[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28990-28991]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0301]

Ultra High Throughput Sequencing for Clinical Diagnostic
Applications--Approaches To Assess Analytical Validity; Public Meeting;
Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
public meeting entitled ``Ultra High Throughput Sequencing for Clinical
Diagnostic Applications--Approaches To Assess Analytical Validity.''
The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss challenges in assessing
analytical performance for ultra high throughput genomic sequencing-
based clinical applications.
    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on June 23, 2011,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 1503 (the Great Room),
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. For parking and security information,
please visit the following Web site: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm. The public meeting will also be available to be viewed
online via Web cast.
    Contact Person: Zivana Tezak, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 5668, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: If you wish to
attend or view the Web cast of the public meeting, you must register
online at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm (select the appropriate meeting from
the list).
    Provide complete contact information for each attendee, including
name, title, affiliation, e-mail, and telephone number. Registration
requests should be received by June 9, 2011.
    If you wish to make an oral presentation during the open comment
session at the meeting, you must indicate this at the time of
registration. FDA has included general discussion topics for comment in
section III of this document, Topics for Input. You should also
identify which discussion topic you wish to address in your
presentation. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to speak.
Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to
consolidate or coordinate their presentations and to request time for a
joint presentation. FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to
each presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is
scheduled to begin.
    Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served
basis. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited.
FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based
on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they
have been accepted. Onsite registration on the day of the public
meeting will be provided on a space-available basis beginning at 7 a.m.
Non-U.S. citizens are subject to additional security screening, and
they should register as soon as possible.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4321,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    Streaming Web Cast of the Public Meeting: There will be a
registration process for the Web cast, and it will be on a first-come,
first-served basis (maximum capacity: 900). If you have never attended
a Connect Pro meeting before, test your connection at: https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get
a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit: http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site
addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.)
    Comments: FDA is holding this public meeting to discuss a number of
questions regarding appropriate approaches to assess analytical
validity of ultra high throughput sequencing for clinical diagnostic
applications. The deadline for submitting comments to be presented at
this public meeting is June 9, 2011.
    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons
may submit either electronic or written comments on any discussion
topic(s) to the open docket. The deadline for submitting comments to
the docket is July 23, 2011. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. In addition, if responding to specific
topics as outlined in section III of this document, please identify the
topic you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ultra high throughput genomic sequencing technologies are currently
extensively used in research and are entering clinical diagnostic use;
they are expected to bring transformative public health applications.
In order to effectively utilize new sequencing technologies for
clinical applications, appropriate evaluation tools (e.g., standards,
well established criteria) are needed to determine the accuracy of the
results. Any regulatory strategy for clinical tests based on ultra high
throughput genomic sequencing will benefit from novel and
scientifically agreed-upon approaches to analytical validation. FDA is
holding this public meeting to start discussion on approaches that can
provide the most useful information in establishing safety and
effectiveness of genomic sequencing technologies when used clinically.
    This public meeting seeks input from academia, Government,
industry, and other stakeholders on validation methodologies,
materials, and bioinformatics approaches needed to address unique
analytical validation requirements of ultra high throughput sequencing
based molecular diagnostics and confirm the sequencing quality and the
accuracy of the tests. The ultimate goal is to accelerate and support
the introduction of safe and effective innovative diagnostics in public
health applications.

II. Meeting Overview

    The public meeting will consist of presentations providing
background on

current and anticipated uses for sequencing technologies, an open
public comment session, and roundtable discussions on selected topics.
(See section III of this document.) The roundtable participants will
not be asked to develop consensus opinions during the discussion, but
rather to provide their individual perspectives. Others in attendance
at the public meeting will have an opportunity to listen to the
roundtable discussion.
    Additional information, including a meeting agenda, will be
available on the Internet., immediately after publication of this
Federal Register notice. This information will be placed on file in the
public docket (docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document), which is available at http://www.regulations.gov. This
information will also be available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm (select the
appropriate meeting from the list).

III. Topics for Input

    FDA seeks input on the following issues:
    1. Technical performance:
     Acceptance criteria,
     Validation samples/panels,
     Comparator/analytical standard.
    2. Bioinformatics:
     Data format,
     Data analysis.

IV. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information, 12420 Parklawn
Dr., rm. 1050, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: May 13, 2011.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-12310 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74923-74925]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25992]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0450; FRL-9953-94-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Significant Monitoring
Concentration for Fine Particulates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two
revisions to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) that revise
the Louisiana Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
program to establish the significant monitoring concentration (SMC) for
fine particles (PM2.5) at a zero microgram per cubic meter
(0 [mu]g/m\3\) threshold level consistent with federal permitting
requirements. The EPA is approving this action under section 110 and
part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 27, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by November
28, 2016. If the EPA receives such comment, the EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0450, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. 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, please contact Adina Wiley, (214) 665-
2115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

A. CAA and SIPs

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to the
EPA a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. These ambient standards currently address six
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP
protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point
of origin through air pollution regulations and control strategies. The
EPA approved SIP regulations and control strategies are federally
enforceable.

B. Prior Federal Action

    Under Section 165(a) of the CAA, a major source may not commence
construction unless the source has been issued a permit and has
satisfied certain requirements. Among those requirements, the permit
applicant must demonstrate that emissions from construction or
operation of the facility will not cause, or contribute to, air
pollution in excess of any increment, NAAQS, or any other applicable
emission standard of standard of performance. This statutory
requirement has been incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR
51.166(k)(1). Moreover, to support this analysis, PSD permit
applications must be supported by air quality monitoring data
representing air quality in the area affected by the proposed source
for the 1-year period preceding receipt of the application. This
statutory requirement has been incorporated into federal regulations at
40 CFR 51.166(m)(ii)-(iv).
    In 2010, the EPA promulgated regulations for SIPs concerning PSD
permitting for PM2.5 which included two voluntary screening
tools: S ignificant impact levels (SILs) and SMC. 75 FR 64864 (October
20, 2010). The SILs are screening tools that states and local
permitting authorities with PSD SIPs apply in the issuance of a PSD
permit to demonstrate that the proposed source's allowable emissions
will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or increment.
The SMC is a screening technique that has been used to exempt sources
from the requirement in the CAA to collect preconstruction monitoring
data for up to 1 year before submitting a permit application in order
to help determine existing ambient air quality. 78 FR 73699 (December
9, 2013).
    Sierra Club filed a petition for review of the PSD regulations
containing the PM2.5 SILs and SMC with the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court). On
January 22, 2013, the Court issued an opinion granting a request from
the EPA to vacate and remand to the EPA portions of the October 20,
2010, PSD regulations establishing the PM2.5 SIL and further
vacating the portions of the PSD regulations establishing a
PM2.5 SMC. See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013).
    In response to the Court's decision, the EPA amended its
regulations to remove the affected PM2.5 SIL regulations
from the federal regulations and to replace the existing
PM2.5 SMC value with a ``zero'' threshold. 78 FR 73698
(December 9, 2013). In that rulemaking, the EPA removed the regulatory
text related to the affected PM2.5 SILs at sections
51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). Although the Court vacated the
PM2.5 SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the EPA did not remove the affected regulatory text,
but instead revised the concentration for the PM2.5 SMC
listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero
micrograms per cubic meter (0 [micro]g/m\3\). Because 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(iii) establish an exemption
from air monitoring requirements for any pollutant ``not listed in
paragraph (i)(5)(i),'' the EPA explained that it would not be
appropriate to remove the reference to PM2.5 in paragraph
(i)(5)(i). Were the EPA to completely remove PM2.5 from the
list of pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)
of the PSD regulations, PM2.5 would no longer be a listed
pollutant and the paragraph (iii)

provision could be interpreted as giving reviewing authorities the
discretion to exempt permit applicants from the requirement to conduct
monitoring for PM2.5, in contravention of the Court's
decision and the CAA. Instead, the EPA revised the concentration listed
in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms
per cubic meter (0 [micro]g/m\3\). This means that there is no air
quality impact level below which a reviewing authority has the
discretion to exempt a source from the PM2.5 monitoring
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(m).

C. Louisiana's Submittals

    On February 27, 2013, Louisiana submitted revisions to its PSD SIP
at LAC 33:III.509 that adopted provisions substantively identical to
the EPA PSD SIP's requirement for PM2.5 PSD SMC. 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i). The February 27, 2013, submittal included other
revisions to the Louisiana SIP that have been separately approved by
the EPA on November 5, 2015. See 80 FR 68451. On July 22, 2016,
Louisiana submitted revisions to its PSD SIP at LAC 33:III.509 to
revise the previously adopted and submitted PM2.5 SMC at LAC
33:III.509(I)(5)(a). Louisiana has not adopted or submitted provisions
addressing the PM2.5 SIL.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Our analysis, available in our Technical Support Document (TSD) in
the rulemaking docket, finds that the State of Louisiana adopted and
submitted on February 27, 2013, revisions to the Louisiana SIP that
were substantively consistent with the voluntary exemptions from PSD
monitoring at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i) promulgated on October 20, 2010.
Subsequent to the submittal of these provisions, the Court vacated and
remanded these provisions to the EPA. On December 9, 2013, we
promulgated revisions to the PSD SIP rules that replaced the existing
PM2.5 SMC value with a zero micrograms per cubic meter (0
[micro]g/m\3\) threshold level at 40 CFR 51.166.
    To address the EPA's December 9, 2013, rulemaking, the State of
Louisiana submitted further revisions to the Louisiana PSD program on
July 22, 2016, setting the PM2.5 SMC to zero; effectively
removing any exemption from pre- and post-construction monitoring under
the Louisiana PSD SIP.
    Our evaluation of the Louisiana PSD program finds that the adoption
and revision of the PSD PM2.5 SMC at a zero threshold value
is consistent with federal PSD permitting provisions for PSD SMCs. We
further find that the Louisiana PSD program does not provide an
exemption from the PSD pre- and post-construction monitoring
requirements for emissions of PM2.5 that are SIP-approved at
LAC 33:III.509(M) as consistent with federal PSD permitting provisions.

III. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Louisiana PSD program into the
Louisiana SIP that establish the PSD PM2.5 SMC and set the
SMC to zero micrograms per cubic meter (0 [micro]g/m\3\) consistent
with federal PSD permitting requirements and the CAA. Specifically, the
EPA is approving the following revisions to the Louisiana PSD SIP:
     New provisions at LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a) adopted on
December 20, 2012 and submitted on February 27, 2013, establishing the
PM2.5 SMC;
     Revisions to LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a), adopted on March 20,
2016 and submitted on July 22, 2016 setting the PM2.5 SMC to
0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on December 27, 2016
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by
November 28, 2016. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 27, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it 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 section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 21, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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.

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. In Sec.  52.970(c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Louisiana
Regulations in the Louisiana SIP'' is amended by revising the entry for
Section 509 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                             EPA-Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   State approval
        State citation            Title/subject         date          EPA approval date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Chapter 5--Permit Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 509...................  Prevention of          03/20/2016  10/28/2016, [Insert     SIP does not include
                                 Significant                        Federal Register        provisions for
                                 Deterioration.                     citation].              permitting of GHGs
                                                                                as effective on 04/
                                                                                20/2011 at LAC
                                                                                33:III.509(B)
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``carbon dioxide
                                                                                equivalent
                                                                                emissions'',
                                                                                ``greenhouse
                                                                                gases'', ``major
                                                                                stationary source'',
                                                                                and ``significant''.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25992 Filed 10-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


To: pvoytek@ crosslink. net cc: Michel Stevens/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA. Rob Dewoskln/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, John Schaeffer/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Daver Williams/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA. Frank Kover/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Paul Campanella/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Murphy. Detrdre@ EPAMAlL. EPA. GOV Subject: RIP TCE tech consult mtg Peter.

RE: The TCE Program Review Technical Consult meeting. Looks like Tuesday, August 13th works best for us... with an afternoon start time of 1 or 1: 30 PM. Meeting to be in RTP at the new NCEA facility, We will provide a meeting room.

Are you folks Ok with this date and time slot?

What kind of presentation media will you need: if any?

Richard W. Leukroth, Jr. Environmental Scientist / Toxrcologist Chemical Control Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Stop 7405; Room 4328 S 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8167 FAX: 202 564 4765 E m a i l : leukroth. rich@ epa. gov


From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, February 3, 2020 4:16 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: August 2019 QA/QC Review of Enclosure 1 Information for EPA 2016 ICR for selected Coke Manufacturing facilities

Dr Jones,

Attached are the AK Steel Middletown Works and Mountain State Carbon enclosure 1 corrected files.  Below are notes on corrections made:

Middletown Works
-Changes made to "Part III Q21" tab
-Changes made to "Part VII APCME Q99" tab

Mountain State Carbon
-Changes made to "Part III Q21" tab
-Changes made to "Part VI PCC Q74-76" tab

Let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks!

Katie Kistler
Environmental Manager of Air Programs
AK Steel Corporate Office
513-425-2972 Phone
513-519-9822 Cell

<< AKS Review 2.03.20 AKS-WV-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019.xlsx >>
<< AKS Review 2.03.20 AKS-OH-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019.xlsx >>

From:        "Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:        "Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"GABRIELLE RAYMOND"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:        08/06/2019 03:22 PM
Subject:        August 2019 QA/QC Review of Enclosure 1 Information for EPA 2016 ICR for selected Coke Manufacturing facilities

Hello - You have been identified as a reviewer for your company's information supplied to EPA for the 2016 Information Collection Request (ICR). If you are not correct person, please forward to the current employee responsible for this review.

Thank you again for your efforts in providing your facility information. Now is the time to correct, update, or add to your responses from 2016 for Enclosure 1. Attached is your facility's information in one Excel file (and combined file for Katie) and your facility's diagrams in a "zipped" file.

Please add a duplicate column with corrected information and any comments. Highlight the heading in the duplicate column YELLOW and use red font, as in the example in the next worksheet. If there are no changes, you do not need to do anything. See example corrections in the next worksheet called "Example-Edits." We will assume any data without a comment is correct for your facility in 2016 or the year indicated in the question.

Keep in mind we are NOT asking you to update your responses to 2019, but only to correct or supply information related to your 2016 facility and 2016 test data (if applicable). However, you may voluntarily provide any additional information for 2019, if you so choose, and label accordingly. Please make sure you indicate the year of the additional information with any new information.

Note clarification for Part IV, Q25 and Q27: This pertains to ALL pollution control equipment (for ALL air pollution, including both air toxics AND criteria pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc.)

If you have any questions, please first send an email to both Gabrielle Raymond,  the RTI Contractor, and me at the email addresses below. If we need to speak on the phone, we can follow-up with a call, but we need an email first to ensure contact.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Note that we will be summarizing CBI data in Enclosure 1 separately at some not yet determined point in the future. However, we will be sending you your Enclosure 2 data soon, hopefully by mid to end of August. The review of Enclosure 1 likely will not take that long for most of the Coke facilities, so I advise you to review Enclosure 1 soon so that you can focus on Enclosure 2 when it arrives.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Gr (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


EPA Questions Asked in Consultation for the 6(a)(2) ICR:

Name __Chandrika Moudgal___________________, Company_The Clorox
Company_______

Date_____2-21-2014_________________, e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(1)	Publicly Available Data

Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or
already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency? NO

If yes, where can you find the data?  (Does your answer indicate a true
duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are
available, but that they don’t meet our data needs very well?)

(2)	 Frequency of Collection

Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce
the same outcome? YES

(3)	Clarity of Instructions

a)	The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data
so that the Agency can utilize them.

Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear
what you are required to do and how to submit such data?  If not, what
suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions? YES, for the most
part. If the Agency is considering an electronic submission system, more
clarity around the timing and ease of electronic submission will be
beneficial. Additionally, if the Agency may consider uploading of
prefilled forms into the electronic system to avoid duplicated work
streams, especially since a lot of the incident data are collected by
Poison Control Centers.

Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?  YES

Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult
to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to
complete? To some extent, YES. A clear and logical format will enable
consistent reporting each time which may also benefit the Agency from a
review perspective.

Regarding the Voluntary Incident Reporting Forms, do you use them?  Are
they clear, logical, and easy to complete? Unable to provide a response
since I am not familiar with this voluntary reporting form.

(4)	Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make
available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based
submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so.
The U.S. E.P.A. Office of Pesticide Programs has a program for
electronic study submissions, and is currently developing plans for
systems to support electronic incident reporting.  The Agency is also
concerned to protect FIFRA CBI as well as personal information.

What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records
and data submissions?  Current electronic reporting alternatives include
the use of web forms/XML based submissions via the Agency’s Internet
site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc.
Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting?  Are you
keeping your records electronically?  If yes, in what format? Yes,
keeping electronic records in PDF format.

Would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette, CD, or DVD, or via
web rather than on paper?  Would prefer a web based submission

What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden
reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information? Can
compile the incident data and submit the same per Agency’s requirement
using a single button push using a web based system.

Burden and Costs

Are the labor rates accurate? YES

The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this
activity.  Is that correct? NO

Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden
hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR,
e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for
conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates
accurate?  YES;  If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of
how you arrived at your estimates.

Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been
missed? Contractual services costs don’t seem have been accounted for.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


                          Technical Support Document
           NOx RACT Source Specific SIP Revision State of New Jersey
                                      for
             Commercial Metals Company formerly Gerdau Ameristeel
                             Sayreville, New Jersey

 INTRODUCTION

   Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) contains many requirements for areas that have not attained the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants, one of which is ground level ozone. The EPA published guidance on April 16, 1992, General Preamble to Title I, to assist states regarding interpretations of various Title I provisions. On November 25, 1992 the EPA published a supplement to the General Preamble to Title I to clarify requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOx), referred to as the NOx Supplement. See 57 FR 55620. The NOx Supplement is important to mention because the CAA §182, Plan Submission Requirements, for the most part specifies volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx for serious, severe and extreme nonattainment, and although intended, CAA section 182 does not express NOx for marginal and moderate nonattainment areas. The state of New Jersey is designated marginal and moderate nonattainment and is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

   This TSD outlines the state of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's (NJDEP's) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the 8-hour ozone SIP for NOx. Specifically, the State seeking EPA's approval to continue to operate under the facility's 2005 facility specific emission limit (FSEL) for controlling NOx emissions with ultra-low NOx burners on the 172.8 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) natural gas fired billet reheat furnace (BRF). The affected source will not increase hourly NOx emissions, therefore, the NAAQS for ground level ozone is protected.
   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.
II.	CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOx OZONE AND RACT

A.	Federal NOx Ozone Requirements

Ground level ozone is created by chemical reactions between NOx and VOCs when pollutants emitted by sources chemically react in the presence of sunlight. Nonattainment for ground level ozone is defined as an area that is not meeting (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the primary or secondary NAAQS for 8-hour ozone. Nonattainment areas are classified as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. The state of New Jersey is nonattainment for ozone comprised of two multi-state 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas; the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE) area is currently designated as a marginal nonattainment area, and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) area is currently designated as a moderate nonattainment area. Furthermore, the state of New Jersey is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) .

   The CAA section 182, Plan Submissions and Requirements, requires states with nonattainment areas to include in their SIPs, among other things, provisions to require the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT). However, section 182(f) does not fully clarify NOx requirements for marginal and moderate nonattainment as it explicitly speaks of NOx requirements only for serious, severe and extreme nonattainment (i.e., 182(c), (d), and (e) respectively). Also, 182(f) outlines requirements that do not apply to the OTR; not where they do apply. 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 addition, the CAA section 184(a), Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution, Ozone Transport Regions, addresses requirements for nonattainment areas located in the OTR, and the CAA section 176A, Interstate Transport Commissions, set forth the formation and responsibilities for the Ozone Transport Commission, that among other things, the Commission establishes control measures for RACT NOx for major sources located in the OTR.

B.	Federal Ozone Design Values and Standards

A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. 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. This rule became effective on September 16, 1997.  See 62 FR 38856. This rulemaking was based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the 1-hour ozone standard was set in 1979.

   On April 30, 2004, the EPA finalized attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and set design values based on fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged across three consecutive years. This rule became effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23951.

   On November 29, 2005, the EPA finalized rules regarding emissions control and planning obligations applicable to areas designated nonattainment for 1997 8-hour ozone, including RACT measures and attainment demonstrations among other elements. This rule became effective on January 30, 2006.   See 70 FR 71612.

   The EPA has revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard twice since 1997. First, on March 27, 2008, the standard was revised to 0.075 ppm. This rule became effective on May 27, 2008. See 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 2012, the EPA finalized the air quality thresholds that define the classifications assigned to all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This rule became effective on July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088.

   Then, the EPA revised the 1997 8-hour ozone standard again on October 26, 2015, down to 0.070 ppm, but retained the 2008 ozone indicators, design value (i.e., fourth-highest daily maximum, averaged across three consecutive years) and averaging times (eight hours). This rule became effective December 28, 2015. See 80 FR 65292. On March 9, 2018, the EPA finalized the air quality thresholds that define the classifications assigned to all nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This rule became effective on May 8, 2018.  See 83 FR 10376.

C.	Federal RACT Requirements

RACT is defined as the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. All the state of New Jersey is subject to RACT due to nonattainment area designations for the 8-hour ozone standard at 40 CFR 81.331. In addition, the entire state of New Jersey is located within the OTR, which triggers the RACT NOx requirements.

   On November 29, 2005, the EPA published a "Phase 2 Rule" that discusses the RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 70 FR 71612. Among other things, the Phase 2 Rule outlines the SIP requirements and deadlines for various areas designated as moderate nonattainment. The Phase 2 Rule states, in part, that where a RACT SIP is required, SIPs implementing the 8-hour ozone standard generally must ensure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8-hour ozone implementation purposes or, where necessary, through a new RACT determination. Under EPA guidance, States should consider in their RACT determinations technologies that achieve 30 - 50 percent reduction within a cost range of $160 - 1300 per ton of NOx removed. See 70 FR 71652.

D. 	NJ RACT Requirements

The state of New Jersey chose a uniform applicability level for RACT analysis for the entire state based on the New Jersey's previous classification under the 1979 one-hour ozone standard as in severe nonattainment, which resulted in a statewide definition of major sources of NOx and VOC as those emitting 25 tons per year or more of VOC and/or NOx. New Jersey could have chosen to apply, for example, the major source threshold (50 tons per year VOC, 100 tons per year NOx), for areas classified as moderate nonattainment, since one of its areas is currently classified as moderate under the 8-hour standard.  Instead, New Jersey chose to retain the more stringent 1-hour ozone limits statewide (25 tons per year or more of VOC and/or NOx) for RACT analysis purposes. The state of New Jersey's use of 25 tons per year major source threshold for RACT is consistent with the anti-backsliding provisions of the CAA.

   On August 1, 2007, the NJDEP finalized RACT revisions to its SIP to address the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (2007 NJ RACT plan) and on May 15, 2009 the EPA approved it. See 74 FR22837. Most counties in New Jersey were previously classified under the 1979 1-hour ozone standard as severe nonattainment (i.e., major source defined as 25 TPY NOx), and the remaining counties were subject to RACT as part of the OTR. In comparison, under the 1997 8-hour standard most of New Jersey was classified as moderate (i.e., major source defined as 100 TPY NOx). Leading up to 2007, the NJDEP worked collaboratively with stakeholders to conduct a RACT analysis of statewide NOx source operations and pieces of equipment that have the potential to emit 25 TPY because the State was interested in finding methods to go beyond the 1997 federal requirements. The result was that the NJDEP choose to implement more stringent RACT requirements based on the 1979 1-hour severe nonattainment. The use of 25 TPY for RACT is also consistent with the anti-backsliding provisions of the CAA.

   The more stringent RACT requirements are outlined in the 2007 NJ RACT plan, at pages 18-21, as the following:
 past New Jersey costs for retrofitting a given control;
 average RACT cost (dollars per tons reduced) for a control technology and maximum RACT cost. The idea is that once a reasonable number of sources in a source category achieve a lower emission level, other sources should do the same;
 the seriousness of the Region's ozone air quality exceedance. For nonattainment areas with higher ozone levels higher cost for controls are reasonable;
 the seriousness of the need to reduce transported air pollution. As an OTR state, higher costs for RACT are justified; and
 the NJDEP plan for addressing economic feasibility in RACT rules. The NJDEP intends to specify RACT at the lowest emission limit that a reasonable number of similar industries had already successfully implemented for each source category

   Also, it is not uncommon for states to set RACT thresholds above the federal RACT levels.  For example, the current New York RACT threshold is $3,000 per ton NOx reduced per year.  See New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DAR-20 Economical and Technical Analysis for RACT (August 8, 2013), available at https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/91851.html

   The next step for the State was to codify in a rule by defining what is considered a major source of NOx, thus requiring use of RACT. On September 2, 2010 the EPA approved the NJDEP revised SIP to incorporate several amendments to the New Jersey Administrative Code Title 7, Chapter 27, one of which is Subchapter 19, "Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen" (N.J.A.C. 7:27-19). See FR 45483. As such, Subchapter 19.2 defines 14 sources as being major. Essentially 13 of the major sources derive from the stakeholder RACT study for sources with potential to emit 25 TPY NOx and thus have strictly defined maximum allowable emission rates. The fourteenth category is reserved for all other source operations or pieces of equipment that exceed 10 TPY NOx, such as the billet reheat furnace (BRF).

III.	EPA'S ANALYSIS OF STATE SUBMITTAL

 Gerdau Ameristeel, under new ownership as Commercial Metals Company, 1 N Crossman Road, Sayreville, Middlesex County, NJ 08872, Program Interest Number 18052, Activity Number BOP 150001

In a letter dated March 20, 2018 from Debbie Mans, Deputy Commissioner NJDEP, to Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 2, the NJDEP requesting EPA's approval of a revision to the New Jersey SIP for 8-hour ozone. The SIP revision was submitted to EPA to evaluate Gerdau Ameristeel's request to continue to use the control options as outlined in the March 15, 2005 NOx control plan for maximum allowable NOx emission rate 58.9 TPY from the billet reheat furnace.

 EPA's Evaluation

OVERVIEW

The EPA reviewed Gerdau Ameristeel application and the NJDEP's source specific SIP revision for completeness and approvability and consulted with the State. Documents that were provided to EPA for review include the following:
 March 20, 2018, letter from NJDEP to EPA regarding SIP revision
 October 4, 2016, application package from Gerdau Ameristeel
 SIP completeness checklist
 Facility specific emission limit completeness plan for program interest number 18052, activity number BOP 150001, emission unit U2 (billet reheat furnace)
 Response to comments (no comments were received)
 Statement of basis
 Copy of public notice and opportunity for public hearing
 Copy of affidavit of publication of public notice
 Copy of N.J.A.C. 7:27-19 amended January 16, 2018

   The Sayreville BRF is used to raise the temperature of steel billets to the required level for hot rolling. This is a walking hearth furnace that provides an evenly heated product (steel billets) by applying heat from above. The facility currently has 64 roof mounted ultra-low NOx burners. A walking hearth furnace is predominately suited for small to medium size steel mills (the Sayreville facility is a mini steel mill). Due to the configuration of heat transfer mechanism only thinner steel can achieve proper reheating in a walking hearth furnace. This BRF creates 155-millimeter square billets cut to length and is designed to reheat the billets to 2100F that allow the billets to be reformed into reinforcing bars (e.g., "rebar" used in the construction industry).

   Subchapter N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13, "Alternative and facility specific NOx emission limits", gives legal authority to the State to approve FSEL for maximum allowable NOx emission rates and alternative emission limits (AEL) through mechanism of a NOx control plan submitted by a requesting facility. Subsection 19.13(a)(3) allows facilities that wish to continue to operate under an existing NOx control plan that was approved prior to May 1, 2005 to make the request by submitting an updated proposed NOx control plan. Gerdau Ameristeel made a request and was approved by the State prior to May 1, 2005. The facility originally submitted a FSEL NOx control plan for their old BRF to NJDEP in 1995, then in 2004 submitted to NJDEP a proposed FSEL NOx control plan for a replacement BRF designed with 64 ultra-low NOx burners. On March 15, 2005, the NJDEP authorized Gerdau Ameristeel to replace their BRF with ultra-low NOx burners.

   The current Sayreville BRF has a heat input rating of 172.8 MMBTU/hr and is permitted under the facility's Clean Air Act Title V operating permit (i.e., PI 18052, BOP 150001) for no more than 0.1 MMBTU/hr of NOx, and as a major source with FSEL not to exceed 17.3 pounds NOx per hour and 58.9 tons NOx per year. The facility is required to conduct annual emission testing to demonstrate compliance with 0.1 lb/MMBtu NOx emission rate limit.

RACT Technologically Feasible

RACT requires consideration for feasibility of technology for control device. On October 4, 2016 Gerdau Ameristeel submitted an updated proposed facility specific NOx control plan that reviews eight possible control technologies for a typical billet reheat furnace. Three were found to be technologically feasible for the Sayreville BRF, which are, ultra-low NOx burner, low excess air, and selective catalytic reduction. As required under section N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.13(d)3, a cost analysis must be conducted for technologically feasible control options.

   The table below summarizes the eight control options were identified by the facility for a typical BRF:

                              Technically Feasible
Ultra-low NOx burners  -  currently in use at the Sayreville BRF. Reduces the flame temperature and incorporates the latest advancements in burner technology reducing even greater thermal NOx

Low excess air  -  currently in use at the Sayreville BRF. Reduces the amount of air into the burner which causes lower oxygen and nitrogen concentrations to be present in the local flame reducing thermal and fuel NOx

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)  -  results of cost analysis outlined in this TSD. Optimum NOx reduction occurs at temperatures 600-800F and 470-510F depending on the catalyst used (vanadia-titania and platinum respectively). Outside these temperature ranges unreacted ammonia emissions, known as ammonia slip, can occur. The Sayreville BRF employs hot charging with temperatures of 1050F, a method where hot billets from cast are directly sent to the reheat furnace before they have time to cool down to minimize heat loss, and less natural gas consumption, prior to the billet rolling process. The facility also employs cold charging with maximum temperatures of 950F. The SCR is technologically feasible; however, Gerdau Ameristeel would need to install an evaporative cooler for the SCR to be effective. Another major concern is SCR catalyst poisoning from BRF process. There are no SCR installed on BRF that control NOx to compare potential catalyst poisoning. Lastly, there are no BRFs employing SCRs in the United States.
                            Not Technically Feasible
Low NOx burners  -  lower the flame temperature thereby reducing the amount of thermal NOx created

Flue gas recirculation or reduction of air preheat temperature  -  the design of the existing burners makes this option technologically infeasible

Burners out of service  -  would lead to increased NOx for the remaining burners in service and would create scale defects in the product steel billets therefore is technologically infeasible

Selective non-catalytic reduction  -  the Sayreville BRF has a wide variability of gas stream flow rate, temperature and pollutant concentrations making this option to result in ammonia slip or reduced efficiency and SNCR is a post combustion technology that would need to be installed between the BRF and existing recuperator (recovers the waste heat), therefore SNCR is impactable and/or too costly and is therefore technologically infeasible

Non-selective catalytic reduction  -  requires very low oxygen and high temperatures in the exhaust gas that have not completed combustion and is technologically infeasible for the Sayreville BRF

RACT Economically Feasible

For any control device found to be technology feasible, the facility should demonstrate cost effectiveness to help determine if control is a RACT. If the cost effectiveness is higher than what is expected by the federal or state regulation, the technologically feasible control is deemed too costly to implement and is not RACT. In this case, the ultra-low NOx burner and low excess air control device are already in use on the Sayreville BRF. Therefore, the facility is required to conduct a cost analysis on the technologically feasible control device not currently in use which was determined to be the selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The facility must demonstrate that NOx reductions from the SCR are cost effective to be considered RACT for the Sayreville BRF.

   Gerdau Ameristeel conducted the cost analysis for installing and operating the SCR at the Sayreville BRF using the cost information from their 2004 NOx RACT control plan adjusted for inflation for 2016 dollars. The facility estimated that to purchase and install the SCR is $4,279,380 and the annual operating cost is $1,164,379 (based on a 20-year useful life of the Sayreville 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 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). Since $21,965 per NOx removed is above the federal RACT and no other BRF in the U.S. has SCR control technology to compare, the SCR is not cost effective.

 EPA's Determination

The EPA has determined that Gerdau Ameristeel, now under new ownership as Commercial Metals Company, to continue to operate under their 2005 facility specific maximum allowable emission limits for controlling nitrogen oxides emissions on the 172.8 MMBtu/hr natural gas fired billet reheat furnace equipped with ultra-low NOx burners and low excess air technologies is fully approvable. The N.J.A.C. 19.13(a)(3) allows facilities that wish to continue to operate under an existing NOx control plan that was approved prior to May 1, 2005 to make the request by submitting an updated proposed NOx control plan. Gerdau Ameristeel made a request and was approved by the State prior to May 1, 2005. The facility specific emission limit is incorporated into the CAA Title V operating permit at 58.9 TPY.

Note this Technical Support Document (TSD) summarizes the State submission and EPA/State consultations.  The related correspondence and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision are available for inspection and review at the EPA regional office located at 290 Broadway, floor 25, NY, N Y and the NJDEP state office.