
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10458-10461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04781]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0817, FRL-9990-92-Region 2]


Approval of Source Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New 
Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in 
relation to a Source Specific SIP for Gerdau Ameristeel in Sayreville, 
New Jersey. On December 5, 2018, the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection approved an administrative amendment 
reflecting new ownership and name change to Commercial Metals Company. 
The control options in the Source Specific SIP that address nitrogen 
oxide Reasonably Available Control Technology for the natural gas fired 
billet reheat furnace remain the same under the new ownership. The 
intended effect of this SIP revision is for the Sayreville facility to 
continue to operate under their facility specific maximum allowable 
nitrogen oxide emission rate. The affected source will not increase 
hourly nitrogen oxide emissions, therefore, the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for ozone is protected.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2018-0817, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, such as the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3565, or by email at 
longo.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittal
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
revisions to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, under New Jersey Administrative 
Code, Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, ``Control and Prohibition of 
Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen'' (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19). The New 
Jersey Department of

[[Page 10459]]

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reviewed and approved the facility 
specific emission limit (FSEL) nitrogen oxide (NOX) control 
plan and the associated Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
for the Gerdau Ameristeel facility located in Sayreville, New Jersey 
(Sayreville Facility). The RACT for this SIP revision is the lowest 
emission limitation economically feasible for controlling 
NOX emissions from the Sayreville Facility's billet reheat 
furnace (Sayerville BRF). The Sayreville BRF is used to raise the 
temperature of steel billets to the required level for hot rolling.
    Subchapter N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(a)(1), ``Alternative and facility 
specific NOX emission limits,'' allows owners and operators 
of major sources of NOX, upon approval of the NJDEP, to 
obtain FSELs for maximum allowable NOX emission rates by 
submitting a NOX control plan that meets the requirements of 
N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(b). Furthermore, Subchapter N.J.A.C. 7:27-
19.13(a)(3) allows facilities that wish to continue to operate under 
existing NOX control plans that were approved prior to May 
1, 2005 to make the request by submitting an updated proposed 
NOX control plan as required in N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13. The 
Sayreville Facility wishes to continue to operate under its existing 
NOX control plan that was approved by the State on March 15, 
2005. A full summary is included in the technical support document 
(TSD) that is contained in EPA's docket assigned to this Federal 
Register notice.
    Please note that on December 5, 2018, the NJDEP approved an 
administrative amendment reflecting new ownership and name change of 
the Sayreville Facility from Gerdau Ameristeel to Commercial Metals 
Company. All control options for the Sayreville BRF and CAA permit 
limits (as approved by the NJDEP in the March 2005 NOx 
control plan) remain the same under the new ownership as were under the 
former owner Gerdau Ameristeel.

Ozone Requirements

    In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for 8-hour ozone, 
setting it at 0.084 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour 
time frame. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). The EPA revised the 8-hour 
ozone standard twice since 1997; in March 2008, the EPA revised the 
standard to 0.075 ppm, and in October 2015 the EPA revised it to 0.070 
ppm while retaining the 2008 ozone indicators. See 73 FR 16436 (March 
27, 2008); 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). After the EPA establishes a 
new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA and the 
states to take steps to ensure that the new or revised NAAQS are met. 
One of the first steps, known as the initial area designations, 
involves identifying areas of the country that are not meeting the new 
or revised NAAQS, as well as the nearby areas that contain emissions 
sources that contribute emissions to the areas not meeting the NAAQS.
    The entire state of New Jersey has been designated as nonattainment 
since the adoption of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and is divided into 
two nonattainment areas. The two nonattainment areas in New Jersey are 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE) and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT). These areas are designated 
as marginal nonattainment and as moderate nonattainment, respectively, 
for the newest 0.070 ppm 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ As such, New Jersey has 
developed ozone SIPs to attain the standards and will consider source-
specific SIPs as necessary. A source-specific SIP is submitted by a 
facility to request approval for source-specific emission limitations, 
and if approved by the state and the EPA, are incorporated into the 
state's ozone SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Classifications of these areas for the current and previous 
ozone NAAQS can be found at 40 CFR 81.331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RACT Requirements

    RACT is defined as the lowest emission limit that a source is 
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is 
reasonably available considering technological and economic 
feasibility.\2\ CAA sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2) and 182(f) require 
nonattainment areas that are designated as moderate or above to adopt 
RACT. The entire state of New Jersey is subject to this requirement 
because (1) of the nonattainment area designations for the 8-hour ozone 
standards (40 CFR 81.331), and (2) the state of New Jersey is located 
within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), a region in which the CAA 
requires that state SIPs implement RACT requirements. See CAA Sec.  
184(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA has not generally prescribed RACT requirements. As 
defined in ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment 
Areas--Supplement (on Control Techniques Guidelines),'' RACT for a 
particular source is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering 
the technological and economic circumstances of the individual 
source. See 44 FR 53761 September 17, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 25, 1992 the EPA published a supplement to the General 
Preamble to Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 to clarify 
requirements for NOX, referred to as the NOX 
Supplement. See 57 FR 55620. The NOX Supplement explains 
that the CAA section 182(f), read in conjunction with section 
182(a)(2)(C) and other New Source Review (NSR) related provisions in 
section 182, require state NSR plans to apply to major stationary 
sources of NOX, the same requirements that govern major 
stationary sources of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas and in 
other areas located in OTR. Section182(a)(2)(C) requires States to 
adopt and submit revised NSR regulations for all ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as marginal or above.
    In November 2005, the EPA published the final rule that discusses 
the RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and outlined 
the SIP requirements and deadlines for various areas designated as 
moderate nonattainment. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) (the 
``Phase 2 Rule'').
    On August 1, 2007, the NJDEP finalized RACT revisions to its SIP to 
address the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the EPA approved on May 15, 2009. 
See ``RACT for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and other Associated SIP 
Revisions for the Fine Particulate Matter, Regional Haze, and Transport 
of Air Pollution,'' available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/sip/8-hrRACT-Final.pdf and see 74 FR 22837. The NJDEP, taking a more 
stringent approach, believes that significantly higher costs are 
warranted and should be considered reasonable with respect to available 
technology than were discussed in the Phase 2 Rule. Although no dollar 
amount is suggested, the NJDEP identifies five considerations it plans 
to apply to sources when determining RACT:
    (1) Past New Jersey costs for retrofitting a given control;
    (2) Average RACT cost (dollars per tons reduced) for a control 
technology and maximum RACT cost. Once a reasonable number of sources 
in a source category achieve a lower emission level, other sources 
should do the same;
    (3) The seriousness of the Region's ozone air quality exceedance. 
For nonattainment areas with higher ozone levels, higher costs for 
controls are reasonable;
    (4) The seriousness of the need to reduce transported air 
pollution. As an OTR state, higher costs for RACT are justified; and
    (5) The NJDEP plan for addressing economic feasibility in RACT 
rules.
    The NJDEP's intent is to specify RACT at the lowest emission limit 
that a reasonable number of similar facilities had already successfully 
implemented for each source category.

[[Page 10460]]

II. The EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's Submittals

Continue To Operate Under Existing NOX Control Plan

     N.J.A.C. 19.13(a)(3) sets forth requirements for facilities that 
wish to continue to operate under existing NOX control plans 
that were approved prior to May 1, 2005. The regulation requires such 
facilities to submit updated proposed NOX control plans to 
NJDEP for review. Gerdau Ameristeel originally submitted an FSEL 
NOX control plan for a BRF (old BRF) at the Sayreville 
Facility to NJDEP in 1995. In 2004, the facility submitted to NJDEP a 
proposed FSEL NOX control plan for a replacement BRF; the 
new unit was designed with 64 ultra-low NOX burners. On 
March 15, 2005, the NJDEP approved the NOX control plan by 
authorizing Gerdau Ameristeel to replace the old BRF with the ultra-low 
NOX burners.
    On October 4, 2016, the Gerdau Ameristeel submitted an updated 
proposed NOX control plan to NJDEP requesting to continue to 
operate the March 15, 2005 NOX control plan for the 
Sayreville BRF that has 64 ultra-low NOX burners and maximum 
allowable NOX emission rate of 58.9 tons per year (TPY). On 
March 20, 2018, the NJDEP submitted to the EPA a proposal to allow the 
continued use of the control options as outlined in the State approved 
Gerdau Ameristeel March 15, 2005 NOX control plan.
    The Sayreville BRF has a heat input rating of 172.8 million British 
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) and is permitted under the facility's 
CAA Title V operating permit (i.e., PI 18052, BOP 150001) for no more 
than 0.1 MMBTU/hr of NOX as a major source with FSEL not to 
exceed 17.3 pounds NOX per hour and 58.9 tons NOX 
per year. The Sayreville Facility is required to conduct annual 
emission testing to demonstrate compliance with 0.1 lb/MMBtu 
NOX emission rate limit. The EPA has determined that the 
Sayreville BRF identified in the SIP revision are consistent with New 
Jersey's NOX RACT regulation and the EPA's guidance.

RACT Analysis

    The RACT analysis conducted by Gerdau Ameristeel found eight 
control technologies suitable for a typical BRF: (1) Ultra-low 
NOX burners currently in use at the facility, (2) low excess 
air currently in use at the facility, (3) selective catalytic reduction 
(SCR), (4) Low NOX burners, (5) Flue gas recirculation or 
reduction of air preheat temperature, (6) Burners out of service, (7) 
Selective non-catalytic reduction, and (8) Non-selective catalytic 
reduction. Under the regulations, the first three are technologically 
feasible, but the latter four were not.
    Although the SCR was determined to be technologically feasible, the 
Sayreville Facility has major concerns with its implementation. First, 
the facility would need to install an evaporative cooler to control the 
temperature of the exiting flu gas for this technology to be effective. 
Second, the SCR catalyst could become damaged by the BRF process. The 
exhaust gas from the BRF contains concentrations of particulate matter, 
including metals, which would cause catalyst plugging and masking. The 
potential for damage cannot be determined with certainty because the 
Sayreville Facility does not currently have SCR units installed on any 
BRF that control NOX to compare potential catalyst 
poisoning. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge no BRFs in the United 
States currently employs SCR units.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA's RACT/BACT/LEAR Clearinghouse (RBLC), https://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Home.Home⟨=en, demonstrates 
that 9 U.S. facilities operate a reheat furnace, including billet 
reheat furnace, and have NOX emissions. All 9 facilities 
have pollution prevention add-on control technologies ultra-low or 
low NOX burners and none are equipped with SCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost analysis was conducted for those control technologies found to 
be technologically feasible. Since the ultra-low NOX burners 
and the low excess air control technologies are currently in use on the 
facility's BRF, Gerdau Ameristeel conducted the cost effectiveness 
study only for the SCR. The facility concludes that to purchase and 
install the SCR will cost $4,279,380 and the annual operating cost 
would be $1,164,379 based on a 20-year useful life of the BRF. The cost 
effectiveness is based on the annual cost of operating SCR and the 
amount of NOX that would be removed. The amount 
NOX that would be removed from the SCR is based on 90% (0.9) 
control efficiency not to exceed the CAA Title V operating permit limit 
of 58.9 NOX TPY (58.9 TPY x 0.9 = 53 TPY). Therefore, the 
SCR would result in 53 TPY NOX removed making the cost 
effectiveness to be $21,965 per ton NOX removed ($1,164,379 
/ 53 = $21,965), which is above the federal RACT guidance. Under EPA 
guidance, states should consider in their RACT determinations 
technologies that achieve 30-50 percent reduction within a cost range 
of $160-$1,300 per ton of NOX removed. See 70 FR 71652.
    The SCR control technology was found not to be RACT due to 
technological and economical infeasibility under federal and state RACT 
criteria.

III. Proposed Action

    Gerdau Ameristeel reached agreement with the NJDEP to continue to 
operate under the approved March 15, 2005 NOX control plan 
that allowed the Sayreville BRF to operate using 64 ultra-low 
NOX burners. The Sayreville Facility underwent a change in 
ownership to the Commercial Metals Company without changing its 
production process or associated equipment. Moreover, the Sayreville 
Facility met the regulatory requirements under N.J.A.C. 19.13(a)(3) to 
submit and obtain NJDEP approval for an updated proposed NOX 
control plan requesting to continue to operate under their 2005 
NOX control plan approved prior to May 1, 2005. The updated 
NOX control plan demonstrates that the only technically 
feasible control technology currently not in use on the Sayreville BRF 
is the SCR option and concludes that it is not RACT. Therefore, the EPA 
proposes to approve the NJDEP SIP revisions for 8-hour ozone for 
Commercial Metals Company continuing to operate under the 2005 
NOX Control Plan.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, we are proposing to include regulatory text in an 
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by 
reference the provisions described above in Section III. Proposed 
Action.
    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov 
and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866 (see the ADDRESSES section of 
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

[[Page 10461]]

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved 
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Intergovernmental Relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2019-04781 Filed 3-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


