtu basis. Efforts have also been 

made to evaluate steam injection to the 

fuel stream, which has the potential to 

provide better mixing in the flame zone 

with increasing NOX reductions where 

distribution concerns exist. Another 

alternative to reduce NOX formation at 

the main combustion chambers is 

through a number of smaller ‘‘surface 

spray’’ injectors. 

In conclusion, combined modeling 

indicates that water injection in the 

preheat zone, a pre-combustion 

approach at the main burners and steam 

injection to the fuel stream technologies 

can reasonably be expected to achieve a 

70% NOX reduction on a lbs/MMBtu 

basis. EPA expects these technologies to 

be equally effective at reducing NOX

emissions at Hibbing as well as at 

Minorca Mine. 

(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of 

Remaining Control Technologies 

There will be a total estimated 7,400 

tons per year of NOX reductions from 

water injection in the preheat zone, a 

pre-combustion approach at the main 

burners, and steam injection to the fuel 

stream at Minorca Mine and Hibbing. 

There are no significant costs or 

environmental impacts associated with 

these control technologies. 

(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts 

There is about a 16% overall decrease 

in the amount of NOX and SO2

reductions anticipated as a result of the 

control technologies (and resulting 

emission limits) required by this 

rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 

FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART 

technologies would be expected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvements, although slightly less 

than what would be achieved from the 

2013 FIP by an amount roughly 

corresponding to the decrease in 

emission reductions. 

(6) Propose BART 

Based upon the engineering report 

prepared for ArcelorMittal in which the 

use of water and steam injection and 

pre-combustion technologies is 

described, EPA is confident that 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine and 

Hibbing Taconite can meet a limit of 1.2 

lbs NOX/MMBtu. BART requires that 

these technologies be designed to meet 

a limit of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu and we expect 

that these limits will be met. However, 

because the particular combination of 

water and steam injection and precombustion technologies being 

considered has not previously been 

used on straight-grate kilns, and there is 

some uncertainty with respect to their 

effect on pellet quality, we are 

proposing to increase the final limit up 

to 1.8 lbs/MMBtu if a rigorous 

demonstration is made that the 1.2 lbs/ 

MMBtu limit cannot be met. 

iii. United Taconite—Five Step BART 

Evaluation for SO2

(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control 

Technologies 

Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and 

use of low sulfur fuels are the most 

appropriate available technologies. 

(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options 

FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are 

both technically feasible. 

(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies 

FGD can achieve 90 percent control 

and the reduction from the use of low 

sulfur fuels varies depending upon the 

fuel mix and the sulfur content of the 

fuel. 

(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of 

Remaining Control Technologies 

Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions 

of about 3600 tons per year from lines 

1 and 2. Based upon information 

supplied by Cliffs in its response to 

comments on the proposed 2013 

Taconite FIP, EPA subsequently 

determined the annualized dollars per 

ton for FGD controls to be $5,911/ton for 

Line 1 and $5,303/ton for Line 2. These 

cost-effectiveness values were based 

upon prior baseline SO2 emission levels. 

In light of the reduction in SO2

emissions that will result from the use 

of low-sulfur fuels at United Taconite, 

the cost effectiveness of additional 

controls has increased to $12,021 per 

ton for Line 1 and $7,680 per ton for 

Line 2. Thus, EPA believes that the 

installation of such controls is not 

economically feasible. 

United Taconite subsequently 

proposed an alternate BART definition 

based on burning low sulfur fuels, 

including increased use of natural gas. 

This alternative will result in about 

1,900 tons per year of SO2 reductions. 

There are no other significant impacts or 

costs associated with this alternative. 

(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts 

There is about a 16% overall decrease 

in the amount of NOX and SO2

reductions anticipated as a result of the 

control technologies (and resulting 

emission limits) required by this 

rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 

FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART 

technologies would be expected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvements, although slightly less 

than what would be achieved from the 

2013 FIP by an amount roughly 

corresponding to the decrease in 

emission reductions. 

(6) Propose BART 

The proposed BART is based on 

burning low sulfur fuels, including 

increased use of natural gas, sufficient 

to meet a Federally enforceable 

aggregate emission limit of 529 lbs SO2/ 

hr, based on a 30-day rolling average. 

This alternative will result in about 

1900 tons per year of SO2 reductions. In 

addition to the emission limit proposed 

by Cliffs, to ensure the use of low-sulfur 

fuels and SO2 reductions resulting from 

the use of low-sulfur fuels at United 

Taconite, EPA is also establishing a 

limitation on the coal to be used by 

requiring the coal have a sulfur content 

no greater than 1.50 percent sulfur by 

weight based on a monthly block 

average. 

The 529 lbs SO2/hour and 1.5 percent 

sulfur limit constitute BART because of 

the economic infeasibility of FGD 

controls and also because the facility is 

not designed to handle lower sulfur 

coal. 

iv. Tilden—Five Step BART Evaluation 

for SO2

(1) Step 1: Identify All Available Control 

Technologies 

FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are 

the most appropriate available 

technologies. 

(2) Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options 

FGD and use of low sulfur fuels are 

both technically feasible. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64169 

(3) Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies 

FGD can achieve 90 percent control 

and the reduction from the use of low 

sulfur fuels varies depending upon the 

fuel mix and the sulfur content of the 

fuel. 

(4) Step 4: Evaluate Impacts of 

Remaining Control Technologies 

Dry FGD can achieve SO2 reductions 

of about 1100 tons per year from 

Tilden’s line 1. In its September 28, 

2012 comments on the proposed 2013 

Taconite FIP, Cliffs documented dry 

FGD costs of between $11,450 and 

$15,750 per ton of SO2 removed. These 

costs are not economically reasonable. 

The use of low sulfur fuels, consisting 

of the use of either natural gas or coal 

with no more than 0.6 percent sulfur, is 

expected to result in a reduction in SO2

emissions of about 300 tons per year 

from baseline conditions. There are no 

significant costs or energy impacts 

associated with use of these low sulfur 

fuels. 

(5) Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts 

There is about a 16% overall decrease 

in the amount of NOX and SO2

reductions anticipated as a result of the 

control technologies (and resulting 

emission limits) required by this 

rulemaking, as compared to the 2013 

FIP. EPA finds that the candidate BART 

technologies would be expected to 

achieve substantial visibility 

improvements, although slightly less 

than what would be achieved from the 

2013 FIP by an amount roughly 

corresponding to the decrease in 

emission reductions. 

(6) Proposed BART 

BART for SO2 at Tilden’s Grate Kiln 

Line 1 furnace is proposed to be met by 

the use of low sulfur coal and natural 

gas. Beginning six months after the 

effective date of the rule, any coal 

burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 

shall have no more than 0.60 percent 

sulfur by weight based on a monthly 

block average. This furnace shall also 

meet an initial emission limit of 500 lbs 

SO2/hr based on a 30-day rolling 

average beginning six months after the 

effective date of the rule. The owner or 

operator must subsequently calculate a 

permanent lbs SO2/hr mass emission 

limit based on 12 continuous months of 

CEMS emissions data. 

In light of the reduction in SO2

emissions that will result from the use 

of low-sulfur fuels at Tilden, it is 

expected that the dollars per ton of SO2

reduction through FGD would be even 

higher than previously estimated. Thus, 

EPA believes that the installation of 

such controls is no longer economically 

reasonable. The use of low sulfur fuels 

is therefore the most viable option and 

a 0.6 percent sulfur content represents 

the use of very low sulfur coal. The 

initial mass limit of 500 lbs/hr is 

expected to be reduced after obtaining a 

year’s worth of CEMS data. 

B. Compliance Schedule 

The staggered NOX compliance 

schedule proposed in this action is 

generally consistent with the schedule 

in the February 6, 2013 FIP, as to the 

number of months to achieve 

compliance from the effective date of 

the rule. The main differences are that 

under this proposed revised FIP, at 

Tilden, installation of controls is 

required after 50 months, not the 26 

months in the 2013 Taconite FIP, and at 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine, 

installation of controls is required 

within 44 months, not 26 months. The 

following summarizes the dates 

following the effective date of the final 

action on reconsideration by which EPA 

plans to publish notices making the 

NOX emission limits effective: 

Tilden—60 months 

Hibbing Line 1—37 months 

Hibbing Line 2—55 months 

Hibbing Line 3—60 months 

United Taconite Line 2—55 months 

United Taconite Line 1—37 months 

ArcelorMittal—55 months 

The staggered schedule is necessary 

because there is a limited downtime 

each year for each furnace during which 

the low NOX burner(s) can be installed 

without interfering with production, 

experience gained on the earlier 

installations can be applied to the ones 

installed later, and installation costs 

may be spread out. 

The staggered schedule, including 

additional time at Tilden and 

ArcelorMittal, is even more necessary 

for the proposed revisions to the 2013 

Taconite FIP because, although the NOX

controls that are expected to be 

implemented as a result of the 

settlement agreement and this proposed 

action have been subject to extensive 

engineering studies, they have not been 

used on taconite furnaces in the US. 

There will also be an eight month 

period after installation of controls 

during which emission and pellet 

quality data will be evaluated and a 

subsequent three month period during 

which a final emission limit will be set 

by EPA based upon this data. The 

controls are being designed to meet the 

lower end of the range and it is expected 

that the limits will be set close to the 

lower end. The actual limit will be 

based upon the UPL statistical test. 

C. Averaging Times 

The limits in the 2013 Taconite FIP 

were expressed in terms of a 30-day 

average. A 30-day period in many cases 

would involve both operation with only 

natural gas and operation with at least 

some firing of coal. EPA prefers to 

require the companies to meet the limits 

with a coal/gas mix and with only 

natural gas independently, rather than 

imposing a variable limit computed as 

a composite of the limits with a gas/coal 

mix and with only natural gas weighted 

according to time in each operating 

mode. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

require separate compliance with two 

limits. One of these limits would govern 

the emissions averaged over 720 

successive hours in which the unit 

burns only natural gas. The other limit 

would govern emissions averaged over 

the 720 successive hours in which the 

unit burns a gas/coal mix. These 720- 

hour rolling average would correspond 

to a 30-day rolling average, as used in 

the 2013 Taconite FIP, in cases when 

the fuel use remains either natural gas 

or a gas/coal mix over 30 days. 

However, a 720-hour rolling average 

ensures that the NOX emission rate will 

be properly compared with the 

appropriate fuel based limit. 

An example helps illustrate the nature 

of these limits. Suppose that a subject 

facility burns only natural gas on Days 

1–12, burns a coal/gas mix on Days 13– 

16, burns gas again on Days 17–30, does 

not operate on Days 31 and 32, burns 

gas on Days 33–40, then burns a coal/ 

gas mix from Days 41–70. This example 

assumes 24 hours/day operation for 

each operating day. In this case, 

compliance with the natural gas-based 

limit would be determined by dividing 

total NOX emissions by total heat input 

for the 720 hours on Days 1–12, Days 

17–30, and Days 33–36, as well as on 

each of the 96 additional sets of 720 

successive hours of burning natural gas 

up to and including the period ending 

at the end of Day 40. Compliance with 

the coal or gas/coal mixed fuel limit 

would be determined by dividing total 

NOX emissions by total heat input for 

the 720 hours on Days 13–16 and Days 

41–66, as well as on each of the 96 

additional sets of 720 successive hours 

of burning coal or mixed fuel up to and 

including the period ending at the end 

of day 70. 

D. Procedures for Promulgating Revised 

FIP Limits 

The regulatory text that follows 

specifies a process for establishing 

limits to which the identified facilities 

shall become subject. While the text 

identifies limits that are to apply, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

text also states that these limits shall 

become enforceable only after EPA 

publishes notice either confirming these 

limits or modifying the limits within a 

range that EPA is proposing here to 

establish. The regulatory text also 

specifies equations that are to be used 

to establish any adjusted limit. Stated 

more generally, this action is proposing 

not just a final action that will initiate 

a process to lead to establishment of 

emission limits; today’s action is also 

proposing the criteria for determining 

the level of the ultimate limits and the 

procedure by which these limits are to 

be made enforceable. 

EPA is proposing for the publication 

of the final rule to trigger a number of 

subsequent requirements for 

implementing BART controls on the 

affected taconite plants. Specific dates, 

defined as a given number of months 

following the effective date of the final 

rule, are given for deadlines for 

commencing operation of CEMS for 

NOX and SO2, for submitting a report 

describing planned NOX emission 

controls, for installing the planned NOX

emission controls, for reporting results 

of pellet quality analyses and 

simultaneous NOX emission data, for 

the source to submit any report 

recommending confirmation of 

modification of the emission limit, and 

for EPA to publish a notice either 

confirming the limit promulgated in 

2016 or establishing an alternate limit 

(within a range proposed here). The 

following summarizes the dates 

following the effective date of the final 

action on reconsideration by which EPA 

plans to publish notices making the 

NOX emission limits effective: 

Tilden—60 months 

Hibbing Line 1—37 months 

Hibbing Line 2—55 months 

Hibbing Line 3—60 months 

United Taconite Line 2—55 months 

United Taconite Line 1—37 months 

ArcelorMittal—55 months 

Based on the above schedule, EPA 

anticipates publishing a notice 37 

months (addressing 2 units), 55 months 

(addressing 3 units), and 60 months 

(addressing 1 unit) after the effective 

date of the final rule on reconsideration. 

In each case, the rulemaking will cause 

a limit to become enforceable. EPA is 

proposing here that the limit will be 

either the limit that is promulgated in 

the final rule on reconsideration or a 

revised limit. In either case, EPA 

anticipates that the limit to which each 

unit will ultimately be subject will be in 

accordance with the equations being 

proposed here, within the upper and 

lower bounds promulgated in the final 

rule on reconsideration. 

EPA is proposing that these 

subsequent notices will constitute 

subsequent final actions to this proposal 

that require no further opportunity for 

public comment. Accordingly, today’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking provides 

adequate information about the basis 

and timing of the final limits such that 

no further proposals will be necessary. 

EPA is taking this approach in order to 

expedite the establishment of final, 

enforceable limits for these facilities, 

within the context of a process that 

provides reasonable time to design and 

install emission controls, to obtain data 

for determining control effectiveness, 

and to minimize the time then needed 

to establish final, enforceable limits. 

Therefore, commenters should provide 

comments during the comment period 

for today’s proposed rulemaking on any 

issues that might be anticipated to arise 

at any point in the process described in 

this notice, up to and including during 

the publication of final action as 

described above establishing confirmed 

or modified limits as fully enforceable. 

The following is an example, based on 

Hibbing Line 1, of the process for setting 

the final limit. The limits and schedules 

vary by line but the steps are the same 

for all: 

1. A presumptive limit of 1.2 lbs/

MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, is established. 

2. The owner or operator must install 

CEMS within 6 months of the effective 

date of the rule. 

3. After installation of the CEMS, 

CEMS data must be submitted to EPA 

no later than 30 days from the end of 

each calendar quarter until 34 months 

from the effective date of the rule. 

4. Within 24 months of the effective 

date a final report must be submitted to 

EPA containing a detailed engineering 

analysis and modeling of the NOX

reduction technology (which must be 

designed to meet 1.2 lbs/MMBtu) being 

installed. 

5. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be installed no later 

than 26 months after the effective date 

of the rule. 

6. Within the earlier of 6 months of 

the installation of the NOX reduction 

control technology or 26 months from 

the effective date of the rule the results 

of pellet quality analyses must be 

provided to EPA no later than 30 days 

from the end of each calendar quarter 

pellet quality analyses must be provided 

to EPA until 34 months from the 

effective date of the rule. For each pellet 

quality analysis factor, e.g. compression 

and reducibilty, the following must be 

provided: (a) The defined acceptable 

range for each factor as contained in 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management 

system, and (b) pellet quality testing 

results that state the date and time when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the 

indicated pellet quality factors. 

7. No later than 34 months after the 

effective date of the rule, a report may 

be submitted to EPA either confirming 

the 1.2 lbs/MMBtu presumptive limit or 

requesting a modification of the limit up 

to the upper end of the range (1.8 lbs/ 

MMBtu in this case). 

8. The final limit will be based on the 

CEMS data from the eight month period 

from the end of month 26 to the end of 

month 34, excluding any time in which 

the pellet quality standards are not met. 

The final limit will be based upon the 

95 percent upper predictive limit (UPL). 

The UPL is a statistical technique that 

examines an existing set of data points 

and predicts the chances (i.e., the 

probability) of future data points (in this 

case, emission rates). In general terms, 

the UPL is a value that is calculated 

from a data set that identifies the 

emission rate that a source is meeting 

and would be expected to meet a 

specified percent of the time that the 

source is operating. For example, the 95 

percent UPL value is the emission level 

that the source would be predicted to be 

below during 95 out of 100 hourly 

intervals. The UPL is calculated using 

an equation based on the average and 

variance of a data set, the distribution of 

the data, and quantity of data points. 

9. EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 37 

months after the effective date of the 

rule. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As 

discussed in detail in section VI. C 

below, the proposed FIP applies to only 

four sources. It is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to . . . 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64171 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons . . . .’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

six facilities, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for our regulations in 

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. EPA’s 

proposal adds additional controls to 

certain sources. The Regional Haze FIP 

that EPA is proposing for purposes of 

the regional haze program consists of 

imposing Federal control requirements 

to meet the BART requirement for NOX

and SO2 emissions on specific units at 

three sources in Minnesota and one in 

Michigan. The net result of the FIP 

action is that EPA is proposing emission 

controls on the indurating furnaces at 

four taconite facilities and none of these 

sources are owned by small entities, and 

therefore are not small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation to prohibit 

emissions from interfering with other 

states measures to protect visibility 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

However, EPA did discuss this action in 

a June 28 conference call with the 

Michigan and Minnesota Tribes. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets EO 13045 as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. This 

proposed action addresses regional haze 

and visibility protection. Further, 

because this proposed amendment to 

the current regulation will require 

controls that will cost an amount equal 

to or less than the cost of controls 

required under the current regulation, it 

is not an economically significant 

regulatory action. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are inapplicable to this action 

because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 8, 2015. 

Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1183 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) 

and adding paragraph (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1183 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(k) Tilden Mining Company, or any 

subsequent owner/operator of the 

Tilden Mining Company facility in 

Ishpeming, Michigan, shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) NOX Emission Limits. 

(i) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln 

Line 1 when burning natural gas, and an 

emission limit of 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, 

shall apply to Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 

when burning coal or a mixture of coal 

and natural gas. These emission limits 

will become enforceable 60 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

and only after EPA’s confirmation or 

modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth below. 

(ii) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

57th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall within a 

calendar quarter, must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 7 days from the end 

of the 57th month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

57 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(iii) No later than 48 months from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Tilden 

Grate Kiln Line 1. This report must 

include a list of all variables that can 

reasonably be expected to have an 

impact on NOX emission control 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64173 

technology performance, as well as a 

description of how these variables can 

be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to 

meet the NOX design emission limit. 

This NOx reduction control technology 

must be designed to meet emission 

limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture 

of coal and natural gas. 

(iv) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Tilden 

Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no later than 

50 months from the effective date of the 

rule. 

(v) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(A) Six months from the installation 

of the NOX reduction control 

technology; or 

(B) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 57 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 57th month, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than seven 

days from the end of the 57th month. 

The pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, and low 

temperature disintegration. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(vi) No later than 57 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for Tilden Grate Kiln 

Line 1 within the upper and lower 

bounds described below. EPA will 

review the report and either confirm or 

modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data 

collected during operating periods 

between months 50 and 57 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (o) of this section. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 50 and 57 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation are 

not normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (o) of this 

section. The data set for the 

determination shall exclude periods 

when pellet quality did not fall within 

the defined acceptable ranges of the 

pellet quality factors identified pursuant 

to paragraph (k)(1)(v) of this section and 

for any subsequent period when 

production had been reduced in 

response to pellet quality concerns 

consistent with Tilden’s ISO 9001 

operating standards. Any excluded 

period will commence at the time 

documented on the production log 

demonstrating pellet quality did not fall 

within the defined acceptable range, 

and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will presumed 

to be the level that existed immediately 

prior to the reduction in production due 

to pellet quality concerns. EPA may also 

exclude data where operations are 

inconsistent with the reported design 

parameters of the NOX reduction control 

technology that were installed. 

(vii) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 60 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1 when burning only natural 

gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, and may not exceed 3.0 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or a 

mixture of coal and natural gas may be 

no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, and 

may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average. 

(viii) If the owner or operator submits 

a report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 60 

months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(2) SO2 Emission Limits. A fuel sulfur 

content limit of no greater than 1.20 

percent sulfur content by weight shall 

apply to fuel combusted in Process 

Boiler #1 (EUBOILER1) and Process 

Boiler #2 (EUBOILER2) beginning three 

months from March 8, 2013. A fuel 

sulfur content limit of no greater than 

1.50 percent sulfur content by weight 

shall apply to fuel combusted in the 

Line 1 Dryer (EUDRYER1) beginning 3 

months from March 8, 2013. The 

sampling and calculation methodology 

for determining the sulfur content of 

fuel must be described in the 

monitoring plan required at paragraph 

(n)(8)(x) of this section. 

(3) The owner or operator of the 

Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall 

meet an emission limit of 500 lbs SO2/ 

hr based on a 30-day rolling average 

beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Compliance 

with these emission limits shall be 

demonstrated with data collected by a 

CEMS for SO2. The owner or operator 

must start collecting CEMS data for SO2

beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter. The 

Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace shall 

not be limited to natural gas fuel. 

Beginning 6 months after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], any coal 

burned on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1 

shall have no more than 0.60 percent 

sulfur by weight based on a monthly 

block average. The sampling and 

calculation methodology for 

determining the sulfur content of coal 

must be described in the monitoring 

plan required for this furnace. The 

owner or operator must calculate an SO2

limit based on twelve continuous 

months of CEMS emissions data and 

submit such limit, calculations, and 

CEMS data to EPA no later than 36 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. If the submitted CEMS 

SO2 hourly data is normally distributed, 

the SO2 lbs/hr emission rate shall be 

based on the appropriate (depending 

upon whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 99% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equation. If the 

submitted CEMS SO2 hourly data is not 

normally distributed, the SO2 lbs/hr 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

emission rate shall be based on the nonparametric equation provided in 

paragraph (o) of this section. 

Compliance to the SO2 lbs/hr emission 

rate shall be determined on a 30-day 

rolling average basis. EPA will take final 

agency action by publishing a 

confirmation or modification of the SO2

limit in the Federal Register no later 

than 39 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE]. EPA may adjust the 

500 lbs/hr SO2 limit downward to 

reflect the calculated SO2 emission rate; 

however, EPA will not increase the SO2

limit above 500 lbs/hr. 

(4) Starting 26 months from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

records shall be kept for any day during 

which fuel oil is burned as fuel (either 

alone or blended with other fuels) in 

Grate Kiln Line 1. These records must 

include, at a minimum, the gallons of 

fuel oil burned per hour, the sulfur 

content of the fuel oil, and the SO2

emissions in pounds per hour. 

(5) Starting 26 months from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the SO2 limit for Grate Kiln Line 1 does 

not apply for any hour in which it is 

documented that there is a natural gas 

curtailment, beyond Cliffs’ control, 

necessitating that the supply of natural 

gas to Tilden’s Line 1 indurating furnace 

is restricted or eliminated. Records must 

be kept of the cause of the curtailment 

and duration of such curtailment. 

During such curtailment, the use of 

backup coal is restricted to coal with no 

greater than 0.60 percent sulfur by 

weight. 

(l) Testing and Monitoring (1) The 

owner or operator shall install, certify, 

calibrate, maintain and operate a CEMS 

for NOX on Tilden Grate Kiln Line 1. 

Compliance with the emission limits for 

NOX shall be determined using data 

from the CEMS. 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain and 

operate a CEMS for SO2 on Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1. Compliance with the 

emission standard selected for SO2 shall 

be determined using data from the 

CEMS. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain and 

operate one or more continuous diluent 

monitor(s) (O2 or CO2) and continuous 

flow rate monitor(s) on Tilden Grate 

Kiln Line 1 to allow conversion of the 

NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of 

the standard (lbs/MMBtu and lbs/hr, 

respectively) unless a demonstration is 

made that a diluent monitor and 

continuous flow rate monitor are not 

needed for the owner or operator to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable emission limits in units of 

the standards. 

(4) For purposes of this section, all 

CEMS required by this regulation must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(l)(4)(i) through (xiv) of this section. 

(i) All CEMS must be installed, 

certified, calibrated, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 (PS–2) and appendix F, 

Procedure 1. 

(ii) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) must be installed and 

operational upon [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. All CEMS associated 

with monitoring SO2 must be installed 

and operational no later than six months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Verification of the CEMS 

operational status shall, as a minimum, 

include completion of the 

manufacturer’s written requirements or 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and calibration of the 

devices. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

conduct a performance evaluation of 

each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, PS–2. The 

performance evaluations must be 

completed no later than 60 days after 

the respective CEMS installation. 

(iv) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must conduct periodic Quality 

Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) 

checks of each CEMS in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 

Procedure 1. The first CEMS accuracy 

test will be a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) and must be completed no later 

than 60 days after the respective CEMS 

installation. 

(v) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must furnish the Regional 

Administrator two, or upon request, 

more copies of a written report of the 

results of each performance evaluation 

and QA/QC check within 60 days of 

completion. 

(vi) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must check, record, and quantify 

the zero and span calibration drifts at 

least once daily (every 24 hours) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 4. 

(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero and 

span adjustments, all CEMS required by 

this section shall be in continuous 

operation during all periods of process 

operation of the indurating furnaces, 

including periods of process unit 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

(viii) All CEMS required by this 

section must meet the minimum data 

requirements at paragraphs (l)(4)(viii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle 

of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 

data recording) for each successive 15- 

minute quadrant of an hour. 

(B) Sample, analyze and record 

emissions data for all periods of process 

operation except as described in 

paragraph (l)(4)(viii)(C) of this section. 

(C) When emission data from CEMS 

are not available due to continuous 

monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, or zero and span 

adjustments, emission data must be 

obtained using other monitoring 

systems or emission estimation methods 

approved by the EPA. The other 

monitoring systems or emission 

estimation methods to be used must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by this section and provide 

information such that emissions data are 

available for a minimum of 18 hours in 

each 24-hour period and at least 22 out 

of 30 successive unit operating days. 

(ix) Owners or operators of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

reduce all data to 1-hour averages. 

Hourly averages shall be computed 

using all valid data obtained within the 

hour but no less than one data point in 

each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. 

Notwithstanding this requirement, an 

hourly average may be computed from 

at least two data points separated by a 

minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit 

operates for more than one quadrant in 

an hour) if data are unavailable as a 

result of performance of calibration, 

quality assurance, preventive 

maintenance activities, or backups of 

data from data acquisition and handling 

systems, and recertification events. 

(x) The 30-day rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr 

depending on the emission standard 

selected) must be calculated in 

accordance with paragraphs (l)(4)(x)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of the 

pollutant in question emitted from the 

Unit during an operating day and the 

previous 29 operating days. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBtu) or the total actual 

hours of operation (in hours) during an 

operating day and the previous 29 

operating days. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of the pollutant in question emitted 

during the 30 operating days by the total 

heat input (or actual hours of operation 

depending on the emission limit 

selected) during the 30 operating days. 

(D) For purposes of this calculation, 

an operating day is any day during 

which fuel is combusted in the BART 

affected Unit regardless of whether 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64175 

pellets are produced. Actual hours of 

operation are the total hours a unit is 

firing fuel regardless of whether a 

complete 24-hour operational cycle 

occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel 

for only five hours during a 24-hour 

period, then the actual operating hours 

for that day are five. Similarly, total 

number of pounds of the pollutant in 

question for that day is determined only 

from the CEMS data for the five hours 

during which fuel is combusted.) 

(E) If the owner or operator of the 

CEMS required by this section uses an 

alternative method to determine 30-day 

rolling averages, that method must be 

described in detail in the monitoring 

plan required by this section. The 

alternative method will only be 

applicable if the final monitoring plan 

and the alternative method are approved 

by EPA. 

(F) A new 30-day rolling average 

emission rate must be calculated for the 

period ending each new operating day. 

(xi) The 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBtu) must be 

calculated in accordance with 

paragraphs (l)(4)(xi)(A) through (C) of 

this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX

emitted from the unit every hour and 

the previous (not necessarily 

consecutive) 719 hours for which that 

type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed 

coal and natural gas) was used. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBtu) every hour and the 

previous (not necessarily consecutive) 

719 hours for which that type of fuel 

(either natural gas or mixed coal and 

natural gas) was used. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as 

defined above, by the total heat input 

during the same 720 hour period. This 

calculation must be done separately for 

each fuel type (either for natural gas or 

mixed coal and natural gas). 

(xii) Data substitution must not be 

used for purposes of determining 

compliance under this regulation. 

(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced 

and reported in units of the applicable 

standard. 

(xiv) A Quality Control Program must 

be developed and implemented for all 

CEMS required by this section in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The 

program will include, at a minimum, 

written procedures and operations for 

calibration checks, calibration drift 

adjustments, preventative maintenance, 

data collection, recording and reporting, 

accuracy audits/procedures, periodic 

performance evaluations, and a 

corrective action program for 

malfunctioning CEMS. 

(m) Recordkeeping Requirements. 

(1)(i) Records required by this section 

must be kept in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review. 

(ii) Records required by this section 

must be kept for a minimum of 5 years 

following the date of creation. 

(iii) Records must be kept on site for 

at least 2 years following the date of 

creation and may be kept offsite, but 

readily accessible, for the remaining 3 

years. 

(2) The owner or operator of the 

BART affected unit must maintain the 

records identified in paragraphs 

(m)(2)(i) through (xi) of this section. 

(i) A copy of each notification and 

report developed for and submitted to 

comply with this section including all 

documentation supporting any initial 

notification or notification of 

compliance status submitted, according 

to the requirements of this section. 

(ii) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iii) Records of activities taken during 

each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iv) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of all major maintenance 

conducted on the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(v) Records of each excess emission 

report, including all documentation 

supporting the reports, dates and times 

when excess emissions occurred, 

investigations into the causes of excess 

emissions, actions taken to minimize or 

eliminate the excess emissions, and 

preventative measures to avoid the 

cause of excess emissions from 

occurring again. 

(vi) Records of all CEMS data 

including, as a minimum, the date, 

location, and time of sampling or 

measurement, parameters sampled or 

measured, and results. 

(vii) All records associated with 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities on each CEMS as well as other 

records required by 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but 

not limited to, the quality control 

program, audit results, and reports 

submitted as required by this section. 

(viii) Records of the NOX emissions 

during all periods of BART affected unit 

operation, including startup, shutdown 

and malfunction, in the units of the 

standard. The owner or operator shall 

convert the monitored data into the 

appropriate unit of the emission 

limitation using appropriate conversion 

factors and F-factors. F-factors used for 

purposes of this section shall be 

documented in the monitoring plan and 

developed in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, Method 19. The 

owner or operator may use an alternate 

method to calculate the NOX emissions 

upon written approval from EPA. 

(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions or 

records of the removal efficiency (based 

on CEMS data), depending on the 

emission standard selected, during all 

periods of operation, including periods 

of startup, shutdown and malfunction, 

in the units of the standard. 

(x) Records associated with the CEMS 

unit including type of CEMS, CEMS 

model number, CEMS serial number, 

and initial certification of each CEMS 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 must be kept for the life 

of the CEMS unit. 

(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil 

usage as required in paragraph (k)(4) of 

this section. 

(n) Reporting requirements. 

(1) All requests, reports, submittals, 

notifications, and other communications 

to the Regional Administrator required 

by this section shall be submitted, 

unless instructed otherwise, to the Air 

and Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5 (A–18J) at 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

References in this section to the 

Regional Administrator shall mean the 

EPA Regional Administrator for Region 

5. 

(2) The owner or operator of each 

BART affected unit identified in this 

section and CEMS required by this 

section must provide to the Regional 

Administrator the written notifications, 

reports and plans identified at (n)(2)(i) 

through (viii) of this section. If 

acceptable to both the Regional 

Administrator and the owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

identified in this section and CEMS 

required by this section the owner or 

operator may provide electronic 

notifications, reports and plans. 

(i) A notification of the date 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section commences postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the commencement 

date. 

(ii) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section commences postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the 

commencement date. 

(iii) A notification of the date the 

construction of control devices and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

installation of burners required by this 

section is complete postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the completion date. 

(iv) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section is complete postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the completion 

date. 

(v) A notification of the startup date 

for control devices and burners installed 

as a result of this section postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the startup date. 

(vi) A notification of the startup date 

for CEMS required by this section 

postmarked no later than 30 days after 

the startup date. 

(vii) A notification of the date upon 

which the initial CEMS performance 

evaluations are planned. This 

notification must be submitted at least 

60 days before the performance 

evaluation is scheduled to begin. 

(viii) A notification of initial 

compliance, signed by the responsible 

official who shall certify its accuracy, 

attesting to whether the source has 

complied with the requirements of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

applicable emission standards, control 

device and burner installations, CEMS 

installation and certification. This 

notification must be submitted before 

the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstration and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

information in paragraphs (n)(2)(viii) 

(A) through (F) of this section. 

(A) The methods used to determine 

compliance. 

(B) The results of any CEMS 

performance evaluations, and other 

monitoring procedures or methods that 

were conducted. 

(C) The methods that will be used for 

determining continuing compliance, 

including a description of monitoring 

and reporting requirements and test 

methods. 

(D) The type and quantity of air 

pollutants emitted by the source, 

reported in units of the standard. 

(E) A description of the air pollution 

control equipment and burners installed 

as required by this section, for each 

emission point. 

(F) A statement by the owner or 

operator as to whether the source has 

complied with the relevant standards 

and other requirements. 

(3) The owner or operator must 

develop and implement a written 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan for NOX and SO2. The plan must 

include, at a minimum, procedures for 

operating and maintaining the source 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction; and a program of 

corrective action for a malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment used to comply 

with the relevant standard. The plan 

must ensure that, at all times, the owner 

or operator operates and maintains each 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner which satisfies 

the general duty to minimize or 

eliminate emissions using good air 

pollution control practices. The plan 

must ensure that owners or operators 

are prepared to correct malfunctions as 

soon as practicable after their 

occurrence. 

(4) The written reports of the results 

of each performance evaluation and QA/ 

QC check in accordance with and as 

required in paragraph (l)(4)(v) of this 

section. 

(5) Compliance Reports. The owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

must submit semiannual compliance 

reports. The semiannual compliance 

reports must be submitted in accordance 

with paragraphs (n)(5)(i) through (iv) of 

this section, unless the Regional 

Administrator has approved a different 

schedule. 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for the 

affected source through June 30 or 

December 31, whichever date comes 

first after the compliance date that is 

specified for the affected source. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked no later than 30 calendar 

days after the reporting period covered 

by that report (July 30 or January 30), 

whichever comes first. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked no later than 

30 calendar days after the reporting 

period covered by that report (July 30 or 

January 30). 

(6) Compliance report contents. Each 

compliance report must include the 

information in paragraphs (6)(i) through 

(vi) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with the official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the truth, 

accuracy, and completeness of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) Identification of the process unit, 

control devices, and CEMS covered by 

the compliance report. 

(v) A record of each period of a 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

during the reporting period and a 

description of the actions the owner or 

operator took to minimize or eliminate 

emissions arising as a result of the 

startup, shutdown or malfunction and 

whether those actions were or were not 

consistent with the source’s startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan. 

(vi) A statement identifying whether 

there were or were not any deviations 

from the requirements of this section 

during the reporting period. If there 

were deviations from the requirements 

of this section during the reporting 

period, then the compliance report must 

describe in detail the deviations which 

occurred, the causes of the deviations, 

actions taken to address the deviations, 

and procedures put in place to avoid 

such deviations in the future. If there 

were no deviations from the 

requirements of this section during the 

reporting period, then the compliance 

report must include a statement that 

there were no deviations. For purposes 

of this section, deviations include, but 

are not limited to, emissions in excess 

of applicable emission standards 

established by this section, failure to 

continuously operate an air pollution 

control device in accordance with 

operating requirements designed to 

assure compliance with emission 

standards, failure to continuously 

operate CEMS required by this section, 

and failure to maintain records or 

submit reports required by this section. 

(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS 

required by this section must submit 

quarterly excess emissions and 

monitoring system performance reports 

to the Regional Administrator for each 

pollutant monitored for each BART 

affected unit monitored. All reports 

must be postmarked by the 30th day 

following the end of each three-month 

period of a calendar year (January– 

March, April–June, July–September, 

October–December) and must include, 

at a minimum, the requirements of 

paragraphs (n)(7)(i)–(xv) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Identification and description of 

the process unit being monitored. 

(iii) The dates covered by the 

reporting period. 

(iv) Total source operating hours for 

the reporting period. 

(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor 

model number and monitor serial 

number. 

(vi) Pollutant monitored. 

(vii) Emission limitation for the 

monitored pollutant. 

(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification 

or audit. 

(ix) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring systems, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64177 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(x) A table summarizing the total 

duration of excess emissions, as defined 

in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(A) through (B) of 

this section, for the reporting period 

broken down by the cause of those 

excess emissions (startup/shutdown, 

control equipment problems, process 

problems, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of excess emissions (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 

described in paragraphs (n)(7)(x)(C) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of section, an excess 

emission is defined as any 30-day or 

720-hour rolling average period, 

including periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction, during which the 30- 

day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling 

average emissions of either regulated 

pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured 

by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable 

emission standards in this section. 

(B)(1) For purposes of this section, if 

a facility calculates a 30-day rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 

following 30-day rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of this section as well, then it 

will add one more day to the total days 

of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 30-day rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 15 days 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time within a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(2) For purposes of this section, if a 

facility calculates a 720-hour rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 24th 

following 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of the rule as well, then it will 

add one more day to the total days of 

excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 720-hour rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 360 hours 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time with a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(C) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of excess emissions will be 

determined by summing all periods of 

excess emissions (in days) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total BART affected unit 

operating days for the reporting period, 

and then multiplying by 100 to get the 

total percent of excess emissions for the 

reporting period. An operating day, as 

defined previously, is any day during 

which fuel is fired in the BART affected 

unit for any period of time. Because of 

the possible overlap of 30-day rolling 

average excess emissions across 

quarters, there are some situations 

where the total percent of excess 

emissions could exceed 100 percent. 

This extreme situation would only 

result from serious excess emissions 

problems where excess emissions occur 

for nearly every day during a reporting 

period. 

(xi) A table summarizing the total 

duration of monitor downtime, as 

defined at (n)(7)(xi)(A) of this section, 

for the reporting period broken down by 

the cause of the monitor downtime 

(monitor equipment malfunctions, nonmonitor equipment malfunctions, 

quality assurance calibration, other 

known causes, unknown causes), and 

the total percent of monitor downtime 

(for all causes) for the reporting period 

calculated as described in paragraph 

(n)(7)(xi)(B) of this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, 

monitor downtime is defined as any 

period of time (in hours) during which 

the required monitoring system was not 

measuring emissions from the BART 

affected unit. This includes any period 

of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span 

checks, and similar activities. 

(B) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of monitor downtime will 

be determined by summing all periods 

of monitor downtime (in hours) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total number of BART affected 

unit operating hours for the reporting 

period, and then multiplying by 100 to 

get the total percent of excess emissions 

for the reporting period. 

(xii) A table which identifies each 

period of excess emissions for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (n)(7)(xii)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each excess emission. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each excess emission. 

(C) The pollutant for which an excess 

emission occurred. 

(D) The magnitude of the excess 

emission. 

(E) The cause of the excess emission. 

(F) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted to 

minimize or eliminate the excess 

emissions and prevent such excess 

emission from occurring again. 

(xiii) A table which identifies each 

period of monitor downtime for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in paragraph 

(n)(7)(xiii)(A) through (D) of this 

section. 

(A) The date of each period of monitor 

downtime. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each period of monitor downtime. 

(C) The cause of the period of monitor 

downtime. 

(D) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted for 

system repairs or adjustments to 

minimize or eliminate monitor 

downtime and prevent such downtime 

from occurring again. 

(xiv) If there were no periods of 

excess emissions during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of excess 

emissions during this reporting period. 

(xv) If there were no periods of 

monitor downtime, except for daily zero 

and span checks, during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of monitor 

downtime during this reporting period 

except for the daily zero and span 

checks. 

(8) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

develop and submit for review and 

approval by the Regional Administrator 

a site specific monitoring plan. The 

purpose of this monitoring plan is to 

establish procedures and practices 

which will be implemented by the 

owner or operator in its effort to comply 

with the monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of this section. 

The monitoring plan must include, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (n)(8)(i)–(x) of this section. 

(i) Site specific information including 

the company name, address, and contact 

information. 

(ii) The objectives of the monitoring 

program implemented and information 

describing how those objectives will be 

met. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Information on any emission 

factors used in conjunction with the 

CEMS required by this section to 

calculate emission rates and a 

description of how those emission 

factors were determined. 

(iv) A description of methods to be 

used to calculate emission rates when 

CEMS data is not available due to 

downtime associated with QA/QC 

events. 

(v) A description of the QA/QC 

program to be implemented by the 

owner or operator of CEMS required by 

this section. This can be the QA/QC 

program developed in accordance with 

40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 

1, Section 3. 

(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS 

maintained on site for system 

maintenance and repairs. 

(vii) A description of the procedures 

to be used to calculate 30-day rolling 

averages and 720-hour rolling averages 

and example calculations which shows 

the algorithms used by the CEMS to 

calculate 30-day rolling averages and 

720-hour rolling averages. 

(viii) A sample of the document to be 

used for the quarterly excess emission 

reports required by this section. 

(ix) A description of the procedures to 

be implemented to investigate root 

causes of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime and the proposed corrective 

actions to address potential root causes 

of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime. 

(x) A description of the sampling and 

calculation methodology for 

determining the percent sulfur by 

weight as a monthly block average for 

coal used during that month. 

(o) Equations for Establishing the 

Upper Predictive Limit 

(1) Equation for Normal Distribution 

and Statistically Independent Data 

Where: 

x ̄ = average or mean of test run data; 

t[(n–1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value of 

the Student’s t distribution for a specific 

degree of freedom (n–1) and a confidence 

level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden SO2) 

s2 = variance of the dataset; 

n = number of values 

m = number of values used to calculate the 

test average (m = 720 as per averaging 

time) 

(2)(i) To determine if statistically 

independent, use the Rank von 

Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality 

Assessment: Statistical Methods for 

Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S. 

(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann 

test to determine if data are dependent, 

data are dependent if t test value is 

greater than t critical value, where: 

r = correlation between data points 

t critical = t[(n–2),(0.95)] = t score, the two-tailed 

t value of the Student’s t distribution for 

a specific degree of freedom (n–2) and a 

confidence level (0.95) 

(3) If data are dependent then use the 

following equation. 

Equation for Normal Distribution and 

Data not Statistically Independent 

Where: 

r = correlation between data points 

(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data 

Not Normally Distributed 

m = (n + 1) * a 

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when 

data is sorted smallest to largest 

n = number of data points 

a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile 

If m is a whole number, then the 

limit, UPL, shall be computed as: 

UPL = Xm

Where: 

Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of 

lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBtu, when the 

data is sorted smallest to largest. 

If m is not a whole number, the limit 

shall be computed by linear 

interpolation according to the following 

equation. 

UPL = xm = xmi.md = xmi + 0.md (xmi ∂

1 ¥ xmi) 

Where: 

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m 

truncated at zero decimal places, and 

md = the decimal portion of m 

■ 3. Section 52.1235 is proposed to be 

amended by revising paragraphs 

(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v),(b)(2)(iv), 

(c), (d), and (e) and by adding paragraph 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1235 Regional haze. 

(a) [Reserved] 

(b)(1) NOX emission limits. 

(i) * * * 

(ii) Hibbing Taconite Company. 

(A) Hibbing Line 1. 

(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 1 

when burning natural gas. This 

emission limit will become enforceable 

37 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth below. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 1 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from the effective 

date of the rule. The owner or operator 

must start collecting CEMS data and 

submit the data to EPA no later than 30 

days from the end of each calendar 

quarter after that installation deadline. 

Any remaining data through the end of 

the 34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall 

within a calendar quarter, must be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22OC15.001</GPH> EP22OC15.002</GPH> EP22OC15.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64179 

submitted to EPA no later than seven 

days from the end of the 34th month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 34 months 

after the effective date of the rule. 

(3) No later than 24 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 1. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 1 furnace no later than 26 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(i) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(ii) 26 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 34 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 34th month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 34th month. The pellet quality 

analyses shall include results for the 

following factors: Compression, 

reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, 

low temperature disintegration, and 

swelling. For each of the pellet quality 

analysis factors, the owner or operator 

must explain the pellet quality analysis 

factor, as well as the defined acceptable 

range for each factor using the 

applicable product quality standards 

based upon customers’ pellet 

specifications that are contained in 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management 

system. The owner or operator shall 

provide pellet quality analysis testing 

results that state the date and time of the 

analysis and, in order to define the time 

period when pellets were produced 

outside of the defined acceptable range 

for the pellet quality factors listed, 

provide copies of the production logs 

that document the starting and ending 

times for such periods. The owner or 

operator shall provide an explanation of 

causes for pellet samples that fail to 

meet the acceptable range for any pellet 

quality analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 34 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 1 

furnace within the upper and lower 

bounds described below. EPA will 

review the report and either confirm or 

modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data 

collected during operating periods 

between months 26 and 34 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 26 and 34 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 37 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 1 

when burning only natural gas may be 

no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average, and 

may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average. 

(B) Hibbing Line 2. 

(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 2 

when burning natural gas. This 

emission limit will become enforceable 

55 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth below. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 2 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or 

operator must start collecting CEMS 

data and submit the data to EPA no later 

than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter after that installation 

deadline. Any remaining data through 

the end of the 52nd month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that doesn’t fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 52nd month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

52 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(3) No later than 42 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 2. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 2 furnace no later than 44 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(i) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 52nd month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 52nd month. The pellet quality 

analyses shall include results for the 

following factors: Compression, 

reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, 

low temperature disintegration, and 

swelling. For each of the pellet quality 

analysis factors, the owner or operator 

must explain the pellet quality analysis 

factor, as well as the defined acceptable 

range for each factor using the 

applicable product quality standards 

based upon customers’ pellet 

specifications that are contained in 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management 

system. The owner or operator shall 

provide pellet quality analysis testing 

results that state the date and time of the 

analysis and, in order to define the time 

period when pellets were produced 

outside of the defined acceptable range 

for the pellet quality factors listed, 

provide copies of the production logs 

that document the starting and ending 

times for such periods. The owner or 

operator shall provide an explanation of 

causes for pellet samples that fail to 

meet the acceptable range for any pellet 

quality analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 52 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 2 

furnace within the upper and lower 

bounds described below. EPA will 

review the report and either confirm or 

modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data 

collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 2 

when burning only natural gas may be 

no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average, and 

may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average. 

(C) Hibbing Line 3. 

(1) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, shall apply to Hibbing Line 3 

when burning natural gas. This 

emission limit will become enforceable 

60 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] and only after EPA’s 

confirmation or modification of the 

emission limit in accordance with the 

procedures set forth below. 

(2) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of Hibbing Line 3 

must install a CEMS for NOX and SO2

within six months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. The owner or 

operator must start collecting CEMS 

data and submit the data to EPA no later 

than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter after that installation 

deadline. Any remaining data through 

the end of the 57th month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that doesn’t fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 57th month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

57 months after the effective date of the 

rule. 

(3) No later than 48 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on Hibbing 

Line 3. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on Hibbing 

Line 3 furnace no later than 50 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(i) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(ii) 50 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 57 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 57th month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 57th month. The pellet quality 

analyses shall include results for the 

following factors: compression, 

reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, 

low temperature disintegration, and 

swelling. For each of the pellet quality 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64181 

analysis factors, the owner or operator 

must explain the pellet quality analysis 

factor, as well as the defined acceptable 

range for each factor using the 

applicable product quality standards 

based upon customers’ pellet 

specifications that are contained in 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 quality management 

system. The owner or operator shall 

provide pellet quality analysis testing 

results that state the date and time of the 

analysis and, in order to define the time 

period when pellets were produced 

outside of the defined acceptable range 

for the pellet quality factors listed, 

provide copies of the production logs 

that document the starting and ending 

times for such periods. The owner or 

operator shall provide an explanation of 

causes for pellet samples that fail to 

meet the acceptable range for any pellet 

quality analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 57 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for Hibbing Line 3 

furnace within the upper and lower 

bounds described below. EPA will 

review the report and either confirm or 

modify the NOX limits. If the CEMS data 

collected during operating periods 

between months 50 and 57 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 50 and 57 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with 

Hibbing’s ISO 9001 operating standards. 

Any excluded period will commence at 

the time documented on the production 

log demonstrating that pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

range and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 60 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for Hibbing Line 3 

when burning only natural gas may be 

no lower than 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average, and 

may not exceed 1.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 30-day rolling average. 

* * * * * 

(iv) United Taconite. 

(A) United Taconite Line 1. 

(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, shall apply to United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning natural 

gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, shall apply to United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 when 

burning coal or a mixture of coal and 

natural gas. These emission limits will 

become enforceable 37 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

and only after EPA’s confirmation or 

modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth below. 

(2) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

34th month from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall within a 

calendar quarter, must be submitted to 

EPA no later than 7 days from the end 

of the 34th month. Although CEMS data 

must continue to be collected, it does 

not need to be submitted to EPA starting 

34 months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(3) No later than 24 months from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1. This report 

must include a list of all variables that 

can reasonably be expected to have an 

impact on NOX emission control 

technology performance, as well as a 

description of how these variables can 

be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to 

meet the NOX design emission limit. 

This NOX reduction control technology 

must be designed to meet emission 

limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture 

of coal and natural gas. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 1 furnace no 

later than 26 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of 

(i) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(ii) 26 months from the effective date 

of the rule, the owner or operator must 

provide to EPA the results from pellet 

quality analyses. The owner or operator 

shall provide the results from pellet 

quality analyses no later than 30 days 

from the end of each calendar quarter 

up until 34 months after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. Any remaining 

results through the end of the 34th 

month, that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 34th month. The pellet quality 

analyses shall include results for the 

following factors: Compression, 

reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, 

and low temperature disintegration. For 

each of the pellet quality analysis 

factors, the owner or operator must 

explain the pellet quality analysis 

factor, as well as the defined acceptable 

range for each factor using the 

applicable product quality standards 

based upon customers’ pellet 

specifications that are contained in 

Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality management 

system. The owner or operator shall 

provide pellet quality analysis testing 

results that state the date and time of the 

analysis and, in order to define the time 

period when pellets were produced 

outside of the defined acceptable range 

for the pellet quality factors listed, 

provide copies of the production logs 

that document the starting and ending 

times for such periods. The owner or 

operator shall provide an explanation of 

causes for pellet samples that fail to 

meet the acceptable range for any pellet 

quality analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 34 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 1 within the upper and 

lower bounds described below. EPA 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 26 and 34 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 26 and 34 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv)(A)(5) of this section and for 

any subsequent period when production 

had been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with United 

Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating 

standards. Any excluded period will 

commence at the time documented on 

the production log demonstrating pellet 

quality did not fall within the defined 

acceptable range, and shall end when 

pellet quality within the defined 

acceptable range has been re-established 

at planned production levels, which 

will presumed to be the level that 

existed immediately prior to the 

reduction in production due to pellet 

quality concerns. EPA may also exclude 

data where operations are inconsistent 

with the reported design parameters of 

the NOX reduction control technology 

that were installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 37 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning only 

natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, and may not exceed 3.0 

lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 1 when burning coal or 

a mixture of coal and natural gas may 

be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, and 

may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average. 

(8) If the owner or operator submits a 

report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 37 

months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(B) United Taconite Line 2 

(1) An emission limit of 2.8 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 720-hour rolling 

average, shall apply to United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning natural 

gas, and an emission limit of 1.5 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, shall apply to United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 when 

burning coal or a mixture of coal and 

natural gas. These emission limits will 

become enforceable 55 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

and only after EPA’s confirmation or 

modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth below. 

(2) Compliance with these emission 

limits shall be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator must start collecting 

CEMS data for NOX upon [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter. Any 

remaining data through the end of the 

52nd month from [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t fall 

within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than 7 days 

from the end of the 52nd month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 52 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(3) No later than 42 months from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2. This report 

must include a list of all variables that 

can reasonably be expected to have an 

impact on NOX emission control 

technology performance, as well as a 

description of how these variables can 

be adjusted to reduce NOX emissions to 

meet the NOX design emission limit. 

This NOX reduction control technology 

must be designed to meet emission 

limits of 2.8 lbs NOX/MMBtu when 

burning natural gas and 1.5 lbs NOX/

MMBtu when burning coal or a mixture 

of coal and natural gas. 

(4) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on United 

Taconite Grate Kiln Line 2 furnace no 

later than 44 months from the effective 

date of the rule. 

(5) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(i) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(ii) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 52nd month, that do not 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than seven 

days from the end of the 52nd month. 

The pellet quality analyses shall include 

results for the following factors: 

Compression, reducibility, before 

tumble, after tumble, and low 

temperature disintegration. For each of 

the pellet quality analysis factors, the 

owner or operator must explain the 

pellet quality analysis factor, as well as 

the defined acceptable range for each 

factor using the applicable product 

quality standards based upon 

customers’ pellet specifications that are 

contained in Tilden’s ISO 9001 quality 

management system. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

the production logs that document the 

starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(6) No later than 52 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 2 within the upper and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64183 

lower bounds described below. EPA 

will review the report and either 

confirm or modify the NOX limits. If the 

CEMS data collected during operating 

periods between months 44 and 52 that 

both meet pellet quality specifications 

and proper furnace/burner operation is 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the appropriate (depending upon 

whether data are statistically 

independent or dependent) 95% upper 

predictive limit (UPL) equations in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If the CEMS 

data collected during operating periods 

between months 44 and 52 that both 

meet pellet quality specifications and 

proper furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(iv)(B)(5) of this section and for 

any subsequent period when production 

had been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with United 

Taconite’s ISO 9001 operating 

standards. Any excluded period will 

commence at the time documented on 

the production log demonstrating pellet 

quality did not fall within the defined 

acceptable range, and shall end when 

pellet quality within the defined 

acceptable range has been re-established 

at planned production levels, which 

will presumed to be the level that 

existed immediately prior to the 

reduction in production due to pellet 

quality concerns. EPA may also exclude 

data where operations are inconsistent 

with the reported design parameters of 

the NOX reduction control technology 

that were installed. 

(7) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limits in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning only 

natural gas may be no lower than 2.8 lbs 

NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average, and may not exceed 3.0 

lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 720-hour 

rolling average. The confirmed or 

modified NOX limit for United Taconite 

Grate Kiln Line 2 when burning coal or 

a mixture of coal and natural gas may 

be no lower than 1.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average, and 

may not exceed 2.5 lbs NOX/MMBtu, 

based on a 720-hour rolling average. 

(8) If the owner or operator submits a 

report proposing a single NOX limit for 

all fuels, EPA may approve the 

proposed NOX limit for all fuels based 

on a 30-day rolling average. The 

confirmed or modified limit will be 

established and enforceable within 55 

months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(v) ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 

(A) An emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/ 

MMBtu, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, shall apply to the ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine indurating furnace when 

burning natural gas. This emission limit 

will become enforceable 55 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

and only after EPA’s confirmation or 

modification of the emission limit in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth below. 

(B) Compliance with this emission 

limit will be demonstrated with data 

collected by a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) for NOX. The 

owner or operator of the ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine indurating furnace must 

install a CEMS for NOX and SO2 within 

six months from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. The owner or operator 

must start collecting CEMS data and 

submit the data to EPA no later than 30 

days from the end of each calendar 

quarter after that installation deadline. 

Any remaining data through the end of 

the 52nd month from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], that doesn’t 

fall within a calendar quarter, must be 

submitted to EPA no later than seven 

days from the end of the 52nd month. 

Although CEMS data must continue to 

be collected, it does not need to be 

submitted to EPA starting 52 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(C) No later than 42 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

the owner or operator must submit to 

EPA a report, including any final 

report(s) completed by the selected NOX

reduction technology supplier and 

furnace retrofit engineer, containing a 

detailed engineering analysis and 

modeling of the NOX reduction control 

technology being installed on the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace. The NOX reduction control 

technology must be designed to meet an 

emission limit of 1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu. 

This report must include a list of all 

process and control technology 

variables that can reasonably be 

expected to have an impact on NOX

emissions control technology 

performance, as well as a description of 

how these variables can be adjusted to 

reduce NOX emissions to meet the NOX

design emission limit. 

(D) The NOX reduction control 

technology shall be installed on the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine indurating 

furnace no later than 44 months after 

the effective date of the rule. 

(E) Commencing on the earlier of: 

(1) Six months from the installation of 

the NOX reduction control technology; 

or 

(2) 44 months from [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], the owner or 

operator must provide to EPA the 

results from pellet quality analyses. The 

owner or operator shall provide the 

results from pellet quality analyses no 

later than 30 days from the end of each 

calendar quarter up until 52 months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. Any remaining results through 

the end of the 52nd month from 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

that do not fall within a calendar 

quarter, must be submitted to EPA no 

later than seven days from the end of 

the 52nd month. The pellet quality 

analyses shall include results for the 

following factors: Compression, 

reducibility, before tumble, after tumble, 

low temperature disintegration, and 

contraction. For each of the pellet 

quality analysis factors, the owner or 

operator must explain the pellet quality 

analysis factor, as well as the defined 

acceptable range for each factor using 

the applicable product quality standards 

based upon customers’ pellet 

specifications that are contained in the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine’s Standard 

Product Parameters. The owner or 

operator shall provide pellet quality 

analysis testing results that state the 

date and time of the analysis and, in 

order to define the time period when 

pellets were produced outside of the 

defined acceptable range for the pellet 

quality factors listed, provide copies of 

production or scale data that document 

the starting and ending times for such 

periods. The owner or operator shall 

provide an explanation of causes for 

pellet samples that fail to meet the 

acceptable range for any pellet quality 

analysis factor. Pellet quality 

information and data may be submitted 

to EPA as Confidential Business 

Information. 

(F) No later than 52 months after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

the owner or operator may submit to 

EPA a report to either confirm or modify 

the NOX limits for the ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine indurating furnace within 

the upper and lower bounds described 

below. EPA will review the report and 

either confirm or modify the NOX limits. 

If the CEMS data collected during 

operating periods between months 44 

and 52 that both meet pellet quality 

specifications and proper furnace/


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

burner operation is normally 

distributed, the limit adjustment 

determination shall be based on the 

appropriate (depending upon whether 

data are statistically independent or 

dependent) 95% upper predictive limit 

(UPL) equations in paragraph (f) of this 

section. If the CEMS data collected 

during operating periods between 

months 44 and 52 that both meet pellet 

quality specifications and proper 

furnace/burner operation are not 

normally distributed, the limit 

adjustment determination shall be based 

on the non-parametric equation 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section. 

The data set for the determination shall 

exclude periods when pellet quality did 

not fall within the defined acceptable 

ranges of the pellet quality factors 

identified pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1)(v)(5) of this section and for any 

subsequent period when production has 

been reduced in response to pellet 

quality concerns consistent with the 

ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine’s Standard 

Product Parameters. Any excluded 

period will commence at the time 

documented in related quality reports 

demonstrating that pellet quality did not 

fall within the defined acceptable range 

and shall end when pellet quality 

within the defined acceptable range has 

been re-established at planned 

production levels, which will be 

presumed to be the level that existed 

immediately prior to the reduction in 

production due to pellet quality 

concerns. EPA may also exclude data 

where operations are inconsistent with 

the reported design parameters of the 

NOX reduction control technology 

installed. 

(G) EPA will take final agency action 

by publishing its final confirmation or 

modification of the NOX limit in the 

Federal Register no later than 55 

months [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. The confirmed or modified NOX

limit for the ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine indurating furnace when burning 

only natural gas may be no lower than 

1.2 lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 

rolling average, and may not exceed 1.8 

lbs NOX/MMBtu, based on a 30-day 

rolling average. 

* * * * * 

(2) SO2 emission limits 

* * * * * 

(iv) United Taconite 

An aggregate emission limit of 529.0 

lbs SO2/hr, based on a 30-day rolling 

average, shall apply to the Line 1 pellet 

furnace (EU040) and Line 2 pellet 

furnace (EU042) beginning six months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE] the effective date of the rule. 

Compliance with this aggregate 

emission limit shall be demonstrated 

with data collected by a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) 

for SO2. The owner or operator must 

start collecting CEMS data for SO2

beginning six months after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] and submit the 

data to EPA no later than 30 days from 

the end of each calendar quarter. 

Beginning 6 months after the effective 

date of the rule, any coal burned on 

UTAC Grate Kiln Line 1 or Line 2 shall 

have no more than 1.5 percent sulfur by 

weight based on a monthly block 

average. The sampling and calculation 

methodology for determining the sulfur 

content of coal must be described in the 

monitoring plan required for this 

furnace. 

* * * * * 

(c) Testing and monitoring. (1) The 

owner or operator of the respective 

facility shall install, certify, calibrate, 

maintain and operate Continuous 

Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) 

for NOX on United States Steel 

Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; 

Hibbing Taconite Company units 

EU020, EU021, and EU022; United 

States Steel Corporation, Minntac units 

EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and 

EU334; United Taconite units EU040 

and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 

unit EU026; and Northshore Mining 

Company-Silver Bay units Furnace 

11(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 

12(EU110/EU114). Compliance with the 

emission limits for NOX shall be 

determined using data from the CEMS. 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain and 

operate CEMS for SO2 on United States 

Steel Corporation, Keetac unit EU030; 

Hibbing Taconite Company units 

EU020, EU021, and EU022; United 

States Steel Corporation, Minntac units 

EU225, EU261, EU282, EU315, and 

EU334; United Taconite units EU040 

and EU042; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine 

unit EU026; and Northshore Mining 

Company—Silver Bay units Furnace 11 

(EU100/EU104) and Furnace 12 (EU110/ 

EU114). 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

install, certify, calibrate, maintain and 

operate one or more continuous diluent 

monitor(s) (O2 or CO2) and continuous 

flow rate monitor(s) on the BART 

affected units to allow conversion of the 

NOX and SO2 concentrations to units of 

the standard (lbs/MMBtu and lbs/hr, 

respectively) unless a demonstration is 

made that a diluent monitor and 

continuous flow rate monitor are not 

needed for the owner or operator to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable emission limits in units of 

the standards. 

(4) For purposes of this section, all 

CEMS required by this section must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i)–(xiv) of this section. 

(i) All CEMS must be installed, 

certified, calibrated, maintained, and 

operated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 (PS–2) and appendix F, 

Procedure 1. 

(ii) CEMS must be installed and 

operational as follows: 

(A) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) at the following facilities: 

U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel Minntac, 

and Northshore Mining Company-Silver 

Bay, must be installed and operational 

no later than the unit specific 

compliance dates for the emission limits 

identified at paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (iii) 

and (vi) of this section, respectively. 

(B) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring NOX (including the NOX

monitor and necessary diluent and flow 

rate monitors) at the following facilities: 

Hibbing Taconite Company, United 

Taconite, and ArcelorMittal Minorca 

Mine, must be installed and operational 

no later than the unit specific 

installation dates for the installation and 

operation of CEMS identified at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (iv) and (v) of this 

section, respectively. 

(C) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring SO2 at the following 

facilities: U.S. Steel Keetac, U.S. Steel 

Minntac, and Northshore Mining 

Company-Silver Bay, must be installed 

and operational no later than six months 

after March 8, 2013. 

(D) All CEMS associated with 

monitoring SO2 at the following 

facilities: Hibbing Taconite Company, 

United Taconite, and ArcelorMittal 

Minorca Mine, must be installed and 

operational no later than six months 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

(E) The operational status of the 

CEMS identified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section shall be verified 

by, as a minimum, completion of the 

manufacturer’s written requirements or 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and calibration of the 

devices. 

(iii) The owner or operator must 

conduct a performance evaluation of 

each CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, PS–2. The 

performance evaluations must be 

completed no later than 60 days after 

the respective CEMS installation. 

(iv) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must conduct periodic Quality 

Assurance, Quality Control (QA/QC) 

checks of each CEMS in accordance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64185 

with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 

Procedure 1. The first CEMS accuracy 

test will be a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) and must be completed no later 

than 60 days after the respective CEMS 

installation. 

(v) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must furnish the Regional 

Administrator two, or upon request, 

more copies of a written report of the 

results of each performance evaluation 

and QA/QC check within 60 days of 

completion,. 

(vi) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS must check, record, and quantify 

the zero and span calibration drifts at 

least once daily (every 24 hours) in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 4. 

(vii) Except for CEMS breakdowns, 

repairs, calibration checks, and zero and 

span adjustments, all CEMS required by 

this section shall be in continuous 

operation during all periods of BART 

affected process unit operation, 

including periods of process unit 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

(viii) All CEMS required by this 

section must meet the minimum data 

requirements at paragraphs 

(c)(4)(viii)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Complete a minimum of one cycle 

of operation (sampling, analyzing, and 

data recording) for each successive 15- 

minute quadrant of an hour. 

(B) Sample, analyze and record 

emissions data for all periods of process 

operation except as described in 

paragraph (c)(4)(viii)(C) of this section. 

(C) When emission data from CEMS 

are not available due to continuous 

monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 

calibration checks, or zero and span 

adjustments, emission data must be 

obtained using other monitoring 

systems or emission estimation methods 

approved by the EPA. The other 

monitoring systems or emission 

estimation methods to be used must be 

incorporated into the monitoring plan 

required by this section and provide 

information such that emissions data are 

available for a minimum of 18 hours in 

each 24 hour period and at least 22 out 

of 30 successive unit operating days. 

(ix) Owners or operators of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

reduce all data to 1-hour averages. 

Hourly averages shall be computed 

using all valid data obtained within the 

hour but no less than one data point in 

each fifteen-minute quadrant of an hour. 

Notwithstanding this requirement, an 

hourly average may be computed from 

at least two data points separated by a 

minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit 

operates for more than one quadrant in 

an hour) if data are unavailable as a 

result of performance of calibration, 

quality assurance, preventive 

maintenance activities, or backups of 

data from data acquisition and handling 

systems, and recertification events. 

(x) The 30-day rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBtu or lbs/hr 

depending on the emission standard 

selected) must be calculated in 

accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(4)(x)(A)–(F) of this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of the 

pollutant in question emitted from the 

Unit during an operating day and the 

previous 29 operating days. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBtu) or the total actual 

hours of operation (in hours) during an 

operating day and the previous 29 

operating days. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of the pollutant in question emitted 

during the 30 operating days by the total 

heat input (or actual hours of operation 

depending on the emission limit 

selected) during the 30 operating days. 

(D) For purposes of this calculation, 

an operating day is any day during 

which fuel is combusted in the BART 

affected Unit regardless of whether 

pellets are produced. Actual hours of 

operation are the total hours a unit is 

firing fuel regardless of whether a 

complete 24-hour operational cycle 

occurs (i.e. if the furnace is firing fuel 

for only 5 hours during a 24-hour 

period, then the actual operating hours 

for that day are 5. Similarly, total 

number of pounds of the pollutant in 

question for that day is determined only 

from the CEMS data for the five hours 

during which fuel is combusted.) 

(E) If the owner or operator of the 

CEMS required by this section uses an 

alternative method to determine 30-day 

rolling averages, that method must be 

described in detail in the monitoring 

plan required by this section. The 

alternative method will only be 

applicable if the final monitoring plan 

and the alternative method are approved 

by EPA. 

(F) A new 30-day rolling average 

emission rate must be calculated for 

each new operating day. 

(xi) The 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate determined from data 

derived from the CEMS required by this 

section (in lbs/MMBtu) must be 

calculated in accordance with 

(c)(4)(xi)(A)–(C) of this section. 

(A) Sum the total pounds of NOX

emitted from the unit every hour and 

the previous (not necessarily 

consecutive) 719 hours for which that 

type of fuel (either natural gas or mixed 

coal and natural gas) was used. 

(B) Sum the total heat input to the 

unit (in MMBtu) every hour and the 

previous (not necessarily consecutive) 

719 hours for which that type of fuel 

(either natural gas or mixed coal and 

natural gas) was used. 

(C) Divide the total number of pounds 

of NOX emitted during the 720 hours, as 

defined above, by the total heat input 

during the same 720 hour period. This 

calculation must be done separately for 

each fuel type (either for natural gas or 

mixed coal and natural gas). 

(xii) Data substitution must not be 

used for purposes of determining 

compliance under this section. 

(xiii) All CEMS data shall be reduced 

and reported in units of the applicable 

standard. 

(xiv) A Quality Control Program must 

be developed and implemented for all 

CEMS required by this section in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1, Section 3. The 

program will include, at a minimum, 

written procedures and operations for 

calibration checks, calibration drift 

adjustments, preventative maintenance, 

data collection, recording and reporting, 

accuracy audits/procedures, periodic 

performance evaluations, and a 

corrective action program for 

malfunctioning CEMS. 

(d) Recordkeeping requirements. (1)(i) 

Records required by this section must be 

kept in a form suitable and readily 

available for expeditious review. 

(ii) Records required by this section 

must be kept for a minimum of 5 years 

following the date of creation. 

(iii) Records must be kept on site for 

at least 2 years following the date of 

creation and may be kept offsite, but 

readily accessible, for the remaining 3 

years. 

(2) The owner or operator of the 

BART affected units must maintain the 

records at paragraphs (d)(2)(i)–(xi) of 

this section. 

(i) A copy of each notification and 

report developed for and submitted to 

comply with this section including all 

documentation supporting any initial 

notification or notification of 

compliance status submitted according 

to the requirements of this section. 

(ii) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iii) Records of activities taken during 

each startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction of the BART affected unit, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(iv) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of all major maintenance 

conducted on the BART affected units, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS required by this section. 

(v) Records of each excess emission 

report, including all documentation 

supporting the reports, dates and times 

when excess emissions occurred, 

investigations into the causes of excess 

emissions, actions taken to minimize or 

eliminate the excess emissions, and 

preventative measures to avoid the 

cause of excess emissions from 

occurring again. 

(vi) Records of all CEMS data 

including, as a minimum, the date, 

location, and time of sampling or 

measurement, parameters sampled or 

measured, and results. 

(vii) All records associated with 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities on each CEMS as well as other 

records required by 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, Procedure 1 including, but 

not limited to, the quality control 

program, audit results, and reports 

submitted as required by this section. 

(viii) Records of the NOX emissions 

during all periods of BART affected unit 

operation, including startup, shutdown 

and malfunction in the units of the 

standard. The owner or operator shall 

convert the monitored data into the 

appropriate unit of the emission 

limitation using appropriate conversion 

factors and F-factors. F-factors used for 

purposes of this section shall be 

documented in the monitoring plan and 

developed in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, Method 19. The 

owner or operator may use an alternate 

method to calculate the NOX emissions 

upon written approval from EPA. 

(ix) Records of the SO2 emissions in 

lbs/MMBTUs or lbs/hr (based on CEMS 

data), depending on the emission 

standard selected, during all periods of 

operation, including periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction, in the units 

of the standard. 

(x) Records associated with the CEMS 

unit including type of CEMS, CEMS 

model number, CEMS serial number, 

and initial certification of each CEMS 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B, Performance 

Specification 2 must be kept for the life 

of the CEMS unit. 

(xi) Records of all periods of fuel oil 

usage as required at paragraph (b)(2)(vii) 

of this section. 

(e) Reporting requirements. (1) All 

requests, reports, submittals, 

notifications, and other communications 

to the Regional Administrator required 

by this section shall be submitted, 

unless instructed otherwise, to the Air 

and Radiation Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5 (A–18J), at 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

(2) The owner or operator of each 

BART affected unit identified in this 

section and CEMS required by this 

section must provide to the Regional 

Administrator the written notifications, 

reports and plans identified at 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i)–(viii) of this section. 

If acceptable to both the Regional 

Administrator and the owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

identified in this section and CEMS 

required by this section the owner or 

operator may provide electronic 

notifications, reports and plans. 

(i) A notification of the date 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section commences postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the commencement 

date. 

(ii) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section commences postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the 

commencement date. 

(iii) A notification of the date the 

construction of control devices and 

installation of burners required by this 

section is complete postmarked no later 

than 30 days after the completion date. 

(iv) A notification of the date the 

installation of each CEMS required by 

this section is complete postmarked no 

later than 30 days after the completion 

date. 

(v) A notification of the date control 

devices and burners installed by this 

section startup postmarked no later than 

30 days after the startup date. 

(vi) A notification of the date CEMS 

required by this section startup 

postmarked no later than 30 days after 

the startup date. 

(vii) A notification of the date upon 

which the initial CEMS performance 

evaluations are planned. This 

notification must be submitted at least 

60 days before the performance 

evaluation is scheduled to begin. 

(viii) A notification of initial 

compliance, signed by the responsible 

official who shall certify its accuracy, 

attesting to whether the source has 

complied with the requirements of this 

section, including, but not limited to, 

applicable emission standards, control 

device and burner installations, CEMS 

installation and certification. This 

notification must be submitted before 

the close of business on the 60th 

calendar day following the completion 

of the compliance demonstration and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

information at paragraphs 

(e)(2)(viii)(A)–(F) of this section. 

(A) The methods used to determine 

compliance. 

(B) The results of any CEMS 

performance evaluations, and other 

monitoring procedures or methods that 

were conducted. 

(C) The methods that will be used for 

determining continuing compliance, 

including a description of monitoring 

and reporting requirements and test 

methods. 

(D) The type and quantity of air 

pollutants emitted by the source, 

reported in units of the standard. 

(E) A description of the air pollution 

control equipment and burners installed 

as required by this section, for each 

emission point. 

(F) A statement by the owner or 

operator as to whether the source has 

complied with the relevant standards 

and other requirements. 

(3) The owner or operator must 

develop and implement a written 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan for NOX and SO2. The plan must 

include, at a minimum, procedures for 

operating and maintaining the source 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction; and a program of 

corrective action for a malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment used to comply 

with the relevant standard. The plan 

must ensure that, at all times, the owner 

or operator operates and maintains each 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner which satisfies 

the general duty to minimize or 

eliminate emissions using good air 

pollution control practices. The plan 

must ensure that owners or operators 

are prepared to correct malfunctions as 

soon as practicable after their 

occurrence. 

(4) The written reports of the results 

of each performance evaluation and QA/ 

QC check in accordance with and as 

required by paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this 

section. 

(5) Compliance reports. The owner or 

operator of each BART affected unit 

must submit semiannual compliance 

reports. The semiannual compliance 

reports must be submitted in accordance 

with paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iv) of 

this section, unless the Administrator 

has approved a different schedule. 

(i) The first compliance report must 

cover the period beginning on the 

compliance date that is specified for the 

affected source through June 30 or 

December 31, whichever date comes 

first after the compliance date that is 

specified for the affected source. 

(ii) The first compliance report must 

be postmarked no later than 30 calendar 

days after the reporting period covered 

by that report (July 30 or January 30), 

whichever comes first. 

(iii) Each subsequent compliance 

report must cover the semiannual 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64187 

reporting period from January 1 through 

June 30 or the semiannual reporting 

period from July 1 through December 

31. 

(iv) Each subsequent compliance 

report must be postmarked no later than 

30 calendar days after the reporting 

period covered by that report (July 30 or 

January 30). 

(6) Compliance report contents. Each 

compliance report must include the 

information in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Statement by a responsible 

official, with the official’s name, title, 

and signature, certifying the truth, 

accuracy, and completeness of the 

content of the report. 

(iii) Date of report and beginning and 

ending dates of the reporting period. 

(iv) Identification of the process unit, 

control devices, and CEMS covered by 

the compliance report. 

(v) A record of each period of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction during the 

reporting period and a description of the 

actions the owner or operator took to 

minimize or eliminate emissions arising 

as a result of the startup, shutdown or 

malfunction and whether those actions 

were or were not consistent with the 

source’s startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. 

(vi) A statement identifying whether 

there were or were not any deviations 

from the requirements of this section 

during the reporting period. If there 

were deviations from the requirements 

of this section during the reporting 

period, then the compliance report must 

describe in detail the deviations which 

occurred, the causes of the deviations, 

actions taken to address the deviations, 

and procedures put in place to avoid 

such deviations in the future. If there 

were no deviations from the 

requirements of this section during the 

reporting period, then the compliance 

report must include a statement that 

there were no deviations. For purposes 

of this section, deviations include, but 

are not limited to, emissions in excess 

of applicable emission standards 

established by this section, failure to 

continuously operate an air pollution 

control device in accordance with 

operating requirements designed to 

assure compliance with emission 

standards, failure to continuously 

operate CEMS required by this section, 

and failure to maintain records or 

submit reports required by this section. 

(7) Each owner or operator of a CEMS 

required by this section must submit 

quarterly excess emissions and 

monitoring system performance reports 

for each pollutant monitored for each 

BART affected unit monitored. All 

reports must be postmarked by the 30th 

day following the end of each threemonth period of a calendar year 

(January–March, April–June, July– 

September, October–December) and 

must include, at a minimum, the 

requirements at paragraphs (e)(7)(i) 

through (xv) of this section. 

(i) Company name and address. 

(ii) Identification and description of 

the process unit being monitored. 

(iii) The dates covered by the 

reporting period. 

(iv) Total source operating hours for 

the reporting period. 

(v) Monitor manufacturer, monitor 

model number and monitor serial 

number. 

(vi) Pollutant monitored. 

(vii) Emission limitation for the 

monitored pollutant. 

(viii) Date of latest CEMS certification 

or audit. 

(ix) A description of any changes in 

continuous monitoring systems, 

processes, or controls since the last 

reporting period. 

(x) A table summarizing the total 

duration of excess emissions, as defined 

at paragraphs (e)(7)(x)(A) to (B) of this 

section, for the reporting period broken 

down by the cause of those excess 

emissions (startup/shutdown, control 

equipment problems, process problems, 

other known causes, unknown causes), 

and the total percent of excess 

emissions (for all causes) for the 

reporting period calculated as described 

at paragraph (e)(7)(x)(C) of this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, an 

excess emission is defined as any 30- 

day or 720-hour rolling average period, 

including periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction, during which the 30- 

day or 720-hour (as appropriate) rolling 

average emissions of either regulated 

pollutant (SO2 and NOX), as measured 

by a CEMS, exceeds the applicable 

emission standards in this section. 

(B)(1) For purposes of this section, if 

a facility calculates a 30-day rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 

following 30-day rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of this section as well, then it 

will add one more day to the total days 

of excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 30-day rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 15 days 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30 + 15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time within a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(2) For purposes of this section, if a 

facility calculates a 720-hour rolling 

average emission rate in accordance 

with this section which exceeds the 

applicable emission standards of this 

section, then it will be considered 30 

days of excess emissions. If the 24th 

following 720-hour rolling average 

emission rate is calculated and found to 

exceed the applicable emission 

standards of the rule as well, then it will 

add one more day to the total days of 

excess emissions (i.e. 31 days). 

Similarly, if an excess emission is 

calculated for a 720-hour rolling average 

period and no additional excess 

emissions are calculated until 360 hours 

after the first, then that new excess 

emission will add 15 days to the total 

days of excess emissions (i.e. 30+15 = 

45). For purposes of this section, if an 

excess emission is calculated for any 

period of time with a reporting period, 

there will be no fewer than 30 days of 

excess emissions but there should be no 

more than 121 days of excess emissions 

for a reporting period. 

(C) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of excess emissions will be 

determined by summing all periods of 

excess emissions (in days) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total BART affected unit 

operating days for the reporting period, 

and then multiplying by 100 to get the 

total percent of excess emissions for the 

reporting period. An operating day, as 

defined previously, is any day during 

which fuel is fired in the BART affected 

unit for any period of time. Because of 

the possible overlap of 30-day rolling 

average excess emissions across 

quarters, there are some situations 

where the total percent of excess 

emissions could exceed 100 percent. 

This extreme situation would only 

result from serious excess emissions 

problems where excess emissions occur 

for nearly every day during a reporting 

period. 

(xi) A table summarizing the total 

duration of monitor downtime, as 

defined at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(A) of this 

section, for the reporting period broken 

down by the cause of the monitor 

downtime (monitor equipment 

malfunctions, non-monitor equipment 

malfunctions, quality assurance 

calibration, other known causes, 

unknown causes), and the total percent 

of monitor downtime (for all causes) for 

the reporting period calculated as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
64188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

described at paragraph (e)(7)(xi)(B) of 

this section. 

(A) For purposes of this section, 

monitor downtime is defined as any 

period of time (in hours) during which 

the required monitoring system was not 

measuring emissions from the BART 

affected unit. This includes any period 

of CEMS QA/QC, daily zero and span 

checks, and similar activities. 

(B) For purposes of this section, the 

total percent of monitor downtime will 

be determined by summing all periods 

of monitor downtime (in hours) for the 

reporting period, dividing that number 

by the total number of BART affected 

unit operating hours for the reporting 

period, and then multiplying by 100 to 

get the total percent of excess emissions 

for the reporting period. 

(xii) A table which identifies each 

period of excess emissions for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (e)(7)(xii)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each excess emission. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each excess emission. 

(C) The pollutant for which an excess 

emission occurred. 

(D) The magnitude of the excess 

emission. 

(E) The cause of the excess emission. 

(F) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted to 

minimize or eliminate the excess 

emissions and prevent such excess 

emission from occurring again. 

(xiii) A table which identifies each 

period of monitor downtime for the 

reporting period and includes, at a 

minimum, the information in 

paragraphs (e)(7)(xiii)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) The date of each period of monitor 

downtime. 

(B) The beginning and end time of 

each period of monitor downtime. 

(C) The cause of the period of monitor 

downtime. 

(D) The corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted for 

system repairs or adjustments to 

minimize or eliminate monitor 

downtime and prevent such downtime 

from occurring again. 

(xiv) If there were no periods of 

excess emissions during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of excess 

emissions during this reporting period. 

(xv) If there were no periods of 

monitor downtime, except for daily zero 

and span checks, during the reporting 

period, then the excess emission report 

must include a statement which says 

there were no periods of monitor 

downtime during this reporting period 

except for the daily zero and span 

checks. 

(8) The owner or operator of each 

CEMS required by this section must 

develop and submit for review and 

approval by the Regional Administrator 

a site specific monitoring plan. The 

purpose of this monitoring plan is to 

establish procedures and practices 

which will be implemented by the 

owner or operator in its effort to comply 

with the monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of this section. 

The monitoring plan must include, at a 

minimum, the information at 

paragraphs (e)(8)(i) through (x) of this 

section. 

(i) Site specific information including 

the company name, address, and contact 

information. 

(ii) The objectives of the monitoring 

program implemented and information 

describing how those objectives will be 

met. 

(iii) Information on any emission 

factors used in conjunction with the 

CEMS required by this section to 

calculate emission rates and a 

description of how those emission 

factors were determined. 

(iv) A description of methods to be 

used to calculate emission rates when 

CEMS data is not available due to 

downtime associated with QA/QC 

events. 

(v) A description of the QA/QC 

program to be implemented by the 

owner or operator of CEMS required by 

this section. This can be the QA/QC 

program developed in accordance with 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 

1, Section 3. 

(vi) A list of spare parts for CEMS 

maintained on site for system 

maintenance and repairs. 

(vii) A description of the procedures 

to be used to calculate 30-day rolling 

averages and 720-hour rolling averages 

and example calculations which shows 

the algorithms used by the CEMS to 

calculate 30-day rolling averages and 

720-hour rolling averages. 

(viii) A sample of the document to be 

used for the quarterly excess emission 

reports required by this section. 

(ix) A description of the procedures to 

be implemented to investigate root 

causes of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime and the proposed corrective 

actions to address potential root causes 

of excess emissions and monitor 

downtime. 

(x) A description of the sampling and 

calculation methodology for 

determining the percent sulfur by 

weight as a monthly block average for 

coal used during that month. 

(f) Equations for Establishing the 

Upper Predictive Limit 

(1) Equation for Normal Distribution 

and Statistically Independent Data 

Where: 

x = average or mean of test run data; 

t[(n ¥ 1),(0.95)] = t score, the one-tailed t value 

of the Student’s t distribution for a 

specific degree of freedom (n ¥ 1)and a 

confidence level (0.95; 0.99 for Tilden 

SO2) 

s2 = variance of the dataset; 

n = number of values 

m = number of values used to calculate the 

test average (m = 720 as per averaging 

time) 

(2)(i) To determine if statistically 

independent, use the Rank von 

Neumann Test on p. 137 of data Quality 

Assessment: Statistical Methods for 

Practitioners EPA QA/G–9S. 

(ii) Alternative to Rank von Neumann 

test to determine if data are dependent, 

data are dependent if t test value is 

greater than t critical value, where: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22OC15.004</GPH> EP22OC15.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 204 / Thursday, October 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 64189 

r = correlation between data points 

t critical = t[(n ¥ 2),(0.95)] = t score, the twotailed t value of the Student’s t 

distribution for a specific degree of 

freedom (n ¥ 2) and a confidence level 

(0.95) 

(3) If data are dependent then use the 

following equation. 

Equation for Normal Distribution and 

Data not Statistically Independent 

Where: 

r = correlation between data points 

(4) Non-parametric Equations for Data 

Not Normally Distributed 

m = (n + 1) * a 

m = the rank of the ordered data point, when 

data is sorted smallest to largest 

n = number of data points 

a = 0.95, to reflect the 95th percentile 

If m is a whole number, then the 

limit, UPL, shall be computed as: 

UPL = Xm

Where: 

Xm = value of the mth data point in terms of 

lbs SO2/hr or lbs NOX/MMBtu, when the 

data is sorted smallest to largest. 

If m is not a whole number, the limit 

shall be computed by linear 

interpolation according to the following 

equation. 

UPL = xm = xmi•md = xmi + 0.md (xmi∂1 ¥ 

xmi

) 

Where: 

mi = the integer portion of m, i.e., m 

truncated at zero decimal places, and 

md = the decimal portion of m 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–25023 Filed 10–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP22OC15.006</GPH>