[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61514-61531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21662]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0536; FRL-9802-02-R5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Federal Implementation Plan for the Detroit Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area. The FIP includes an
attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the FIP
addresses the requirement for meeting reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably available control measures
and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT), enforceable
emission limitations and control measures to provide for NAAQS
attainment, and contingency measures. This action supplements a prior
action which found that Michigan had satisfied emission inventory and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements for this area but
had not met requirements for the elements addressed in the FIP. The FIP
provides for attainment of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in the
Detroit SO2 nonattainment area and meets the other
applicable requirements under the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0536. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
[[Page 61515]]
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you
telephone Abigail Teener, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-7314
before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abigail Teener, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone number: (312)
353-7314, email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Following the promulgation in 2010 of a 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS, on August 5, 2013, EPA designated the Detroit
area within the State of Michigan as nonattainment for this NAAQS, in
conjunction with designating multiple areas in other states as
nonattainment (78 FR 47191).
For a number of nonattainment areas, including the Detroit area,
EPA published an action on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016,
finding that Michigan and other pertinent states had failed to submit
the required SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal
deadline (81 FR 14736). This finding initiated a deadline under CAA
section 179(a) for the potential imposition of 2-to-1 NSR offset and
Federal highway funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section
110(c), the finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a FIP
within two years of the finding unless, by that time, (a) the state had
made the necessary complete submittal, and (b) EPA had approved the
submittal as meeting applicable requirements.
Michigan submitted the Detroit SO2 attainment plan on
May 31, 2016, and submitted associated final enforceable measures on
June 30, 2016. Michigan's submission of a complete attainment plan
terminated the deadlines for imposing the 2-to-1 NSR offset sanctions
and Federal highway funds sanctions, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d)(5),
but it did not terminate EPA's FIP obligation. On March 19, 2021, EPA
partially approved and partially disapproved Michigan's SO2
plan as submitted in 2016 (86 FR 14827). EPA approved the base-year
emissions inventory and affirmed that the NSR requirements for the area
had previously been met on December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064). EPA also
approved the enforceable control measures for two facilities. At that
time, EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration, as well as the
requirements for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT,
and contingency measures. Additionally, EPA disapproved the plan's
control measures for two facilities as insufficient to demonstrate
attainment. These disapprovals triggered new sanctions clocks under CAA
section 179(a).
As Michigan has not submitted an approvable plan for the Detroit
nonattainment area, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on
June 1, 2022, proposing a FIP for the Detroit nonattainment area (87 FR
33095). EPA proposed limits and associated requirements for U.S. Steel
(Ecorse and Zug Island), EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation
(formerly AK or Severstal Steel), and Dearborn Industrial Generation
(DIG). EPA also proposed to include in its analysis the Carmeuse Lime
emission limits specified in Permit to Install 193-14A and the DTE
Energy (DTE) Trenton Channel emission limits specified in Permit to
Install 125-11C, which had already been incorporated into Michigan's
SIP.
EPA proposed to conclude that the FIP meets the requirements set
forth in the CAA to provide for the Detroit area to attain the
SO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA proposed to conclude that the FIP
satisfies the other applicable requirements for nonattainment areas,
including requirements for RACM/RACT, RFP, and contingency measures.
The proposal supplemented the previous action in which EPA concluded
that Michigan had met the requirements for a suitable emissions
inventory and nonattainment NSR program.
II. Public Comments
The comment period on the proposed action described above closed on
July 18, 2022. EPA held a virtual public hearing on June 16, 2022. The
transcript of the public hearing is available in the docket for this
action. EPA received 14 written comments, seven of which were
supportive and seven of which were adverse. EPA also received verbal
comments from four individuals at the public hearing, all of which were
adverse or partially adverse comments. The adverse comments are
summarized below along with EPA's responses.
Comment: The commenters contend that EPA's modeling demonstration
has not correctly accounted for all the SO2 sources in the
area as well as short-term spikes in emissions. In particular, the
commenters suggest that EPA did not sufficiently account for the
Marathon Refinery emissions, as they were calculated using maximum heat
input multiplied by emissions factors. The commenters stated that
emission factors, particularly AP-42 emission factors, are intended to
calculate average emission levels and are not appropriate for
calculating modeling inputs to address the short-term SO2
NAAQS. The commenters recommend EPA use another method for calculating
Marathon Refinery emissions, such as continuous emissions monitoring,
stack testing, vendor guarantees and stack testing data from similar
facilities, material balance calculations, or optical remote sensing.
Response: Section 8.2.2.b of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) (appendix W) requires regulatory
modeling of inert pollutants such as SO2 to use the emission
input data given in Table 8-1 of appendix W. For stationary point
sources subject to SIP emission limit evaluation for compliance with
short-term standards such as the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the
modeled emission rate is required to be based on the maximum allowable
emission limit or federally enforceable permit limit, on actual or
design capacity of the point source (whichever is greater) or federally
enforceable permit conditions, and on continuous operation for all
hours of each time period under consideration.
As stated in the technical support document (included in the docket
for this action), Marathon Refinery's emission units were modeled based
on maximum uncontrolled emissions--a rate that is higher, and
consequently more conservative in avoiding underestimation of
emissions, than would be a limited emission rate. The maximum
uncontrolled emission rates for Marathon Refinery were determined based
on the maximum heat input of each modeled point source and emission
factors derived from the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and total
reduced sulfur (TRS) concentration of the refinery fuel gas combusted
in each emission unit. The H2S/TRS concentration of the fuel
gas is a representative source-specific concentration that was used to
determine a source-specific emission factor as opposed to an AP-42
emission factor that may be determined based on average emissions
across different facilities.
Additionally, the commenters recommend different methods for
estimating short-term emissions instead of using the source-specific
emission factor used in the modeling, including continuous emissions
monitoring, stack
[[Page 61516]]
testing, vendor guarantees and stack testing data from similar
facilities, material balance calculations, or optical remote sensing.
All of these methods would be suitable for determining actual
emissions. However, EPA's modeling instead accounts for maximum
uncontrolled emissions, which are higher and more conservative than
actual emissions, based on each emission unit's maximum capacity and
combusted fuel gas. Therefore, EPA believes it has appropriately
modeled the emissions for Marathon Refinery.
Comment: Five commenters commented on the background concentration
used in the model. Three commenters believe that the background
concentration used in EPA's modeling analysis may be underestimated. To
avoid double-counting concentrations associated with sources explicitly
modeled in the demonstration, EPA's background concentration
calculation was derived by removing wind directions between 40 and 205
degrees, which the commenters contend is overly broad and eliminates
the highest concentrations that come from the easterly winds. In
particular, a commenter states that Michigan's original background
concentration calculation approach excluded wind directions between 40
and 180 degrees, and then Michigan later changed its approach, which
EPA adopted, to removing wind directions between 40 and 205 degrees
without adequate justification. A commenter suggests that sources in
Ohio, western Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, eastern
Michigan, and Canada, some of which are relatively close and emit much
more SO2 than the background sources that EPA considers,
should be included in the background concentration. The commenter
states that although SO2 concentrations decline with
distance, they can still remain significant with respect to the
difference between the maximum modeled concentration and the NAAQS.
One commenter contends that the FIP does not adequately justify the
approach for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area given the
large number of SO2 sources. Additionally, the commenter
points out that EPA based its approach for calculating background
concentrations on EPA guidance for calculating NOX
background concentrations, which may not be appropriate for
SO2.
The commenters also state that the uncertainty of the background
estimate was not provided, and the fact that the approach depends on
the meteorological and monitoring data used, the definition of the wind
sector, the wind sector width, and year and seasons considered adds to
this uncertainty. The commenters also state that the error is higher at
lower concentrations, which should be considered. The commenters note
that an accurate background concentration calculation is critical given
that the maximum modeled concentration is very close to the NAAQS.
Additionally, one commenter alleges that the meteorological data at
the Allen Park site is not representative due to trees near the site
that shelter the tower because they exceed its height. The commenter
states that the wind directions at Allen Park diverge from other
Michigan sites and recommend that EPA use airport data instead.
The commenters recommend that EPA perform trajectory analyses to
eliminate the possibility that concentrations at the endpoints of the
exclusion are due to extreme meteorology instead of stationary sources,
analyze different exclusion ranges, and make conservative assumptions
to minimize modeling uncertainties. One commenter recommends that EPA
model background estimates using the largest sources within 500
kilometers, use other monitoring sites, which may include using sites
classified as ``source'' or ``population'' instead of ``background''
and/or deploying additional monitoring sites, and use a meaningful
margin of error to account for model uncertainty in the background
concentration analysis.
However, two commenters contend that the background concentration
that EPA used was overly conservative and reflects an overestimate of
background concentrations, as the maximum background concentration used
in the model (11.9 parts per billion (ppb)) occurs around the 33-degree
wind direction, which is directly over a source that was explicitly
modeled in the demonstration and near other sources. One commenter
points out that the Trinity monitor, which is upstream of these
sources, recorded a concentration of 0.7 ppb for the same hour that was
used for the maximum background concentration.
Response: Sections 8.3.1.a and 8.3.3 of appendix W discusses that
background air quality should not include the ambient impacts of the
project source under consideration. Appendix W further states that
nearby sources that cause a significant concentration gradient in the
vicinity of the source(s) under consideration for emissions should not
be included in the background monitoring data and should be explicitly
modeled. The portion of the background attributable to natural sources,
other unidentified sources near the project, and regional transport
from distant sources, both domestic and international, can be
represented by air quality monitoring data. Per Table 8-1 of appendix
W, these other sources include both minor sources and distant major
sources. Section 8.3.2.b of appendix W states that EPA recommends the
use of data from the monitor closest to and upwind of the project area.
Section 8.3.2.c of appendix W also discusses that there are cases in
which the current design value may not be appropriate for use as a
background concentration, including situations with a modifying source
where the existing facility is determined to impact the ambient
monitor. In these cases, the background concentration can be determined
by excluding values when the source in question is impacting the
monitor.
In the case of the analysis for the Detroit SO2
nonattainment area, monitor values from the Allen Park monitor (AQS 26-
163-0001) that occurred when the wind directions were between 40 and
205 degrees were removed from the calculations for the background
concentration. The Allen Park monitor is on the western boundary of the
Detroit SO2 nonattainment area and is upwind of the
explicitly modeled sources in the analysis due to predominant
southwesterly winds. The directions between 40 and 205 were chosen as
concentrations from these directions would be double counting the
impacts from the explicitly modeled sources within the analysis. This
excludes all modeled sources to the northeast (U.S. Steel, EES Coke,
Carmeuse Lime, Marathon Refinery, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation,
and DIG) and modeled sources to the south (DTE Trenton Channel and DTE
Monroe). Examining the meteorological data collected from the Allen
Park monitor, the highest concentrations measured at the monitor occur
when the winds are from the northeast, which suggests that the monitor
is being impacted by SO2 emission sources from the Detroit
area that are already included in the modeling analysis. Section
8.3.2.c.i of appendix W discusses that a 90-degree sector downwind of
the source(s) may be used to determine the area of impact. In the case
of the Detroit nonattainment area, EPA did not exclude 45 degrees to
the west of the northernmost sources. EPA did exclude 45 degrees west
of the southern source that is farther from the monitor and for which
there would be more plume spread by the time SO2 reaches the
Allen Park monitor.
[[Page 61517]]
SO2 is a localized, source-oriented pollutant, as
described in section III of EPA's final rule revising the
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35520) and section 4.2.3.3 of appendix W.
Section 8.3.3.d of appendix W states that portions of the background
attributable to all other sources (e.g., natural sources, minor and
distant major sources) should be accounted for through use of ambient
monitoring data and determined by the procedures found in section 8.3.2
in keeping with eliminating or reducing the source-oriented impacts
from nearby sources to avoid potential double-counting of modeled and
monitored contributions. As section 8.3.3.d of appendix W describes,
background concentrations inherently account for the impacts of minor
and distant major sources with the use of appropriate monitoring data.
Due to the localized nature of SO2, impacts from localized
sources are accounted for by either explicitly modeling these as nearby
sources in the modeling analysis or through ambient air monitoring
data. As localized sources were explicitly modeled as nearby sources in
the analysis, and the referred guidance above was followed, EPA
disagrees with the commenter that sources outside of the nonattainment
area should be explicitly included in the background concentration as
these would already be accounted for in the background concentration.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the FIP does not adequately
justify the approach for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area
given the large number of SO2 sources and that the
background calculations relied on EPA guidance. Section 8.1 of EPA's
SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document (TAD),
which was most recently updated in August 2016, discusses how the
methodology for calculating NOX background concentrations
applies to SO2. The TAD explains that the same methodology
for NOX is applicable to SO2 designations
modeling based on use of the 99th percentile by hour of day and season
for background concentration excluding periods when the dominant
source(s) are influencing the monitored concentration.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See TAD, page 30. The TAD can be found at https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/technical-assistance-documents-implementing-2010-sulfur-dioxide-standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees that an accurate background concentration is critical.
EPA has accurately calculated background concentrations from the hourly
monitoring data collected at the Allen Park ambient air monitoring
station based on guidance from EPA's TAD and appendix W. An uncertainty
analysis for background estimates is not required for regulatory air
dispersion modeling analyses and therefore, was not provided in the
technical support document for this action.
EPA disagrees that the meteorological data at the Allen Park site
is not representative and that meteorological data from the airport
should be used instead. The Allen Park monitoring site is an NCore
monitoring site for the state of Michigan that also collects
meteorological data. When comparing the wind roses of the Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) 2016-2020 wind data and the
Allen Park 2018-2020 wind data, the wind roses are very similar in wind
direction frequency and wind speed classes. One difference between the
two sites is the prevalence of winds from the south/southwest (SSW), in
which DTW experiences more frequent SSW winds than the Allen Park site.
However, the sites experience similar easterly winds. As such, the
trees near the Allen Park monitoring site are not causing the wind
directions to diverge from the airport site; therefore, the wind
measurements from the DTW airport should not be used instead. EPA also
verified with Michigan that all monitors and meteorological instruments
at the Allen Park monitoring site meet EPA's siting criteria. This
monitoring site is subject to EPA audits and siting criteria are
frequently checked and confirmed.
EPA disagrees that trajectory analyses need to be performed and
that different exclusion ranges need to be examined. Pollution roses
from the Allen Park monitor were examined by Michigan in the
development of the background concentration. Pollution roses consider
hourly meteorological conditions and ranges of wind directions in which
SO2 concentrations impact the monitor site. As was
demonstrated by Michigan, the range of exclusion used in the FIP
modeling analysis is acceptable as the pollution rose demonstrates that
the Allen Park monitor was impacted by explicitly modeled nearby
sources in this wind direction range. Therefore, trajectory analyses
are not required for this analysis.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that modeled background estimates
should be used to determine the background concentrations for the
modeling analysis. Section 8.3.2.b of appendix W states that in most
cases, EPA recommends using data from the monitor closest to and upwind
of the project area. If several monitors are available, preference
should be given to the monitor with characteristics that are most
similar to the project area. The Allen Park monitor was chosen as a
representative monitor for background concentrations for the Detroit
nonattinment area due its location within the SO2
nonattainment boundary and prevailing southwest winds that make the
monitor upwind of Detroit.
EPA disagrees that the background concentrations are overly
conservative; as explained above, EPA has followed relevant EPA
guidance in determining background concentrations. EPA did exclude
SO2 concentrations from northeast of the Allen Park monitor
based on data from the SO2 pollution roses for the Allen
Park monitor. These excluded impacts from explicitly modeled nearby
sources in the modeling analysis to prevent double-counting impacts.
EPA did not exclude 45 degrees to the west of the northernmost sources
for the background concentration as plume spread from these sources
would not have as great of an impact as more distant emission sources.
Therefore, the exclusion range sufficiently excludes nearby sources in
the area.
Comment: Four commenters commented on EPA's usage of rural
dispersion coefficients as part of the modeling analysis. EPA used
rural dispersion coefficients to characterize three tall stacks in the
modeling analysis to better correlate the modeled concentrations with
modeling concentrations at two monitors in the Detroit nonattainment
area. The commenters state that the heat island effect can cause higher
concentrations during the night, which is shown with the urban
coefficient option. The commenters recommend additional analysis to
determine whether the SO2 temporal distribution at the
monitors can be extrapolated to the area of maximum SO2
concentration near DTE Trenton Channel.
The commenters raise concern that the use of a rural dispersion
coefficient for stacks at EES Coke, DTE Monroe, DTE River Rouge, and
DTE Trenton Channel leads to significantly lowered predicted
concentrations. The commenters claim that EPA did not properly document
its model performance evaluation to support the claim that applying a
rural dispersion coefficient to the listed sources was the most
appropriate way to run the model. The commenters state that if EPA had
properly applied an urban dispersion coefficient to the sources, the
area could not model attainment.
Response: EPA agrees that the urban heat island effect can in some
cases cause higher concentrations during the night. However, as was
demonstrated in
[[Page 61518]]
the document entitled ``Analysis of Michigan Dispersion Coefficient
Use'' and the technical support document, both included in the docket
for this action, this was not the case when examining monitoring data
in the Detroit nonattainment area for the Southwest High School and
West Windsor monitors. Monitoring data from these monitors demonstrated
that peak monitored impacts occurred during the daytime (between 12:00
p.m.-3:00 p.m.) instead of at night. As described in the AERMOD
Implementation Guide,\2\ plumes from tall buoyant stacks, transported
over the urban boundary layer at night, may be unaffected by the urban
enhanced dispersion and may require special consideration on a case-by-
case basis. The urban dispersion option in AERMOD only applies to
nighttime and morning transition hours. Nighttime hours would normally
be stable if not for the urban heat island effect, and the morning
transition hours right after sunrise, when the atmosphere would
transition from stable to convective conditions in a rural setting,
might be more convective in urban conditions. Both monitored data at
the Southwest High School and West Windsor sites, as well as modeled
concentrations using the rural option for these stacks, showed peak
concentrations outside of the nighttime and morning transition hours,
which indicate the rural dispersion option is more appropriate for this
set of stacks in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See AERMOD Implementation Guide, pages 19-20, which can be
found at https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the commenters that EPA did not properly
document the model performance evaluation. Section 7.2.1.1.e of
appendix W states that model users should consult with the appropriate
reviewing authority and the latest version of the AERMOD Implementation
Guide when evaluating this situation. Further, Section 5.1 of the
AERMOD Implementation Guide states that a more thorough case-specific
justification will be needed to support excluding elevated sources from
application of the urban option.\3\ As these guidance documents state,
a case-specific justification needs to be provided to support the
exclusion of these stacks from the urban option, and the case-specific
justification was provided within the technical support document as
well as the document ``Analysis of Michigan Dispersion Coefficient
Use,'' which are both in the docket for this action. These documents
demonstrated that the application of the urban option to the tall
stacks at EES Coke, DTE Monroe, DTE River Rouge, and DTE Trenton
Channel resulted in anomalously high concentrations due to plume height
limitations in the model. As such, additional analysis is also not
warranted to determine if the temporal distribution can be extrapolated
to the DTE Trenton facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the AERMOD Implementation Guide, page 20, which can be
found at https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter raises concern that the 50 kilometer
distance from the nonattainment area is an inadequate cutoff for
including major point sources. The commenter states that there are a
number of large sources just beyond this distance that are not included
in the background concentration.
Response: EPA disagrees that the 50 kilometer distance from the
nonattainment area is an inadequate cutoff for including major point
sources. EPA used the maximum distance (50 kilometers) from the
nonattainment area in its modeling analysis. Section 4.1.c of appendix
W explains that due to the steady-state assumption, Gaussian plume
models are generally considered applicable to distances less than 50
kilometers, beyond which, modeled predictions of plume impact are
likely conservative. As such, AERMOD is not recommended for use in far-
field (greater than 50 kilometers) dispersion applications. Since
SO2 is a source-oriented pollutant and not considered a
regional pollutant for regulatory purposes, it is not appropriate to
model beyond 50 kilometers. In this case, EPA explicitly modeled DTE
Monroe, a source outside of the nonattainment area, in addition to the
sources within the nonattainment area as a conservative measure. Please
also refer to the responses above regarding background concentrations,
specifically the response to comments about sources beyond 50
kilometers being included in the modeling analysis and background
concentration.
Comment: The commenter states that EPA's modeling lacks
transparency and detail, as EPA did not provide sufficient maps and
tabular data, SO2 levels throughout the nonattainment area,
and information pertaining to understanding spatial and temporal
exposure variation, locations of impacts, critical meteorological
factors, culpable sources, background levels, etc.
Response: EPA's modeling analysis is available in the technical
support document, which is included in the docket for this action. In
the technical support document, EPA provided maps of the areas of
maximum concentration, as well as the modeling parameters used in the
area of analysis, including background concentrations. As the focus of
this action is to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS, and the
technical support document demonstrates that the areas of maximum
concentration are below the NAAQS, EPA did not provide maps of
SO2 concentrations throughout the nonattainment area.
However, EPA's modeling files are available to the public upon request.
The maximum modeled concentration, including background concentrations,
was 73.6 ppb and occurred approximately 4 kilometers to the northwest
of DTE Trenton Channel's facility. Other modeled concentrations that
were less than the maximum modeled design value at receptors in the
nonattainment area were 71.5 ppb to the northeast of Cleveland-Cliffs
Steel Corporation and DIG, 73.2 ppb on the northern fenceline of Zug
Island (when U.S. Steel's Zug Island sources are in operation), and
68.7 ppb to the northeast of Carmeuse Lime.
Comment: EPA received three comments regarding the FIP's margin of
safety and the health effects of SO2, particularly for
children in Detroit. The commenters state that the FIP does not provide
an uncertainty analysis. The commenters contend that as the maximum
modeled concentration is so close to the NAAQS (73.4 ppb compared to 75
ppb), the FIP does not provide any margin of safety. The commenters
state that the model cannot be considered conservative due to likely
background concentration underprediction, the use of rural dispersion
coefficients, and longer-term average emission rates. The commenters
recommend that EPA either validate the model using the monitoring data
from the SO2 monitoring sites in the Detroit nonattainment
area or set limits that produce modeled SO2 concentrations
well below the NAAQS.
The commenters argue that the NAAQS itself is not protective, as a
health study of children in Detroit shows that 1-hour maximum
SO2 exposures were associated with increased odds of
respiratory symptoms, even though the levels of SO2 that the
children were exposed to were generally below the NAAQS. One commenter
states that children in Detroit have breathing issues due to pollution
that cause them to miss school and cited a study that shows Southwest
Detroit has some of the worst air pollution in the country. The
commenters note that Detroit communities experience asthma rates that
are 1.5-3 times the national average along with low rates of asthma
[[Page 61519]]
controller utilization due to health care access, poverty, and
caregiver issues.
Response: As described further in comment responses below, under
section 109 of the CAA, EPA sets primary, or health-based, NAAQS for
all criteria pollutants to provide requisite protection of public
health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate
margin of safety. The health effects information provided by the
commenters, which was addressed in EPA's promulgation of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, is not in dispute in this rulemaking, and EPA in
this action is not reopening the NAAQS itself which was established to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. This
rulemaking instead addresses the requirements needed for the Detroit
area to meet the NAAQS. However, EPA is aware of the demographic data
for the Detroit nonattainment area, and that the Detroit nonattainment
area includes communities that are pollution-burdened and underserved,
and environmental justice concerns are addressed in comment responses
below.
EPA disagrees that the model cannot be considered conservative. In
its modeling analysis, EPA used the maximum uncontrolled or maximum
allowable emission rates for all sources in the Detroit nonattainment
area. In reality, it is extremely unlikely that all sources would be
operating at maximum emission rates simultaneously. Additionally, EPA's
method of background concentration calculation, use of rural dispersion
coefficients, and reliance on longer-term average emission rates follow
EPA guidance and are appropriate for demonstrating attainment of the
NAAQS, as explained in comment responses above and below.
Comment: Three commenters state that a taller combined stack at
U.S. Steel will not significantly decrease SO2
concentrations that affect public health in residential areas downwind
of the facility.
Response: While EPA acknowledges that combining and raising the
U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 stack will only decrease near-field
SO2 concentrations where current ambient concentrations
threaten the NAAQS, EPA is requiring this stack construction in
combination with new limits at U.S. Steel, a facility that has not
previously had hourly SO2 limits. Both of these control
mechanisms are needed to ensure that the SO2 concentrations
in the Detroit area, including those in residential areas downwind of
the facility, stay permanently below the NAAQS and result in protection
of public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Comment: The commenters contend that long-term average limits alone
do not provide for attainment of the one-hour SO2 NAAQS, as
30-day average limits allow sources to operate at higher levels before
and after shutdowns and remove incentives for sources to avoid
malfunctions. The commenters believe that a long-term average limit
should have supplemental limits governing the magnitude and frequency
of short-term periods of emissions above the emission rate at which the
longer-term average limit is set. Additionally, the commenters contend
that EPA's use of national average adjustment factors for the DIG and
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation 24-hour average limits is not
justified.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that longer-
term average limits alone do not provide for attainment of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes as a general matter that properly
set, longer-term average limits are comparably effective in providing
for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard as are 1-hour
limits. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting
the statutory requirements in SO2 nonattainment plans, in a
document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Guidance).\4\ EPA's 2014
SO2 Guidance sets forth in detail the reasoning supporting
its conclusion that the distribution of emissions that can be expected
in compliance with a properly set longer-term average limit is likely
to yield overall air quality protection that is as good as a
corresponding hourly emissions limit set at a level that provides for
attainment. EPA's 2014 SO2 Guidance specifically addressed
this issue as it pertains to requirements for attainment demonstrations
for SO2 nonattainment areas under the 2010 NAAQS, especially
with regard to the use of appropriately set comparably stringent
limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days. EPA found that
a longer-term average limit which is comparably stringent to a short-
term average limit is likely to yield comparable air quality; and that
the net effect of allowing emissions variability over time but
requiring a lower average emission level is that the resulting worst-
case air quality is likely to be comparable to the worst-case air
quality resulting from the corresponding higher short-term emission
limit without variability. See 2014 SO2 Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any accounting of whether a 30-day average limit provides for
attainment must consider factors reducing the likelihood of hourly
exceedances as well as factors creating a risk of additional
exceedances. To facilitate this analysis, EPA used the concept of a
critical emission value (CEV) for the SO2-emitting
facilities which are being addressed in a nonattainment plan. The CEV
is the continuous 1-hour emission rate which is expected to provide for
the average annual 99th percentile maximum daily 1-hour concentration
to be at or below 75 ppb, which in a typical year means that fewer than
four days have maximum hourly ambient SO2 concentrations
exceeding 75 ppb. See 2014 SO2 Guidance. EPA recognizes that
a 30-day limit can allow occasions in which emissions exceed the CEV,
and such occasions yield the possibility of hourly exceedances
occurring that would not be expected if emissions were always at the
CEV. At the same time, the establishment of the 30-day average limit at
a level below the CEV means that emissions must routinely be lower than
they would be required to be with a 1-hour emission limit at the CEV.
The proposed FIP provides an illustrative example of the effect
that application of a limit with an averaging time longer than one hour
can have on air quality.\5\ This example illustrates both (1) the
possibility of elevated emissions (emissions above the CEV) causing
exceedances not expected with emissions at or below the CEV and (2) the
possibility that the requirement for routinely lower emissions would
result in avoiding exceedances that would be expected with emissions at
the CEV. In this example, moving from a 1-hour limit to a 30-day
average limit results in one day that exceeds 75 ppb that would
otherwise be below 75 ppb, one day that is below 75 ppb that would
otherwise be above 75 ppb, and one day that is below 75 ppb that would
otherwise be at 75 ppb. In net, the 99th percentile of the 30-day
average limit scenario is lower than that of the 1-hour limit scenario,
with a design value of 67.5 ppb rather than 75 ppb. Stated more
generally, this example illustrates several points: (1) The variations
in emissions that are accounted for with a longer-term average limit
can yield higher concentrations on some days and lower concentrations
on other days, as determined by the factors influencing dispersion on
each day, (2) one must
[[Page 61520]]
account for both possibilities, and (3) accounting for both effects can
yield the conclusion that a properly set longer-term average limit can
provide as good or better air quality than allowing constant emissions
at a higher level. As noted in the proposed FIP, and as described in
appendix B of the 2014 SO2 guidance, EPA expects that an
emission profile with a comparably stringent 30-day average limit is
likely to have a net effect of having a lower number of exceedances and
better air quality than an emissions profile with maximum allowable
emissions under a 1-hour emission limit at the critical emission value.
Thus, EPA continues to assert that appropriately set 30-day emission
limits can be protective of the 1-hour SO2 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the full discussion of the hypothetical example, see the
proposed FIP, June 1, 2022 (87 FR 33095) at page 33100 at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The long-term average limits included in the FIP are for a period
of 30 days for DTE Trenton Channel and 24 hours for DIG and Cleveland-
Cliffs Steel Corporation. As stated above, EPA posits that limits based
on periods of as long as 30 days (720 hours), determined in accordance
with EPA's April 2014 guidance, can, in many cases, be reasonably
considered to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Since 30 days for DTE Trenton Channel and 24 hours for DIG and
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation are equal to or well within,
respectively, the period of 30 days, EPA has concluded that a limit
based on a period of 30 days for DTE Trenton Channel and limits based
on a period of 24 hours for DIG and Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation
determined in accordance with EPA's April 2014 guidance can be
reasonably considered to provide for attainment. While the longer-term
averaging limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than
the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the limits
compensate by requiring average emissions to be adequately lower than
the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average
limit.
As noted by the commenters, EPA's April 2014 guidance addresses the
use of supplemental short-term limits. While supplemental limits can
further strengthen the justification for the use of longer-term limits,
they are not necessary to provide for attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. In this case, as discussed further below, DTE
Trenton Channel has been permanently shut down during the comment
period for this action, and DIG and Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation
are not the primary contributors to the areas of maximum modeled
concentrations. Therefore, EPA is not considering supplemental limits
for DTE Trenton Channel, DIG, or Cleveland-Cliffs at this time.
Regarding the adjustment factors used for the daily DIG and
Cleveland-Cliffs limits, EPA believes that the appendix D ratios are
acceptable adjustment factors in this specific situation for use in
calculating a long-term average emission limit when hourly
SO2 emissions data are not available for use in calculating
source-specific emission ratios. Although these daily limits are
included in the FIP, EPA is not relying on emission reductions from
either DIG or Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation to demonstrate
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Rather, EPA has included
these limits in the FIP to ensure that SO2 concentrations in
the Detroit area stay permanently below the NAAQS. Since these sources
are not the controlling sources with respect to the attainment
demonstration, reliance on the default adjustment factors to account
for the emissions variability provides a suitable estimate in this
instance where no other data is available.
For the reasons stated above and in the proposed rule, EPA
concludes that the use of long-term average emission limits for DTE
Trenton Channel, DIG, and Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation is
consistent with recommendations discussed in EPA's April 2014 guidance
and adequately protects against violations of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
Comment: The commenters disagree with EPA's interpretation of RACT
for SO2 as the control technology necessary to achieve the
NAAQS and point out that RACT has been defined for other pollutants as
the lowest emission limit that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility. The commenters contend that the
U.S. Steel emission limits do not achieve a reduction in
SO2, as the maximum allowable annual emissions, assuming
maximum operation for every hour in a year, are higher than U.S.
Steel's past annual emissions. The commenters believe that EPA should
consider alternatives to the requirement for combining and raising the
U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 stacks as well as complete a RACT analysis
considering technological and economic feasibility for U.S. Steel, DIG,
Cleveland-Cliffs, and EES Coke.
Response: Section 172 (c)(1) of the CAA provides that ``such plan
shall provide for the implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national
primary ambient air quality standards.'' EPA has long defined RACT for
SO2 as that control technology which will achieve the NAAQS
within statutory timeframes. See State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule, 57 FR 13498, 13547 (April 16, 1992)
(General Preamble); see also, SO2 Guideline Document, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February
1994 (SO2 Guideline), at 6-39. For most criteria pollutants,
RACT is control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility. The definition of RACT for
SO2 is that control technology which is necessary to achieve
the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.100(o)). Since SO2 RACT is already
defined as the technology necessary to achieve the SO2
NAAQS, control technology which failed to achieve the NAAQS would fail
to be SO2 RACT. EPA intends to continue defining RACT for
SO2 as that control technology which will achieve the NAAQS,
as it has in numerous SIP actions since promulgating the 2010 NAAQS.
Here, the emission limits in the FIP and previously approved into the
SIP provide for such NAAQS attainment, as demonstrated by the modeling.
Consequently, under EPA's longstanding approach to SO2 RACT,
the CAA section 172(c)(1) RACM/RACT requirement is met. CAA section
172(c)(6) also requires plans to include enforceable emission limits
and control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for
attainment. The emission limits and associated requirements included as
part of the FIP analysis show attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS of 75 ppb, as the modeling analysis, which is detailed in the
technical support document for this action, shows a maximum
concentration of 73.6 ppb. Thus, further controls are not necessary to
satisfy the requirement for RACT.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
See also EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance; General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As determined through air dispersion modeling, emission limits and
associated requirements at the U.S. Steel, EES Coke, DIG, Cleveland-
Cliffs Steel Corporation, DTE Trenton
[[Page 61521]]
Channel, and Carmeuse Lime facilities are needed to reach attainment in
the Detroit area. While EPA recognizes the commenters' concern that the
annual maximum emissions allowed under the U.S. Steel limits set forth
in the FIP are larger than actual emissions in previous years, EPA
believes that setting limits at U.S. Steel, a facility that has not
previously had hourly SO2 emission limits, is critically
important to ensuring that SO2 concentrations in the Detroit
area stay permanently below the NAAQS.
Comment: The commenters point out that the FIP does not require
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting from U.S. Steel No. 2 Baghouse
or DIG Flares 1 and 2.
Response: EPA notes that U.S. Steel No. 2 Baghouse was mistakenly
omitted from 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(3)(ii) in the proposed regulatory text
and EPA has updated 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(3)(ii) to include U.S. Steel No.
2 Baghouse. Recordkeeping and reporting for U.S. Steel No. 2 Baghouse
are required under 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(5)(ii) and 40 CFR
52.1189(b)(6)(ii), respectively. Regarding compliance for DIG Flares 1
and 2, EPA has added the requirement to 40 CFR 52.1189(e)(2) that the
owner or operator verify compliance with the limit for Boilers 1, 2, 3
and Flares 1 and 2 (combined) by following the procedures and
methodologies contained in the document entitled ``Protocol for
Demonstrating Continuous Compliance with the Emission Limitations of
ROP MI-ROP-N6631-2004'' as set forth in its operating permit (Permit
MI-ROP-N6631-2012a, modified June 28, 2016).
Comment: EPA received seven comments regarding emissions monitoring
requirements. The commenters believe that the FIP should require all
units, particularly at U.S. Steel and DIG, to install a Continuous
Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) on all units to monitor
SO2 emissions directly, which the commenters state would be
a much more accurate and transparent way to monitor emissions than what
the proposed FIP requires. The commenters state that it is unclear as
to why the FIP would require CEMS to be installed at U.S. Steel
Boilerhouse 2 but not at U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 1 and why the FIP would
require CEMS for the Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation blast furnaces
but not the U.S. Steel blast furnaces. The commenters also state that
it is unclear as to why a Predictive Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS)
is allowed in lieu of CEMS to monitor DIG emissions. A commenter states
that CEMS are available and commonly used and that it is particularly
important that SO2 emissions are monitored closely as the
maximum modeled SO2 concentration is very close to the
NAAQS. The commenters recommend that EPA require CEMS to be installed
at each U.S. Steel and DIG unit, and that EPA explain the choice of
monitoring technique if CEMS is not deemed appropriate, considering
regulatory needs, monitoring technology costs, and relative benefits of
the monitoring technique.
Response: With regard to DIG units, the FIP requires compliance as
set forth in its operating permit (Permit MI-ROP-N6631-2012a, modified
June 28, 2016). As described in the response above regarding DIG Flares
1 and 2 compliance, EPA added additional compliance language to 40 CFR
52.1189(e)(2). These compliance mechanisms are currently in place and
work to sufficiently monitor hourly SO2 emissions at the DIG
facility; therefore, EPA is not requiring CEMS on the DIG units at this
time.
With regard to U.S. Steel units, the FIP requires CEMS on
Boilerhouse 2, the highest-emitting unit at the facility, as part of
the new stack construction. For the remaining U.S. Steel units, the FIP
requires the owner or operator to calculate hourly SO2
emissions using all raw material sulfur charged into each affected
emission unit and assumes 100 percent conversion of total sulfur to
SO2 to be conservative. Aside from the U.S. Steel
boilerhouses, blast furnaces, and the associated furnace flares, the
other emission limits for other U.S. Steel units are very small (all
less than 5 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and only one over 1 lbs/hr). Many
large SO2 sources, such as blast furnace stoves, blast
furnace flares, and (reheat) furnaces, combust blast furnace gas and/or
coke oven gas. These gases are considered fuel for those units. EPA
believes that frequent fuel sampling will provide sufficiently accurate
measurement of SO2 emissions. Fuel sampling has historically
been used to determine emissions, and EPA believes this method is
acceptable here. The FIP requires the owner or operator of each
applicable U.S. Steel unit to submit a Compliance Assurance Plan (CAP)
for the unit that specifies calculation methodology, procedures, and
inputs used in these calculations. EPA expects that the procedures
shall include a fuel sampling schedule at a frequency that captures any
variation in fuel sulfur content. Additionally, while Boilerhouse 1 is
not currently operating, U.S. Steel has committed not to combust coke
oven gas at Boilerhouse 1 upon restart, which is reflected in the
Boilerhouse 1 limit set forth in the FIP. EPA concludes that the
required CAPs, as well as the quarterly requirement to submit
calculated hourly SO2 emissions to EPA, are sufficient for
determining compliance with the emission limits set forth in the FIP.
However, the requirement of CAPs does not preclude future requirements
or installation of CEMS on these units.
Comment: The commenters believe that the requirement that U.S.
Steel submit a CAP for units that do not require CEMS detailing the
calculation methodology, procedures, and inputs that will be used for
monitoring SO2 emissions is insufficient. The commenters
believe that U.S. Steel's CAPs should undergo public notice and
comment, but point out that this is not possible as the plans are
required to be submitted after the effective date of the FIP.
Additionally, the commenters pointed out that the FIP does not allow
EPA the authority to review, modify, or reject a CAP, and that the CAP
does not require continuous monitoring.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' position that the
requirement for U.S. Steel to submit CAPs is insufficient. The public
is not an approving authority for CAPs, and therefore, there is no
requirement that the owner or operator submit the CAPs for public
review and approval. However, for transparency and ease in
accessibility, EPA will post the CAPs to the Detroit SO2 FIP
website at https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federal-implementation-plan. Although the FIP does not require EPA's explicit approval of
CAPs, EPA has authority to enforce the requirement to submit CAPs that
meet the requirements set forth in the FIP. Failure to submit a CAP or
submission of a CAP that does not meet the requirements set forth in
the FIP would be a violation of the FIP. The owner or operator of the
U.S. Steel facility is required to maintain records of hourly emissions
calculated in accordance with the CAP under 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(5)(ii)
and to report these hourly mass balance calculations, as well as excess
emissions, quarterly, and no later than the 30th day following each
quarter under 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(6)(ii) and 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(6)(iv),
respectively.
Comment: EPA received three comments about idled units at U.S.
Steel. The commenters contend that although the FIP requires that a CAP
be submitted for each idled U.S. Steel unit under 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(4),
the FIP does not require U.S. Steel to comply with emission limits or
monitoring requirements for idled units. One commenter states that the
community is very concerned with the reopening of
[[Page 61522]]
U.S. Steel and believes the FIP should include limits for idled units.
Response: The FIP includes limits for all units, regardless of
operating status. The idled units referenced in 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(4)
each have limits under 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(1)(i). Additionally, emissions
from these units are required to be monitored and reported under 40 CFR
52.1189(b)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(6)(ii), respectively.
Comment: EPA received three comments about contingency measures in
the FIP. The commenters disagree with EPA's interpretation of
contingency measures for SO2 to mean that the State, or EPA
in the case of a FIP, has a comprehensive enforcement program. The
commenters suggest that under CAA section 172(c)(9), contingency
measures must take effect without further action by the State or EPA,
which would exclude enforcement actions because an enforcement action
is further action. Additionally, the commenters state that enforcement
actions are not ``measures'' as defined in CAA section 110(a)(2), and
that a comprehensive enforcement program is already required separately
under CAA section 110(a)(2). The commenters also note that enforcement
actions are not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), so citizens are not able to enforce EPA's proposed contingency
measures, and that EPA's reliance on enforcement actions is contrary to
the history of the CAA due to their discretionary nature.
Additionally, the commenters allege that authority to enforce the
FIP does not equate to a comprehensive enforcement program, which the
commenters suggest would mean having a schedule for determining whether
violations occurred and a binding mechanism requiring EPA to take
action if they did occur. The commenters suggest that a comprehensive
enforcement program could not be called aggressive unless it went
beyond the basic enforcement requirements, for example, increasing the
basic mandatory penalty scheme.
The commenters also point out that contingency measures are
intended to address situations that cause an area to fail to attain
despite a valid attainment demonstration and that there is no specific
measure in the proposed FIP that would be activated in the case that
EPA's analysis that the FIP will bring the Detroit area into attainment
is incorrect. The commenters contend that it is more likely that
violations of the 1-hour standard will occur with longer-term average
limits in the FIP due to short-term spikes in emissions at sources that
are still complying with their long-term average limits. The commenters
state that the fact that EPA does not require a new SIP submittal for
determining whether an area has attained the standard, even though
modeling parameters such as source characteristics and background
concentrations could have changed, is an additional issue if
contingency measures do not address failures to attain despite valid
attainment demonstrations.
The commenters state that EPA failed to include contingency
measures in the FIP regulatory text and recommend that EPA incorporate
alternative contingency measures into the FIP, such as switching to
low-sulfur fuel, limiting operation until the SIP is revised, limits
that automatically scale to adjust for background concentrations, and
supplementary short-term limits for longer-term average limits. The
commenters state that these suggested contingency measures could be
promulgated as rules to take effect without further action from EPA.
The commenters disagree that the contingency measures language as
written in CAA section 172(c)(9) does not apply to SO2 plans
and was directed at other pollutants such as ozone, as Congress added
specific contingency measures language in the ozone provisions but did
not change the general contingency measures provisions in CAA section
172(c)(9). The commenters argue that without implementing alternative
contingency measures, EPA fails to make a good-faith effort to comply
with the terms of the September 30, 2020, consent decree to promulgate
a FIP that complies with the CAA.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency
measures are inadequate. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines
contingency measures as such measures in a nonattainment plan that are
to be implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails
to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency
measures are to become effective without further action by the State or
EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the
NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These
control measures are to consist of other available control measures
that are not included in the control strategy for the attainment plan
SIP for the affected area.
However, EPA has long interpreted the contingency measures
requirement for SO2 in light of the fact that SO2
presents special considerations. See, General Preamble at 13547; see
also, SO2 Guideline at 6-40--6-41, 2014 Guidance at 41-42.
EPA interprets the contingency measure provisions as primarily directed
at NAAQS implementation which can be undertaken on an areawide basis,
such as for ozone or particulate matter. EPA's policy for
SO2 is different because, first, for some of the other
criteria pollutants, the analytical tools for quantifying the
relationship between reductions in precursor emissions and resulting
air quality improvements remain subject to significant uncertainties,
in contrast with procedures for directly-emitted pollutants such as
SO2. Second, emissions estimates and attainment analyses for
other criteria pollutants can be strongly influenced by overly
optimistic assumptions about control efficiency and rates of compliance
for many small sources. This is not the case for SO2.
In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control
measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty.
Since SO2 control measures are by definition based on what
is directly and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2
NAAQS, it would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary
emission controls yet fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore, for
SO2 programs, EPA has long explained that ``contingency
measures'' can mean that the air agency has a comprehensive program to
identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to
undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement,
including expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent
agreements pending the adoption of a revised SIP. EPA believes that
this approach continues to be valid for the implementation of
contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and
consequently reiterated its view in the preamble to the final 2010
NAAQS and has followed it in several actions on SIPs implementing the
2010 NAAQS. See, e.g., Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Sulfur Dioxide; Final Rule, 75 FR 35520, 35576 (June 22, 2010);
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard; Final Rule, 83 FR 51629, 51632-33; Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania;
Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard;
Final Rule, 84 FR 51988,
[[Page 61523]]
51994-95. EPA therefore concludes that EPA's comprehensive enforcement
program, as discussed below, satisfies the SO2 contingency
measure requirement.
The commenters listed several options for specific contingency
measures. EPA acknowledges that one or more of these options may be
appropriate in a specific situation, and for a specific source, if the
area fails to achieve RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the statutory
attainment date. However, in this situation, as Detroit is a
multisource area with several emission units per facility, requiring
one or more of these measures also may not be appropriate depending on
the cause of the potential violation, which would need to be evaluated
at the time of occurrence. For example, triggering a fuel-switch at one
facility may not bring the area into attainment if the issue is caused
by another facility violating its limit. Similarly, limiting operation
of one facility may be appropriate if EPA determines that the subject
facility is the cause of the problem, but requiring additional measures
at other facilities may not be warranted where the cause of the NAAQS
violation was non-compliance by a different facility and where the
NAAQS violation can be most efficiently remedied by bringing that
source into compliance with its established emission limits. Likewise,
limiting operations at all SO2 facilities in the area may
not appropriately address the issue due to the localized nature of
SO2 emissions and direct link to a specific facility.
Changing the limits at all facilities from a longer-term limit to a
shorter-term limit similarly may appropriately address the problem, but
this action also may not, and EPA would evaluate appropriate measures
if and when an issue arises. These are illustrative examples, and while
not exhaustive, highlight the need for EPA to be able to respond
appropriately in a particular scenario due to the localized nature of
SO2 impacts. In any case where the Detroit area fails to
achieve RFP or attain the NAAQS, EPA would consider all viable
solutions to address the actual issue at a specific facility or
facilities and take appropriate responsive action.
In accordance with longstanding policy, EPA deems investigation and
enforcement authority for aggressive follow-up for ensuring source
compliance an appropriate and expeditious solution to any potential
violations.
As noted in the proposed rule, EPA's 2014 SO2 guidance
describes special features of SO2 planning that influence
the suitability of alternative means of addressing the requirement in
CAA section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures including a
comprehensive enforcement program. EPA has a comprehensive enforcement
program as specified in section 113(a) of the CAA. Under this program,
EPA is authorized to take enforcement actions to ensure compliance with
the CAA and the rules and regulations promulgated under the CAA. Such
actions include the issuance of an administrative order requiring
compliance with the applicable implementation plan; the issuance of an
administrative order requiring the payment of a civil penalty for past
violations; and the commencement of a civil judicial action. Orders
issued under CAA section 113(a) require subject entities to comply with
the requirements set forth in the order as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event longer than one year after the date the
order was issued. Issuance of any such order does not prohibit EPA from
assessing any penalties. Under CAA section 113(b), civil judicial
enforcement may require assessment of penalties of up to $109,024 per
day for each violation.\7\ Additionally, under CAA section 113(c), any
person who knowingly violates any requirement or prohibition of an
implementation plan may be subject to criminal enforcement, with
penalties including fines and imprisonment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pursuant to the Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustment Rule, 87
FR 1676 (Jan. 12, 2022), codified at 40 CFR 19.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's enforcement program is capable of prompt action to remedy
compliance issues. Additionally, enforcement in communities with
environmental justice concerns is a priority for EPA. EPA's steps to
advance environmental justice through enforcement include increasing
the number of facility inspections in overburdened communities,
resolving noncompliance through remedies with tangible benefits, and
increasing engagement with communities about enforcement cases that
most directly impact them.\8\ EPA also notes that under CAA section
304, citizens may also commence civil enforcement actions against any
person who is in violation of an emission standard. See 42 U.S.C.
7604(a)(1), (f). Therefore, EPA believes that EPA's enforcement program
by itself suffices to meet CAA section 172(c)(9) requirements for
SO2 as interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble, the
SO2 Guideline, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation,
the 2014 SO2 guidance, and in numerous subsequent SIP
actions. Finally, EPA disagrees with the assertion that without
implementing alternative contingency measures, EPA fails to make a
good-faith effort to comply with the terms of the September 30, 2020,
consent decree to take final action to promulgate a FIP. The consent
decree properly imposes only a September 30, 2022, deadline for EPA to
sign a notice of final rulemaking to approve a revised SIP submission,
to promulgate a FIP, or to approve in part a revised SIP submission and
promulgate a partial FIP for the Detroit area addressing the elements
of CAA sections 172(c) and 192, but does not (as it could not) impose
any requirements for how EPA might meet the statutory elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/strengtheningenforcementincommunitieswithejconcerns.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA received eight comments about environmental justice.
The commenters contend that while EPA recognized that communities are
located in the Detroit nonattainment area with environmental justice
concerns, EPA did not conduct a meaningful analysis or adequately use
its discretionary authority to consider environmental justice in
development of the FIP. The commenters state that EPA did not follow
Executive Order 12898, which directs EPA to achieve environmental
justice to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The
commenters contend that EPA should have considered alternatives to its
proposed plan and how the FIP could provide the most benefit to Detroit
populations given the history of industrial pollution and nonattainment
for multiple pollutants and the environmental justice communities in
the Detroit nonattainment area, which are demonstrated by EPA's
EJScreen as well as other screening tools such as the draft Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool and the Michigan EJ screen map. The
commenters also believe that EPA should consider actions that can be
taken to acknowledge and address the impacts of the delay in bringing
the Detroit area into attainment, and ensure that any future
nonattainment is addressed promptly, as well as more fully acknowledge
the burden that Detroit community members of different populations have
faced due to nonattainment. One commenter points out that EPA's
conclusion that the FIP will decrease pollution levels, which will be
beneficial to the environmental justice populations in Detroit, does
not address the fact that it will not be more beneficial to
environmental justice populations than others in the area nor
acknowledge the harm that previous emissions in the area have caused
the
[[Page 61524]]
community. The commenters believe that EPA only took steps to
promulgate a FIP as a result of a consent decree arising from a 2021
civil action, as EPA's deadline to promulgate a FIP was April 18, 2018,
so the commenters request that EPA explain the delay in promulgating a
FIP.
The commenters recommend that EPA's environmental justice analysis
address the presence of vulnerable populations in the nonattainment
area and include an analysis of the FIP's impact on these vulnerable
populations, such as individuals with asthma, particularly with respect
to long-term average emission limits. The commenters note that the
presence of asthma in Detroit is extremely high as compared to the rest
of the state and point to studies showing that vulnerable populations
may experience health effects associated with SO2
concentrations below the NAAQS. The commenters state that affected
populations of the nonattainment area need assurance on plans for
access to healthcare, asthma treatment, and air filtration. The
commenters also request a more detailed description of aggressive
enforcement measures EPA will use and recommend that EPA require all
sources to install CEMS.
Response: While EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns and the
issues facing communities in the greater Detroit area, in general EPA
disagrees with the commenters' characterization of EPA's consideration
of environmental justice as it regards this action. EPA is aware of the
demographic data for the Detroit nonattainment area, and that the
Detroit nonattainment area includes communities that are pollution-
burdened and underserved. In part for this reason, EPA conducted
outreach beyond its obligations of notice-and-comment rulemaking as
discussed in the response to comments on EPA's outreach and comment
process below.
Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA sets primary, or health-based,
NAAQS for all criteria pollutants to provide requisite protection of
public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an
adequate margin of safety. In EPA's June 22, 2010, rulemaking
strengthening the SO2 NAAQS to the level of 75 ppb, EPA
provided a detailed rationale for the Administrator's determination
that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS would be protective of public health
(75 FR 35520). This rationale included explicit consideration of
protection for people, including children, with asthma. Specifically,
the standard was based on direct evidence of SO2-related
effects in controlled human exposure studies of exercising individuals
with asthma, as well as epidemiologic evidence of associations between
SO2 concentrations in ambient air and respiratory-related
emergency department visits and hospitalizations.
Commenters reference Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994), which directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations.
Executive Order 12898 is addressed in the executive order section of
this action. With regard to environmental justice considerations, to
identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in
communities in the Detroit nonattainment area, EPA performed a
screening-level analysis using EPA's EJ screening and mapping tool
(``EJScreen'').\9\ EPA prepared two EJScreen reports covering buffer
areas of 1- and 6-mile diameters around U.S. Steel, which is the main
facility impacted by the FIP. Our screening-level analysis of the area
strongly suggests that communities within the selected buffer areas
bear a high overall pollution burden as indicated by high percentile
values for particulate matter and other environmental indicators, as
well as high percentiles of low income and people of color.
Specifically, the 6-mile buffer included in the docket of this
rulemaking showed that the percentage of low-income individuals is
almost twice the U.S. average. These results highlight commenters'
concerns of the pollution burdens that Detroit community members of
different populations have faced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See documentation on EPA's Environmental Justice Screening
and Mapping Tool at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering these results, EPA further considered emission
reductions expected from the FIP and forthcoming emission reduction
measures that may help to mitigate existing pollution issues in the
area. As explained in the proposal, the proposed FIP regulatory
language includes new SO2 emission limits throughout the
U.S. Steel facility. Additionally, the FIP includes several new
requirements for U.S. Steel's Boilerhouse 2, including the requirement
to combine and raise its stacks to increase dispersion away from the
area, new limits, and installation of a new CEMS. Further, EPA included
the DTE Trenton Channel permit as part of the FIP analysis, which was
scheduled to retire 10 11 at the time the proposed FIP was
published and has since shut down as of June 19, 2022. Hence, the FIP
analysis included the permitted (Permit to Install 125-11C) enforceable
SO2 limit of 5,907 lbs/hr on a 30-day average basis
applicable to DTE Trenton Channel as a precautionary measure. Actual
emissions at DTE Trenton Channel in recent years were 3,114, 3,754, and
885 tons per year (tpy) in 2018, 2019 and 2020, respectively. In Wayne
County (the partial county containing in the Detroit SO2
Nonattainment area), these reductions would account for 25.2, 31.9 and
14.8 percent of SO2 emissions in 2018, 2019 and 2020,
respectively. While EPA recognizes the importance of assessing impacts
of our actions on potentially overburdened communities, we believe that
the promulgation of the FIP will not adversely affect disproportionally
impacted populations in the Detroit nonattainment area. The purpose of
the FIP is to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, so
promulgation of this FIP is expected to have a positive impact on the
Detroit nonattainment area as a whole, for all populations in the
Detroit nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/coal-plants-retiring-with-millions-of-dollars-flowing-to-environmental-justice-communities.
\11\ See https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/267-1_-_sierra_club_-_dte_separate_agreement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the delay in bringing the area into attainment,
Michigan and EPA have faced several obstacles during the attainment
planning process, beginning with the invalidation of Michigan
Administrative Code (MAC) 336.1430 (``Rule 430'') by the Michigan Court
of Claims on October 4, 2017. The court held that, because Rule 430
contained enforceable limits for U.S. Steel and the limits applied to a
single facility, Rule 430 failed the ``general applicability''
requirement of Michigan's Administrative Procedures Act, Michigan
Compiled Laws (MCL) 24.201 et seq. The court expressly declined to
advise how the State could properly impose emission limits on the
source at issue via other means but noted elsewhere in the decision
that the state and other sources ``agreed to revise pertinent DEQ
permits.'' Since the time of the designation, Michigan and EPA have
been working on an approvable attainment plan and emission reductions
in the area. In addition, to the extent that the State prefers to
proceed via generally applicable state regulations rather than permits,
EPA expects that Michigan will draft future rules to avoid the concerns
raised by the
[[Page 61525]]
court which resulted in invalid SO2 limits to avoid this
issue going forward.
In 2016, Michigan submitted an SO2 attainment plan for
the Detroit nonattainment area, which included limits for DTE Trenton
Channel, DTE River Rouge, Carmeuse Lime, and U.S. Steel. While EPA was
unable to approve the 2016 attainment plan as a whole, EPA did approve
the limits for DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse Lime into Michigan's
SIP on March 19, 2021. The compliance dates for DTE Trenton Channel and
Carmeuse Lime permits were January 1, 2017, and October 1, 2018,
respectively, and both facilities have been in compliance since their
respective dates. In March 2020, a more stringent interim limit for DTE
River Rouge became effective, and in May 2021 the facility shut down.
Although the FIP is based on maximum allowable or uncontrolled
emissions, EPA also completed a model run using actual emissions from
2015-2017, which was used in EPA's January 28, 2022, action to
determine whether the area attained the standard by the attainment date
(87 FR 4501). The modeling was based on guidelines from appendix W of
40 CFR part 51 and EPA's TAD that contained an assessment of the air
quality impacts from the following sources: U.S. Steel Ecorse, U.S.
Steel Zug Island, EES Coke, DTE River Rouge, DTE Trenton Channel,
Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, DIG, and
Marathon Refinery. The modeling demonstration included actual emissions
for DTE River Rouge, Trenton Channel, and U.S. Steel, the source that
was determined to have the most significant contribution to the maximum
NAAQS violations in the area. EPA found that the areas with modeled
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS were on and surrounding
Zug Island in areas that are not residential, while all the monitors in
the Detroit nonattainment area showed values below the NAAQS. The
updated FIP analysis modeled attainment of the NAAQS in the Detroit
nonattainment area after inclusion of the new U.S. Steel emission
limits proposed in this FIP and the emission reduction measures that
have already occurred since the finding of failure to attain, including
the previously approved DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse Lime emission
limits and the shutdown of DTE River Rouge. The implementation of the
FIP makes these reductions, as well as the existing emission limits at
EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG, permanent and
enforceable and provides protection for future attainment. Further, as
previously discussed, these reductions will be even greater with the
shutdown of DTE Trenton Channel.
With regard to the enforcement measures that EPA will use, as
stated in the proposed rule, options include the issuance of an
administrative order requiring compliance with the applicable
implementation plan; the issuance of an administrative order requiring
the payment of a civil penalty for past violations; and the
commencement of a civil judicial action. These options are explained
further in the response to the comment above regarding contingency
measures. While the FIP does not require CEMS on all units, as
explained in the response to comments about CEMS above, EPA is
confident that the FIP provides adequate means of determining whether a
violation has occurred in order to take appropriate enforcement action.
Comment: EPA received four comments on EPA's outreach and comment
process. The commenters contend that the timeline between the proposed
rule publication date and the public hearing and public hearing
registration deadline was not sufficient and should have been closer to
30 or 45 days, similar to other EPA comment periods. The commenters
state that while EPA is facing a tight deadline to finalize the FIP,
the tight timeline is due, in part, to EPA's delay in responding to
Michigan's SIP.
The commenters also state that while EPA held a meeting with
various Detroit environmental organizations and community groups in
March 2022, the FIP was not the main focus of the meeting and a more
robust approach to community outreach was needed, particularly due to
the high levels of limited English proficiency (LEP) persons living in
the area. The commenters give examples of ways that EPA could have
improved its public outreach, including holding a community meeting
before the proposed FIP was published, working with community groups in
the area to distribute information, and providing handouts about the
FIP surrounding the public hearing. One commenter believes that EPA
should engage with the public as soon as new NAAQS are set and EPA
knows which areas area likely to fall into nonattainment about the
causes and impacts of the nonattainment designation and solutions being
sought, as well as after each delay to explain why the delay occurred
and how it will be avoided in the future.
Additionally, the commenters state that EPA only provided notice of
the hearing in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register and
did not provide notice that was sufficiently accessible on widely
disseminated platforms or reach out directly to the community. In
particular, the commenters note that the proposed rule was published in
English with no translation services available and that translation
services were not made available for the public hearing, which is of
particular concern due to the Spanish and Arabic speaking communities
in and surrounding the nonattainment area. The commenters note that
while EPA did solicit requests for translation services in the proposed
rule, this solicitation did not give LEP persons meaningful access to
translation services as it was published in an English-only document
with a tight deadline for submitting requests. Therefore, the
commenters suggest that EPA should have proactively provided Arabic and
Spanish translation services at the public hearing.
The commenters contend that EPA did not meet its obligations under
Executive Order 13166 and EPA's FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan and has
subjected individuals to discrimination by failing to proactively reach
out to LEP persons in and around the nonattainment area due to the high
percentages of LEP persons in the area, as shown in EJScreen analyses
completed by both commenters and EPA. Additionally, the commenters
mention the Informal Resolution Agreement that EPA entered with
Michigan, under which Michigan developed an LEP Plan. The commenters
believe that EPA should have followed the guidelines set forward in
this plan, which include providing solicitations for translation
services in other languages besides English and developing a strategy
to best engage with LEP individuals. The commenters note that while EPA
has since translated a fact sheet into Arabic and Spanish, these fact
sheets were not available at the beginning of the comment period and
EPA did not release a plan on how to ensure the documents would reach
LEP persons.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' suggestions on how EPA
can improve its outreach and comment process and will consider, as
appropriate, in future actions the suggestions to extend the time
between proposal publication and public hearing, engage earlier with
the public, and reach out to LEP communities before the comment period.
However, EPA would like to highlight the additional outreach efforts
that EPA made surrounding the FIP proposal publication beyond its
obligations of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
[[Page 61526]]
As the commenters note, EPA held a meeting with representatives
from the City of Detroit, Michigan Environmental Council, Great Lakes
Environmental Law Center (GLELC), Southwest Detroit Environmental
Vision, and the Ecology Center regarding the FIP, including a
presentation by EPA and a roundtable discussion with these
stakeholders. EPA disagrees that the FIP was not the main topic of the
meeting and has posted the presentation and attendance list to the
docket for this action. Specifically, after outlining a summary of the
FIP proposal, EPA requested feedback on structuring future engagement
with stakeholders in Detroit.
In addition to communicating directly with stakeholders, EPA issued
a press release on the day the proposed FIP was published in the
Federal Register.\12\ The press release noted that EPA would be
accepting public comments on the proposed FIP. EPA also created a
website for the FIP containing a summary of the rule, as well as
information about how to register for the public hearing or submit
written comments. The FIP was also highlighted on EPA's Region 5 web
page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-opens-public-comment-period-proposed-federal-plan-reduce-sulfur-dioxide-air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to translation services for the public hearing, EPA
solicited requests in both the Federal Register document as well as on
the registration web page for the public hearing. EPA proactively
arranged for interpretation services to be available at the public
hearing in case the services were requested by registered attendees;
however, no registered attendees requested these services or any other
translation services.
During the public comment period, EPA received a request from GLELC
to delay the public hearing, as GLELC stated that EPA had not provided
adequate outreach to LEP communities. Per the email exchange posted in
the docket for this action, EPA was unable to delay the public hearing,
but did what was possible during the comment period to address this
request. As the commenters note, EPA created a fact sheet, which
included information about how to submit written comments, during the
comment period and translated it into Spanish and Arabic. EPA posted
the fact sheets in the docket for this action, on the FIP web page, and
on the general Spanish and Arabic EPA web pages. EPA appreciates the
suggestions on how to reach out to LEP communities more proactively for
future rulemakings.
Comment: Two commenters argue that EPA should develop maps and
other analyses that represent SO2 exposure within and
outside of the nonattainment area in conjunction with maps illustrating
cumulative impacts of social, economic, and physical environmental
factors to show how SO2 concentrations add to cumulative
pollution impacts and to evaluate environmental justice concerns.
Response: The focus of this action is to ensure attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS within the nonattainment area. EPA has no
information suggesting that SO2 concentrations outside of
the nonattainment area boundary are above the SO2 NAAQS, and
EPA does not believe that exposure maps within and beyond the
nonattainment are pertinent to demonstrating how the control measures
and emissions limits in the FIP provide for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Detroit area.
Comment: The FIP includes two separate limits for U.S. Steel
Boilerhouse 2 based on two different operating scenarios. Two
commenters note that the FIP incorrectly states that Boilerhouse 2 is
the only U.S. Steel unit operating under the scenario in which
Boilerhouse 2 has a limit of 750.00 lbs/hr. The commenters point out
that the modeling analysis for this scenario includes operation of the
U.S. Steel Ecorse sources, which include the Hot Strip Mill, No. 2
Baghouse, Main Plant Boiler No. 8, and Main Plant Boiler No. 9, in
addition to Boilerhouse 2.
Response: EPA notes that the U.S. Steel Ecorse sources were
included in the modeling analysis for the scenario in which Boilerhouse
2 has a limit of 750 lbs/hr and were incorrectly excluded from the
scenario in the proposed rule. EPA has updated 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(1)(ii)
accordingly. The limits for the U.S. Steel Ecorse sources are shown in
Table 1 below.
Table 1--U.S. Steel Ecorse Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission
Unit limit (lbs/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 1................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 2................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 3................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 4................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 5................... 0.31
No. 2 Baghouse.......................................... 3.30
Main Plant Boiler No. 8................................. 0.07
Main Plant Boiler No. 9................................. 0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The proposed FIP includes a requirement for the owner or
operator of the U.S. Steel facility to combine and raise all five
stacks from each corresponding boiler at U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 into
a single larger stack. Two commenters state that all five Boilerhouse 2
boilers are not currently in operation. The commenters request that
only stacks from the operating boilers be required to be included in
the combined stack in order to reduce capital, operating, and
maintenance costs. The commenters assert that if a boiler begins
operation at a later date, it can be included in the stack at that
time.
Response: EPA agrees that not requiring any idled boiler stacks to
be added to the combined Boilerhouse 2 stack, so long as no
SO2 is emitted from Boilerhouse 2 except from the new stack
after the new stack construction is required to be completed, would not
affect attainment of the NAAQS in the Detroit area. Therefore, EPA is
not explicitly requiring that all Boilerhouse 2 boilers be added to the
combined stack, and EPA has updated 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(2)(i)
accordingly. As set forth in 40 CFR 52.1189(b)(2)(ii), beginning two
years after the effective date of the FIP, no owner or operator shall
emit SO2 from Boilerhouse 2, except from the stack point at
least 170 feet above ground level.
Comment: EPA received two comments about the U.S. Steel Boilerhouse
2 stack construction timeline. The commenters contend that the two
years allotted for construction of the stack is not sufficient, as
construction cannot begin until Michigan issues the construction
permit. The commenters state that at least 15 months are needed to
procure materials and complete stack construction, which would leave 9
months for Michigan to issue the permit. The commenters allege that the
timeline is aggressive, given that the completion is dependent on
Michigan acting quickly to issue the permit.
Response: EPA disagrees that the U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 stack
construction timeline is insufficient. The construction permit process
was considered as part of this timeline. Michigan is aware of the
construction timeline, and the construction permit for the Boilerhouse
2 stack construction is a high priority for the State. Additionally,
Michigan is statutorily required to process permit applications within
240 days if public comment is required and 180 days if public comment
is not required.\13\ This
[[Page 61527]]
comment did not provide any new information on the project timeline, so
therefore, EPA is not extending the timeline for the Boilerhouse 2
stack construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See correspondence between EPA and Michigan included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter states that the community would like to know
if they will be notified if facilities reopen, how they would be
affected if facilities have ownership changes, what kind of assurance
there is that Michigan will not permit new sources in the area, and
EPA's future commitment to the Detroit area.
Response: The focus of this action is to ensure attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Detroit area. The requirements of the FIP
will continue to apply regardless of any facility ownership change. If
there are changes to the Michigan SIP, which includes the emission
limits and requirements set forth in the FIP, those changes will be
subject to public notice and comment.
Comment: The commenter requests that EPA explain how it will
guarantee that the FIP will attain and maintain the SO2
NAAQS in light of the June 30, 2022, West Virginia v. EPA Supreme Court
ruling regarding EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions.
Response: The attainment planning requirements that the FIP
addresses are set forth in the CAA, and the June 30, 2022, Supreme
Court ruling does not affect this action. This action regulates
SO2 emissions, which the CAA explicitly requires, and does
not regulate carbon emissions as such or impose limits on greenhouse
gas emissions.
Comment: The commenter states that industry should be held
accountable for the pollution that it emits, and that industry and
government do not provide sufficiently transparent air quality data.
Response: This nonattainment plan provides emission limits and
requirements for facilities in the Detroit area and is protective of
the SO2 NAAQS. A variety of air quality data sources are
available for the Detroit area, including but not limited to design
value reports,\14\ ECHO,\15\ and AirNow.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-
values#:~:text=A%20design%20value%20is%20a,50Exit%20Exit%20EPA%20webs
ite.
\15\ See https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the-data.
\16\ See https://gispub.epa.gov/airnow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter requests that EPA minimize the cost and time
required to implement the FIP, as the commenter states that a facility
that is not economically viable is less likely to comply with limits.
Response: The FIP includes limits and associated requirements
needed to meet the NAAQS in the Detroit area. Compliance with the
requirements of the FIP is not optional and is not dependent on a
facility's economic viability. As discussed further above in the
response to comments regarding continency measures, EPA has a
comprehensive enforcement program as specified in section 113 of the
CAA. Under this program, EPA is authorized to take any action it deems
necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of the CAA and the
rules and regulations promulgated under the CAA, including the
requirements set forth in the FIP.
Comment: The commenter states that alleged deficiencies in the
model cannot be addressed by assuming DTE Trenton Channel will be shut
down, as there are several model receptors with concentrations that
exceed 70 ppb.
Response: EPA's FIP modeling analysis does not assume the shutdown
of DTE Trenton Channel. Instead, the FIP analysis includes the
permitted (Permit to Install 125-11C) enforceable SO2 limit
of 5,907 lbs/hr on a 30-day average basis as a precautionary measure.
As described above, particularly in the response to comments regarding
background concentrations and dispersion coefficients, EPA concludes
that its modeling analysis sufficiently demonstrates attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb, even assuming continued operation of
DTE Trenton Channel (which will not in fact operate).
Comment: The commenter points out that the emission rate used for
DTE Trenton Channel in the model is higher than the emission rate
specified in the proposed FIP (7,834 lbs/hr versus 7,661 lbs/hr).
Response: EPA notes the discrepancy between the DTE Trenton Channel
emission rates in the proposed FIP and in the model. As no other
changes were made to the model, EPA did not remodel based on this error
alone, since the error resulted in a more conservative design value.
EPA believes that this discrepancy has minimal impact on the maximum
modeled concentration, and as it results in an overestimate, it does
not have any negative impact on human health.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is promulgating a FIP for attaining the 2010 SO2
NAAQS for the Detroit area and for meeting other nonattainment area
planning requirements. In accordance with section 172 of the CAA, this
FIP includes an attainment demonstration for the Detroit area and
addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission
limitations and control measures, and contingency measures. EPA has
previously concluded that Michigan has addressed the requirements for
emissions inventories for the Detroit area and nonattainment area NSR.
The FIP is based on the Carmeuse Lime emission limits specified in
Permit to Install 193-14A, the DTE Trenton Channel emission limits
specified in Permit to Install 125-11C, and the U.S. Steel, EES Coke,
Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG emission limits specified
in the regulatory language of this FIP. The Carmeuse Lime and DTE
Trenton Channel permits have already been approved into Michigan's SIP
that is incorporated into 40 CFR part 52, so EPA is not re-
incorporating them into 40 CFR part 52 here.
EPA made changes to the regulatory text that was included in the
proposed FIP under 40 CFR 52.1189 paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i),
(b)(3)(ii), and (e)(2) due to public comments received. These changes
include updating the list of sources that may operate under the
scenario in which U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 has a limit of 750.00 lbs/hr
to include U.S. Steel Ecorse sources, as included in EPA's modeling
analysis; not explicitly requiring all Boilerhouse 2 boiler stacks to
be merged and raised, so long as no SO2 is emitted except
from the new stack beginning two years after the effective date of the
FIP; adding U.S. Steel No. 2 Baghouse to the list of units subject to
monitoring requirements, which previously was incorrectly omitted; and
adding language regarding compliance for DIG Flares 1 and 2.
Additionally, EPA corrected a citation error in the proposed regulatory
text under CFR 52.1189(b)(3)(iii).
This FIP satisfies EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the area
under CAA section 110(c) that resulted from the previous finding of
failure to submit. However, it does not affect the sanctions clock
started under CAA section 179 resulting from EPA's partial disapproval
of the prior SIP, which would be terminated by an EPA rulemaking
approving a revised SIP. See 40 CFR 52.31.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), as it is not a rule of general applicability. This action
specifically regulates four facilities in Detroit, Michigan.
[[Page 61528]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of information'' is
defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . . identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons . . .'' 44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP applies to just four facilities, the
Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. This action
adds additional controls to certain sources. None of these sources are
owned by small entities, and therefore are not small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The 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. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
To the extent this action will limit SO2 emissions, the rule
will have a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air
pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This final rule will improve local air quality by reducing
SO2 emissions in a part of the Detroit metropolitan area
that includes a higher proportion of minority and low-income
populations compared to the State or US averages. Socioeconomic
indicators such as low income, unemployment rate and percentage of
people of color \17\ were all at levels at least two times that of the
state-wide averages (in some cases two to five times higher), within
one to six miles from facilities affected by this action (see EJScreen
analyses provided in the docket for this action). These populations, as
well as all affected populations in this area, will stand to benefit
from the increased level of environmental protection with the
implementation of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/overview-demographic-indicators-ejscreen for the definition of each demographic
indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the
requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it promulgates a FIP under CAA
section 110(c).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability.
M. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, does
not extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Michael Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Add Sec. 52.1189 to subpart X to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1189 Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide (SO2).
(a) The plan submitted by the State on May 31, 2016 to attain the
2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
[[Page 61529]]
ambient air quality standard for the Detroit SO2
nonattainment area does not meet the requirements of Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 172 with respect to SO2 emissions from the
U.S. Steel (Ecorse and Zug Island), EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel
Corporation (formerly AK or Severstal Steel), and Dearborn Industrial
Generation (DIG) facilities in the Detroit, Michigan area. These
requirements for these four facilities are satisfied by paragraphs
(b)through(e) of this section, respectively.
(b) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172
requirements for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area by
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures
applicable to the U.S. Steel Ecorse and Zug Island facilities. This
section applies to the owner(s) and operator(s) of the facilities
located at 1 Quality Drive and 1300 Zug Island Road in Detroit,
Michigan. The requirements in this section for the Hot Strip Mill Slab
Reheat Furnaces 1-5, No. 2 Baghouse, Main Plant Boiler No. 8, and Main
Plant Boiler No. 9 apply to the owner and operator of the U.S. Steel
Ecorse facility, and the requirements in this section for Boilerhouse
1, Boilerhouse 2, A1 Blast Furnace, B2 Blast Furnace, D4 Blast Furnace,
A/B Blast Furnace Flares, and D Furnace Flare apply to the owner and
operator of the U.S. Steel Zug Island facility.
(1) SO2 emission limits. (i) Beginning on the effective
date of the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO2 from
the following units in excess of the following limits:
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission
Unit limit (lbs/
hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilerhouse 1 (all stacks combined)..................... 55.00
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 1................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 2................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 3................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 4................... 0.31
Hot Strip Mill--Slab Reheat Furnace 5................... 0.31
No. 2 Baghouse.......................................... 3.30
Main Plant Boiler No. 8................................. 0.07
Main Plant Boiler No. 9................................. 0.07
A1 Blast Furnace........................................ 0.00
B2 Blast Furnace........................................ 40.18
D4 Blast Furnace........................................ 40.18
A/B Blast Furnace Flares................................ 60.19
D Furnace Flare......................................... 60.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Beginning two years after the effective date of the FIP, no
owner or operator shall emit SO2 from Boilerhouse 2 in
excess of the following limits:
(A) Boilerhouse 2 shall emit less than 750.00 lbs/hr unless
Boilerhouse 1, A1 Blast Furnace, B2 Blast Furnace, D4 Blast Furnace, A/
B Blast Furnace Flares, or D Furnace Flare is operating, in which case
it shall emit less than 81.00 lbs/hr.
(B) [Reserved]
(2) Stack restrictions and permit requirements. (i) The owner or
operator shall construct a stack for Boilerhouse 2. The stack emission
point must be at least 170 feet above ground level. The owner or
operator shall submit a construction permit application for the stack
to the State of Michigan within 90 days of the effective date of the
FIP. Where any compliance obligation under this section requires any
other state or local permits or approvals, the owner or operator shall
submit timely and complete applications and take all other actions
necessary to obtain all such permits or approvals.
(ii) Beginning two years after the effective date of the FIP, no
owner or operator shall emit SO2 from Boilerhouse 2, except
from the stack emission point at least 170 feet above ground level.
(3) Monitoring requirements. (i) Not later than two years after the
effective date of the FIP, the owner or operator shall install and
continuously operate an SO2 continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) to measure SO2 emissions from Boilerhouse 2 in
conformance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F procedure 1.
(ii) The owner or operator shall determine SO2 emissions
from Boilerhouse 1, Hot Strip Mill Slab Reheat Furnaces 1-5, No. 2
Baghouse, Main Plant Boiler No. 8, Main Plan Boiler No. 9, A1 Blast
Furnace, B2 Blast Furnace, D4 Blast Furnace, A/B Blast Furnace Flares,
and D Furnace Flare using mass balance calculations as described in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(iii) Within 180 days of the installation of the CEMS specified in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, the owner or operator shall
perform an initial compliance test for SO2 emissions from
Boilerhouse 2 while the boilerhouse is operating in accordance with the
applicable emission limit during the period of testing identified in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. The initial compliance test shall
be performed using EPA Test Method 6 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4.
(4) Compliance assurance plan. To determine compliance with the
limits in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the owner or operator
shall calculate hourly SO2 emissions using all raw material
sulfur charged into each affected emission unit and assume 100 percent
conversion of total sulfur to SO2. The owner or operator
shall implement a compliance assurance plan (CAP) for all units except
Boilerhouse 2 and any idled units that shall specify the calculation
methodology, procedures, and inputs used in these calculations and
submit the plan to EPA within 30 days after the effective date of the
FIP. The owner or operator must submit a list of idled units to EPA
within 30 days of the effective date of the FIP. The owner or operator
must submit a CAP for any idled units prior to resuming operations.
(5) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records continuously for five years beginning on the effective date of
the FIP:
(i) All records of production for each affected emission unit.
(ii) All records of hourly emissions calculated in accordance with
the CAP.
(iii) In accordance with paragraphs (b)(3) of this section, all
CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling or
measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
(iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities
for emission monitoring systems including, but not limited to, any
records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F Procedure 1.
(v) Records of all major maintenance activities performed on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and other
production measurement devices.
(vi) Any other records required by the Quality Assurance
Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Used for
Compliance Determination rule at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F Procedure 1
or the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities rule at 40 CFR part
63, subpart FFFFF.
(6) Reporting. Beginning on the effective date of the FIP, all
reports under this section shall be submitted quarterly to Compliance
Tracker, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE-17J, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590.
(i) The owner or operator shall submit a CAP in accordance with
paragraph (b)(4) of this section within 30 days of the effective date
of the FIP.
(ii) The owner or operator shall report CEMS data and hourly mass
balance calculations quarterly in accordance
[[Page 61530]]
with CEMS requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and the CAP
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(4) of this section no later
than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
(iii) The owner or operator shall report the results of the initial
compliance test for the Boilerhouse 2 stack within 60 days of
conducting the test.
(iv) The owner or operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions
reports for all units identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section no later than the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter. Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the
emission limits specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The
reports shall include the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each
period of excess emissions, specific identification of each period of
excess emissions that occurs during all periods of operation including
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken, or
preventative measures adopted.
(v) The owner or operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs
or adjustments no later than the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter.
(vi) The owner or operator shall also submit results of any CEMS
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1
(e.g., Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and
Cylinder Gas Audits) no later than 30 days after the test is performed.
(vii) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period,
such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by
paragraphs (b)(6) of this section.
(c) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172
requirements for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area by
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures
applicable to the EES Coke facility. This section applies to the owner
and operator of the facility located at 1400 Zug Island Road in
Detroit, Michigan.
(1) SO2 emission limits. Beginning on the effective date
of the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO2 from the
Underfire Combustion Stack EUCoke-Battery in excess of 544.6 lbs/hr, as
a 3-hour average, and 2071 tons per year, on a 12-month rolling basis
as determined at the end of each calendar month, and 0.702 pounds per
1000 standard cubic feet of coke oven gas, as a 1-hour average.
(2) Monitoring requirements. The owner or operator shall maintain
and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and record the
SO2 emissions from the Underfire Combustion Stack EUCoke-
Battery on a continuous basis. The owner or operator shall use
Continuous Emission Rate Monitoring (CERM) data for determining
compliance with the hourly limit in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
The owner or operator shall operate the CERM system in conformance with
40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
(d) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172
requirements for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area by
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures
applicable to the Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation (formerly AK or
Severstal Steel) facility. This section applies to the owner and
operator of the facility located at 4001 Miller Road in Dearborn,
Michigan.
(1) SO2 emission limits. Beginning on the effective date
of the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO2 from the
following units in excess of the following limits:
Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission limit Time period/
Unit operating scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse 71.9 lbs/hr....... Calendar day
Stack. average.
``B'' Blast Furnace Stove Stack. 38.75 lbs/hr...... Calendar day
average.
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and 77.8 lbs/hr....... Calendar day
Stove Stacks (combined). average.
``B'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and 340 tons per year. 12-month rolling
Stove Stacks (combined). time period as
determined at the
end of each
calendar month.
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse 179.65 lbs/hr..... Calendar day
Stack. average.
``C'' Blast Furnace Stove Stack. 193.6 lbs/hr...... Calendar day
average.
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and 271.4 lbs/hr...... Calendar day
Stove Stacks (combined). average.
``C'' Blast Furnace Baghouse and 1188 tons per year 12-month rolling
Stove Stacks (combined). time period as
determined at the
end of each
calendar month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Monitoring requirements. The owner or operator shall maintain
and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and record the
SO2 emissions and flow from ``B'' Blast Furnace and ``C''
Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks on a continuous basis. The
owner or operator shall use CERM data for determining compliance with
the hourly limits in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The owner or
operator shall operate the CERM system in conformance with 40 CFR part
60, appendix F.
(e) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 172
requirements for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area by
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures
applicable to the Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG) facility. This
section applies to the owner and operator of the facility located at
2400 Miller Road in Dearborn, Michigan.
(1) SO2 emission limits. (i) Beginning on the effective
date of the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit SO2 from
the following units in excess of the following limits:
[[Page 61531]]
Table 3 to Paragraph (e)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission limit Time period/
Unit operating scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined).. 420 lbs/hr........ Daily average.
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined).. 1839.6 tons per 12-month rolling
year. time period.
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 840 lbs/hr........ Daily average.
and 2 (combined).
Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 2947.7 tons per 12-month rolling
and 2 (combined). year. time period as
determined at the
end of each
calendar month.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Monitoring requirements. (i) The owner or operator shall
maintain and operate in a satisfactory manner a device to monitor and
record the SO2 emissions from Boilers 1, 2, and 3 on a
continuous basis. Installation and operation of each CEMS shall meet
the timelines, requirements and reporting detailed in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F. If the owner or operator chooses to use a Predictive
Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS) in lieu of a CEMS to monitor
SO2 emissions, the permittee shall follow the protocol
delineated in Performance Specification 16 in appendix B of 40 CFR part
60.
(ii) The owner or operator shall verify compliance with the
emission limits for Boilers 1, 2 and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 (combined) by
following the procedures and methodologies contained in the document
entitled ``Protocol for Demonstrating Continuous Compliance with the
Emission Limitations of ROP MI-ROP-N6631-2004'' dated May 31, 2011, or
subsequent revisions to this document approved by EPA.
[FR Doc. 2022-21662 Filed 10-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P