[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16408-16441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02305]
[[Page 16407]]
Vol. 89
Wednesday,
No. 45
March 6, 2024
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron
Ore Processing; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 45 / Wednesday, March 6, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 16408]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664; FRL-5925.1-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV58
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Taconite Iron Ore Processing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for mercury (Hg) and establishing revised emission standards
for hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). This final
action ensures that emissions of all hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emitted from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category are
regulated.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 6, 2024. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register (FR) as of March 6, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in the rule
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 26,
2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov/website. Although listed, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and is publicly available only in hard copy. With the
exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/or in hard copy
at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact David Putney, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2016;
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
ACI activated carbon injection
BTF beyond-the-floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
D.C. Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
DSI dry sorbent injection
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrogen fluoride
Hg mercury
ICR information collection request
km kilometer
LEAN Louisiana Environmental Action Network
lb/LT pounds of HAP (i.e., Hg, HCl, or HF) emitted per long ton of
pellets produced
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MWh/yr megawatt-hours per year
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
ng/g nanograms per gram
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
tpy tons per year
UPL upper prediction limit
[mu]g/Nm3 microgram per normal cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What changes did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments
for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
A. MACT Standards for Mercury
B. Revised Emission Standards for HCl and HF
C. What other amendments are we finalizing?
D. What are the effective and compliance dates for the mercury,
HCl, and HF emission standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economical Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the
[[Page 16409]]
subject of this final rule. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that
this final action is likely to affect. The final standards are directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal
government entities are not affected by this final action. As defined
in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992)
and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List,
Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030; July 1992), the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category includes any facility engaged in separating
and concentrating iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore to
produce taconite pellets. The source category includes, but is not
limited to, the following processes: liberation of the iron ore by wet
or dry crushing and grinding in gyratory crushers, cone crushers, rod
mills, and ball mills; pelletizing by wet tumbling with a balling drum
or balling disc; induration using a straight grate or grate kiln
indurating furnace; and finished pellet handling.
Table 1--NESHAP and Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taconite Iron Ore Processing...... 40 CFR part 63, 21221
subpart RRRRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/taconite-iron-ore-processing-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version
of the final rule and key technical documents at this same website.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) by May 6, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA (``LEAN'')
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA
has an obligation to address regulatory gaps, such as missing standards
for HAP known to be emitted from a major source category, when the
Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by CAA section
112(d)(6).\1\ Emissions data collected from the exhaust stacks of
existing taconite indurating furnaces indicate that Hg is emitted from
the source category. However, Hg emissions from the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category are not regulated under the existing
Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP. To meet the EPA's obligations
under CAA section 112(d)(6), in this action, the EPA is establishing
new standards for Hg emissions from the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
source category that reflect MACT for Hg emitted from taconite
indurating furnaces, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088
(D.C. Cir. 2020) (``LEAN'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is also finalizing revised standards for HCl and HF
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the
EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8
years.
B. What is the source category and how does the current NESHAP regulate
its HAP emissions?
The Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP (codified at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart RRRRR) applies to each new
or existing ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, pellet
indurating furnace, and finished pellet handling operation at a
taconite iron ore processing plant that is (or is part of) a major
source of HAP emissions. Taconite iron ore processing plants separate
and concentrate iron ore from taconite, a low-grade iron ore containing
20- to 25-percent iron, and produce taconite pellets, which are 60- to
65-percent iron. The current NESHAP includes particulate matter (PM)
limits that, prior to this final action, served as a surrogate for
particulate metal HAP, HCl, and HF emissions. The existing PM emissions
limits were summarized in table 2 of the proposal (see 88 FR 30917; May
15, 2023). The current NESHAP does not presently include standards for
Hg emissions.
There are currently eight taconite iron ore processing plants in
the United States: six plants are located in Minnesota and two are
located in Michigan. This includes the Empire Mining facility in
Michigan, which maintains an air quality permit to operate, but has
been indefinitely idled since 2016 and is therefore not included
[[Page 16410]]
in any analyses (e.g., estimates of emissions or cost impacts)
associated with this final rulemaking.
C. What changes did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
source category?
On May 15, 2023, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal
Register to set MACT standards for Hg emissions from indurating
furnaces in the source category and to revise the existing emission
standards for HCl and HF for indurating furnaces. The PM emission
limits in the current NESHAP will continue to serve as surrogate for
particulate metal HAP (e.g., nickel and arsenic). The EPA proposed that
compliance with the emission standards for Hg, HCl, and HF be
demonstrated through operating limits, monitoring, and performance
testing. We also proposed minor changes to the electronic reporting
requirements found in 40 CFR 63.9641(c) and 40 CFR 63.9641(f)(3) to
reflect new procedures for reporting CBI that included an email address
for owners and operators to electronically submit compliance reports
containing CBI to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) CBI Office. Finally, we requested comment on our evaluation
that the addition of 1-bromopropane (1-BP) to the CAA section 112 HAP
list would not impact the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP because,
based on our knowledge of the source category and available emissions
data, 1-BP is not emitted from this source category.
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and
responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and
amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the document, Summary
of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite
Iron Ore Processing, which is available in the docket for this action.
A. MACT Standards for Mercury
1. What did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category?
As described in the May 15, 2023, proposal (88 FR 30917), we
proposed MACT standards for Hg for new and existing indurating furnaces
that reflected the MACT floor level of control, based on the 99-percent
upper prediction limit (UPL), of 1.4 x 10-5 pounds of Hg
emitted per long ton of taconite pellets produced (lb/LT) for existing
sources and 3.1 x 10-6 lb/LT for new sources. We also
proposed an emissions averaging compliance alternative that would allow
taconite iron ore processing facilities with more than one existing
indurating furnace to comply with a Hg emissions limit of 1.26 x
10-5 lb/LT by averaging emissions on a production-weighted
basis for two or more existing indurating furnaces located at the same
facility. In the proposal, we explained that the emissions averaging
compliance alternative reflected a 10 percent adjustment factor to the
proposed MACT floor standard and that we expected this 10 percent
adjustment factor would result in Hg reductions greater than those
achieved by compliance with the MACT floor on a unit-by-unit basis. We
proposed that compliance with the Hg MACT standards would be
demonstrated through initial and periodic performance testing
(completed at least twice per 5-year permit term), establishing
operating limits for each control device used to comply with the Hg
standards, and installing and operating continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS) to ensure continuous compliance with the Hg standards.
For the proposal, in addition to calculating the MACT floor,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2), we also assessed more stringent
``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) regulatory options for the Hg MACT
standards. As discussed in the proposal (88 FR 30923), unlike the MACT
floor's minimum stringency requirements, the EPA must examine various
impacts of the more stringent BTF regulatory options in determining
whether MACT standards are to reflect BTF requirements. These impacts
include the cost of achieving additional emissions reductions beyond
those achieved by the MACT floor level of control, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts that would result from imposing
controls BTF, and energy requirements of such BTF measures. If the EPA
concludes that the more stringent regulatory options have unreasonable
impacts, the EPA selects the MACT floor level of control as MACT.
However, if the EPA concludes that impacts associated with BTF levels
of control are reasonable in light of additional HAP emissions
reductions achieved, then the EPA selects those BTF levels as MACT.
We considered BTF regulatory options that were 10, 20, 30, and 40
percent more stringent than the MACT floor and calculated the capital
and annual costs as well as secondary impacts associated with each
option. For a detailed discussion of our analysis of emissions
reductions and potential secondary impacts developed for the proposal,
please see the memorandum, Development of Impacts for the Proposed
Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing, which is
available in the docket for this action. We proposed that requiring new
or existing furnaces to meet BTF emission limits was not reasonable
based on the estimated capital and operating costs and cost-
effectiveness.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed Hg MACT standards, and
what are our responses?
Comment: Industry commenters provided data that they indicated
corrected the Hg stack test data submitted in response to the CAA
section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR) sent to the taconite
facilities in 2022 for the Tilden, UTAC, Keetac, and Hibbing facilities
that were used when calculating the baseline emissions, the MACT floor
standards, and the emission reductions. The commenters indicated that
the error in the Keetac emissions data resulted in an overestimate of
both the baseline emissions and the estimated emission reductions that
could be achieved if the proposed Hg standards were adopted.
Response: In response to these comments and revised data provided,
the EPA reviewed the Hg emissions data that we used in the proposal to
calculate baseline Hg emissions. At proposal we estimated total
baseline Hg emissions were 1,010 pounds per year. The EPA confirmed
that errors were present in the Hg emissions data used to calculate the
baseline emissions. We revised the emissions data as appropriate based
on the emissions data provided by industry commenters and recalculated
the baseline emissions, MACT floor emission limits, emission
reductions, and estimated capital and annual costs accordingly for the
final rule. The updates to the emissions data did not impact the MACT
floor limit for existing sources but did decrease the baseline
emissions and the expected Hg emissions reductions for existing
sources. The updates to the emissions data changed the Hg standard for
new sources from 3.1 x 10-6 lb/LT to 2.6 x 10-6
lb/LT. The updated baseline Hg emissions for the final rule are
estimated to be 751 pounds per year (0.38 tons per year (tpy)). We
estimate
[[Page 16411]]
that unit-by-unit compliance with the final MACT floor limit will
result in a reduction of 232 pounds of Hg emissions per year and a
reduction of 247 pounds per year of Hg emissions if all facilities with
more than one existing taconite furnace elect to demonstrate compliance
through the emissions averaging compliance alternative. Our analysis is
presented in detail in the memorandum, Development of Impacts for the
Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing. The
updated emissions data used in the revised calculations for the final
rule are summarized in a separate memorandum, Final Emissions Data
Collected in 2022 for Indurating Furnaces Located at Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Plants. These documents are available in the docket for this
action.
Comment: One commenter recommended the proposed limit for the
emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing sources should
have the same number of significant figures as the MACT floor limit.
Instead of 1.26 x 10-5 lb/LT, the limit for the emissions
averaging compliance alternative for existing sources would be rounded
up to 1.3 x 10-5 lb/LT.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the Hg emission
limit for the emissions averaging compliance option should have only
two significant figures. The limit cannot have more significant figures
than Hg MACT floor from which it was derived, which has only two
significant figures. As recommended by commenters, the Hg emission
limit in the final rule is revised to 1.3 x 10-5 lb/LT so
that the limit for the emissions averaging compliance alternative has
the same number of significant figures as the other Hg limits finalized
in this rulemaking.
We estimate that the final Hg emissions averaging compliance
alternative will reduce Hg emissions by 247 pounds per year, if Hibbing
and Minntac elect to demonstrate compliance through the emissions
averaging compliance alternative by each facility installing mercury
controls on two furnaces and averaging the emissions across all
furnaces located at their facility. We expect that, should Hibbing and
Minntac elect to demonstrate compliance through the emissions averaging
compliance alternative, the Hg reductions would still be greater than
the reductions we anticipate would be achieved through unit-by-unit
compliance with the MACT floor level of control. For additional
details, please refer to section IV.A.1 of the proposal preamble (88 FR
30925). More information on the final Hg standards, including the
detailed cost estimates for the Hg emissions averaging compliance
alternative, may be found in the memorandum, Development of Impacts for
the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing,
which is available in the docket for this action.
Comment: Commenters recommended that the proposed 40 CFR
63.9621(d)(4) and 63.9631(j) be revised to allow the mass of taconite
pellets produced to be determined indirectly through calculation based
on industry standards. They noted that pellet mass is measured prior to
offsite shipment and later ``trued-up'' at the end of each month.
Response: The EPA agrees that taconite pellet production can be
determined indirectly through calculation using bulk density and volume
measurements. We have revised the language in 40 CFR 63.9621(d)(4) and
63.9631(j) to allow the weight of taconite pellets produced to be
determined either by direct measurement using weigh hoppers, belt weigh
feeders, or weighed quantities in shipments, or calculated using the
bulk density and volume measurements.
Comment: Industry commenters stated that the capital and operating
costs for Hg controls were underestimated in the proposal and that the
estimated capital costs were significantly below cost estimates
developed by industry. The commenters thought the retrofit factor of
1.2 used by the EPA failed to adequately account for the additional
costs incurred when retrofitting an existing emission unit with new
controls. They recommended the EPA use the capital costs prepared by
industry and apply a retrofit factor of 1.5 or 1.6 with a contingency
factor of 30 percent to account for the higher costs for retrofit
projects. The commenters also stated that the total annual costs were
underestimated because the EPA had underestimated costs for activated
carbon, electricity, and waste disposal and used an interest rate that
was too low. Industry commenters also stated that currently, some
plants recycle iron particles collected by their particulate emission
control device, but that the presence of activated carbon would create
product quality issues and make recycling no longer possible. The
commenters stated the EPA had not accounted for the loss of product and
increased waste disposal costs in the cost estimates prepared for the
proposal. The commenters provided cost estimates for the Keetac,
Minorca, Minntac and UTAC facilities that included estimates of the
amount of product they assert would be lost if scrubber solids are not
recycled back through the process and the estimated price for the lost
product. The commenters also disagreed with the estimated labor costs,
arguing that both the number of operator hours and hourly labor rates
were too low.
Response: For the final rule, the EPA has updated the capital and
annual costs to reflect the costs in 2023 dollars using an interest
rate of 8.5 percent and updated unit prices for activated carbon,
utilities, and labor. The EPA also assessed the commenters concerns
that ACI would prevent plants from recovering iron particles collected
with other solids by their particulate emission control device. Based
on the information provided by industry, ten indurating furnaces
currently collect the solids from their particulate control devices and
recycle the solids back to the production process, thereby recovering
valuable iron product. Commenters said plants using ACI would not be
able to continue to recover iron in this way because carbon would
impact the quality of their product. Commenters said EPA should account
for costs due to the loss of product and increased cost of waste
disposal of the unrecoverable product. Industry provided estimates of
the amount of iron that would be lost for the furnaces located at the
UTAC, Minorca, and Minntac plants. We used this data to estimate iron
losses for the Hibbing plant and multiplied the estimated iron losses
for each furnace by the current market price of iron to estimate the
costs associated with the loss iron product. The updated cost estimates
that we are using for the final rule, including the basis for the 8.5
percent interest rate, are documented in the memorandum, Development of
Impacts for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore
Processing, which is available in the docket for this action.
The EPA reviewed the capital cost information submitted by industry
during the comment period and found the information submitted consisted
of a total capital cost for equipment. However, no breakdown was
provided from which we could ascertain what was included in the cost
and little information was provided on how the costs were derived. The
lack of detail in the cost estimates combined with little supporting
documentation made it impossible for the EPA to assess the accuracy of
the cost estimates submitted by industry. Industry commenters indicated
that the estimated equipment costs for the air pollution control
equipment for the Minorca and UTAC facilities they submitted were
estimated using cost data from another project at a different facility
and scaled using the
[[Page 16412]]
`rule of six-tenths.' The `rule of six-tenths' is a method by which
equipment costs are estimated as the cost of a known project multiplied
by a capacity factor raised to the power of six-tenths. The `rule of
six-tenths' can provide a reasonable order of magnitude estimate of
equipment costs where the capacities of the two systems are reasonably
similar. However, the commenters did not identify the facility or
provide a detailed description of the project to which they are
applying the rule of six-tenths. Commenters also failed to provide a
detailed breakdown of the equipment costs used in the `rule of six-
tenths' estimate. Without additional information, the EPA was unable to
assess the accuracy of the equipment costs provided by commenters.
Therefore, we are not making any changes based on this information.
We disagree with the commenters' recommendations that a retrofit
factor of 1.5 or 1.6 should be applied to the capital costs with a 30-
percent contingency factor. Retrofit factors account for costs directly
related to the demolition, fabrication, and installation of the control
system. For the venturi scrubbers we included the 3-percent contingency
factor and applied a retrofit factor of 1.2 to the estimate of the
total capital investment for new construction. The EPA's Air Pollution
Control Cost Manual indicates a 3-percent contingency factor is
considered appropriate for a mature air pollution control technology
and states that retrofit costs are ``generally minimal'' for venturi
scrubbers because of their small footprint.\2\ While we agree with the
commenters that retrofits may, in some cases, be more expensive than
new construction, the 1.2 retrofit factor used in the cost estimates
provides a reasonable increase to account for the higher cost
associated with retrofit projects that involve replacing an existing
venturi scrubber with a high-efficiency venturi scrubber, where
infrastructure (e.g., water and power supply) already exist. The
retrofit factor applied does not have a significant impact on the total
annual costs. If a retrofit factor of 1.6 is applied, as recommended by
the commenters, the total annual costs would increase by about 2
percent (less than $2 million for replacing the venturi scrubbers on
all 11 furnaces with mercury emissions currently exceeding the MACT
floor. We did not apply a retrofit factor to the capital costs for the
activated carbon injection (ACI) system because the costs were
estimated using a methodology developed by Sargent & Lundy for the
EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM).\3\ The IPM methodology is based
on costs for retrofitting ACI on utility boilers and therefore already
represents the average or typical costs for ACI retrofits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA's Control Cost Manual provides guidance for the
development of capital and annual costs for air pollution control
devices. The Control Cost Manual focuses on point source and
stationary area source air pollution controls. A copy of the manual
is available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\3\ Sargent & Lundy, LLC, IPM Model--Updates to Cost and
Performance for APC Technologies Mercury Control Cost Development
Methodology, January 2017. A copy of this document is available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-6_hg_control_cost_development_methodology.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A contingency factor is reserved for costs that could incur a
reasonable but unanticipated increase but are not directly related to
the demolition, fabrication, and installation of the system. Retrofit
and contingency factors can be difficult to assess as they vary based
on site-specific characteristics. Nevertheless, the EPA considers the
methodology used to calculate capital and total annual costs to be a
reasonable approach to estimating costs for the purposes of this
rulemaking. We note that the EPA may not consider costs in determining
the MACT floor, and that the cost estimates for the BTF control options
identified for Hg emissions were determined to be greater than the
level historically found to be cost-effective for controlling Hg
emissions.
Comment: Industry commenters noted that the Hg concentrations in
taconite ore deposits vary widely both within each mine and between
mines, which in turn affects Hg emissions. The commenters said the
primary source of Hg emissions from indurating furnaces is from the Hg
contained in the greenballs (i.e., unfired taconite iron ore pellets).
The commenters provided Hg concentration data for greenballs from each
taconite iron ore processing facility and recommended that the EPA
revise the proposed Hg limits for new and existing furnaces to address
the variability inherent in the Hg concentration of greenballs. They
suggested the EPA use the data to develop a raw material variability
factor that could be used when calculating the MACT floor limits for
Hg. The commenters noted that the EPA had accounted for variability in
the Hg concentration of raw materials when calculating the MACT floor
limits for other NESHAP.
Response: The EPA reviewed the Hg data submitted by industry and
determined the data were not adequate for us to calculate a variability
factor for use in deriving the MACT floor limits. This decision was
based on several factors. First, the number of measurements submitted
for each facility varied considerably--from as few as three
measurements for the best performing furnace at Northshore (including
two measurements on the same day) to as many as 948 measurements for
the UTAC plant. The very limited data provided for Northshore is a
concern because Northshore's stack test data showed that their furnace
was the best performing (i.e., had the lowest emissions of Hg). The
data provided for Northshore are insufficient to evaluate temporal
variability in the Hg content of the greenballs at Northshore because
the data consist of measurements made during only two greenball
sampling episodes: one in January 1997 and the other in November 2001.
Second, much of the data submitted could not be validated because the
commenters did not provide the laboratory reports for the test results.
For example, the UTAC facility provided 948 measurements of the Hg
concentration of the greenballs at their plant but submitted none of
the laboratory reports needed to corroborate their data. Laboratory
reports are needed to determine whether appropriate methods were used
for sample collection and analysis, to confirm appropriate quality
assurance and quality control measures were taken, and to check that
the values submitted are accurate. In total, we were unable to confirm
the concentration values for over 87 percent of the measurements
submitted because we lacked the laboratory reports. Third, the samples
were collected at irregularly spaced intervals, often with large gaps
in time during which no samples were collected. These sampling
intervals varied from as little as a few days to multiple years. In
cases where samples were collected over a period of several consecutive
months, the measurements were not collected at consistent intervals.
Ideally, the samples would be collected at representative intervals
with supporting documentation of the sample collection and analysis, to
avoid bias in the dataset. Finally, the data submitted for some
facilities included measurements that we determined to be statistical
outliers. For example, we identified two statistical outliers in the
Tilden dataset, where in one case the Hg content of greenballs
increased from 1.4 nanograms per gram (ng/g) on July 6, 2022, to 15.0
ng/g on July 15, 2022, before decreasing to 1.2 ng/g on July 22, 2022.
The presence of statistical outliers does not necessarily mean the
[[Page 16413]]
measurements are incorrect. However, statistical outliers raise
concerns over the accuracy and representativeness of the measurements,
particularly where no explanation for the anomaly is available.
Comment: Some commenters requested EPA Method 30B be included as an
acceptable alternative test method for measuring Hg emissions from
indurating furnaces.
Response: In response to the commenters' request, we reviewed EPA
Method 30B and determined that this method is appropriate for measuring
Hg emissions from indurating furnaces. In the final rule, we have
updated the list of approved methods for Hg measurement to include EPA
Method 30B, in addition to the proposed methods. The final rule allows
owners and operators to use EPA Methods 29 or 30B in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, and the voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6784-
16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method).
Comment: Industry commenters expressed concern that the proposed Hg
stack testing volumes for performance testing to demonstrate compliance
with the proposed Hg standards were too large such that each test run
would require too much time to complete. They recommended that smaller
test volumes would be appropriate and suggested that the test volume be
small enough to allow each test run to be completed within 60 minutes.
Response: In response to the commenters' concerns regarding the
stack testing volumes and duration of each test run, the EPA
reconsidered the proposed sample volume requirements and revised the
performance testing requirements in the final rule to require a minimum
sample volume of 1.7 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) (60 dry standard
cubic feet (dscf)) for EPA Method 29 and ASTM D6784-16, instead of the
3 dscm sample volume we proposed. The 1.7 dscm sample volume will allow
test runs to be completed in approximately 2 hours while still ensuring
that the required sample volume is sufficient for analysis and that a
non-detect test result indicates compliance with the final Hg limits.
Comment: We received multiple comments recommending continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for Hg be included either as a
requirement for all indurating furnaces or as an optional alternative
to conducting performance testing and establishing operating limits.
The commenters stated that CEMS would ensure continuous compliance with
the Hg standard and could help lower compliance costs by making it
possible for facilities to vary the ACI rate based on the Hg emissions
data collected by CEMS. Some commenters said facilities would be more
likely to use CEMS if the CEMS provisions were incorporated into the
rule because facilities would not have to apply for approval of an
alternative monitoring method.
Response: The EPA agrees with recommendations made by commenters
that suggested CEMS be included as an optional alternative to the
proposed compliance monitoring and performance testing requirements. We
agree that CEMS are an acceptable alternative monitoring method for
assuring compliance with the Hg emissions standards. In the final rule,
we have included provisions that provide owners and operators the
option of using Hg CEMS in lieu of establishing operating limits and
performing periodic performance testing. These provisions will provide
more options for the methods that facilities can use to demonstrate
compliance with the new Hg standards and reduce the burden associated
with applying for Administrator approval of an alternative monitoring
plan. However, we are not requiring installation of CEMS due to
compliance cost considerations, as explained in the memorandum,
Development of Impacts for the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for
Taconite Iron Ore Processing, which is available in the docket for this
action.
Comment: Industry commenters were concerned that the proposed
approach to setting operating limits for ACI would not allow facilities
flexibility to adjust the carbon injection rates when production
decreases. These commenters suggested the EPA allow flexibility to
adjust the average ACI rate and average carrier flow rate based on
taconite pellet production rates during stack testing to provide
facilities with the operational flexibility needed at lower production
rates.
Response: We agree with the industry commenters that lower ACI and
carrier gas flow rates would achieve compliance with the emission limit
when production rates are lower than the production rates during the
performance test used to establish operating limits. We have included
provisions in the final rule that allow a facility to adjust the
operating limits based on taconite pellet production. Under the
requirements of the final rule, a facility has the option of
establishing operating limits for different production rates by
conducting performance tests at the maximum, minimum, and median
taconite pellet production rates of an indurating furnace to develop a
relationship between the carbon injection rate and taconite pellet
production rate. An owner or operator would monitor the taconite pellet
production rate and adjust the ACI rate in accordance with the
relationship between these parameters developed during the performance
testing. If the taconite pellet production rate falls below the minimum
rate measured during performance testing, the owners and operators must
maintain a carbon injection rate that is equal to, or above, the rate
determined during the performance testing completed at the minimum
taconite production rate.
As an alternative, an owner or operator may adjust the ACI rate
based on the direct measurement of Hg emitted to the atmosphere. An
owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEMS
to measure Hg emissions from each emission stack associated with the
indurating furnace to use this alternative.
Comment: Industry commenters supported the EPA's decision to set
the Hg emissions standards at the MACT floor rather than setting a BTF
standard. Industry commenters stated that the capital and annual costs
required to comply with the MACT floor are too high and setting BTF
standards would not be cost-effective. One commenter asserted that any
standard beyond the MACT floor must be justified by a ``thorough and
robust analysis of the costs and benefits.'' The commenter agreed with
the EPA's proposed determination that the cost-effectiveness of the BTF
options identified for Hg control were above the level historically
found to be reasonable.
Several other commenters recommended the EPA set a BTF Hg standard
and recommended the standard be at least 30-40 percent more stringent
than the MACT floor. The commenters stated that additional Hg
reductions can be achieved and that a more stringent Hg standard is
warranted due to the bioaccumulative nature of Hg. The commenter noted
that many water bodies located near taconite facilities already have
fish consumption advisories, which commenters noted impact the rights
of tribes to exercise their traditional life practices. One commenter
noted that tribes have a particular interest in Hg emissions due to the
Hg-related fish consumption advisories that have been issued by
Minnesota since the 1970s and by the Fond du Lac Tribe beginning in
2000. One commenter stated that the 30
[[Page 16414]]
percent BTF option would reduce Hg emissions to a level that would help
address public health concerns associated with high concentrations of
Hg in water, fish tissues, and other subsistence resources. Commenters
from several tribes located near taconite facilities stated that the
EPA's Tribal trust and treaty responsibilities justified adoption of a
BTF option. They added that the EPA should consider its trust
responsibility to protect the interests of tribes and the tribes'
treaty rights and quoted from two EPA policy documents: EPA Policy for
the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations
(issued November 1984) and Guidance for Discussing Tribal Treaty Rights
(issued February 2016). Both documents support consideration of Tribal
rights and protections in Agency decision making. Commenters noted that
the areas impacted by taconite iron ore processing plants are in the
areas covered by a series of treaties. These commenters disagreed with
the EPA's determination that BTF options were not cost-effective.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that said the Hg
standard should be set at the MACT floor. In our analysis, the BTF
options were above the numbers we have found cost effective for Hg
controls in prior CAA section 112 rulemakings.
The EPA recognizes the Federal government's trust responsibility,
which derives from the historical relationship between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. The EPA acts consistently with the
Federal government trust responsibility by implementing the statutes it
administers and consulting with and considering the interests of tribes
when taking actions that may affect them. As we noted in the proposal,
the EPA consulted with Tribal government officials during the
development of this rule. The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation held a
meeting with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation
and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation on January 12, 2022, to
discuss the EPA's CAA section 114 information request, and to ensure
that the views of affected tribes were taken into consideration in the
rulemaking process in accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes. A summary of that consultation is
provided in the document, Consultation with the Fond du Lac Band of
Lake Superior Chippewa and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe regarding
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing Amendments on
January 12, 2022, which is available in the docket for this action.
The Agency recognizes the concerns raised by numerous Tribal
commenters regarding impacts to treaty fishing and other resource
rights. However, for the reasons explained below, the EPA is declining
to set BTF standards for Hg, based on the statutory factors that we are
required to consider pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) when assessing
whether to set MACT standards more stringent than the MACT floor level
of control. These statutory factors include the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements. As discussed in paragraphs later in
this section, the cost-effectiveness values associated with BTF
standards for this Taconite Iron Ore Processing rule are well above the
cost-effectiveness values that EPA has historically accepted when
considering BTF options for regulating mercury emissions. We note that
the historic acceptable cost-effectiveness values for mercury (e.g., up
to $22,400 per pound [in 2007 dollars] in the 2011 final MATS rule,
which equates to about $32,000 per pound in current dollars) are much
higher than the cost-effectiveness values we have accepted for all
other HAPs (except for maybe a few exceptions such as dioxins and
furans) and is based, at least in part, on the fact that mercury is a
persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) HAP. Nevertheless, we conclude
that setting BTF Hg standards in this rule would be inconsistent with
the values found to be cost-effective for Hg controls in prior
rulemakings. We are declining to set BTF standards in this rule based
on cost and other statutory factors.
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and
subcategory listed under CAA section 112(c). The MACT standards for
existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the
best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30
sources (CAA sections 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum
stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards
must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice
by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA
may not consider costs or other impacts in determining the MACT floor.
Section 112(d)(2) of the CAA also requires the EPA to examine
emission standards more stringent than the MACT floor, which the EPA
refers to as BTF control options. Unlike standards set at the MACT
floor level of control, when assessing whether to require emission
standards more stringent than the MACT floor, the EPA must consider the
cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. The EPA's BTF
analysis evaluated these factors in determining whether to establish Hg
standards more stringent than the MACT floor. In developing this final
rule, we evaluated Hg emission limits more stringent than the MACT
floor after adjusting estimates of Hg emissions, Hg emission
reductions, and control costs as discussed above, including those BTF
limits suggested by commenters, to assess whether a BTF option was
technically achievable and cost-effective. We estimate that the total
capital costs and total annual costs would range from a low of $137
million and $92 million, respectively, for a limit that is 10 percent
more stringent than the floor to a high of $148 million and $102
million, respectively, for a limit that is 40 percent more stringent
than the floor. The incremental cost effectiveness for the BTF options
examined varied from a low of $46,266 per pound of Hg reduced for 30
percent more stringent than the floor to a high of $91,140 per pound of
Hg reduced for 40 percent more stringent than the floor. These values
are well above the $/pound of Hg reduced that we have historically
found to be cost-effective when considering BTF options for regulating
Hg emissions. Where EPA has taken costs into account, the Agency has
finalized standards for mercury with cost effectiveness estimates of up
to $32,000/lb Hg reduced (adjusted to 2024 dollars). See Mercury Cell
Chlor-Alkali Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review (87 FR 27002,
May 6, 2022); 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) final rule. To date,
these are the highest cost-effectiveness values that we have accepted
in the air toxics program for any HAP (except for maybe a few
exceptions such as dioxins and furans), largely because of the toxicity
and nature of Hg. While we conclude that mercury standards more
stringent than the MACT floor are not cost-effective, we note that as a
result of the revisions to the rule being finalized in this rulemaking,
we will receive compliance test information that will allow us to
evaluate our conclusions and potentially inform appropriate future
[[Page 16415]]
regulatory activities including the next statutorily required
technology review. Mercury is one of the high concern HAPs because it
is environmentally persistent, it bioaccumulates in humans and food
chains--including in fish, which is a concern for subsistence needs,
uses and cultural practices as noted in multiple comments from Tribes--
and is a neurotoxin that is especially of concern for developing
fetuses and young children. For these reasons, mercury is one of the
few HAPs for which we use the expression of $ per pound and consider
higher cost-effectiveness values. We also estimated the secondary
impacts of the BTF options would range between 155,000 megawatt-hours
per year (MWh/yr) and 160,000 MWh/yr of electricity (with associated
secondary air emissions), generate between 4.7 million and 7.4 million
gallons of wastewater per year, and produce between 110,000 tons and
112,000 tons of solid waste of per year. Based on our assessment of Hg
emission standards 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, and 40 percent
more stringent than the MACT floor, including consideration of cost and
other statutory factors of setting BTF Hg standards for indurating
furnaces in the source category as specified in CAA section 112(d)(2),
in the final rule, we are declining to adopt BTF emission standards for
Hg and are finalizing Hg standards at the MACT floor as discussed in
section III.A.3 of this preamble. For more information on our analysis
of the BTF control options for Hg, please see the memorandum, Final
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Analysis for Mercury
Standards for Taconite Iron Ore Indurating Furnaces, which is available
in the docket for this action.
Comment: Several commenters, including the National Park Service,
several local tribes, and environmental organizations said Hg standards
for the taconite industry were important because of the benefits lower
Hg emissions will have on public health and the environment. One
commenter cited several studies, such as the Dragonfly Mercury Project,
that document elevated levels of Hg and higher risks of Hg exposure to
humans and wildlife in the Great Lakes Region. This commenter stated
that the upper Great Lakes Region is particularly sensitive to Hg
pollution due to the abundance of wetlands and peatlands, low-pH lakes,
high dissolved organic matter, low biological productivity, and other
factors that provide conditions suitable for the conversion of Hg to
the bioavailable form methylmercury. The commenter also stated the
impacts of Hg on wildlife include reduced foraging efficiency, lower
reproductive success, impaired endocrine modulation, and damage to
kidney and other tissues. The commenters expressed concern over the
number of fish with Hg levels exceeding the human and wildlife health
thresholds. The commenter cited data from a 1998-2016 study that
measured Hg concentrations in fish from the upper Great Lakes at 0.12
ppm wet weight, with 24 percent of the fish sampled exceeding the EPA
human health criterion of 0.3 ppm wet weight, 27 percent of the fish
exceeding fish-eating wildlife health threshold of 0.2 ppm whole-body,
and 17 percent exceeding the fish toxicity benchmark of 0.3 ppm whole-
body. This commenter cited studies linking Hg deposition with
bioaccumulation, including a study of Hg concentration in moose teeth
from Isle Royale National Park, Michigan from 1952 to 2002. The
commenter noted that Hg decreased by about two-thirds during the early
1980s but remained constant for the following 2 decades. The commenter
cited an additional six studies that analyzed the concentrations and
trends of Hg in bald eagle nestlings in the upper Midwest from 2006-
2015 and long-term trends at two Lake Superior sites between 1989-2015.
These studies show concentrations of Hg in nestling breast feathers
were highest at the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway (6.66
[micro]g/g wet weight) and that Hg concentrations have increased at two
other study area sites.
The commenters said the new Hg standards will help reduce Hg
deposition in the Great Lakes Region and improve public health. The
commenters asserted that taconite iron ore processing plants in
Minnesota and Michigan have a significant impact on the natural
resources of the upper Great Lakes Region and the elevated Hg levels in
fish and bird populations. Several commenters mentioned the statewide
fish consumption advisories for Hg in Minnesota, Michigan, and
Wisconsin and noted several water bodies in these states are listed as
impaired for aquatic consumption due to Hg. The commenters asserted
that the new Hg standards will reduce the impact of Hg on public health
and the environment, provide additional protection to recreational and
subsistence fish consumers in national parks and surrounding
communities, and protect natural resources that are of cultural
significance to many local communities.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the independent research conducted
by the National Park Service and others on the impacts of Hg on the
communities and wildlife of the upper Great Lakes Region. We share the
commenters' concern about the elevated Hg levels in fish and other
wildlife in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the critical impact
these Hg levels have on tribes and low-income populations that rely on
the fish and wildlife from the Great Lakes region. By controlling Hg
emissions, the Hg MACT standards EPA is finalizing in this action for
taconite iron ore processing plants will achieve an estimated reduction
of 247 pounds per year of mercury emissions from the Taconite
facilities, which we expect will also achieve an unquantified reduction
of Hg deposition in the Great Lakes Region and therefore improve public
health of local communities, including local tribes and low-income
populations.
3. What are the final MACT standards for Hg and how will compliance be
demonstrated?
We are finalizing MACT standards for Hg for new and existing
indurating furnaces that reflect the MACT floor level of control, based
on the 99-percent UPL, of 1.4 x 10-5 lb/LT for existing
sources and 2.6 x 10-6 lb/LT for new sources. We are also
finalizing the emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows
taconite iron ore processing facilities with more than one existing
indurating furnace to comply with a Hg emissions limit of 1.3 x
10-5 lb/LT by averaging emissions on a production-weighted
basis for two or more existing indurating furnaces located at the same
facility.
Owners and operators may demonstrate compliance with the new Hg
standards in one of two ways. Under the first option, an owner or
operator may demonstrate compliance by completing performance testing
and establishing operating limits for each control device used to
comply with the Hg standard. The final rule clarifies that performance
testing must be performed when the production rate is equal to or
greater than 90 percent of the capacity of the indurating furnace. If
the performance testing cannot be performed when the production rate is
equal to or greater than 90 percent of the production rate capacity of
the furnace, the owner or operator may complete testing at a lower
production rate if they receive approval from the delegated authority.
An owner or operator selecting this option must install and operate
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to monitor the
parameters specified in 40 CFR 63.9631(g). An owner or operator must
take corrective action when an established operating limit is exceeded.
[[Page 16416]]
The initial performance testing must be completed within 180 calendar
days of the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.9583(f) for existing
sources or within 180 calendar days of startup for new sources, using
EPA Methods 29 or 30B in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or the VCS ASTM
D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound
and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary
Sources (Ontario Hydro Method). The performance tests must be repeated
at least twice per 5-year permit term.
The second option by which an owner or operator may demonstrate
compliance is through the installation and operation of CEMS for Hg.
The CEMS must be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated in
accordance with the procedures specified in 40 CFR 63.9631(j). An owner
or operator selecting this approach is not required to establish
operating limits, install and operate CPMS, or complete the initial and
periodic performance testing for Hg emissions.
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this preamble, the final rule
includes an option for adjusting the carbon injection rate based on the
taconite pellet production level. The facility has the option of
establishing operating limits for different production rates by
conducting performance tests at the maximum, minimum and median
taconite pellet production rates to develop a relationship between
carbon injection rate and taconite pellet production rate or by
adjusting the ACI rate based on Hg emissions data collected by CEMS.
Facilities that elect to adjust the carbon injection rate based on
taconite production levels will have lower compliance costs due to
lower annual consumption of activated carbon.
Each owner or operator must prepare a preventive maintenance plan
and keep records of calibration and accuracy checks of the CPMS or CEMS
to document proper operation and maintenance of all monitoring systems
used to demonstrate compliance with the applicable Hg standard.
B. Revised Emission Standards for HCl and HF
1. What did we propose for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category?
As described in the May 15, 2023, proposal (88 FR 30917), we
proposed to revise the numerical emission limits for HCl and HF,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the
EPA to review standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8
years; we refer to such action under CAA section 112(d)(6) as a
``technology review.'' The EPA previously completed a technology review
for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category in 2020 (85 FR
45476; July 28, 2020). In the May 15, 2023, proposal, we proposed to
revise the HCl and HF standards based on new information we obtained in
response to the 2022 information collection concerning emissions of
these pollutants from the source category. For existing indurating
furnaces, we proposed emissions standards of 4.4 x 10-2 lb/
LT for HCl and 1.2 x 10-2 lb/LT for HF. For new indurating
furnaces, we proposed emission standards of 4.4 x 10-4 lb/LT
for HCl and 3.3 x 10-4 lb/LT for HF. We proposed to require
that owners or operators demonstrate compliance through initial and
periodic performance testing (completed at least twice per 5-year
permit term), establishing operating limits for each control device
used to comply with the HCl and HF standards, and installing and
operating continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to ensure
continuous compliance with the standards.
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed revised HCl and HF
emission standards, and what are our responses?
Comment: We received comments and data from industry identifying
errors in the emissions data for the Tilden and Hibbing indurating
furnaces submitted to the EPA in response to the CAA section 114
information request sent to the taconite facilities in 2022. For the
Tilden stack test report, industry confirmed the units of measure were
incorrectly listed in the stack test report submitted by industry as
``pounds per ton'' instead of ``pounds per long ton'' of taconite
pellets produced. Commenters confirmed the units of measure should be
``pounds per long ton.'' For Hibbing, the commenters identified one
transcription error in the HCl emissions data for one of the four
emission stacks.
Response: In response to these comments, the EPA reviewed all stack
test runs for the seven furnaces that completed HCl and HF stack
testing pursuant to the 2022 CAA section 114 information request. We
confirmed there was a transcription error in HCl emissions for the
first run of the stack testing completed on the Hibbing furnace. Since
the emissions data for Hibbing were included in the dataset used to
calculate the proposed HCl emission limit, we recalculated the emission
limit for HCl using the revised data. As a result of the changes to the
Hibbing emissions data, the numerical emission standard for HCl for
existing sources was revised from the proposed 4.4 x 10-2
lb/LT to the 4.6 x 10-2 lb/LT limit we are finalizing in
this action. The revisions to the emissions data do not impact the
numerical limit for HCl for new sources or the numerical limits for HF
for new and existing sources. Therefore, the proposed HCl standard for
new sources of 4.4 x 10-4 lb/LT and the HF standards for new
and existing sources of 3.3 x 10-4 lb/LT and 1.2 x
10-2 lb/LT, respectively, are finalized without change.
The EPA revised the units of measure for the Tilden HCl and HF
emission data based on the comments we received from industry. As we
explained in the proposal, the HCl and HF emissions data for the Tilden
furnace are not used to calculate the emission limits for HCl and HF
because Tilden's furnaces use dry electrostatic precipitators (ESP). In
the proposal, we stated that we expect Tilden's two indurating furnaces
would be able to meet the HF limit for existing furnaces without adding
any air pollution control devices but that we expect Tilden would be
required to add air pollution control devices to meet the proposed HCl
emission standard. Although the revised emission rates for Tilden are
slightly lower than the emissions rates used for the proposal, we
expect that Tilden's furnaces would still need to add air pollution
controls to meet the HCl emission standard we are finalizing for
existing furnaces. As explained in the previous paragraph, the EPA is
finalizing the HCl emission standard of 4.6 x 10-2 lb/LT for
existing sources. To comply with the HCl emission standard, Tilden must
reduce HCl emissions by 76 percent (compared to 79 percent HCl
reduction we estimated at proposal) and the HCl emissions reduction for
the final rule is 683 tpy (compared to a 713 tpy reduction we estimated
at proposal). Our revised total capital cost estimate for HCl controls
(dry sorbent injection) is $1.1 million and our revised annual cost
estimate is $1.4 million. The revised cost effectiveness is $2,040 per
ton of HCl removed, which is a level of cost effectiveness that is
acceptable for HCl and would also likely be acceptable for any other
HAP. The revised emissions data, numerical limits, and cost estimates
prepared for the final rule are documented in the memorandum, Final
Revised Technology Review of Acid Gas Controls for Indurating
[[Page 16417]]
Furnaces in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, which is
available in the docket for this action.
Comment: Multiple commenters were supportive of replacing PM as a
surrogate for HCl and HF emissions and supported the proposed numerical
emission limits for HCl and HF. One commenter said the PM limit was not
a valid surrogate for emissions of HCl and HF and argued the EPA should
set HCl and HF limits under the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3). However, other commenters from industry disagreed with our
proposal and said the existing standards based on PM as a surrogate for
acid gases should not be changed. These commenters asserted that the
EPA lacked the authority to revise the existing HCl and HF standards
because the EPA had not shown that technological developments have
occurred that would lower emissions of acid gases nor shown that
revisions are necessary, as required by CAA section 112(d)(6). The
commenters stated that new emissions data does not qualify as a
development under CAA section 112(d)(6) and that the language in CAA
section 112(d)(6) focuses on actual control measures and requires the
EPA to update an existing emissions standard only if improvements in
control measures occur and the improvements in control measures warrant
a revision. The commenters added that PM is still recognized as a
proper surrogate for HAP emissions and the revised standards are
unnecessary because they impose a significant financial burden on
taconite iron ore processing plants without reducing risks to the
public health and the environment.
Response: The EPA agrees that revising the emission limits for HCl
and HF is appropriate for the reasons explained in this discussion,
below, and in the proposal preamble (88 FR 30926). We disagree that the
EPA lacks authority to revise the existing standards for HCl and HF.
When the NESHAP for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category
was first developed, PM emission limits were used as a surrogate for
HCl and HF. The decision to use the PM standards as a surrogate for HCl
and HF emissions was based on an analysis of the HCl, HF, and PM
emissions data that the EPA possessed at the time of promulgation of
the initial NESHAP for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category
in 2003 (68 FR 61868; October 30, 2003). That data indicated there was
a correlation between acid gas and PM emissions. We note, however, that
the use of PM as a surrogate for HCl and HF and the corresponding PM
emission limit were based on a limited dataset because only three
furnaces conducted PM emissions tests concurrently with the HCl and HF
tests. As part of the 2022 CAA section 114 information request, the EPA
sought emissions data from Taconite Iron Ore Processing facilities,
including stack testing for PM, HCl, and HF emissions from seven
indurating furnaces located at six taconite facilities. The data
received in response to the 2022 CAA section 114 information request
are presented in the memorandum, Final Emissions Data Collected in 2022
for Indurating Furnaces Located at Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants,
which is available in the docket for this action. The 2022 dataset is
not only more robust than the limited dataset available in 2003 but
also more representative of current conditions since some of the
control devices used on the furnaces at the time of the 2003 rulemaking
have changed since that time. For example, the Keetac plant has since
replaced the multicyclones on their indurating furnace with venturi
scrubbers and the Tilden plant replaced a wet ESP on one stack with a
dry ESP. Based on this new data, we determined it was more appropriate
to directly regulate the HAP of concern than to use a surrogate. Our
analysis of the 2022 data and our review of available air pollution
controls for acid gases indicates that the controls we expect will be
necessary to meet the numerical standards for HCl and HF are available
and cost-effective. As we explained in the proposal (88 FR 30926), the
new data received in response to the 2022 CAA section 114 information
request showed that indurating furnaces using wet scrubbers achieve
better control of HCl and HF than furnaces using dry ESP.
We disagree with commenter that we lack the authority to revise
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) absent a showing that the
revisions would reduce risk. CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to
review and revise as necessary emission standards taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. This
provision does not require the EPA to consider risk. We agree that the
EPA has the discretion to consider cost when considering the
appropriate level of control under CAA section 112(d)(6). The EPA
identified dry sorbent injection (DSI) and wet scrubbers as a feasible
control options and estimated the associated costs. We concluded that
DSI is the lowest cost option for the indurating furnaces located at
the Tilden plant. Based on this analysis, the EPA concluded the costs
to comply with the numerical limits for HCl were justified and cost-
effective and do not impose a significant financial burden on industry.
The cost effectiveness was estimated to be $2,040 per ton of HCl
removed, which is within the range the EPA has previously considered to
be a cost-effective level of control for many HAP. Based on the 2022
emissions data, add on air pollution controls are not required to meet
the HF emission limit. The standards we are finalizing in this action
ensure HCl and HF emissions from all indurating furnaces in the source
category are controlled to the same extent as the best performing
indurating furnaces in the source category.
Comment: Industry commenters stated there is no basis for changing
the way HCl and HF emissions are regulated, that the EPA did not
explain why PM cannot be used as a surrogate for HCl and HF emissions,
and that if revised standards were needed, they should be based on the
subcategories established in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP in
2003. The commenters stated that the EPA should make determinations on
whether new standards are necessary for each subcategory and then
should base any new standards for each subcategory on emission data for
the furnaces within that subcategory. The commenters acknowledged that
CAA section 112(d)(6) authorizes the EPA to review and revise as
necessary the emission standards every 8 years, but they said the
statute does not permit the EPA to develop new standards ignoring the
existing subcategories. The commenters argued the Tilden facility
processes a different type of taconite ore (i.e., hematite instead of
magnetite) than the other facilities and therefore the furnaces at this
facility should remain in a separate subcategory from the furnaces at
the other facilities (as was the case when the EPA established the PM
standards in the 2003 NESHAP). The commenters noted that a subcategory
was established for grate kilns processing hematite ore because of
differences in the ore and furnace, including different air flow
direction and rates, the perpetual motion of the pellets inside the
kiln, fineness of the hematite ore, tendency for the hematite pellets
to break, and production of fluxed pellets that use limestone/dolomite
containing chloride. For furnaces that process magnetite, the
commenters argued that limits for HCl and HF are not needed and would
result in unnecessary compliance costs
[[Page 16418]]
without health and environmental benefits.
Response: We disagree with the industry commenters' assertion that
the EPA should extend the subcategorization for PM standards used in
the 2003 rulemaking and set HCl and HF limits only for grate kilns
processing hematite ore. When the NESHAP for the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category was initially developed, indurating furnaces
were identified as significant sources of HCl and HF emissions. The
NESHAP promulgated in 2003 established limits, as required under CAA
section 112(d), for all indurating furnaces. The decision to use the PM
standards as a surrogate for HCl and HF emissions was based on very
limited HCl, HF, and PM emissions data available and evaluated for the
2003 rulemaking. As we explained in the response to the previous
comment, in this action, we have determined it is more appropriate to
directly regulate the HAP of concern (i.e., HCl and HF) than to use a
surrogate, using the more robust 2022 dataset now available to us. The
data collected for this rulemaking are presented in the memorandum,
Final Emissions Data Collected in 2022 for Indurating Furnaces Located
at Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants, which is available in the
docket for this action.
We disagree with commenters' assertion that emission limits for
acid gases should be established using the existing subcategories for
PM and that HCl and HF standards are not necessary for furnaces that
process magnetite ore. The EPA found in the 2003 NESHAP final rule that
HCl and HF are emitted by all indurating furnaces and established
standards for all types of indurating furnaces in the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing source category, including those indurating furnaces that
process magnetite ore. Indeed, the emissions data collected in response
to the 2022 CAA section 114 information request demonstrate that
indurating furnaces processing magnetite ore emit measurable levels of
HCl and HF even after control by wet scrubbers. HCl and HF are formed
in indurating furnaces due to the presence of chlorides and fluorides
in the raw materials used to form the greenballs (i.e., unfired
taconite pellets) that are fed into the indurating furnaces. While some
of the chlorides and fluorides in the raw materials come from the ore,
pellet additives, such as dolomite and limestone, are also a source of
HCl and HF emissions. These additives are routinely used by all
taconite plants, including those that process magnetite ore. Although
the commenters suggested plants processing hematite ore using grate-
kilns should be considered a separate subcategory when considering acid
gas emissions, the commenters provided no data demonstrating a
significant difference in the chloride and fluoride content of the two
types of ores. Nor did they provide any explanation or data to support
their assertion that differences in the design of the indurating
furnace impact HCl and HF emissions. The data pertaining to indurating
furnaces processing magnetite ore that was collected in response to the
2022 CAA section 114 information request does not show a significant
difference in acid gas emissions between straight-grate and grate kiln
indurating furnaces.
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(1), the Administrator ``may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory in establishing'' standards. However, as we
have discussed in previous Agency actions, the CAA does not mandate
that the EPA create subcategories. See, e.g., National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance
for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam
Generating Units (77 FR 9304, 9378; February 16, 2012) (``2012 Mercury
and Air Toxics Final Rule''). In addition, the Agency may create
subcategories for the purpose of regulating specific HAP, while
declining to create subcategories more broadly. In the 2012 Mercury and
Air Toxics Final Rule, we explained the Agency's position that any
basis for subcategorization (i.e., class, type, or size) typically must
be related to an effect on HAP emissions that is due to the difference
in class, type, or size of the sources. We further explained that
``[e]ven if we determine that emissions characteristics are different
for units that differ in class, type, or size, the Agency may still
decline to subcategorize if there are compelling policy justifications
that suggest subcategorization is not appropriate'' (77 FR 9378). In
the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Final Rule, we determined it was
appropriate to subcategorize coal-fired boilers for purposes of
regulating Hg emissions based on differences in Hg emissions between
two types of coal-fired boiler subcategories. We also determined that
for all other HAP, the data did not show any difference in HAP emission
levels, and we declined to set separate emission standards for the two
types of coal-fired boilers for other HAP.
In this final rule, we are retaining the separate PM emission
limits established in the 2003 final rule for indurating furnaces
processing magnetite and hematite. Based on the data available, we
continue to believe it is appropriate to retain these separate PM
emission standards because hematite is a finer grained ore than
magnetite, and processing of hematite in an indurating furnace results
in higher PM emissions than processing magnetite. However, we are
declining to subcategorize taconite indurating furnaces for purposes of
regulating Hg or acid gas emissions. As explained previously, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(1), the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize
sources for the purpose of setting emission standards under CAA section
112, but is not required to do so. As we also explained, where the EPA
elects to subcategorize sources, we typically do so for the purpose of
setting standards for specific HAP where the basis for the
subcategorization is related to an effect on HAP emissions that is due
to a difference in class, type, or size of the sources. The differences
in emissions of HCl and HF among taconite indurating furnaces are
largely the result of differing controls utilized by sources rather
than a result of the class, type, or size of the indurating furnaces
themselves. Therefore, we conclude that the differences in HCl and HF
emissions are not due to differences in the class, type, of size of
taconite indurating furnaces. As a result, we do not believe it is
appropriate to subcategorize taconite indurating furnaces for the
purpose of regulating Hg, HCl, or HF emissions and are declining to do
so in this final rule.
Based on the data available, the EPA proposed to set HCl and HF
emission standards that apply to all indurating furnaces. In this
action, we are finalizing emission standards for HCl and HF as
discussed in section III.B.1 of this preamble. While the HCl emission
standard for existing furnaces differs from what we proposed for the
reasons explained in section III.B.2 of this preamble, we continue to
believe it is appropriate to set numerical emission standards for HCl
and HF based on the 2022 ICR data rather than to continue to rely on PM
standards as a surrogate for these pollutants. While we expect that
most indurating furnaces will be able to meet the revised HCl and HF
limits using existing air pollution controls, the new performance
testing and parametric monitoring requirements are necessary to ensure
continuous compliance with the HCl and HF emission standards. The
[[Page 16419]]
PM testing and monitoring requirements in the current NESHAP designed
to ensure compliance with the PM emission standards, which will remain
in place as surrogates for non-Hg metal HAP, are not sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with the HCl and HF emission standards. Each
owner and operator must complete performance testing, establish
operating limits for each control device used to control HCl and HF,
and monitor the appropriate parameters to demonstrate the control
device is operating in a manner that ensures compliance with the HCl
and HF emission standards. Performance testing must be completed at
least twice per 5-year permit term and within 180 days of startup of
new furnaces.
Comment: Industry commenters asserted the data used to develop the
numerical standards for HCl and HF was too limited to reflect the
operational and seasonal variability in the HCl and HF emissions. They
stated that several factors influence the HCl and HF emissions and that
the emissions data received in response to the 2022 CAA section 114
information request covers too short of a time period to be
representative of the acid gas emissions from indurating furnaces. The
commenters noted that HCl and HF emissions are driven by the chloride
or fluoride content in the iron ore and that the limited dataset does
not account for the full range of variability in the chlorine and
fluorine content of raw materials. They stated that the raw materials
vary throughout a taconite mine, producing raw materials with different
compositions and characteristics that are not reflected in the 2022 CAA
section 114 information request data. The commenters recommended the
HCl and HF limits be based on a more representative dataset collected
over a longer period of time that accounts for raw material variation
as well as seasonal and operational variation. The commenters stated
that because the proposed limits are based on a limited dataset that
does not fully account for operational variability, the proposed HCl
and HF emission limits should not be finalized and they recommended
that the PM standards in the current NESHAP continue to be used as a
surrogate for acid gas emissions.
Response: The method used to calculate the proposed numeric
emission limits for HCl and HF for new and existing taconite indurating
furnaces has been used for several years to set numerical limits for
other source categories and is an appropriate methodology that accounts
for variability in the emissions between different furnaces and
different plants and accounts for some variability in the chloride and
fluoride content of the ore and pellet additives used at different
facilities because it includes data from two different types of
indurating furnaces (straight grate furnaces and grate kiln furnaces)
at five different taconite facilities. We used the emissions data from
the six indurating furnaces currently using wet scrubbers to calculate
a UPL. The UPL approach encompasses all the data point-to-data point
variability within the sample set (i.e., all of the emissions data from
the six indurating furnaces equipped with wet venturi scrubbers), which
consisted of 21 individual data points. The UPL was calculated as the
mean of the 21 data points plus a factor that accounts for the
variability within the dataset. The UPL represents the value which one
can expect the mean of a specified number of future observations (e.g.,
3-run average) to fall below at a specified level of confidence based
upon the results of an independent sample from the same population. We
used a 99-percent level of confidence to calculate the UPL, which means
that a facility that uses the same or similar type of air pollution
control device(s) has one chance in 100 of exceeding the emission
limit. A prediction interval for a single future observation (or an
average of several test observations) is an interval that will, with a
specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average of
some other pre-specified number of) randomly selected observation(s)
from a population. The UPL estimates what the upper bound of future
values will be based upon present or past background samples taken.
While larger datasets are always preferable, numerical emission limits
are often based on data from a single stack test event. For additional
information on the methodology used to develop the numerical emission
standards for HCl and HF for the final rule, please see the memorandum,
Final Revised Technology Review of Acid Gas Controls for Indurating
Furnaces in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category. A copy of
this document is available in the docket for this action.
3. What are the revised standards for HCl and HF and how will
compliance be demonstrated?
We are finalizing numerical emission limits for HCl and HF,
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). We are finalizing as proposed the
numerical emission limit for HCl for new indurating furnaces. We are
finalizing a numerical emission limit for HCl for existing indurating
furnaces which differs from the limit proposed because the final limit
reflects a revision to the emissions data for the Hibbing facility, as
discussed in section III.B.2 of this preamble. We are finalizing as
proposed the numerical emission limits for HF for new and existing
indurating furnaces. For existing indurating furnaces, we are
finalizing an HCl emission limit of 4.6 x 10-2 lb/LT and are
finalizing an HF emission limit of 1.2 x 10-2 lb/LT. For new
indurating furnaces, we are finalizing an HCl emission limit of 4.4 x
10-4 lb/LT and are finalizing an HF emission limit of 3.3 x
10-4 lb/LT. Further discussion of the HCl and HF emission
standards and the methodology used to develop the emission standards,
as well as a discussion of costs, may be found in the memorandum, Final
Revised Technology Review of Acid Gas Controls for Indurating Furnaces
in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category, which is available
in the docket for this action.
We are also finalizing as proposed the requirement to complete
performance testing for HCl and HF using EPA Method 26A and to
establish operating limits for each control device used to comply with
the HCl and HF standards, in accordance with the amended provisions of
40 CFR 63.9622. The final rule clarifies that the owner or operator
must perform performance testing when the pellet production rate is
equal to or greater than 90 percent of the capacity of the indurating
furnace. If the performance testing cannot be performed at or above 90
percent of capacity of the indurating furnace, the owner or operator
may complete testing at a lower production rate if they receive
approval from the delegated authority. The owner or operator must
install and operate CPMS in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
63.9633 and must prepare a preventive maintenance plan and keep records
of calibration and accuracy checks of the CPMS to document proper
operation and maintenance of each monitoring system. An owner or
operator must take corrective action when an established operating
limit is exceeded. The owner or operator must complete the initial
performance tests within 180 calendar days of the compliance date for
existing furnaces, or within 180 calendar days of startup for new
furnaces. The performance tests must be repeated at least twice per 5-
year permit term.
[[Page 16420]]
C. What other amendments are we finalizing?
1. Requirement To Complete Performance Testing Within 7 Calendar Days
The EPA proposed amendments to the performance testing provisions
that would require the owner or operator to complete a performance test
on a source within 7 calendar days of initiating that performance test.
This provision was included for the existing performance testing for
PM, as well as for the proposed new performance testing for Hg, HCl,
and HF. We received one comment that resulted in changes to the
proposed requirements. The comment and our response are summarized
below.
Comments: Industry commenters opposed the proposed requirement that
all performance testing be completed within 7 calendar days because
some emission sources have multiple stacks and testing of multiple
stacks could require more than 7 days to complete. They also stated
that unanticipated shutdowns due to process upsets may prevent tests
from being completed within 7 days. The commenters recommended that the
EPA allow facilities to notify the Administrator when a longer time
frame is needed but asserted that facilities should not be required to
obtain approval if more than 7 calendar days are needed to complete
performance testing.
Response: We consider the 7 calendar day period to complete all
performance testing to be reasonable based on our previous experience
with performance testing at industrial facilities. We believe it is
unlikely that a facility would be unable to complete the required
performance testing within a 7 calendar day timeframe. However, we
acknowledge the commenters' concerns that unanticipated shutdowns can
occur due to equipment failures or process upsets. To address such
circumstances, we included the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' in
the final rule. We have finalized the proposed requirement that
performance tests be completed within 7 calendar days of the date on
which the first test run was started. However, we agree with the
commenters' suggestion that owners and operators be required to notify
the Administrator when a performance test cannot be completed within 7
calendar days. In the final rule, we revised the proposed language in
40 CFR 63.9620(b)(2), 63.9620(k)(2), and 63.9630(b) to require
facilities that will not be able to complete performance tests within 7
calendar days to notify the Administrator within 24 hours of making the
determination that they will not be able to do so.
2. Amendments to the Electronic Reporting Requirements
We are also finalizing as proposed changes to the electronic
reporting requirements found in 40 CFR 63.9641(c) and 40 CFR
63.9641(f)(3) to reflect new procedures for reporting CBI, including
adding an email address that an owner or operator may use to
electronically submit compliance reports containing CBI to the OAQPS
CBI Office. We received no comments on these proposed amendments.
D. What are the effective and compliance dates for the mercury, HCl,
and HF emission standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards promulgated in this action are
effective on March 6, 2024. For all affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction before May 15, 2023, we are finalizing,
as proposed, that an owner or operator must comply with the new Hg
emission standard and revised HCl and HF standards no later than 3
years after the effective date of the final rule. For all affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or after May
15, 2023, we are finalizing, as proposed, that owners and operators
comply with provisions by the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later. For existing sources, CAA section
112(i)(3) requires compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in
no event later than 3 years after the effective date of such standard''
subject to certain exemptions further detailed in the statute.\4\ In
determining what compliance period is as ``expeditious as
practicable,'' we examine the amount of time needed to plan and
construct projects and change operating procedures. Since some existing
sources may need to install new add-on controls to comply with the Hg,
HCl, and/or HF standards, we determined that a period of 3 years is
appropriate to allow owners and operators time to plan, design,
construct, begin operating the new add-on controls, and conduct
performance testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (``Section 112(i)(3)'s 3-year maximum compliance
period applies generally to any emission standard . . . promulgated
under [section 112]'' (brackets in original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP applies to the owner or
operator of a taconite iron ore processing plant that is (or is part
of) a major source of HAP emissions. A taconite iron ore processing
plant is any facility engaged in separating and concentrating iron ore
from taconite ore to produce taconite pellets. Taconite iron ore
processing includes the following processes: liberation of the iron ore
by wet or dry crushing and grinding in gyratory crushers, cone
crushers, rod mills, and ball mills; concentration of the iron ore by
magnetic separation or flotation; pelletizing by wet tumbling with a
balling drum or balling disc; induration using a straight grate or
grate kiln indurating furnace; and finished pellet handling. A major
source of HAP is a plant site that emits, or has the potential to emit,
any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any
combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per
year from all emission sources at the plant site. There are currently
seven major sources subject to the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP
that are operating in the United States with six located in Minnesota
and one located in Michigan. One additional major source located in
Michigan, Empire Mining, is subject to the Taconite Iron Ore Processing
NESHAP and has a permit to operate but has been indefinitely idled
since 2016.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
To meet the Hg emission limits we anticipate that five of the
taconite iron ore processing plants would likely need to install
additional controls on their indurating furnaces. To meet the HCl and
HF emission limits, we anticipate that one additional taconite iron ore
processing plant would likely need to install additional controls on
their indurating furnaces. We estimate that the installation of such
controls will reduce Hg emissions by 247 pounds per year (0.12 tpy) and
HCl and HF emissions by 683 tpy and 36 tpy, respectively.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. As explained in the memorandum, Development of Impacts for
the Final Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing,
which is available in the docket for this action, we find that the
secondary air emissions impacts of this
[[Page 16421]]
action are minimal. The memorandum includes a detailed discussion of
our analysis of emissions reductions and potential secondary impacts.
This rule is expected to limit emissions of directly emitted
PM2.5, which will in turn reduce ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 and in turn benefit public health. Though EPA neither
quantified nor monetized these benefits, we anticipate reducing
PM2.5 concentrations will reduce the incidence or premature
death, non-fatal heart attacks, cases of aggravated asthma, lost days
of work and school and other adverse effects (U.S. EPA, 2022).\5\ EPA
has generated benefit per ton estimates for directly emitted
PM2.5 reductions from the taconite sector valued at $60,600/
ton (2016$).\6\ In addition, there are estimates for secondarily-formed
PM2.5 from reductions in SO2 emissions valued at
$32,800/ton (2016$). However, EPA did not conduct a comprehensive
benefit-cost analysis for this rulemaking. This rule is also expected
to reduce emissions of Hg. Methylmercury (MeHg), which is formed by
microbial action in the top layers of sediment and soils, after mercury
has precipitated from the air and deposited into waterbodies or land,
is known to cause a number of adverse effects. Though not quantified
here, these effects include IQ loss measured by performance on
neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of attention, fine motor-
function, language, and visual spatial ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA, 2022. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-
Attributable Health Benefits. Office of Air and Radiation, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
\6\ U.S. EPA (2023). Technical Support Document Estimating the
Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM2.5,
PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impact Division. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/source-apportionment-tsd-oct-222021_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate the total capital and annualized costs of this final
rule for existing sources in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source
category will be approximately $106 million and $68 million per year,
respectively. The annual costs are based on operation and maintenance
of added control systems. Although this action also finalizes standards
for new sources, we are not aware of any new sources being constructed
now or planned for the future. No new indurating furnaces have been
constructed, reconstructed or modified in more than a decade and the
domestic demand for taconite pellets has decreased over the past
several decades caused by the increasing use of electric arc
furnaces.\7\ Consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new
sources. The memorandum, Development of Impacts for the Final
Amendments to the NESHAP for Taconite Iron Ore Processing, includes
details of our cost assessment, expected emission reductions and
estimated secondary impacts. A copy of this memorandum is available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA, 2024. Economic Impact Analysis for the Final
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite
Iron Ore Processing Amendments. Office of Air and Radiation,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA assessed the potential economic impacts of this action by
comparing the expected annual cost for operating the air pollution
control devices to the total sales revenue for the ultimate owners of
affected facilities. The expected annual cost is $10.2 million (on
average) for each facility that needs air pollution controls to comply
with the standards, with an estimated nationwide annual cost of $61
million per year. The six affected facilities are owned by two parent
companies (U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc.). Neither parent
company qualifies as a small business, and the total costs associated
with this final rule are expected to be less than 1 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner.
The EPA also modeled the economic impacts of the final rule using
two standard partial equilibrium economic models: one for taconite iron
ore pellets and one for steel mill products. The EPA linked these two
partial equilibrium models by specifying interactions between supply
and demand in both markets and solving for changes in prices and
quantity across both markets simultaneously. These models use baseline
economic data from 2019 to project the impact of the final rule on the
market for taconite iron ore pellets and steel mill products. The
models allow the EPA to project facility- and market-level price and
quantity changes for taconite iron ore pellets and market-level price
and quantity changes for steel mill products, including changes in
imports and exports in both markets. The models project a 0.28 percent
fall in the quantity of domestically produced taconite iron ore pellets
along with a 0.63 percent increase in their price. The models also
project a 0.02 percent fall in the quantity of domestically produced
steel mill products along with an 0.01 percent increase in their price.
Details of our economic impact estimates for sources in the Taconite
Iron Ore Processing source category may be found in the document,
Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Amendments
(EIA), which is available in the docket for this action.
E. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) into the Agency's actions, and following the directives
set forth in multiple executive orders, the EPA evaluated the impacts
of this action on communities with EJ concerns. Overall, we found that
in the population living in close proximity (within 10 kilometers (km))
of facilities, the following demographic groups were above the national
average: White, Native American, and people living below the poverty
level. The EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' \8\ The
EPA further defines fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people
should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences
of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category, the EPA
examined the potential for EJ concerns by conducting a proximity
demographic analysis for the eight existing taconite iron ore
processing plants (seven operating plants and one indefinitely idled).
The proximity demographic analysis is an assessment of individual
demographic groups in the total population living within 10 km and 50
km of the facilities. The EPA compared the data from this analysis to
the national average for each of the demographic groups. Since the
taconite iron ore processing facilities are very large, a radius of 10
km was used as the near facility distance for the proximity analysis. A
distance closer than 10 km does not yield adequate population size for
the results. A summary of the proximity demographic assessment was
included in Table 5 in the proposal for this rulemaking (88 FR 30931;
May 15, 2023). The results show that for the population living within
10
[[Page 16422]]
km of the eight facilities, the following demographic groups were above
the national average: White (93 percent versus 60 percent nationally),
Native American (0.8 percent versus 0.7 percent nationally), and people
living below the poverty level (15 percent versus 13 percent
nationally). For two facilities (the UTAC and Minntac facilities), the
percentage of the population living within 10 km that is Native
American (1.9 percent and 2.3 percent) was more than double the
national average (0.7 percent). For four facilities (Keetac, Hibbing,
Minorca, and Minntac) the percentage of the population living within 10
km that is low-income is above the national average. The results of the
proximity analysis are in the technical report, Analysis of Demographic
Factors For Populations Living Near Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source
Category Operations, which is available in the docket for this action.
This action sets new standards for Hg and revised standards for HCl
and HF that will reduce the annual emissions of these HAP from taconite
facilities. The Hg standards will reduce the health, environmental and
cultural impacts of Hg identified by tribes in their comments by
requiring the five taconite facilities (UTAC, Keetac, Hibbing, Minorca,
and Minntac) that have nearby Native American populations and low-
income populations above the national averages to reduce Hg emissions
by up to 247 pounds per year (0.12 tpy). The emission limits must be
met at all times (including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions) and compliance must be demonstrated through monitoring of
control device operating parameters and either periodic testing or
CEMS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis is
summarized in section IV.D of this preamble and in the document
Economic Impact Analysis for the Final National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing Amendments,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2050.10, OMB Control
Number 2060-0538. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
action, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
In this action, we are finalizing changes to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP
by incorporating reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the new
MACT standards for Hg and the revised emission standards for HCl and
HF.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of taconite iron
ore plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or are part
of, major sources of HAP emissions.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRRR).
Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately seven existing major sources will be subject to these
standards. It is also estimated that no additional respondent will
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from the new recordkeeping and reporting requirements
is estimated to be 1,580 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting costs
for all facilities to comply with all the requirements in the NESHAP is
estimated to be $185,000 per year. The average annual recordkeeping and
reporting cost for this rulemaking is estimated to be $26,500 per
facility per year. The operation and maintenance costs are estimated to
be $18 million per year.
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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The Agency
confirmed through responses to a CAA section 114 information request
that there are only seven taconite iron ore processing plants currently
operating in the United States and that these plants are owned by two
parent companies that do not meet the definition of small businesses,
as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The Executive Order defines Tribal implications
as ``actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' The amendments in this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
tribes, change the relationship between the Federal Government and
tribes, or affect the distribution of power
[[Page 16423]]
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Although this action does not have Tribal implications as defined
by Executive Order 13175, consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted
with Tribal officials during the development of this action. On January
12, 2022, the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation held a Tribal
consultation meeting with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Reservation and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation to
discuss the EPA's 2022 CAA section 114 information request and to
ensure that the views of tribes were taken into consideration in the
rulemaking process in accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011) and the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes: Guidance for
Discussing Tribal Treaty Rights (February 2016). A summary of the
meeting may be found in the document, Consultation with the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing
Amendments on January 12, 2022, which is available in the docket for
this action. In addition, the EPA's staff attended several meetings
hosted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), along with
representatives from Tribal Nations, MPCA, the Michigan Attorney
General's Office, the Minnesota Attorney General's Office,
Earthjustice, and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
and Energy, to discuss concerns related to HAP emissions from taconite
iron ore processing facilities. The EPA also received letters from
representatives of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa expressing concerns of these Tribal
Nations due to HAP emissions from the taconite iron ore processing
facilities. Copies of these letters, as well as the EPA's responses to
them, are available in the docket for this action.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP through
the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed
by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted
a review of VCS organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 17, 26A, 29 and 30B. During the VCS
search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described
technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the
EPA's reference method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and
reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for any
particular VCS.
No VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 5D, 17 or 26A. One VCS was identified as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 29 and 30B.
The EPA is allowing use of the VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in
Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro
Method)'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (Hg portion
only) as a method for measuring Hg concentrations ranging from
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter ([micro]g/
Nm\3\). This test method describes equipment and procedures for
obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and
procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating
results. VCS ASTM D6784-16 allows for additional flexibility in the
sampling and analytical procedures from the earlier version of the same
standard VCS ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008). VCS ASTM D6784-16 allows
for the use of either an EPA Method 17 sampling configuration with a
fixed (single) point where the flue gas is not stratified, or an EPA
Method 5 sampling configuration with a multi-point traverse. For this
action, only the EPA Method 5 sampling configuration with a multi-point
traverse can be used. This method is available at ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
See https://www.astm.org/. The standard is available to everyone at a
cost determined by ASTM ($82). The cost of obtaining this method is not
a significant financial burden, making the method reasonably available.
Additional detailed information on the VCS search and determination can
be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron
Ore Processing, which is available in the docket for this action. The
EPA solicited comment on potentially applicable VCS in the proposal for
this rule. However, no other VCS were identified. The EPA is finalizing
as proposed incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16,
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29
(Hg portion only).
H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with EJ concerns. The assessment of populations
in close proximity of taconite iron ore processing plants shows Native
American and low-income populations are higher than the national
average (see section IV.E of this preamble). The higher percentages of
Native American populations are near the UTAC and Minntac facilities.
The higher percentages of low-income populations are near the Keetac,
Hibbing, Minorca, and Minntac facilities. The EPA believes that this
action is likely to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse
effects on low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. The EPA is
finalizing new MACT standards for Hg and revised standards for HCl and
HF. The EPA expects that at least five facilities would have to
implement control measures to reduce Hg emissions to comply with the
new Hg MACT standard (including the UTAC, Keetac, Hibbing, Minorca and
Minntac facilities) and one facility would need to implement control
measures to reduce HCl emissions to comply with the revised standard
for HCl (the Tilden facility). HAP exposures for indigenous peoples and
low-income individuals
[[Page 16424]]
living near these six facilities would decrease. The methodology and
the results of the demographic analysis are available in the docket for
this action in the technical report Analysis of Demographic Factors For
Populations Living Near Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category
Operations.
I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866(3)(f)(1), and because the EPA does not
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. In 2020, the EPA
conducted a residual risk assessment and determined that risk from the
Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category was acceptable, and the
standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health
(see 85 FR 45476 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0664-0163). For this
rulemaking, we updated that risk analysis using new emissions data that
the EPA received for some HAP emissions sources at the taconite
facilities. We determined that these new HAP emissions estimates would
not significantly change our previous estimates of the human health
risk posed by the Taconite Iron Ore Processing source category. In this
action the EPA is promulgating new emission standards for one
previously unregulated pollutant (Hg) and revised emissions standards
for two currently regulated pollutants (HCl and HF). These emissions
standards will reduce Hg, HCl and HF emissions and thereby reduce
children's exposure to these harmful HAP. We estimate that the
installation of controls will reduce HCl and HF emissions by 683 tpy
and 36 tpy, respectively, and will reduce Hg emissions by up to 247
pounds per year (0.12 tpy).
This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the
most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we
determine exposure and through the health benchmarks that we use.
Specifically, the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of
exposure, in which populations are conservatively presumed to be
exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24
hours per day for a 70-year lifetime, including childhood. With regards
to children's potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer
toxicants, the assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard
identification and dose-response values that have been developed to be
protective for all subgroups of the general population, including
children. For more information on the risk assessment methods, see the
risk report for the July 28, 2020, final Taconite residual risk and
technology review (RTR) rule (85 FR 45476), which is available in the
docket. Therefore, the rulemaking finalizes actions that will result in
health benefits to children by reducing the level of HAP emissions
emitted from taconite iron ore processing plants.
J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. We have concluded that this action is
not likely to have any adverse energy effects because it contains no
regulatory requirements that will have an adverse impact on
productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, air pollution control, hazardous
substances, incorporation by reference, mercury, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen fluoride, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(104) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(104) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized,
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 63.9621(d); table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix
A to subpart UUUUU.
Subpart RRRRR--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing
0
3. Section 63.9583 is revised and republished to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later
than October 30, 2006, except as specified in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is on or before October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by October 30, 2003,
except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date
is after October 30, 2003, you must comply with each emission
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance
requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup,
except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source
that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
(1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a
new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance
with this subpart upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must
be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after the
plant becomes a major source.
[[Page 16425]]
(e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in
Sec. 63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before
the compliance date for your affected source.
(f) If you have an affected indurating furnace that commenced
construction before May 15, 2023, you must comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section by March 8, 2027. If
you have an affected indurating furnace that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or after May 15, 2023, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section by March
6, 2024 or the date of initial startup, whichever is later.
(1) All applicable emission limits for mercury, hydrogen chloride,
and hydrogen fluoride in tables 2 and 3 to this subpart.
(2) All applicable operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5) through
(8), established in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(g) through (i), for
each control device used to comply with the mercury, hydrogen chloride,
and hydrogen fluoride emission limits.
(3) All applicable compliance requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.9600,
63.9610, 63.9623, 63.9625, and 63.9637(a).
(4) The applicable performance testing or continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) requirements for mercury in Sec. Sec.
63.9620(k), 63.9621(d), and 63.9630.
(5) All applicable performance testing requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.9620(l), 63.9621(d), and 63.9630.
(6) The requirements to install and maintain monitoring equipment
in Sec. 63.6332(g) through (i) and the monitoring requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.9631, 63.9633, and 63.9634 for each control device used
to comply with the mercury, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride
emission limits.
(7) The notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.9640, 63.9641, 63.9642, and 63.9643 applicable to the
mercury, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride emission standards.
0
4. Section 63.9590 is revised and republished to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9590 What emission limitations and operating limits must I
meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in tables 1 through 3 to this
subpart that applies to you by the applicable compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.9583.
(b) You must meet each applicable operating limit for control
devices in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this section that applies
to you by the applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
You are not required to establish and comply with operating limits for
control devices used to reduce mercury emissions when you are using a
CEMS to monitor and demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission
limit in table 2 to this subpart.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for
each wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit
in table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average
pressure drop and daily average scrubber water flow rate at or above
the minimum levels established in Sec. 63.9622.
(2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate
matter emission limit in table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the
daily average scrubber water flow rate and either the daily average fan
amperage (a surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) or the
daily average pressure drop at or above the minimum levels established
during the initial performance test. After January 28, 2022, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up,
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each
dynamic wet scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission
limit in table 1 to this subpart, you must maintain the daily average
scrubber water flow rate and the daily average fan amperage (a
surrogate for fan speed as revolutions per minute) at or above the
minimum levels established in Sec. 63.9622.
(3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) applied to meet
any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you
must meet the operating limits in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) Maintain the 6-minute average opacity of emissions exiting the
control device stack at or below the level established during the
initial performance test.
(ii) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage and daily average
secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels
established during the initial performance test.
(4) For each wet ESP applied to meet any particulate matter
emission limit in table 1 to this subpart, you must meet the operating
limits in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Maintain the daily average secondary voltage for each field at
or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance
test.
(ii) Maintain the daily average stack outlet temperature at or
below the maximum levels established during the initial performance
test.
(iii) Maintain the daily average water flow rate at or above the
minimum levels established during the initial performance test.
(5) For each wet scrubber and wet ESP used to meet the hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride emission limits in table 3 to this
subpart, you must maintain the daily average scrubber water flow rate
and pH greater than or equal to the operating limits established for
these parameters established in Sec. 63.9622.
(6) For each activated carbon injection (ACI) system used to meet
the mercury emission limit in table 2 to this subpart, you must
maintain the daily average activated carbon injection rate greater than
or equal to the average activated carbon injection rate established
during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with
the applicable emission limit. In addition, you must maintain the daily
average carrier gas flow rate greater than or equal to the average
carrier gas flow rate established during the most recent performance
test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limit.
(7) For each dry sorbent injection (DSI) system used to meet the
hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride emission limits in table 3 to
this subpart, you must maintain the daily average dry sorbent injection
rate greater than or equal to the average dry sorbent injection rate
established during the most recent performance test. demonstrating
compliance with the applicable emission limit. In addition, you must
maintain the daily average carrier gas flow rate greater than or equal
to the average carrier gas flow rate established during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission
limit.
(8) If you use any air pollution control device other than a
baghouse, wet scrubber, dynamic scrubber, dry ESP, wet ESP, ACI, or
DSI, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with
Sec. 63.9631(f).
(c) You may petition the Administrator for approval of alternatives
to the monitoring requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this
section as allowed under Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
0
5. Section 63.9600 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:
[[Page 16426]]
Sec. 63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) You must prepare, and at all times, operate according to, a
written operation and maintenance plan for each control device applied
to meet any particulate matter emission limit in table 1 to this
subpart, mercury emission limit in table 2 to this subpart, hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride emission limit in table 3 to this
subpart, and to meet the requirement of each indurating furnace subject
to good combustion practices (GCP). Each site-specific operation and
maintenance plan must be submitted to the Administrator on or before
the compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.9583 for your
affected source. The plan you submit must explain why the chosen
practices (i.e., quantified objectives) are effective in performing
corrective actions or GCP in minimizing the formation of formaldehyde
(and other products of incomplete combustion). The Administrator will
review the adequacy of the site-specific practices and objectives you
will follow and the records you will keep to demonstrate compliance
with your Plan. If the Administrator determines that any portion of
your operation and maintenance plan is not adequate, we can reject
those portions of the plan, and request that you provide additional
information addressing the relevant issues. In the interim of this
process, you will continue to follow your current site-specific
practices and objectives, as submitted, until your revisions are
accepted as adequate by the Administrator. You must maintain a current
copy of the operation and maintenance plan onsite, and it must be
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Each operation and
maintenance plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.9610 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, you must be in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (6) of this section at all times, except during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, for affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September
25, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations,
standards, and operation and maintenance requirements for the
particulate matter emission standards in this subpart at all times.
* * * * *
(d) On and after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.9583(f), you must be in compliance with all applicable emission
limitations for mercury, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride in
tables 2 and 3 to this subpart and with the requirements in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (6) of this section at all times.
(1) All applicable operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5) through
(8).
(2) All applicable operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.
63.9600 for control devices and monitoring equipment used to comply
with the emissions limits.
(3) The requirements in Sec. 63.9631(j), if you use emissions
averaging to demonstrate compliance with the mercury standards.
(4) The requirements in Sec. 63.9631(k), if you use continuous
emissions monitoring system(s) (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance with
the mercury standards.
(5) The requirements in Sec. 63.9634(n), if you elect to adjust
the activated carbon injection rate based on the taconite pellet
production rate.
(6) The notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. Sec. 63.9640 through 63.9643.
0
7. Section 63.9620 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (f)(2); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (k) and (l).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct
performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Initial performance tests must be completed no later than 180
calendar days after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
Performance tests conducted between October 30, 2003, and no later than
180 days after the corresponding compliance date can be used for
initial compliance demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial
performance testing requirements of this subpart. For an indurating
furnace with multiple stacks, the performance tests for all stacks must
be completed within 7 calendar days of commencement of the performance
tests, to the extent practicable, and the indurating furnace and
associated control device (where applicable) operating characteristics
must remain representative and consistent for the duration of the stack
tests. If you determine that the performance tests cannot be completed
within 7 calendar days, the Administrator must be notified within 24
hours of making that determination.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) All emission units within a group must also have the same type
of air pollution control device (e.g., wet scrubbers, dynamic wet
scrubbers, rotoclones, multiclones, wet and dry ESP, and baghouses).
You cannot group emission units with different air pollution control
device types together for the purposes of this section.
* * * * *
(k) For each indurating furnace, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the mercury emission limits in table 2 to this subpart
in accordance with the procedures specified in either paragraph (k)(1)
or (2) of this section.
(1) Complete an initial performance test on all stacks associated
with each indurating furnace no later than 180 calendar days after the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583(f). Performance tests
conducted between March 6, 2024 and 180 days after the corresponding
compliance date can be used for initial compliance demonstration,
provided the tests meet the initial performance testing requirements of
this subpart. For an indurating furnace with multiple stacks, the
performance tests for all stacks must be completed within 7 calendar
days of commencement of the performance tests, to the extent
practicable, and the indurating furnace and associated control device
(where applicable) operating characteristics must remain representative
and consistent for the duration of the stack tests. If you determine
that the performance tests cannot be completed within 7 calendar days,
the Administrator must be notified within 24 hours of making that
determination.
(2) You may use a 30-day rolling average of the 1-hour arithmetic
average CEMS data. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
CEMS within 180 days of installation of the monitoring system. The
initial performance evaluation must be conducted prior to collecting
CEMS data
[[Page 16427]]
that will be used for the initial compliance demonstration.
(l) For each indurating furnace, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limits in table 3 to this subpart by
conducting initial performance tests for hydrogen chloride and hydrogen
fluoride on all stacks associated with each indurating furnace. Initial
performance tests must be completed no later than 180 calendar days
after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583(f). Performance
tests conducted between March 6, 2024 and 180 days after the
corresponding compliance date can be used for initial compliance
demonstration, provided the tests meet the initial performance testing
requirements of this subpart. For an indurating furnace with multiple
stacks, the performance tests for all stacks must be completed within 7
calendar days of commencement of the performance tests, to the extent
practicable, and the indurating furnace and associated control device
(where applicable) operating characteristics must remain representative
and consistent for the duration of the stack tests. If you determine
that the performance tests cannot be conducted within 7 calendar days,
the Administrator must be notified within 24 hours of making that
determination.
0
8. Section 63.9621 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c) introductory text; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits?
(a) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, you must conduct each performance test that applies to your
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. After January 25, 2021, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up,
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must
conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source,
including the initial performance tests for mercury required in Sec.
63.9620(k)(1) and the initial performance tests for hydrogen chloride
and hydrogen fluoride required in Sec. 63.9620(l), under normal
operating conditions of the affected source. The owner or operator may
not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner
or operator must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests. You must also conduct each performance
test that applies to your affected source according to the requirements
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) For each ore dryer affected source and each indurating furnace
affected source, you must determine compliance with the applicable
emission limit for particulate matter in table 1 to this subpart by
following the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) For each indurating furnace subject to the initial performance
testing under Sec. 63.9620(k)(1) or (l), you must determine compliance
with the applicable emission limits for mercury, hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride in tables 2 and 3 to this subpart by following the
test methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this
section. You are not required to complete the initial performance test
for mercury emissions when you are using a CEMS in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section.
(1) The furnace must be operated at or above 90 percent of capacity
throughout the duration of the performance testing. If testing cannot
be performed at or above 90 percent of capacity, you must provide an
explanation for the lower production rate in your performance test
plan. The lower production rate must be approved by the Administrator
prior to beginning performance testing. For indurating furnaces that
comply with the mercury emissions limit in table 2 to this subpart by
adjusting the activated carbon injection rate based on the taconite
pellet production rate, you must complete the performance testing for
mercury in accordance with the provisions in Sec. 63.9634(n).
(2) Use the methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section to select sampling port locations and the number of
traverse points and to determine the volumetric flow rate, dry
molecular weight, and moisture content of the stack gas.
(3) Determine the concentration of mercury for each stack using
Method 29 or Method 30B in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or the voluntary
consensus standard ASTM D6784-16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14). For Method 29 and ASTM D6784-16, the sample volume must be at
least 1.7 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) (60 dry standard cubic feet)
per run. For Method 30B, each test run must be at least one hour in
duration.
(4) Determine the concentration of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen
fluoride for each stack using Method 26A in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Each test must consist of three separate runs. The minimum sample
volume must be at least 2 dscm per run.
(5) During each stack test run, determine the weight of taconite
pellets produced and calculate the emissions rate of each pollutant in
pounds of pollutant per long ton (lb/LT) of pellets produced for each
test run. The weight of taconite pellets produced must be determined by
measurement using weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, or weighed
quantities in shipments, or calculated using the bulk density and
volume measurements. If any measurement result for any pollutant is
reported as below the method detection limit, use the method detection
limit as the measured emissions level for that pollutant when
calculating the emission rate. If the furnace has more than one stack,
calculate the total emissions rate for each test run by summing the
emissions across all stacks, as shown in Equation 4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR24.052
38Where:
Ef,i = Emissions rate for test run ``i'' for all emission
stacks on indurating furnace ``f'', lb/LT of pellets produced,
Cs = Emission rate for stack ``s'' measured during test
run ``i'' on indurating furnace ``f'', lb/dscf,
Qs = Average volumetric flow rate of stack gas measured
at stack ``s'' during test run ``i'' on indurating furnace ``f'',
dscf/hour;
Pf = Pellets produced in indurating furnace ``f'' during
the stack test, LT; and
n = Number of emissions stacks on furnace ``f''.
(6) Calculate the average emissions rate for each furnace using the
three test runs, as show in Equation 5 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR24.053
Where:
[[Page 16428]]
Ef = Average emission rate for indurating furnace ``f'',
lb/LT of pellets produced,
E1 = Emissions rate for run 1 for indurating furnace
``f'', lb/LT of pellets produced,
E2 = Emissions rate for run 2 for indurating furnace
``f'', lb/LT of pellets produced, and
E3 = Emissions rate for run 3 for indurating furnace
``f'', lb/LT of pellets produced.
(7) For each indurating furnace constructed or reconstructed on or
after May 15, 2023, determine compliance with the applicable mercury
emission limit in table 2 to this subpart by calculating the average
emissions rate from the three test runs performed on the furnace using
Equations 4 and 5 of this section.
(8) For each indurating furnace constructed or reconstructed before
May 15, 2023, you must determine compliance with the applicable mercury
emission limit in accordance with the procedures specified in either
paragraph (d)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Determine compliance with the mercury limit for individual
furnaces in table 2 to this subpart by calculating the average mercury
emissions rate for each affected indurating furnace using Equations 4
and 5 of this section, or
(ii) Determine compliance with the mercury limit for groups of
indurating furnaces in table 2 to this subpart in accordance with the
method in Sec. 63.9623(d).
(9) Determine compliance with the applicable hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride emission limits in table 3 to this subpart by
calculating the average emissions rate for each indurating furnace for
the three test runs performed on the furnace using Equations 4 and 5 of
this section.
(e) For each indurating furnace using mercury CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable emission limits for mercury, you must
determine compliance with the applicable mercury limit in table 2 to
this subpart by using a 30-day rolling average of the 1-hour arithmetic
average CEMS data, including CEMS data during startup and shutdown as
defined in this subpart. The mercury CEMS must be installed,
calibrated, maintained, and operated as accordance with the
requirements in Sec. 63.9631(j).
0
9. Section 63.9622 is revised and republished to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits?
(a) For wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you must establish site-specific operating
limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during
each run of the particulate matter performance test.
(2) Calculate and record the average pressure drop and scrubber
water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are
established as the lowest average pressure drop and the lowest average
scrubber water flow rate corresponding to any of the three test runs,
except as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(3) If a rod-deck venturi scrubber is applied to an indurating
furnace to meet any particulate matter emission limit in table 1 to
this subpart, you may establish a lower average pressure drop operating
limit by using historical average pressure drop data from a certified
performance test completed on or after December 18, 2002 instead of
using the average pressure drop value determined during the initial
performance test, as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. If
historical average pressure drop data are used to establish an
operating limit (i.e., using data from a certified performance test
conducted prior to the promulgation date of the final rule), then the
average particulate matter concentration corresponding to the
historical performance test must be at or below the applicable
indurating furnace emission limit, as listed in table 1 to this
subpart.
(b) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, for dynamic wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and either
fan amperage or pressure drop in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you must
establish site-specific operating limits according to the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. After January 28, 2022, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up,
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for dynamic
wet scrubbers subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620 and
operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in Sec.
63.9590(b)(2), you must establish site-specific operating limits
according to the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or pressure
drop every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter
performance test. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, using the CPMS required in
Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record the scrubber water flow rate and
the fan amperage every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate
matter performance test.
(2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and
either the average fan amperage or the average pressure drop for each
individual test run. Your operating limits are established as the
lowest average scrubber water flow rate and either the lowest average
fan amperage or pressure drop value corresponding to any of the three
test runs. After January 28, 2022, for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before September 25, 2019, and
after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is later, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
September 25, 2019, calculate and record the average scrubber water
flow rate and the average fan amperage for each individual test run.
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average scrubber
water flow rate and the lowest average fan amperage value corresponding
to any of the three test runs, except as specified in paragraph (g)(2)
of this section.
(c) For a dry ESP subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620
and operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3), you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit for your dry ESP is a 6-minute average
opacity of emissions value, then you must follow the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required
in Sec. 63.9631(d)(1), measure and record the opacity of emissions
from each control device stack during the particulate matter
performance test.
[[Page 16429]]
(ii) Compute and record the 6-minute opacity averages from 24 or
more data points equally spaced over each 6-minute period (e.g., at 15-
second intervals) during the test runs.
(iii) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that
meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to
the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the
6-minute opacity averages.
(2) If the operating limit for your dry ESP is the daily average
secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each field,
then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii)
of this section.
(i) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(d)(2), measure and
record the secondary voltage and secondary current for each dry ESP
field every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter
performance test.
(ii) Calculate and record the average secondary voltage and
secondary current for each dry ESP field for each individual test run.
Your operating limits are established as the lowest average secondary
voltage and secondary current value for each dry ESP field
corresponding to any of the three test runs.
(d) For a wet ESP subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620
and operating limit in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4), you must establish a site-
specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(e), measure and record
the parametric values in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section for each wet ESP field every 15 minutes during each run of the
particulate matter performance test.
(i) Secondary voltage;
(ii) Water flow rate; and
(iii) Stack outlet temperature.
(2) For each individual test run, calculate and record the average
value for each operating parameter in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section for each wet ESP field. Your operating limits are
established as the lowest average value for each operating parameter of
secondary voltage and water flow rate corresponding to any of the three
test runs, and the highest average value for each stack outlet
temperature corresponding to any of the three test runs.
(e) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry ESP, wet ESP, or baghouse, and it
is subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620, you must submit a
site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f). The
site-specific monitoring plan must include the site-specific procedures
for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the
corresponding operating limits.
(f) You may change the operating limits for any air pollution
control device as long as you meet the requirements in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating
limit.
(2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation in table 1 to this subpart.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable
procedures in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(g) For wet scrubbers and wet ESPs subject to performance testing
in Sec. 63.9620(l) and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate
and pH in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5), you must establish site-specific
operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the scrubber water flow rate and pH of the scrubber water effluent
every 15 minutes during each run of the performance test for hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride.
(2) Calculate and record the average scrubber water flow rate and
average pH of the scrubber water effluent for each individual test run.
Your operating limit must be established as the average scrubber water
flow rate and average pH of the scrubber water of the three test runs.
If a higher average flow rate is measured during the most recent PM
performance test, the operating limit for the daily average scrubber
water flow rate is the average scrubber water flow rate measured during
the most recent PM performance test. If a higher average flow rate is
measured during the most recent HCl and HF performance test, the
operating limit for the daily average scrubber water flow rate is the
average scrubber water flow rate measured during the most recent HCl
and HF performance test.
(h) For ACI systems subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620(k)(1) and operating limits for activated carbon sorbent
injection rate and carrier gas flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(6), you
must establish site-specific operating limits according to the
procedures in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the activated carbon injection rate and carrier gas flow rate every 15
minutes during each run of the performance test for mercury.
(2) Calculate and record the average activated carbon injection
rate and carrier gas flow rate for each individual test run. Your
operating limit must be established as the highest activated carbon
injection rate and carrier gas flow rate of the three test runs.
(i) For DSI systems subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620(l) and operating limits for sorbent injection rate and carrier
gas flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(7), you must establish site-specific
operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.9631(b), measure and record
the sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate every 15 minutes
during each run of the performance test for hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride.
(2) Calculate and record the average sorbent injection rate and
carrier gas flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating
limit must be established as the highest average sorbent injection rate
and carrier gas flow rate of the three test runs.
0
10. Section 63.9623 is revised and republished to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in tables
1 through 3 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by
meeting the emission limit requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(8) of this section by the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.9583.
(1) For ore crushing and handling, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(a) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the
emission limits in table 1 to this subpart.
(2) For indurating furnaces, the flow-weighted mean concentration
of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.9620(b) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the emission
limits in table 1 to this subpart.
(3) For finished pellet handling, the flow-weighted mean
concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(c) and 63.9621(b), must not exceed the
emission limits in table 1 to this subpart.
(4) For ore dryers, the flow-weighted mean concentration of
particulate matter, determined according to the
[[Page 16430]]
procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(d) and 63.9621(c), must not exceed the
emission limits in table 1 to this subpart.
(5) For indurating furnaces not using emissions averaging, the
mercury emissions determined according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.
63.9620(k)(1) or (2) and 63.9621(d), must not exceed the applicable
emission limit in table 2 to this subpart.
(6) For indurating furnaces that comply with the mercury emissions
limit using emissions averaging, the average mercury emissions
determined according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(k)(1) or
(2), 63.9621(d) and 63.9634(m), must not exceed the applicable emission
limit in table 2 to this subpart.
(7) For indurating furnaces that comply with the mercury emissions
limit by adjusting the activated carbon injection rate based on the
taconite pellet production rate, the mercury emissions determined
according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.9620(k)(1) or (2),
63.9621(d) or (e), and 63.9634(n), must not exceed the applicable
emission limit in table 2 to this subpart.
(8) For indurating furnaces, the hydrogen chloride and hydrogen
fluoride emissions determined according to the procedures in Sec. Sec.
63.9620(l) and 63.9621(d), must not exceed the applicable emission
limit in table 3 to this subpart.
(b) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in table
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting
the operating limit requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of
this section.
(1) For each wet scrubber subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow
rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-
specific operating limits and have a record of the pressure drop and
scrubber water flow rate measured during the performance test in
accordance with Sec. 63.9622(a).
(2) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber subject to performance testing in
Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits for scrubber water flow rate and
either fan amperage or pressure drop in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the scrubber water flow rate and either the fan amperage or
pressure drop value, measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.9622(b). After January 28, 2022, for affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each dynamic wet scrubber
subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits
for scrubber water flow rate and fan amperage in Sec. 63.9590(b)(2),
you have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and
have a record of the scrubber water flow rate and the fan amperage
value, measured during the performance test in accordance with Sec.
63.9622(b).
(3) For each dry ESP subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and one of the operating limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3), you
must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this
section.
(i) If you are subject to the operating limit for opacity in Sec.
63.9590(b)(3)(i), you have established appropriate site-specific
operating limits and have a record of the opacity measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(c)(1).
(ii) If you are subject to the operating limit for secondary
voltage and secondary current in Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the secondary voltage and secondary current measured during
the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(c)(2).
(4) For each wet ESP subject to performance testing in Sec.
63.9620 and operating limits for secondary voltage, water flow rate,
and stack outlet temperature in Sec. 63.9590(b)(4), you have
established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a
record of the secondary voltage, water flow rate, and stack outlet
temperature measured during the performance test in accordance with
Sec. 63.9622(d).
(5) For other air pollution control devices subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620 and operating limits in accordance with Sec.
63.9590(b)(8), you have submitted a site-specific monitoring plan in
accordance with Sec. 63.9631(f) and have a record of the site-specific
operating limits as measured during the performance test in accordance
with Sec. 63.9622(e).
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in tables 2 and
3 to this subpart, by meeting the operating limit requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For each wet scrubber and wet ESP subject to performance
testing in Sec. 63.9620(k) and operating limits for scrubber water
flow rate and pH in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5), you have established
appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a record of the
scrubber water flow rate and pH measured during the performance test in
accordance with Sec. 63.9622(g).
(2) For each ACI subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620(k)
and operating limits for activated carbon injection rate and carrier
gas flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(6), you have established appropriate
site-specific operating limits and have a record of the activated
carbon injection rate and carrier gas flow rate measured during the
performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.9622(i).(3) For each DSI
subject to performance testing in Sec. 63.9620(k) and operating limits
for sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate in Sec.
63.9590(b)(7), you have established appropriate site-specific operating
limit and have a record of the sorbent injection rate and carrier gas
flow rate measured during the performance test in accordance with Sec.
63.9622(h).
(d) If you elect to comply with the mercury limit in table 2 to
this subpart using emissions averaging for indurating furnaces
constructed or reconstructed before May 15, 2023, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Before submitting the implementation plan required in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, you must complete the mercury stack testing
required in Sec. 63.9620(k)(1) or install, calibrate, and operate a
mercury CEMS pursuant to Sec. 63.9620(k)(2) and paragraph (e) of this
section for all indurating furnaces you wish to include in the mercury
emission average.
(2) You must develop and submit to the applicable regulatory
authority for review and approval, an implementation plan for mercury
emission averaging no later than 180 days before the date you intend to
demonstrate compliance using the emission averaging option. You must
include the information contained in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii)
of this section in your implementation plan.
(i) Identification of all indurating furnaces in the averaging
group, including the typical taconite pellet production rate, control
technology installed, and types of fuel(s) that will be burned.
(ii) The mercury emission rate for each furnace for each of the
fuels identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii) The date on which you are requesting emission averaging to
commence.
[[Page 16431]]
(3) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove
the plan according to the following criteria:
(i) Whether the content of the plan includes all the information
specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and
(ii) Whether the plan presents sufficient information to determine
that compliance will be achieved and maintained.
(4) The applicable regulatory authority shall not approve an
emission averaging implementation plan containing any of the following
provisions:
(i) Averaging that includes indurating furnaces constructed or
reconstructed on or after May 15, 2023, or
(ii) Averaging between indurating furnaces located at different
facilities.
(e) If you elect to demonstrate compliance with the mercury limit
in table 2 to this subpart using a mercury CEMS, you must calculate the
30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission
concentrations, including CEMS data during startup and shutdown,
calculated using equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference
Method 19 at appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages for CEMS must be calculated using the data points required
under Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii).
(f) For each emission limitation and operating limit that applies
to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status according
to Sec. 63.9640(e)
0
11. Section 63.9630 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
* * * * *
(b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks
associated with indurating furnaces to demonstrate continued compliance
with the indurating furnace emission limits in tables 1 through 3 to
this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting
authority and shown in your title V permit, but no less frequent than
twice per 5-year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued,
you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, to the permitting authority
for approval. For an indurating furnace with multiple stacks, the
performance tests for all stacks must be conducted within 7 calendar
days of commencement of the performance tests, to the extent
practicable, and the indurating furnace and associated control device
(where applicable) operating characteristics must remain representative
and consistent for the duration of the stack tests. If you determine
that the performance tests cannot be completed within 7 calendar days,
the Administrator must be notified within 24 hours of making that
determination. Performance testing for mercury is not required for
furnaces using CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission
limits in table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) A schedule indicating when you will conduct subsequent
performance tests for particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen chloride
and hydrogen fluoride for each of the emission units.
0
12. Section 63.9631 is amended by:
0
a. Revising and republishing paragraphs (d) through (f); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements?
* * * * *
(d) For each dry ESP subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(3), you must follow the monitoring requirements in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is the 6-minute
average opacity of emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(i),
you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9632(f) and monitor the 6-minute average
opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
(2) If the operating limit you choose to monitor is average
secondary voltage and average secondary current for each dry ESP field
in accordance with Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(ii), you must install, operate,
and maintain a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b)
through (e) and monitor the daily average secondary voltage and daily
average secondary current according to the requirements in Sec.
63.9633.
(e) For each wet ESP subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(4), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(b) through (e) and monitor the
daily average secondary voltage, daily average stack outlet
temperature, and daily average water flow rate according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.9633.
(f) For each wet scrubber and wet ESP subject to the operating
limits in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5), you must install, operate, and maintain
a CPMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(g) and monitor
the daily average scrubber water flow rate and pH of the scrubber water
effluent.
(g) For each ACI system subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(6), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(h) and (i) and monitor the daily
average activated carbon injection rate and carrier gas flow rate.
(h) For each DSI system subject to the operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(7), you must install, operate, and maintain a CPMS according
to the requirements in Sec. 63.9632(h) and (i) and monitor the daily
average sorbent injection rate and carrier gas flow rate.
(i) If you use any air pollution control device other than a
baghouse, wet scrubber, dry ESP, wet ESP, DSI, or ACI, you must submit
a site-specific monitoring plan that includes the information in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section. The monitoring plan is
subject to approval by the Administrator. You must maintain a current
copy of the monitoring plan onsite, and it must be available for
inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
(1) A description of the device.
(2) Test results collected in accordance with Sec. 63.9621
verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of
particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride
to the atmosphere to the levels required by this subpart.
(3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in Sec.
63.9600(b).
(4) Appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored to
maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission
limitation(s).
(j) If you elect to comply with the mercury limit in table 2 to
this subpart using emissions averaging in accordance with an
implementation plan approved under the provisions in Sec. 63.9623(d)
or you elect to adjust the activated carbon injection rate based on the
taconite pellet production rate in accordance with the procedures in
Sec. 63.9634(n), you must determine and record the mass of taconite
pellets produced each month by each furnace included in the emissions
averaging group. The weight of taconite pellets produced must be
determined by measurement using weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, or
weighed quantities in shipments, or calculated using the bulk density
and volume measurements.
[[Page 16432]]
(k) If you elect to demonstrate compliance with the mercury
emissions limits in table 2 to this subpart using a CEMS to measure
mercury emissions, you must comply with the requirements in (k)(1)
through (5).
(1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the
CEMS and notify the Administrator 180-days before ceasing use of the
CEMS.
(2) Each CEMS must be installed, certified, calibrated, and
maintained according to the requirements of performance specifications
6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and quality assurance
procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(3) Operate the mercury CEMS in accordance with performance
specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the
performance test must be 30 operating days. For each day in which the
unit operates, you must obtain hourly mercury concentration data, and
stack gas volumetric flow rate data.
(4) You must complete the initial performance evaluation of the
CEMS within 180 days after notifying the Administrator and before
starting to use the CEMS data in lieu of performance testing and
monitoring operating parameters to demonstrate compliance.
(5) Collect CEMS hourly averages for all operating hours on a 30-
day rolling average basis. The one-hour arithmetic averages, expressed
in units of lb/LT, must be used to calculate 30-day rolling average
emissions to determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in
table 2 to this subpart.
0
13. Section 63.9632 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(2); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements for my monitoring equipment?
* * * * *
(f) For each dry ESP subject to the opacity operating limit in
Sec. 63.9590(b)(3)(i), you must install, operate, and maintain each
COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of
this section.
* * * * *
(2) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, you must develop and implement a quality control program for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to Sec. 63.8. At a
minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration
drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero
alignment of each COMS. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, you must develop and implement
a quality control program for operating and maintaining each COMS
according to Sec. 63.8(a) and (b), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) through (8),
(d)(1) and (2), and (e) through (g) and Procedure 3 in appendix F to 40
CFR part 60. At a minimum, the quality control program must include a
daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and
annual zero alignment of each COMS.
* * * * *
(g) For each pH measurement device, in addition to the requirements
in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The minimum accuracy of the pH measurement device must be
0.2 pH units.
(2) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(3) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(4) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8
hours of process operation.
(h) For each mass flow rate monitor used for measuring the sorbent
or activated carbon injection rate, in addition to the requirements in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, you must meet the
requirements of (h)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The minimum accuracy of the mass flow rate monitor must be
5 percent over the normal range of flow measured.
(2) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(3) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(4) At least annually, conduct a performance evaluation of the
injection rate monitoring system in accordance with your monitoring
plan.
(i) For each carrier gas flow rate monitor, in addition to the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, you must
meet the requirements of (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The minimum accuracy of the gas flow rate monitor must be
5 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 280
liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), whichever is greater.
(2) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a
representative measurement of the carrier gas flow rate.
(3) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(4) At least annually, conduct a performance evaluation of the
carrier gas flow rate monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan.
0
14. Section 63.9634 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (e)(4),
(f)(4), (g) through (j) and adding paragraphs (k) through (n) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations that apply to me?
(a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in table
1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) If the daily average pressure drop or daily average scrubber
water flow rate is below the operating limits established for a
corresponding emission unit or group of similar emission units, you
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (l) of
this section.
(f) * * *
(4) On or before January 28, 2022, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, if the daily average scrubber water flow rate, daily average fan
amperage, or daily average pressure drop is below the operating limits
established for a corresponding emission unit or group of similar
emission units, you must then follow the corrective action procedures
in paragraph (l) of this section. After January 28, 2022, for affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which
ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, if the daily average scrubber
water flow rate or daily average fan amperage, is below the operating
limits established for a corresponding emission unit or group of
similar emission units, you must then follow the corrective action
procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
(g) For each dry ESP subject to operating limits in Sec.
63.9590(b)(3), you
[[Page 16433]]
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements
of paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the operating limit for your dry ESP is a 6-minute average
opacity of emissions value, then you must follow the requirements in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Maintaining the 6-minute average opacity of emissions at or
below the maximum level established during the initial or subsequent
performance test.
(ii) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data
according to Sec. 63.9632(f).
(iii) If the 6-minute average opacity of emissions is above the
operating limits established for a corresponding emission unit, you
must then follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (l) of
this section.
(2) If the operating limit for your dry ESP is the daily average
secondary voltage and daily average secondary current for each field,
then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage or daily
average secondary current for each field at or above the minimum levels
established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(ii) Operating and maintaining each dry ESP CPMS according to Sec.
63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage
or secondary current for each field according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(iv) If the daily average secondary voltage or daily average
secondary current for each field is below the operating limits
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the
corrective action procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
(h) For each wet ESP subject to the operating limits for secondary
voltage, stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate in Sec.
63.9590(b)(4), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing
the requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average secondary voltage and daily
average scrubber water flow rate for each field at or above the minimum
levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
Maintaining the daily average stack outlet temperature at or below the
maximum levels established during the initial or subsequent performance
test.
(2) Operating and maintaining each wet ESP CPMS according to Sec.
63.9632(b) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for secondary voltage,
stack outlet temperature, and water flow rate according to Sec.
63.9632(c) and recording all information needed to document conformance
with these requirements.
(4) If the daily average secondary voltage, stack outlet
temperature, or water flow rate does not meet the operating limits
established for a corresponding emission unit, you must then follow the
corrective action procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
(i) For each affected indurating furnace subject to a hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride emission limit in table 3 to this
subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the
requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For each wet scrubber and wet ESP subject to the operating
limits for scrubber water flow rate and pH in Sec. 63.9590(b)(5), you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements
of paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Maintaining the daily average scrubber water flow rate and
daily average pH of the scrubber water effluent at or above the minimum
level established during the most recent performance test. If a higher
average flow rate is measured during the last PM performance test, the
operating limit for daily average scrubber water flow rate is the
highest average scrubber water flow rate measured during the last PM
performance test.
(ii) Operating and maintaining each of the CPMS used to measure
scrubber water flow rate and pH according to Sec. 63.9632(g) and
recording all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(iii) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for scrubber water
flow rate and pH according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and recording all
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(iv) If the daily average scrubber water flow rate or daily average
pH is below the operating limits established for control device, you
must follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (l) of this
section.
(2) For each DSI subject to the operating limits for sorbent
injection rate and carrier gas flow rate in Sec. 63.9590(b)(7), you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements
of paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Maintain the daily average sorbent injection rate and carrier
gas flow rate at or above the minimum level established during the most
recent performance test.
(ii) Operate and maintain each CPMS used to measure the sorbent
injection rate according to Sec. 63.9632(h) and the carrier gas flow
rate according to Sec. 63.9632(i) and recording all information needed
to document compliance with these requirements.
(iii) Collect and reduce monitoring data for the sorbent injection
rate and carrier gas flow rate according to Sec. 63.9632(c) and
recording all information needed to document compliance with these
requirements.
(iv) If the daily average the sorbent injection rate or carrier gas
flow rate is below the operating limit established for the control
device, you must follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph
(l) of this section.
(j) For each affected indurating furnace using ACI to comply with
the mercury emission limit in table 2 to this subpart, you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (j)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must operate a mercury CEMS in accordance with performance
specification 12A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; these monitoring
systems must be quality assured according to procedure 5 of 40 CFR 60,
appendix F. You must demonstrate compliance with the mercury emissions
limit using a 30-day rolling average of these 1-hour mercury
concentrations or mass emissions rates, including CEMS data during
startup and shutdown as defined in this subpart, calculated using
equation 19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7 of this part.
(ii) Owners or operators using a mercury CEMS to determine mass
emission rate must install, operate, calibrate and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the mercury mass
emissions rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specification 6 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and
conducting an annual relative accuracy test of the continuous emission
rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of performance
specification 6.
[[Page 16434]]
(2) If you do not use CEMS to demonstrate compliance, you must
demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Maintain the daily average activated carbon injection rate and
carrier gas flow rate at or above the minimum level established during
the most recent performance test.
(ii) Operate and maintain each CPMS used to measure the activated
carbon injection rate according to Sec. 63.9632(h) and the carrier gas
flow rate according to Sec. 63.9632(i), and record all information
needed to document compliance with these requirements.
(iii) Collect and reduce monitoring data for the activated carbon
injection rate and carrier gas flow rate according to Sec. 63.9632(c)
and record all information needed to document conformance with these
requirements.
(iv) If the daily average of the activated carbon injection rate or
carrier gas flow rate is below the operating limit established for the
control device, you must follow the corrective action procedures in
paragraph (l) of this section.
(k) If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, dynamic wet scrubber, dry ESP, wet ESP, DSI, ACI, or
baghouse, you must submit a site-specific monitoring plan in accordance
with Sec. 63.9631(f). The site-specific monitoring plan must include
the site-specific procedures for demonstrating initial and continuous
compliance with the corresponding operating limits.
(l) If the daily average operating parameter value for an emission
unit or group of similar emission units does not meet the corresponding
established operating limit, you must then follow the procedures in
paragraphs (l)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You must initiate and complete initial corrective action within
10 calendar days and demonstrate that the initial corrective action was
successful. During any period of corrective action, you must continue
to monitor, and record all required operating parameters for equipment
that remains in operation. After the initial corrective action, if the
daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or group
of similar emission units meets the operating limit established for the
corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was successful
and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is in
compliance with the established operating limits.
(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (l)(1)
of this section was not successful, then you must complete additional
corrective action within 10 calendar days and demonstrate that the
subsequent corrective action was successful. During any period of
corrective action, you must continue to monitor, and record all
required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation.
If the daily average operating parameter value for the emission unit or
group of similar emission units meets the operating limit established
for the corresponding unit or group, then the corrective action was
successful, and the emission unit or group of similar emission units is
in compliance with the established operating limits.
(3) If the second attempt at corrective action required in
paragraph (l)(2) of this section was not successful, then you must
repeat the procedures of paragraph (l)(2) of this section until the
corrective action is successful. If the third attempt at corrective
action is unsuccessful, you must conduct another performance test in
accordance with the procedures in Sec. 63.9622(f) and report to the
Administrator as a deviation the third unsuccessful attempt at
corrective action.
(4) After the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective action, you
must submit to the Administrator the written report required in
paragraph (l)(3) of this section within 5 calendar days after the third
unsuccessful attempt at corrective action. This report must notify the
Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types of
corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in the
deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting
operating limits.
(m) If you elect to comply with the mercury limit in table 2 to
this subpart using emissions averaging in accordance with an
implementation plan approved under the provisions in Sec. 63.9623(d),
you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5)
of this section.
(1) For furnaces included in the emissions averaging group that do
not use mercury CEMS, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (ii) as applicable.
(i) For furnaces equipped with ACI systems, you must comply with
the requirements in paragraph (j) of this section.
(ii) For furnaces equipped with a mercury control device or method
other than ACI, you must comply with your site-specific monitoring plan
in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (k) of this section.
(2) For furnaces included in the emissions averaging group that use
mercury CEMS, you must comply with the requirements in paragraph (i)(1)
of this section.
(3) Calculate the monthly production-weighted average emission rate
using either the mercury CEMS data or mercury emission rate determined
during the last performance test and the actual taconite pellet
production data for each furnace included in the emissions averaging
option, as shown in Equation 6 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR24.054
Where:
Eg = Monthly production-weighted average mercury emission
rate for month ``g'' for the group of indurating furnaces, lb/LT of
pellets produced,
Ef = Average mercury emission rate for furnace ``f'', as
determined using either mercury CEMS data or the emission rate
determined during the last compliance stack test and calculated
using Equation 5 of Sec. 63.9621(d)(7)(i), lb/LT of pellets
produced,
Pf = Total monthly production of finished taconite
pellets for furnace ``f'', in LT, and
n = Number of furnaces in the averaging group.
(4) Until 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been
accumulated, the monthly weighted average emissions rate, calculated as
shown in paragraph (m)(3) of this section, must not exceed the mercury
emission limit in table 3 of this subpart in any calendar month.
(5) After 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been
accumulated, for each subsequent calendar month, you must use Equation
7 of this section to calculate the 12-month rolling average of the
monthly weighted average emission rates for the current month and the
previous 11 months. The 12-month rolling weighted average emissions
rate for the furnaces included in the group must not exceed the mercury
emission limit in table 3 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MR24.055
Where:
Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission rate, lb/LT.
Ei = Monthly weighted average for month ``i'' calculated
as shown in Equation 6 of this section.
(n) You may elect to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
mercury limit in table 2 to this subpart by adjusting the activated
carbon injection rate based on the taconite pellet production rate. You
must comply with the requirements in
[[Page 16435]]
paragraphs (n)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Measure the activated carbon injection and mercury emissions
rate at a minimum of three different production levels corresponding to
the maximum, minimum and median finished taconite pellet production
rates, using the methods specified in Sec. 63.9620(k).
(2) Develop a correlation curve by plotting the production rate and
corresponding carbon injection rate for the maximum, median and minimum
production rates. Use only data where the mercury emission rate is
below the applicable mercury emissions standard in table 2 to this
subpart. Plot the production rates as the independent (or x) variable
and the activated carbon injection rate as the dependent (or y)
variable for each pellet production rate. Construct the graph by
drawing straight line segments between each point plotted.
(3) You must develop and submit to the applicable regulatory
authority for review and approval, an implementation plan no later than
180 days before the date you intend to demonstrate compliance by
adjusting the activated carbon injection rate based on the taconite
pellet production. You must include the information listed in
paragraphs (n)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section in your
implementation plan.
(i) Identification of the indurating furnace, including the typical
maximum and minimum taconite pellet production rate, mercury control
technology installed, and types of fuel(s) that will be burned.
(ii) The mercury emissions and activated carbon injection rates at
maximum, median and minimum taconite pellet production rates, and the
methods used to measure the mercury emissions, activated carbon
injection rate and taconite pellet production.
(iii) The correlation curve developed in paragraph (n)(2) of this
section.
(iv) The date on which you are requesting to commence adjusting the
activated carbon rate based on the taconite production rate.
(4) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a CPMS to monitor and
record the activated carbon injection rate and taconite pellet
production rate.
(5) Maintain the carbon injection rate at or above the rate
established by the correlation curve corresponding to the taconite
pellet production rate. If the taconite pellet production rate drops
below the minimum rate established in paragraph (n)(3) of this section,
you must maintain the activated carbon injection rate at or above the
rate established for the minimum taconite pellet production rate.
(6) Keep records of the activated carbon injection rate and
taconite pellet production rate for each hour of operation in order to
demonstrate that the activated carbon injection rate remains in
compliance with paragraph (n)(5) of this section.
(7) Establish a new correlation curve at least twice per 5-year
permit term.
0
15. Section 63.9636 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
(a) For each control device used to comply with an emission
standard in Sec. 63.9590(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.
63.9600(b) by completing the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.9637 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not
meet each emission limitation in tables 1 through 3 to this subpart
that applies to you. You also must report each instance in which you
did not meet the work practice standards in Sec. 63.9591 and each
instance in which you did not meet each operation and maintenance
requirement in Sec. 63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are
deviations from the emission limitations, work practice standards, and
operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. 63.9641.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 63.9640 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(f) If you elect to use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the
mercury standards in table 2 to this subpart, you must submit a
notification of intent to use CEMS at least one month prior to making
the change. If you are currently using CEMS to demonstrate compliance
with the mercury standards, you must submit a notification of intent to
cease using CEMS to demonstrate compliance at least 180 days prior to
making the change.
(g) If you elect to use the mercury emissions averaging compliance
option, you must submit a notification of intent at least 180 days
prior to making the change. If you are currently using the mercury
emissions averaging compliance option, you must submit a notification
of intent to cease using emissions averaging at least 30 days prior to
making the change.
0
18. Section 63.9641 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(6);
0
b. Revising and republishing paragraph (b)(8);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c), (e) and (f)(3); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9641 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring
system (including a CPMS, COMS, or CEMS) was out-of-control as
specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), then provide a statement that there were
no periods during which a continuous monitoring system was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
* * * * *
(8) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, for each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system
(including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September
25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each deviation from an
emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using
a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS, COMS, or CEMS) to
comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include
the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through
[[Page 16436]]
(4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through
(xi) of this section.
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The start date, start time, and duration in hours (or minutes
for COMS) that each continuous monitoring system was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The start date, start time, and duration that each continuous
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, for each affected source or equipment, the date and time that
each deviation started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period. After January 25, 2021, for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 25, 2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up,
which ever date is later, for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after September 25, 2019, for each
affected source or equipment, the date and time that each deviation
started and stopped, the cause of the deviation, and whether each
deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or during another
period
(v) The total duration of all deviations for each Continuous
Monitoring System (CMS) during the reporting period, the total
operating time in hours of the affected source during the reporting
period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source
operating time during that reporting period.
(vi) On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown,
control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and
other unknown causes. After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, a breakdown of the total
duration of the deviations during the reporting period including those
that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes.
(vii) The total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime
for each continuous monitoring system during the reporting period, the
total operating time in hours of the affected source during the
reporting period, and the total duration of continuous monitoring
system downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during
the reporting period.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) The monitoring equipment manufacturer and model number and the
pollutant or parameter monitored.
(x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system
certification or audit.
(xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(c) Submitting compliance reports electronically. Beginning on
January 25, 2021, submit all subsequent compliance reports to the EPA
via CEDRI, which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The EPA will make all the
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim
as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using
CEDRI cannot later be claimed to be CBI. You must use the appropriate
electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The report must be
submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the report is submitted. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if persons wish to assert a CBI
claim, submit a complete report, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The report must be generated using the appropriate
form on the CEDRI website. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may
be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Submit the file following the
procedures in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph (c). All CBI claims must be
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section
114(c) emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and
EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus,
emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly
available. On or before January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown and
malfunction report according to the requirements in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii). After January 25, 2021, for affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 25,
2019, and after July 28, 2020, or upon start-up, which ever date is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 25, 2019, an immediate startup,
shutdown, and malfunction report is not required.
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described above, should include clear CBI
markings and be flagged to the attention of the Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS Document Control Officer and Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Sector Lead, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
* * * * *
(e) Immediate corrective action report. If you had three
unsuccessful attempts of applying corrective action as described in
Sec. 63.9634(l) on an emission unit or group of emission units, then
you must submit an immediate corrective action report. Within 5
calendar days after the third unsuccessful attempt at corrective
action, you must submit to the Administrator a written report in
[[Page 16437]]
accordance with Sec. 63.9634(l)(3) and (4). This report must notify
the Administrator that a deviation has occurred and document the types
of corrective measures taken to address the problem that resulted in
the deviation of established operating parameters and the resulting
operating limits.
(f) * * *
(3) Confidential business information (CBI).
(i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI
available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI
to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect
persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for
some of the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this
section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed
to be CBI, to the EPA.
(ii) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.
(iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions
must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email
address [email protected], and as described above, should include clear
CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments,
and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email
[email protected] to request a file transfer link.
(v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS Document Control Officer and Measurement Policy
Group Lead, Mail Drop: C404-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box
12055, RTP, NC 27711. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped
and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer
envelope.
(vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in Sec.
63.9(k).
* * * * *
(i) Use of CEMS for mercury. If you use CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the mercury emissions limits in table 2 to this
subpart, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
following the procedure specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of
this section within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2).
(1) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation, you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation to the EPA via the CEDRI. Performance evaluation data must
be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's
ERT or an alternate file format consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA's ERT website. If you claim that some of the performance
evaluation information being transmitted is CBI, you must submit a
complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC
27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
section.
(2) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring
systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's
ERT as listed on the ERT website at the time of the evaluation, you
must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13.
0
19. Section 63.9642 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d), (e) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.9642 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(b) For each COMS and CEMS, you must keep the records specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) If you use mercury CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the
mercury emission standard in table 2 of the subpart in accordance with
Sec. 63.9623(e), records of requests for alternatives to the relative
accuracy test for CEMS as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i).
* * * * *
(d) If you elect the mercury emissions averaging compliance
alternative pursuant to Sec. 63.9623(d), you must keep a copy of the
emission averaging implementation plan required in Sec. 63.9623(d)(2),
records of the taconite pellet production rate for each furnace
included in the averaging, and all calculations required under Sec.
63.9634(m).
(e) If you elect to adjust the activated carbon injection rate
based on the taconite pellet production rate in accordance with the
provisions in Sec. 63.9634(n), you must keep a copy of the activated
carbon injection implementation plan and records of the taconite pellet
production rate and activated carbon injection rate.
(f) If you use CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the mercury
emissions limits in table 2 to this subpart, you must keep records of
the notifications required in Sec. 63.9642(f).
0
20. Section 63.9650 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 4 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
0
21. Section 63.9652 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical
order for ``Activated carbon injection (ACI) system'', ``Dry sorbent
injection (DSI) system'', and ``Electrostatic precipitator (ESP)'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Activated carbon injection (ACI) system means an add-on air
pollution control system in which activated carbon or brominated
activated carbon is injected into the flue gas steam
[[Page 16438]]
upstream of a particulate matter control device to adsorb mercury in
the exhaust stream. The absorbed mercury remains absorbed to the
activated carbon and is collected in a primary or secondary particulate
matter control device.
* * * * *
Dry sorbent injection (DSI) system means an add-on air pollution
control system that injects dry alkaline sorbent (dry injection) or
sprays an alkaline sorbent (spray dryer) to react with and neutralize
acid gas in the exhaust stream forming a dry powder material that is
collected by a primary or secondary particulate matter control device.
* * * * *
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) means a device that removes
suspended particulate matter from flue exhaust by applying a high-
voltage electrostatic charge to the particles, which are then attracted
to and collected on a grounded plate. In a dry ESP, the particles are
dislodged from the plate by rapping and are collected in a hopper
positioned below the plate. In a wet ESP, particulates are removed from
the plate by washing with water.
* * * * *
0
22. Revise the table heading and introductory paragraph for table 1 to
subpart RRRRR of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Particulate Matter Emission Limits
As required in Sec. 63.9590(a), you must comply with each
applicable particulate matter emission limit in the following table:
* * * * *
0
22. Table 2 to subpart RRRRR is redesignated as table 4 to subpart
RRRRR.
0
23. Add a new table 2 to subpart RRRRR to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Mercury Emission Limits for
Indurating Furnaces
[As required in Sec. 63.9590(a), you must comply with each applicable
mercury emission limit in the following table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For . . . limits . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Indurating furnaces constructed Either:
or reconstructed before May 15, (1) Mercury emissions from each
2023. furnace must not exceed 1.4 x 10-5
lb/LT of taconite pellets produced,
or
(2) Production-weighted average
mercury emissions for a group of
indurating furnaces, calculated
according to Equation 6 in Sec.
63.9634(m)(3), must not exceed 1.3
x 10-5 lb/LT.
2. Indurating furnaces constructed Mercury emissions from each furnace
or reconstructed on or after May must not exceed 2.6 x 10-6 lb/LT.
15, 2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
24. Add Table 3 to Subpart RRRRR to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen
Fluoride Emission Limits for Indurating Furnaces
[As required in Sec. 63.9590(a), you must comply with each applicable
hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride emission limit in the following
table:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For . . . limits . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Indurating furnaces constructed Hydrogen chloride emissions must not
or reconstructed before May 15, exceed 4.6 x 10-2 lb/Long Ton of
2023. taconite pellets produced.
Hydrogen fluoride emissions must not
exceed 1.2 x 10-2 lb/Long Ton of
taconite pellets produced.
2. Indurating furnaces constructed Hydrogen chloride emissions must not
or reconstructed on or after May exceed 4.4 x 10-4 lb/Long Ton of
15, 2023. taconite pellets produced
Hydrogen fluoride emissions must not
exceed 3.3 x 10-4 lb/Long Ton of
taconite pellets produced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
25. Revise newly redesignated table 4 to subpart RRRRR to read as
follows:
Table 4 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63
[As required in Sec. 63.9650, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I subject to this
Citation Summary of requirement requirement? Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4)............ Applicability............ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)................ Applicability............ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(9)............ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14).......... Applicability............ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................ Initial Applicability Yes.....................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................ Initial Applicability Yes.....................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)-(2)............ Applicability After Yes.....................
Standard Established,
Permit Requirements.
[[Page 16439]]
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4)............ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)................ Area Source Becomes Major Yes.....................
Sec. 63.1(c)(6)................ Reclassification......... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.1(d)................... [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.1(e)................... Equivalency of Permit Yes.....................
Limits.
Sec. 63.2...................... Definitions.............. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)............... Units and Abbreviations.. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)............ Prohibited Activities.... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(5)............ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)............... Circumvention, Yes.....................
Fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2)............ Construction/ Yes.....................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)................ Construction/ Yes.....................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............ Construction/ Yes.....................
Reconstruction,
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................ Applicability............ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.5(c)................... [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)-(4)............ Application for Approval Yes.....................
of Construction or
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Approval of Construction Yes.....................
or Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)................... Approval Based on State Yes.....................
Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Compliance with Standards Yes.....................
and Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)............ Compliance Dates for New/ Yes.....................
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................ Compliance Dates for New/ Yes.....................
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............ Compliance Dates for Yes.....................
Existing Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................ Compliance Dates for Yes.....................
Existing Sources.
Sec. 63.6(d)................... [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............. Operation and Maintenance Yes, on or before the See Sec. 63.9600(a)
Requirements--General compliance date for general duty
Duty to Minimize specified in Sec. requirement.
Emissions. 63.9600(a). No, after
the compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.9600(a).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............ Operation and Maintenance No......................
Requirements--Requiremen
t to Correct Malfunction
as Soon as Possible.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........... Operation and Maintenance Yes.....................
Requirements--Enforceabi
lity.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ Startup, Shutdown, Yes, on or before the
Malfunction (SSM) Plan. compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.9610(c). No, after
the compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.9610(c).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ SSM exemption............ No...................... See Sec. 63.9600(a).
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............ Methods for Determining Yes.....................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............ Alternative Nonopacity Yes.....................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h), except (h)(1).... Compliance with Opacity No...................... Opacity limits in
and Visible Emission subpart RRRRR are
(VE) Standards. established as part of
performance testing in
order to set operating
limits for ESPs.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................ Compliance except during No...................... See Sec. 63.9600(a).
SSM.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)........... Extension of Compliance.. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)............... [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)............... Extension of Compliance.. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(j)................... Presidential Compliance Yes.....................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............ Applicability and No...................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
Performance Test Dates. performance test
applicability and
dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4)............ Performance Testing Yes.....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(b)................... Notification............. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.7(c)................... Quality Assurance/Test Yes.....................
Plan.
[[Page 16440]]
Sec. 63.7(d)................... Testing Facilities....... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conduct of Performance No...................... See Sec. 63.9621.
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)............ Conduct of Performance Yes.....................
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(f)................... Alternative Test Method.. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.7(g)................... Data Analysis............ Yes..................... Except this subpart
specifies how and when
the performance test
results are reported.
Sec. 63.7(h)................... Waiver of Tests.......... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)............ Monitoring Requirements.. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................ [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Additional Monitoring No...................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Requirements for Control require flares.
Devices in Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)-(3)............ Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............. Operation and Maintenance Yes, on or before the See Sec. 63.9632 for
of CMS. compliance date operation and
specified in Sec. maintenance
63.9632(b)(4). No, requirements for
after the compliance monitoring. See Sec.
date specified in Sec. 63.9600(a) for general
63.9632(b)(4). duty requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............ Spare parts for CMS Yes.....................
Equipment.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........... SSM Plan for CMS......... Yes, on or before the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.9632(b)(4). No,
after the compliance
date specified in Sec.
63.9632(b)(4).
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............ CMS Operation/Maintenance Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ Frequency of Operation No...................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
for CMS. requirements for
operation of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)-(8)............ CMS Requirements......... Yes..................... CMS requirements in Sec.
63.8(c)(5) and (6)
apply only to COMS for
dry ESPs.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)............ Monitoring Quality Yes.....................
Control.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................ Monitoring Quality No...................... See Sec.
Control. 63.9632(b)(5).
Sec. 63.8(e)................... Performance Evaluation Yes.....................
for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Alternative Monitoring Yes.....................
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Relative Accuracy Test Yes..................... Only if using continuous
Alternative (RATA). emission monitoring
systems to demonstrate
compliance with Table 2
to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(g)(4)......... Data Reduction........... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................ Data That Cannot Be Used. No...................... Subpart RRRRR specifies
data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9...................... Notification Requirements Yes..................... Additional notifications
for CMS in Sec.
63.9(g) apply to COMS
for dry ESPs.
Sec. 63.9(k)................... Electronic reporting Yes..................... Only as specified in
procedures. Sec. 63.9(j)
Sec. 63.10(a).................. Recordkeeping and Yes.....................
Reporting, Applicability
and General Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... General Recordkeeping Yes.....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............ Records of SSM........... No...................... See Sec. 63.9642 for
recordkeeping when
there is a deviation
from a standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........... Recordkeeping of Failures No...................... See Sec. 63.9642 for
to Meet a Standard. recordkeeping of (1)
date, time and
duration; (2) listing
of affected source or
equipment, and an
estimate of the
quantity of each
regulated pollutant
emitted over the
standard; and (3)
actions to minimize
emissions and correct
the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii).......... Maintenance Records...... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)........... Actions Taken to Minimize No......................
Emissions During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v)............ Actions Taken to Minimize No......................
Emissions During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)........... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes.....................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xii).... Recordkeeping for CMS.... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... Records for Relative No......................
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......... Records for Notification. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............... Applicability Yes.....................
Determinations.
[[Page 16441]]
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)........... Additional Recordkeeping Yes.....................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)........... Records of Excess ........................ Subpart RRRRR specifies
Emissions and Parameter recordkeeping
Monitoring Exceedances requirements.
for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)............... [Reserved]............... No......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)......... CMS Recordkeeping........ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).............. Use of SSM Plan.......... No......................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)........... General Reporting Yes..................... Except this subpart
Requirements. specifies how and when
the performance test
results are reported.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting opacity or VE No...................... Subpart RRRRR does not
observations. have opacity and VE
standards that require
the use of EPA Method 9
of appendix A-4 to 40
CFR part 60 or EPA
Method 22 of appendix A-
7 to 40 CFR part 60.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............... SSM Reports.............. Yes, on or before the See Sec. 63.9641 for
compliance date malfunction reporting
specified in Sec. requirements.
63.9641(b)(4). No,
after the compliance
date specified in Sec.
63.9641(b)(4).
Sec. 63.10(e).................. Additional Reporting Yes, except a breakdown The electronic reporting
Requirements. of the total duration template combines the
of excess emissions due information from the
to startup/shutdown summary report and
in63.10(e)(3)(vi)(I) is excess emission report
not required and when with the Subpart RRRRR
the summary report is compliance report.
submitted through
CEDRI, the report is
not required to be
titled ``Summary Report-
Gaseous and Opacity
Excess Emission and
Continuous Monitoring
System Performance.''.
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Waiver for Recordkeeping Yes.....................
or Reporting.
Sec. 63.11..................... Control Device and Work No...................... Subpart RRRRR does not
Practice Requirements. require flares.
Sec. 63.12(a)-(c).............. State Authority and Yes.....................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13(a)-(c).............. State/Regional Addresses. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.14(a)-(t).............. Incorporation by Yes.....................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15(a)-(b).............. Availability of Yes.....................
Information and
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16..................... Performance Track Yes.....................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-02305 Filed 3-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P