Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Roanoke Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.; Revised Reasonably Available Control Technology Permit
Posted Date: 2021-03-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13254-13256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04705]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0596; FRL10019-52-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Revised RACT Permit for Roanoke 
Electric Steel/Steel Dynamics, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision consists of amendments to a 
federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) which was 
previously incorporated into the Virginia SIP in order to implement 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) emissions from Steel Dynamics, Inc. (hereafter 
``SDI,'' formerly Roanoke Electric Steel). This action is being taken 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0596 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
gordon.mike@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning & 
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2117. Mr. 
Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at talley.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 2020, the Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), on behalf of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, formally submitted the amended permit as a revision to the 
Virginia SIP.

I. Background

    Prior to the establishment of nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), EPA 
developed a

[[Page 13255]]

program to allow these potential nonattainment areas to voluntarily 
adopt local emission control programs to avoid air quality violations 
and mandated nonattainment area controls. Areas with air quality 
meeting the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS were eligible to participate. In 
order to participate, state and local governments and EPA developed and 
signed a memorandum of agreement that describes the local control 
measures the state or local community intends to adopt and implement to 
reduce ozone emissions in advance of air quality violations. In this 
agreement, also known as an Early Action Compact (EAC), the state or 
local communities agree to prepare emission inventories and conduct air 
quality modeling and monitoring to support its selection of emission 
controls. Areas that participated in the EAC program had the 
flexibility to institute their own approach in maintaining clean air 
and protecting public health. Several localities in the Winchester and 
Roanoke areas elected to participate in the EAC program. The areas that 
signed an EAC were the City of Winchester and Frederick County, which 
comprised the Northern Shenandoah Valley EAC; and the cities of Roanoke 
and Salem, and the counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, which comprised 
the Roanoke EAC. VADEQ's approach to implementing the EAC was that RACT 
\1\ be applied to sources of NOX and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) within those localities that were otherwise not 
subject to RACT. The Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, currently SDI, 
was one such source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA defines RACT as the lowest emission limit that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of 
control technology that is reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On April 27, 2005, EPA approved a SIP revision for the Commonwealth 
of Virginia which incorporated provisions from a federally enforceable 
state operating permit into the Virginia SIP in order to apply RACT to 
several units at SDI (Virginia permit registration No. 20131, issued 
December 22, 2004; hereafter, ``2004 Permit''). See 70 FR 21621. 
Virginia's April 14, 2020 submittal includes a revised operating permit 
for SDI which amends the 2004 permit to account for changes in 
operation at the facility, including the shut-down of a number of 
units. The 2004 permit included operational requirements and 
NOX emissions limits for the equipment listed in Table 1:

         Table 1--Equipment List and NOX Limits From 2004 Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Unit                          NOX emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tundish Preheaters (2)....................  0.25 pounds (lb) NOX/million
                                             British thermal unit (BTU).
Ladle Preheaters (2)......................  0.25 lb NOX/million BTU.
Electric Arc Furnace #4...................  Operational Limits Only.
Electric Arc Furnace #5...................  37.8 lb NOX/hour.
Ladle Metallurgical Station #5............  6.0 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #1..................  53.1 lb NOX/hour.
Billet Reheat Furnace #2..................  39.9 lb NOX/hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the issuance of the 2004 permit (and EPA's subsequent SIP 
approval), operations at the facility have changed, requiring a 
revision of both the operating permit and the operating permit 
provisions incorporated into the SIP. At the time the 2004 permit was 
issued, SDI had received a preconstruction permit for the construction 
of billet reheat furnace (BRF) #2 to replace BRF #1. The conditions of 
that preconstruction permit were incorporated into the 2004 permit, and 
ultimately into the Virginia SIP. However, BRF #2 was never 
constructed, so the associated NOX limits have been removed 
from the operating permit. Electric arc furnace (EAF) #4 was removed, 
as was BRF #1. The only remaining units at the facility that are 
subject to the source specific NOX RACT limits of the 2004 
permit are EAF #5 and the Ladle Metallurgical Station (LMS) #5. The 
other units have been removed, replaced with equipment that was not 
subject to RACT, or as was the case with BRF #2, never constructed. EAF 
#5 and LMS #5 remain subject to the same limits as were in the original 
permit. The RACT limits for those remaining units have not changed, and 
there are no emissions increases associated with either the revised 
permit, or Virginia's proposed SIP revision. The permit, and ultimately 
the SIP, are simply being revised to account for the removal of 
provisions related to emissions units that no longer exist.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that it is consistent with 
all CAA requirements. Additionally, because the SIP revision does not 
allow for any increase in emissions, it will not interfere with any 
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement, in accordance with 
CAA section 110(l). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's April 14, 
2020 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting 
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These 
comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or 
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . . .'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the

[[Page 13256]]

extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,'' any 
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency 
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, 
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or 
civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states 
that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to 
enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since ``no immunity 
could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties 
because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal 
law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because 
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law 
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by 
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the unredacted portions of Virginia stationary source permit 
to operate, registration number 20132, issued to Roanoke Electric Steel 
(D/B/A Steel Dynamics, Inc.) on December 22, 2004, and revised on March 
25, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials 
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 
Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For 
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more 
information).

VI. 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. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as 
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian 
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, this rule pertaining to source specific NOX 
limits at SDI does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-04705 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P