Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Y, at IV. D. Step 1 9. However, section IV.D. addresses the five steps of a caseby-case BART analysis, with Step 1
being the identification of all available retrofit control technologies. As discussed in response to Comment 1, the August 15, 2012 Proposed FIP 77
FR 4931249313 included a five-step BART analysis for Minntacs five lines Lines 37. The five-step analysis was conducted in accordance with the BART
Guidelines. EPAs analysis and proposed determination that BART is based upon the use of low NOX burners remains valid and EPA continues to rely upon that analysis. We are not conducting a new five-step BART
analysis. In this action, we are only revising the NOX emission limits for Minntac to reflect the level of emission reductions consistently achievable by low NOX burners, which is the control technology determined to represent BART for Minntac in the 2013 FIP.
Comment 10: 42 U.S.C. 7607d2
requires that EPAs proposed action include the methodology used in obtaining the data. While the docket includes an Excel spreadsheet of CEMS
data, there is no explanation provided regarding the methodology and test methods used to obtain the data.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate U.S. Steels recent data was accompanied by a certification statement. Therefore, EPAs proposal fails to comply with the Acts methodology disclosure requirements and the public is unable to confirm accuracy and completeness of the data.
Response: 42 U.S.C. 7607d2
includes requirements pertaining to the establishment of a rulemaking docket.
42 U.S.C. 7607d3, however, does require EPA to include a summary of the methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing the data. At proposal, we explained how EPA
obtained the CEMS data. Specifically, we stated, to justify this limit, U.S.
Steel provided EPA with hourly NOX
emissions data in lbs/MMBTU
documenting actual emissions levels after installation of low NOX burner technology on Minntac Lines 47. U.S.
Steel also provided hourly NOX
emissions data in lbs/MMBTU for Line 3, which has not yet installed low NOX
burner technology. 85 FR 6126.
In response to EPAs CAA section 114
request for information regarding Minntac, U.S. Steel provided CEMS data for Lines 3, 4 and 5 covering the time period from January 1, 2012 through August 9, 2016 as well as CEMS data for Lines 6 and 7 covering the time period from July 24, 2015 through August 9, 2016. The response included a certification of the accuracy and
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:15 Mar 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

completeness of the information provided. U.S. Steels letter responding to the CAA section 114 information request, as well as the certification, has been added to the docket.
In response to additional requests from EPA that were not made under CAA section 114, U.S. Steel provided CEMS data for Lines 6 and 7 for the period of April 27, 2012 through July 24, 2015 and for Lines 4 through 7 for the period of August 2016 to November 2017. However, Minntacs CEMS were certified on Agglomerator Waste Gas Lines 6 & 7 on June 23, 2005. The CEMS were certified on Waste Gas Lines 3, 4 & 5 on January 24, 2007, January 31, 2007 and February 1, 2007, respectively.
Further, Minntac is subject to the CEMS
requirements of the 2013 FIP, which may be found at 40 CFR 52.1235c and include the requirement that CEMS be installed, certified, calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 2 PS2 and appendix F, Procedure 1. Minntacs title V permit also specifies that the CEMS meet the requirements of 40 CFR
part 60 appendix B and F and Minnesota rule 7017 for monitoring and testing requirements. Pursuant to their title V permit, U.S. Steel must annually certify its compliance with title V. EPA
has no reason to question the accuracy and completeness of the CEMS data supplied.
In addition, the document, Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, is included in the docket and contains EPAs analysis of the data provided by U.S. Steel.15
Comment 11: While U.S. Steel expressed apprehensions about fluctuating emissions due to concerns regarding ore blend, and EPA appears to rely on this in proposing to revise the FIP, there is no information in the record to substantiate ore blend variability. Nor is there any information 15 See Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis, Docket ID EPAR05OAR201000370110, available at https www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037-0110. We note that the document, Redacted US Steel Proposal to EPA Minntac 512018, was erroneously listed on regulations.gov as an attachment to Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis under Docket ID EPA
R05OAR201000370110. Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis and Redacted US Steel Proposal to EPA Minntac 512018 are two distinct documents.
Minntac CEMS Data and Analysis is an Excel file containing EPAs analysis of CEMS data for Minntac. Redacted US Steel Proposal to EPA
Minntac 512018 is a redacted version of a settlement communication provided by U.S. Steel to EPA. While Redacted US Steel Proposal to EPA
Minntac 512018 remains available under Docket ID EPAR05OAR201000370110, it may also be found under its own Docket ID EPAR05
OAR201000370109, available at https
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R05-OAR2010-0037-0109.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

12101

in the record that explains how fluctuations in ore blend impact the ability of low NOX burners to control NOX emissions. EPAs assertions appear to suggest that it assumes the fluctuations go in one direction, adding a safety margin to the facility-wide limit, without providing a reasoned basis.
Response: EPA did not consider ore blends in proposing to revise the FIP.
EPA did provide a reasoned basis for the 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu emission limit.
This is the limit demonstrated by the CEMS data to be achievable by low NOX
burners, which is the technology determined to be the basis for BART.
The 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu limit is the most stringent limit the facility can consistently meet while providing for operational flexibility with regard to fuel choice. EPA did not add a safety margin to the limit as commenter suggests.
Comment 12: EPAs proposal suggests that given the trajectory of fuel markets, EPA has no reason to believe that U.S.
Steel will not continue to use natural gas at Minntac. EPA provides neither information about fuel markets nor a trajectory. Even if such information were provided, reliance on market projections is not an acceptable justification. Projections are just that, merely projections, and EPA lacks authority to rely on them. Moreover, in responding to the Petitions for Reconsideration on its 2013 FIP, EPA
explained that the taconite industry has demonstrated that it can re-engineer furnaces to adapt to market changes such as fuel prices and EPA found that at U.S. Steels Minntac facility, where low NOX burners have been installed and are in operation, there has been no fuel penalty.
Response: The 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu limit for Minntac represents the most stringent limit the facility can consistently meet while providing for operational flexibility to burn exclusively natural gas. As discussed previously in response to Comments 2
and 4, U.S. Steels production and fuel use data show that U.S. Steel has been moving toward using natural gas rather than co-firing with coal. Minntac Lines 6 and 7 the only lines that capable of burning coal have shifted fuel use dramatically over the six years evaluated, from 15% natural gas in 2012
to 97% natural gas in 2017. The 1.6 lbs NOX/MMBtu limit represents the most stringent limit the facility can consistently meet while providing operational flexibility with regard to fuel choiceincluding, for example, in response to market changes, the option to burn exclusively natural gas. Should
E:FRFM02MRR1.SGM

02MRR1