Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Disapproval of ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC Indiana SO2 revision
Posted Date: 2013-03-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17157-17161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06419]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0965; FRL-9792-4]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 
Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal 
Burns Harbor

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2009, Indiana submitted a request for a 
revision to its sulfur dioxide (SO2) state implementation 
plan (SIP) for the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor facility in Porter 
County, Indiana. This revision would remove the SO2 emission 
limit for the blast furnace gas flare at the facility. For the reasons 
discussed below, EPA is proposing to disapprove this requested 
revision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0965, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77

[[Page 17158]]

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 No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0965. 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.
    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 Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, 
at (312) 353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, portanova.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. 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--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 is the background for this action?

    On December 10, 2009, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management (IDEM) submitted a request to EPA, asking EPA to approve a 
revision to its SO2 SIP. This revision would amend 326 
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 7-4-14, Porter County SO2 
Emission Limitations, by removing the SO2 emission limit for 
the blast furnace flare at the ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC 
(ArcelorMittal) steel mill. In Indiana's current SO2 SIP, 
which EPA approved on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2112), the blast furnace 
flare had a limit of 0.07 pounds of SO2 per million British 
Thermal Units (lbs/mmBtu). The approved SO2 SIP also 
contains SO2 emission limits for a number of combustion 
units at ArcelorMittal, including blast furnace stoves, coke battery 
underfire, and power station boilers. Indiana's December 10, 2009 SIP 
revision request did not alter these emission limits.
    ArcelorMittal's blast furnace flare is used as a safety device to 
reduce excess pressure in the blast furnace gas lines and as a method 
for disposing of excess blast furnace gas. Blast furnace gas is 
generated during the process of iron production in the blast furnace. 
The gas is collected from the facility's blast furnace and used as 
fuel, along with coke oven gas and natural gas, in the facility's blast 
furnace stoves, power plant boilers, slab mill soaking pits, and coke 
batteries. It should be noted that the existing SIP flare limit does 
not restrict the total amount of blast furnace gas that may be burned 
in the flare, or limit the frequency or duration of the flare's usage. 
The actual SO2 emissions from the flare are determined by 
the total amount of gases it burns, and the sulfur content of those 
gases.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittal?

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states that the 
Administrator shall not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress, 
42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Under 40 CFR 51.112(a), each SIP must demonstrate 
that the measures, rules, and regulations it contains are adequate to 
provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For the 
reasons discussed below, EPA believes that the State has not 
demonstrated that this SIP revision submission satisfies the 
requirements for approval under section 110(l) of the CAA.
    The State maintains that removing the blast furnace flare limit 
from the SIP will not result in or allow an increase in actual 
SO2 emissions, and that the emission limit for the flare is 
redundant and unnecessary for continued protection of the 
SO2 NAAQS. EPA disagrees with these claims. For the blast 
furnace flare limit to be considered redundant, the sulfur content of 
the blast furnace gas must be addressed elsewhere in the SIP, but this 
is not the

[[Page 17159]]

case. There are limits on individual combustion sources that use blast 
furnace gas, such as the blast furnace C and D stoves and the power 
station boilers, in 326 IAC 7-4-14 (1)(B) and (C). These sources are 
allowed to use a combination of blast furnace gas and coke oven gas, 
and their emission limits reflect this combination. The emission limits 
in 326 IAC 7-4-14 (1)(B) and (C) do not specifically limit the sulfur 
content of either coke oven gas or blast furnace gas.
    The State, in the August 8, 2007, Second Notice of Comment Period 
for the rulemaking action on the December 10, 2009, SIP revision 
request, notes that ``ISG Burns Harbor LLC \1\ states that the sulfur 
content present in raw materials processed at the blast furnace is 
highly variable. Because the nature of the steelmaking process requires 
a continuous addition of raw materials to the blast furnace, it is 
technically infeasible to manage the sulfur content of materials 
charged in the blast furnace to achieve compliance with the blast 
furnace flare SO2 emission limit.'' If this variability 
provides for the production of blast furnace gas exceeding 0.07 lbs/
mmBtu, and if some of this gas is occasionally flared, then the removal 
of the flare limit could result in and allow an increase in actual 
SO2 emissions from the flare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Burns Harbor facility was operated by ISG Burns Harbor, 
LLC, in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State asserts that because the facility fully intends to use 
all the blast furnace gas it produces, the flare's emissions would be 
infrequent and therefore inconsequential. However, in a June 29, 2011, 
letter which IDEM forwarded to EPA, ArcelorMittal indicated that when a 
boiler or stove must be curtailed or shut down, some blast furnace gas 
may be redirected to the blast furnace flare. The letter also 
acknowledged that the flare is necessary for the safe operation of the 
blast furnace gas systems, as it is used to regulate pressure by 
accommodating gas surges, which could present safety risks at the 
boilers or stoves.
    EPA believes that unless gas pressure surges are impossible while 
the stoves and boilers are operating normally, or unless the stoves and 
boilers always revert to a lower rate of operation whenever a pressure 
surge occurs, the flare's emissions may not be negligible for SIP 
planning purposes. Since the stoves and boilers operate on a 
combination of blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, and natural gas, their 
full operating rates could be maintained with the other fuel gases 
during pressure surges that affect the flow of blast furnace gas and 
necessitate the use of the flare. Therefore, the December 10, 2009, SIP 
revision request would enable an increase in allowable emissions.
    IDEM did not include a revised attainment demonstration of the 
SO2 NAAQS with its December 10, 2009, submission. Instead, 
it relied on its 1988 demonstration of attainment, which included a 
detailed air dispersion modeling analysis of the steel mill. The 1988 
modeling demonstration presumed that blast furnace gas and coke oven 
gas would be used together in the units at ArcelorMittal which are 
allowed to use both fuels. For example, the blast furnace stoves were 
modeled at an emission rate corresponding to 60% blast furnace gas 
usage and 40% coke oven gas usage. The SO2 emission rate 
used for blast furnace gas combustion in the 1988 modeling analysis was 
0.07 lbs/mmBtu. The blast furnace flare was modeled at its SIP emission 
limit of 0.07 lbs/mmBtu. IDEM used an emission rate of 1.96 lbs/mmBtu 
for coke oven gas in the 1988 analysis.
    IDEM asserts that the SO2 SIP emission limits in 326 IAC 
7-4-14 (1)(B) and (C), which are applicable to the facility's 
combustion sources, account for all of the blast furnace gas that the 
facility can produce. Therefore, IDEM states, a limit on the flare is 
unnecessary to protect the NAAQS. Although the company provided 
evidence that recent gas production rates have kept the facility well 
within its SIP emission limits, IDEM has not provided sufficient 
information to EPA to confirm the company's maximum capacity for 
producing either blast furnace gas or coke oven gas. The coke oven gas 
production capacity is relevant because many of the stoves and boilers 
are able to use both fuels, and the 1988 analysis modeled the 
combustion units as using both fuels together in specific ratios. The 
facility does not store either gas, so the gases must be combusted as 
they are produced. IDEM did not provide EPA with any information 
regarding the amount of flaring that actually occurred during the data 
years. Regardless, the flare limit acts to address the sulfur content 
of the blast furnace gas, rather than to limit the amount of time the 
flare operates, or how much gas it combusts in total. If the flare 
limit is removed, then ArcelorMittal could produce and use blast 
furnace gas with sulfur content greater than 0.07 lbs/mmBtu. If 
ArcelorMittal does so, and sends some of this gas to the flare, the 
higher sulfur gas could lead to increased ambient impacts from the 
flare which would not be covered by the 1989 modeling.
    A proposed SIP ``must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and 
regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely 
attainment and maintenance of the national standard that it 
implements.'' Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 
1189 (9th Cir. 2012). Courts have also recognized the importance of 
including numerical emission limits in SIPs for flares. In the Montana 
Sulphur case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
affirmed this concept, noting that flare emissions ``can affect 
attainment, and limits on them reasonably can be required, particularly 
where the state has relied on such limits to demonstrate attainment.'' 
Id.
    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with IDEM's assertion that 
ArcelorMittal's blast furnace gas flare limit is redundant, 
unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an 
increase in actual SO2 emissions. The revised rule does not 
adequately address the potential for variability in blast furnace gas 
sulfur content, which could affect the validity of the emission rates 
used in the existing attainment demonstration, thus undermining the 
SIP's ability to ensure protection of the SO2 NAAQS. EPA 
believes that the revised rule does not satisfy the requirements for 
approval under section 110(l) of the CAA.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
Indiana's December 10, 2009, submittal requesting a SIP revision to 
remove the SO2 emission limit on the blast furnace gas flare 
at ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor in Porter County.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review under the Executive Order.

[[Page 17160]]

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter 
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new 
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State 
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 
the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the 
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for 
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that 
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset 
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that 
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for 
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to 
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), 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.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP 
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country 
located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety 
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 
This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part 
D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but 
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the 
SIP.

Executive Order 13211: Actions 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.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of 
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would 
be inconsistent with the CAA.

[[Page 17161]]

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria 
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapproves 
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself 
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with 
the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 
disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using 
practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 
12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 8, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-06419 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P