Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 52604-52623 [2011-21567]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52604
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this
proposed rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
Dated: July 22, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01,
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment because it
simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for
drawbridges. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 117.253
Anacostia River.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) * * *
(iv) At all other times, if at least 48
hours of notice is given to the controller
at the Benning Yard Office.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–21457 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0675, FRL–9455–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Kansas
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Kansas on November 9, 2009, that
addresses Regional Haze for the first
implementation period. In so doing,
EPA is proposing to determine that the
plan submitted by Kansas satisfies the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act), for states to prevent any future
and remedy any existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air
pollutants located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant
to those provisions of the CAA that
obligate the Agency to take action on
submittals of SIPs. You may submit
written comments on this proposed rule
as per the instructions given under the
section Instructions for Comment
Submittal.
Written comments must be
received via the methods given in the
Instructions for Comment section on or
before September 22, 2011.
DATES:
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
PO 00000
2. Revise § 117.253(b)(1) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Instructions for Comment
Submittal: Submit your comments,
which must be identified by Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0675, by one
of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail:
Wolfersberger.Chris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551–7844 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
4. Mail: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
5. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101;
attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://www.
regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://www.
regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://
www.regulations.gov web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://www.regulations.
gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning and Development
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101 or by telephone at (913)
551–7864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed
action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for regional
haze SIPs?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze
Rule
B. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
E. Reasonable Progress Goals
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the regional
haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
B. Remand of the CAIR
C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas’s
Submittal
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State of
Kansas’ submittal?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze
Rule
B. Affected Class I Areas
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52605
D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
1. Monitoring Strategy
2. Emissions Inventory
3. Reporting Requirements
4. SIP Revision Schedule
F. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
G. Best Available Retrofit Technology
1. BART Eligible Sources
2. BART Subject Sources
3. BART Determinations
H. Long Term Strategy
1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing
Air Pollution Programs
2. Measures to Mitigate Construction
Activities
3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for
Compliance to Achieve the Reasonable
Progress Goal
4. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
5. Smoke Management
6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
Resulting From Projected Changes to
Emissions
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
I. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional Haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a wide geographic area and emit
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. PM2.5 can
also cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans, and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication.1
1 Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness
of nutrients in a lake or other body of water,
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
Continued
23AUP1
52606
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’, or IMPROVE
monitoring network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range in many Class I
areas (e.g., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the Western United States is
100–150 kilometers (13.6–9.6 deciviews
(dv)) 2 3, or about one-half to two-thirds
of the visual range that would exist
without anthropogenic air pollution. In
most of the eastern Class I areas of the
United States, the average visual range
is less than 30 kilometers (25 dv or
more), or about one-fifth of the visual
range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715
(July 1, 1999).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments CAA, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the
nation’s national parks and wilderness
areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 4 which impairment
frequently due to runoff from the land, which
causes a dense growth of plant life and death of
animal life from lack of oxygen.
2 Visibility refers to the clarity with which distant
objects can be viewed. Visual range is the distance
at which an object is just discernible from the
background. This could be considered how far one
can see in a given direction. Visual range is
primarily affected by the scattering and absorption
of light by particles in the atmosphere. Scattering
by gaseous molecules also reduces the transmission
of light. The diminished intensity of light caused
by this scattering and absorption is called light
extinction.
3 Deciview means a measurement of visibility
impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived
from calculated light extinction, such that uniform
changes in haziness correspond to uniform
incremental changes in perception across the entire
range of conditions, from pristine to highly
impaired.
4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas are those national parks exceeding 6000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Section 169A of the CAA requires EPA to
promulgate a list of such areas where visibility is
an important value. 42 U.S.C. 7491. In 1979, EPA
identified visibility as an important value in 156 of
these areas. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979); see
40 CFR part 81, subpart D. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although States and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the
visibility program under section 169A of the CAA
apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
results from manmade air pollution.’’
On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (45 FR 80084). These
regulations represented the first phase
in addressing visibility impairment.
EPA deferred action on regional haze
that emanates from a variety of sources
until monitoring, modeling and
scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address Regional Haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(64 FR 35713) (Regional Haze Rule or
Rule). The Regional Haze Rule revised
the existing visibility regulations to
integrate into the regulation provisions
addressing regional haze impairment
and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the Federal
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main
elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized below in
section II. The requirement to submit a
regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states,
the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands. States are required by 40 CFR
51.308(b) to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
C. Roles Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
Regional Haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among
states, tribal governments and various
Federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ‘‘Federal land manager’’ (FLM),
the Secretary of the department with authority over
such lands. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the
term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this notice, we mean a
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze. The
State of Kansas participated in the
planning efforts of the Central Regional
Air Planning Association (CENRAP)
which is affiliated with the Central
States Air Resource Agencies
(CENSARA). This RPO includes nine
states—Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
Arkansas, and Louisiana.
States were also required (40 CFR
51.308(i)) to coordinate with FLMs
during the development of the state’s
strategies to address Regional Haze.
FLMs include the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
National Park Service.
II. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional
Haze Rule
CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2)
require revisions to a SIP to be adopted
by a state after reasonable notice and
public hearing. EPA has promulgated
specific procedural requirements for SIP
revisions in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F.
These requirements include publication
of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area of a
public hearing on proposed revisions, at
least a 30-day public comment period,
and the opportunity for a public
hearing, and that the state, in
accordance with its laws, submit the
revision to the EPA for approval.
Specific information on Kansas’
rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP
development and public information
process is included in Chapter 2, and
Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas
Regional Haze SIP, which is included in
the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
Regional Haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. Section
169A, and EPA’s implementing
regulations (40 CFR 51.300–51.309),
require states to establish long-term
strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal.
Implementation plans also must give
specific attention to certain stationary
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sources that were in existence on
August 7, 1977 but were not in
operation before August 7, 1962 and
require, where appropriate, that these
sources install BART for the purpose of
eliminating or reducing visibility
impairment. The specific regional haze
SIP requirements are discussed in
further detail below.
B. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
states consult with other states and
FLMs before adopting and submitting
their SIPs (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States
must provide FLMs an opportunity for
consultation, in person and at least 60
days prior to holding any public hearing
on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to
offer recommendations on the
development of reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) 5 and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
The Regional Haze Rule establishes
the deciview as the principle metric or
unit for expressing visibility. This
visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility
expressed in deciviews is determined by
using air quality measurements to
estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light
extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure
for tracking progress in improving
visibility than light extinction itself
because each deciview change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most
5 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)—for each mandatory Class
I area located within the State, the State must
establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
people can detect a change in visibility
at one deciview.6
The deciview is used in expressing
reasonable progress goals (which are
interim visibility goals toward meeting
the national visibility goal), defining
baseline, current, and natural
conditions, and tracking changes in
visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must
contain measures that make ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility
impairment in Class I areas caused by
anthropogenic air pollution by reducing
anthropogenic emissions that cause
regional haze. The national goal is a
return to natural conditions, i.e.,
anthropogenic sources of air pollution
would no longer impair visibility in
Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program, and
as part of the process for determining
reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility
impairment at each Class I area at the
time of each Regional Haze SIP
submittal and periodically review
progress every five years midway
through each 10-year implementation
period. To do this, the Regional Haze
Rule requires states to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over
a specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, states must
develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for purpose of comparing
progress toward the national goal.
Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility
conditions in documents titled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility conditions under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004
September 2003, located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred
6 The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
provides additional details about the deciview. See
64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52607
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance’’).
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting point for assessing current
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to then current
conditions will indicate the amount of
progress made. In general, the 2000–
2004 baseline period is considered the
time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional
Haze Rule includes the requirement for
a monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state.
Compliance with this requirement may
be met through participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Vital Environments (IMPROVE)
network, i.e. review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether
reasonable progress goals will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• For a state with no mandatory Class
I areas, procedures for using monitoring
data and other information to determine
the contribution of emissions from
within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52608
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
the most recent year for which data are
available, and estimates of future
projected emissions, along with a
commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The Regional Haze Rule requires
control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the
year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those
strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section
51.308(d) with the exception of BART.
The requirement to evaluate BART
applies only to the first Regional Haze
SIP. Facilities subject to BART must
continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will be continue to
be met.
E. Reasonable Progress Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress toward achieving the national
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs that
establish two reasonable progress goals
(i.e., two distinct goals, one for the
‘‘best’’ and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for
every Class I area for each
(approximately) 10-year implementation
period. The Regional Haze Rule does
not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e. ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting reasonable
progress goals, states must provide for
an improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing reasonable progress goals,
but are required to consider the
following factors established in section
169A of the CAA and in EPA’s Regional
Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
(1) the costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting
the reasonable progress goal for the best
and worst days for each applicable Class
I area in the state (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1,
2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting
the reasonable progress goals, states
must also consider the rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the ten year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress toward
achievement of natural visibility
conditions by 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In
setting reasonable progress goals, each
state with one or more Class I areas
(‘‘Class I state’’) must also consult with
potentially ‘‘contributing states’’, i.e.
other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the Class I state’s areas
(51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
States without Class I areas are
required to submit Regional Haze SIPs
to address their contribution to visibility
impairment. As per the previous
discussion in this proposed rulemaking,
the ability of the long range transport of
pollutants to affect visibility conditions
areas makes it imperative that each state
evaluate how emissions from within its
borders affect visibility impairment in
Class I areas in other states. However,
states without Class I areas, such as
Kansas, are not required to (a) establish
reasonable progress goals, (b) calculate
baseline and natural visibility
conditions at Class I areas, or (c)
monitor and report visibility data for
each Class I area within the state.
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that
certain categories of existing stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘best
available retrofit technology’’ as
determined by the state.7 Under the
Regional Haze Rule, states are directed
to conduct BART determinations for
such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I
area. Rather than requiring source
specific BART controls, states also have
the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress
toward improving visibility than BART.
This is discussed in more detail in
section III. of this proposal.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule 8 at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emissions limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
generating plant with a total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts
(MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7). The 26 source categories are: (1) Fossilfuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250
million British thermal units per hour heat input,
(2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), (3) Kraft
pulp mills, (4) Portland cement plants, (5) Primary
zinc smelters, (6) Iron and steel mill plants, (7)
Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, (8) Primary
copper smelters, (9) Municipal incinerators capable
of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day,
(10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants,
(11) Petroleum refineries, (12) Lime plants, (13)
Phosphate rock processing plants, (14) Coke oven
batteries, (15) Sulfur recovery plants, (16) Carbon
black plants (furnace process), (17) Primary lead
smelters, (18) Fuel conversion plants, (19) Sintering
plants, (20) Secondary metal production facilities,
(21) Chemical process plants, (22) Fossil-fuel
boilers of more than 250 million British thermal
units per hour heat input, (23) Petroleum storage
and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding
300,000 barrels, (24) Taconite ore processing
facilities, (25) Glass fiber processing plants, and (26)
Charcoal production facilities.
8 Appendix Y to part 51—F.1. The guidelines
provide a process for making BART determinations
that states can use in implementing the regional
haze BART requirements on a source-by-source
basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States
must follow the guidelines in making BART
determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750
megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required
to use the process in the guidelines when making
BART determinations for other types of sources.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
encouraged, but not required to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOx, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOCs or ammonia compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emissions sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. As a general matter, any
exemption threshold set by the state
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews
(70 FR 39161).
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the Regional
Haze Rule and document their BART
control determination analyses. In
making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following five
factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2)
the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
(3) any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source, (4) the
remaining useful life of the source, and
(5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of
such technology. States are free to
determine the weight and significance
to be assigned to each factor.
A Regional Haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, controls
must be installed and in operation as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 5 years after EPA’s approval of the
regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the
Regional Haze Rule, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the BART controls on
the source.
As noted above, the Regional Haze
Rule allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so
long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under
regulations issued in 2005 revising the
regional haze program, EPA made just
such a demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR
39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations
provide that states participating in the
CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 or which remain subject to
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require
affected BART-eligible electricity
generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not
applicable to emissions of PM, states
were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs
subject to BART for that pollutant.
G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a 10to 15-year strategy for making
reasonable progress, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule
requires that states include a LTS in
their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation
of all control measures a state will use
during the implementation period of the
specific SIP submittal to meet
reasonable progress goals. The LTS must
include ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve
the reasonable progress goals’’ for all
Class I areas within, or affected by
emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment in a Class I
area located in another state, the
Regional Haze Rule requires the
impacted state to coordinate with the
contributing states in order to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In
such cases, the contributing state must
demonstrate that it has included in its
SIP all measures necessary to obtain its
share of the emission reductions needed
to meet the reasonable progress goal for
the Class I area. The RPOs have
provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be
required to sufficiently address
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52609
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following
seven factors are taken into account in
developing their LTS (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)):
• Emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs,
• Measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities;
• Emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goal;
• Source retirement and replacement
schedules;
• Smoke management techniques for
agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently
exist within the state for these purposes;
• Enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and
• The anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS.
III. What is the relationship of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the
regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated,
requires 28 states and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX that significantly contribute to,
or interfere with maintenance of, the
NAAQS for fine particulates and/or
ozone in any downwind state. See 70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes
emission budgets or caps for SO2 and
NOX for states that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
downwind states and requires the
significantly contributing states to
submit SIP revisions that implement
these budgets. States have the flexibility
to choose which control measures to
adopt to achieve the budgets, including
participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season
emissions.
B. Remand of the CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit
issued its decision to vacate and remand
both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs
in their entirety. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008).
However, in response to EPA’s petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52610
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left CAIR in place in
order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until EPA could replace it with a rule
consistent with the court’s opinion. 550
F.3d at 1178. The Court directed EPA to
‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with
its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined
to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Because CAIR
accordingly has been remanded to the
Agency without vacatur, CAIR and the
CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in
subject states.
Many states relied on CAIR as an
alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for
subject EGUs, as allowed under the
BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Additionally, several states established
RPGs that reflect the improvement in
visibility expected to result from
controls planned for or already installed
on sources within the state to meet the
CAIR provisions for this
implementation period for specified
pollutants. Many states relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs
for their states to provide the legal
requirements which leads to these
planned controls, and did not include
enforceable measures in the LTS in the
regional haze SIP submission to ensure
these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond
CAIR would be reasonable for this
implementation period.
On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR).9 This rule responds to the
court ruling remanding the 2005 CAIR,
and achieves emission reductions
beyond those originally required by
CAIR through additional air pollution
reductions from power plants beginning
in 2012. On July 11, 2011, in
conjunction with EPA’s finalization of
CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental
proposal requesting comment on
inclusion of additional states in the
CSAPR ozone season program. (76 FR
40662) EPA intends to finalize the
supplemental proposal by October 31,
2011.
C. CAIR in Relation to the State of
Kansas’ Submittal
The State of Kansas is not in the CAIR
program and did not rely on CAIR for
reductions of SO2 or NOX in place of
BART at its BART-subject EGUs. EPA
acknowledges that the CAIR program
was a major component in the
underlying assumptions used by the
State to determine source
apportionment based on the modeled
9 76
FR 48208, August 8, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
reduction expected in neighboring states
that participate in the CAIR program.
Modeling used by the CENRAP states
included assumptions based on
reductions from CENRAP states that
relied on CAIR. As more fully discussed
in section IV. F. of this proposal, and
page 30 of the SIP, the State committed
to report on its progress towards
meeting the reasonable progress goals
established for the Class I areas in other
states within five years of submittal of
the SIP, and if the State determines that
the implementation plan is inadequate
to ensure the reasonable progress goals
are met, to submit necessary revisions to
EPA. Kansas has committed to review
emissions changes and potential new
technology developments that may
apply to the sources identified above as
part of the five-year progress report. As
described on page 74 of the SIP, if a
determination is made that controls are
feasible, cost-effective, and needed for
visibility improvements, the State will
explore additional controls at that time.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State
of Kansas’ submittal?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional
Haze Rule
EPA is proposing to find that that the
State of Kansas has met the
requirements of the CAA which require
that the State adopt a SIP after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
EPA also believes that the State has met
the requirements of the specific
procedural requirements for SIP
revisions promulgated at 40 CFR part
51, subpart F and appendix V. These
requirements include publication of
notices by prominent advertisement in
the relevant geographic area of a public
hearing on proposed revisions, at least
a 30-day public comment period, and
the opportunity for a public hearing,
and that the State, in accordance with
its laws, submit the revision to EPA for
approval. Specific information on
Kansas’ rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP
development and public information
process is included in Chapter 2, and
Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas
Regional Haze SIP, which is included in
the docket of this proposed rule making.
B. Affected Class I Areas
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas has adequately established
which Class I areas are impacted by
emissions from the State, as required by
40 CFR 51.308(d) and as described in
the Agency’s ‘‘Visibility Monitoring
Guidance’’ 10 . There are no Class I areas
10 Visibility Monitoring Guidance: https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99003.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hosted by the State of Kansas. States,
such as Kansas, that do not host Class
I areas are not required to identify
reasonable progress goals or calculate
baseline and natural visibility
conditions at Class I areas. However,
states without Class I areas are still
required to submit SIPs that address the
apportionment of visibility impact from
the emissions generated by sources
within the state’s borders at Class I areas
hosted by other states. The following are
the Class I areas nearest to the State of
Kansas in all directions around the
State’s border:
• Caney Creek Wilderness Area,
Arkansas (CACR)
• Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area,
Arkansas (UPBU)
• Great Sands Dunes Wilderness
Area, Colorado (GRSA)
• Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado (ROMO)
• Hercules Glades Wilderness Area,
Missouri (HEGL)
• Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri
(MING)
• Wichita Mountains Wilderness
Area, Oklahoma (WIMO)
• Badlands National Park, South
Dakota (BADL)
• Wind Cave National Park, Texas
(WICA)
• Big Bend National Park, Texas
(BIBE)
• Guadalupe Mountains National
Park, Texas (GUMO)
The 20 percent worst day estimated
percent light extinction (for the base
year 2002 and projection year 2018), at
these eleven Class I areas, attributed to
emissions from sources in Kansas
(shown by pollutant species and source
category), are provided in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) to this
proposed rulemaking. The CENRAP
computed these data using IMPROVE
data for 2000 to 2004 to define baseline,
natural and 2018 conditions for each of
the affected Class I areas. All CENRAP
states relied upon the regional modeling
work performed by CENRAP 11 (and its
contractors) for determining the impact
that sources within a state might have
on Class I areas in the region. The
modeling was based on PM Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT)
with the Comprehensive Air Quality
Model with extensions (CAMx)
photochemical model. For Kansas, the
CENRAP modeling indicated that
Kansas sources were most likely to have
11 A contractor to CENRAP, ENVIRON, completed
the data analysis. This analysis can be reviewed in
Chapter 4 of the Technical Support Document
developed by ENVIRON and can be found at
https://www.kdheks.gov/bar/.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the highest visibility impact at the
WIMO.
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas adequately identified the
Class I areas impacted by sources of air
pollution within the State and the State
adequately determined the
apportionment of those pollutants from
sources located within the State and as
such has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
EPA is proposing to find that that the
State of Kansas participated in sufficient
consultation with other states where
emissions from sources in Kansas are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
Class I areas hosted by other states and
to coordinate emission management
strategies for such Class I areas, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and
(d)(3)(i). The State of Kansas was an
active member of the CENRAP. The
governing body (voting members) of
CENRAP was considered the Policy
Oversight Group (POG). The POG was
made up of 18 voting members
representing states and tribes in the
CENRAP region and nonvoting member
representing local air agencies, the
FLMs and other stakeholders. CENRAP
members also developed a workgroup
structure to address technical and nontechnical issues related to regional haze.
There were five workgroups:
Monitoring; Emissions Inventory;
Modeling; Communications; and
Implementation and Control Strategies.
Any interested party to CENRAP was
invited to participate on any or all of the
workgroups. Policy issues were decided
by the POG. The Kansas Regional Haze
SIP was developed utilizing data
analysis, modeling results and other
technical support documents prepared
for CENRAP members by the
workgroups, or parties contracted by
CENRAP.12 The Kansas SIP (at page 85)
indicates that in addition to
participation in the regional planning
process, Kansas consulted directly with
the States of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma
and Arkansas to determine if controls
beyond presumptive BART
(presumptive BART is discussed in
greater detail below) would be required
of emission sources in Kansas.
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas engaged in adequate
consultation with the FLMs as required
by 40 CFR 51.308(i). The State provided
the FLMs with state contacts for
submission of recommendations in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(1), as
12 This information was provided on the CENRAP
Web site, https://cenrap.org or CENRAP’s FTP site.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
provided on page 14 of the Kansas
Regional Haze SIP. In addition to the
FLMs having the opportunity to
participate in or comment on (as nonvoting members of CENRAP) the
development of technical and nontechnical documents used by the State
to develop its Regional Haze SIP, the
FLMs were given the opportunity to
comment on the State’s draft SIP dated
November 1, 2007 as required by 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2), participate in a public
hearing held on August 20, 2008, the
opportunity to comment on a revised
draft SIP dated July 16, 2009, and
participate in a second public hearing
held on August 27, 2009. The FLMs
submitted comments to the State of
Kansas on December 14, 2007. The State
addressed comments received from the
FLMs as shown in Appendix 4.1 of the
State’s Regional Haze SIP in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). To address the
requirement for continuing consultation
with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), the State of Kansas has
committed in its SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on Regional
Haze issues throughout the
implementation period by coordinating
and consulting with the FLMs during
development of five-year progress
reports and plan revisions.
EPA is proposing to find the State of
Kansas provided sufficient evidence
that it engaged in adequate consultation
with other states and the FLMs and
therefore has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(i) and (d)(3)(i) and of the
Regional Haze Rule.
D. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
States that host Class I areas are
required to estimate the baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions
of those Class I areas. As Kansas does
not host a Class I area, it is not required
to estimate these metrics. However, as
previously discussed in section IV. B. of
this document, the State must still
develop a SIP that estimates the
apportionment of visibility impact
related to pollutant emissions from
sources within the State on Class I areas
hosted by other States.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
As it does not host a Class I area,
Kansas is not required to develop a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze impairment that is representative
of Class I areas within the State.
However, Kansas is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52611
from within the State to regional haze
impairment at Class I areas outside of
the State and to document the technical
basis on which it is relying to determine
its apportionment of emission
reductions necessary for achieving
reasonable progress in each Class I area
it affects, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii).
Kansas is also required to develop a
statewide emissions inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area,
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii)
and (d)(4)(v). This inventory must
include baseline year emissions,
emissions for the most recent year that
data is available, and estimates of future
year emissions. A commitment to
update the inventory as well as a
commitment to maintain reporting,
recording keeping and other measures
necessary to assess and report on
visibility improvements are required by
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi). EPA is
proposing to find that the State has met
these requirements, as explained below.
1. Monitoring Strategy
There are three IMPROVE protocol
sites (sites that are not managed directly
by IMPROVE (a Federal program) but by
the operating agency) which are
operated in the State of Kansas. One is
located at Cedar Bluff State Park in
Trego County in the western part of the
State, a second at the Tallgrass Prairie
National Preserve in the eastern part of
the State (each operated by the State of
Kansas), and the third is located in
Reserve, Kansas in the northeastern part
of the State and it is operated by the Sac
and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas
and Nebraska. Descriptions of these
monitoring sites and methods for data
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of
the State’s Regional Haze SIP. The State
has provided a commitment in Chapter
6, section 6.3, of the State’s Regional
Haze SIP to maintain the three
IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites, or
any other EPA approved network
configuration, contingent upon
continued national funding.
The filter samples from the three
IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent for
analysis to the Crocker Nuclear
Laboratory at the University of
California in Davis, and the resultant
data are subjected to preliminary review
and quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures. Nephelometer
data from the Cedar Bluff site are
validated by the CENRAP contractor.
Other visibility-related data collected by
the State of Kansas (PM2.5, SO2, NO2,
and NH3) are subjected to review and
QA/QC procedures prior to reporting.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52612
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
After validation, data from the three
IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent by the
Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the
University of California in Davis for
posting to the IMPROVE Web site and
the Visibility Information Exchange
Web System (VIEWS) Web site https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/.
Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff
site are reported to the VIEWS database
by the CENRAP contractor. Other
visibility-related data collected by the
State of Kansas are reported to EPA’s
Air Quality System (AQS) database on
a quarterly basis.
EPA is proposing to find that the
State’s commitment to provide and
utilize data from these sites, or any
other EPA approved monitoring
network location, to characterize and
monitor model conditions within the
State and to compare visibility
conditions in the State to visibility
impairment at Class I areas hosted by
other states meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the
Regional Haze Rule.
2. Emissions Inventory
EPA has reviewed the emissions
inventory provided by the State of
Kansas and believes that it is sufficient
and follows the guidance provided by
the Agency in its ‘‘Emissions Inventory
Guidance for the Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations’’ 13 and its ‘‘2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze
Programs’’ memo.14 Kansas is required
to develop a statewide emissions
inventory of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. This inventory must
include baseline year emissions,
emissions for the most recent year that
data is available, and estimates of future
year emissions. The State provided an
inventory of emissions of pollutants that
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
PM10 and NH3. As required, the
inventory includes emissions for a
baseline year (2002), the most recent
year for which data are available, and
estimates of future year (2018) projected
emissions along with a commitment to
update the inventory periodically.
The 2002 emissions inventory and its
improvements were developed by
CENRAP and its contractors as part of
the development of a baseline inventory
for the 2002 modeling inventory.15 The
TSD to this proposal discusses the
improvements to the inventory that
were prepared by the contractor
retained to develop and improve three
inventory categories of the baseline
2002 inventory: planned burning,
ammonia, mobile source and fugitive
dust. The complete 2002 baseline
emissions inventory can be found in
Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. Methodologies
for the development of the 2002
emissions inventories can be found in
Appendix 7.3 of the SIP.
To estimate the 2018 future year
emissions the State grew the 2002
emissions using the Economic Growth
Analysis System (EGAS), MOBILE 6.2
vehicle emissions software, and the
Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
version 2.93 for EGUs.
EPA is proposing to find that the 2002
and 2018 statewide emissions
inventories and the State’s method for
developing the 2018 emissions
inventory meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the Regional
Haze Rule.
TABLE 1—2002 KANSAS EMISSIONS SUMMARY, BY SOURCE CATEGORY AND POLLUTANT
Tons/yr
Source category
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .............................................................................................
Nonpoint (except fires) .................................................................
On-road mobile ............................................................................
Nonroad mobile ............................................................................
Nonpoint fire .................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................
40,278
87,327
74,519
28,138
35,046
575,073
165,224
13,851
100,152
82,697
29,322
49,616
16,321
10,024
1,607
5,993
117,597
N/A
38,366
10,533
2,179
6,549
129,187
N/A
59,750
796
2,816
115
19
N/A
143,367
3,100
3,097
8,101
11,051
N/A
Totals ....................................................................................
840,381
440,862
151,542
186,814
63,496
168,716
TABLE 2—2018 KANSAS PROJECTED EMISSIONS SUMMARY, BY SOURCE CATEGORY AND POLLUTANT
Tons/yr
Source category
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
Point .............................................................................................
Nonpoint (except fires) .................................................................
On-road mobile ............................................................................
Nonroad mobile ............................................................................
Nonpoint fire .................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................
54,007
104,983
32,724
15,156
35,046
575,073
145,647
15,822
28,779
38,044
29,322
49,616
23,669
9,143
655
2,696
117,597
N/A
50,165
9,534
655
2,954
129,187
N/A
71,623
1,247
3,892
52
19
N/A
81,664
3,860
369
126
11,051
N/A
Totals ....................................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VOC
816,989
307,230
153,760
192,495
76,833
97,070
13 Emissions Inventory Guidance for the
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations: https://
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/
eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
14 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP
Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NH3
SO2
Programs memo-https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/
eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
15 https://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
3. Reporting Requirements
EPA has reviewed and believes the
State’s reporting strategy meets the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
The State is required to maintain
reporting, recordkeeping and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility improvements. In its
Regional Haze SIP, Kansas asserts that
by complying with EPA’s Air Emissions
Reporting Rule, in addition to the
State’s commitment (as given in Chapter
7, section 7.7, of the State’s Regional
Haze SIP) to periodically update the
emissions inventory through use of the
latest available emissions data (expected
to be the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory, source inventory data such as
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) data for EGUs, or EGAS
growth rates for other sources in
comparison to actual emissions) when
completing the State’s mandatory fiveyear progress reports, it has met the
requirement of the Rule. EPA is
proposing to find that the State’s
methods of reporting and recordkeeping
of emissions meets the requirement of
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi) of the
Regional Haze Rule.
4. SIP Revision Schedule
Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze
Rule requires control strategies to cover
an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies and the SIP,
as appropriate, by July 31, 2018, and
every ten years thereafter. EPA is
proposing to find that the State of
Kansas met this requirement by
committing to reassess and revise the
Regional Haze SIP on this schedule, as
necessary, in Chapter 7, section 7.7 of
the SIP. In addition, the State
committed to submit its five-year SIP
report by November 9, 2014, and along
with the five-year report, submit a
determination of the adequacy of its
existing Regional Haze SIP revisions.
EPA is proposing to find that the State’s
commitment to meet these schedules
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (h) of the Regional
Haze Rule.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
Since the State of Kansas does not
host Class I areas, it is not required to
establish RPGs for a Class I area.
However, as discussed in sections IV.B.
and IV.D. of this proposed rulemaking,
the State must still develop a SIP that
estimates the apportionment of visibility
impact, related to pollutant emissions
from sources within the State of Kansas,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
on Class I areas hosted by other states.
As discussed in section IV.G. of this
proposal the State is required to develop
a control strategy to reduce those
impacts.16 A discussion of the State’s
control strategy to reduce visibility
impacts at Class I areas around the State
is included in section IV.H. of this
proposal.
G. Best Available Retrofit Technology
EPA has reviewed and proposes that
the State’s process to identify BARTeligible sources, BART-subject sources
and the emission rates it has determined
to be BART for five BART-subject units
at three sources in Kansas meets the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and is consistent
with the Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional
Haze Rule. The TSD to this proposal
provides a detailed analysis of the
State’s BART determinations.
As previously mentioned in this
proposal, on July 6, 2005, EPA
published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional
Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part
51 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and determining
appropriate emissions limits for each
BART-subject source. The BART
evaluation process consists of three
components: (a) Identification of all the
BART-eligible sources; (b) assessment of
whether the BART-eligible sources are
subject to BART; and (c) determination
of the BART controls. The components,
as addressed by the State’s findings, are
discussed below, and further discussed
in the TSD for this proposed
rulemaking.
In making a BART determination for
a fossil fuel-fired generating plant with
a total generating capacity in excess of
750 megawatts, a state must use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is not required to
follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of
sources. The BART Guidelines provide
five steps toward identifying BART
control for these very large EGUs. Step
1: Identify all available retrofit control
technologies; Step 2: Eliminate
technically infeasible control
technologies; Step 3: Evaluate the
control effectiveness of remaining
16 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)—Where other States
cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in a
mandatory Class 1 Federal area, the State must
demonstrate that it has included in its
implementation plan all measures necessary to
obtain reductions needed to meet the progress goal
for the area.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52613
control technologies; Step 4: Evaluate
impacts and document the results; Step
5: Evaluate visibility impact.
1. BART Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation
is to identify all the BART-eligible
sources within the State’s boundaries.
The State utilized the methodology in
the BART Guidelines and EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 51.301, for
determining which sources were BARTeligible. For an emission source to be
identified as BART-eligible, the State
used these criteria from the BART
Guidelines:
• One or more emissions units at the
facility fit within one of the 26
categories listed in the BART
Guidelines;
• The emission unit was in existence
on August 7, 1977 and began operation
at some point on or after August 7, 1962;
and
• The limited potential emissions
from all emission units identified in the
previous two bullets were 250 tons or
more per year of any of these visibilityimpairing pollutants: SO2, NOX, or
PM10.
In the BART determination process,
states must address all significant
visibility impairing pollutants. The most
significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. As
indicated by the BART Guidelines, a
state should use its best judgment in
determining whether VOCs, ammonia or
ammonia compounds impair visibility
in particular Class I areas. Kansas
determined that it did not need to
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions as
part of its BART analyses.17 The TSD to
this proposal includes EPA’s analysis
and confirmation of the state’s
conclusion that neither VOC nor
ammonia needed to be evaluated as part
of the State’s BART determinations.
17 Appendix Y of Part 51—States should exercise
judgment in deciding whether the following
pollutants impair visibility in an area: (4) VOCs and
(5) Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A State
should use its best judgment in deciding whether
VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are likely
to have an impact on visibility in an area. Certain
types of VOC emissions, for example, are more
likely to form secondary organic aerosols than
others. Similarly, controlling ammonia emissions in
some areas may not have a significant impact on
visibility. A State need not provide a formal
showing of an individual decision that a source of
VOC or ammonia emissions is not subject to BART
review. Because air quality modeling may not be
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia,
a state should also exercise its judgment in
assessing the degree of visibility impacts due to
emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or
ammonia compounds. A state should fully
document the basis for judging that a VOC or
ammonia source merits BART review, including its
assessment of the source’s contribution to visibility
impairment.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52614
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing to find that the State’s
use of air quality data provided by
CENRAP, in evaluating whether
potential BART sources could be
reasonably expected to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area is in accordance with the
BART guidelines and in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
To identify the sources that met the
criteria above, Kansas performed a
multi-step search and analysis including
a database query of the permitted air
sources in its point source emissions
inventory database, and a more detailed
survey of the limited number of
facilities in the database that met the
source category criteria. This process is
outlined in detail in Appendix 9.1 of the
SIP and is discussed in the TSD to this
proposal. The nineteen facilities
identified are listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF KANSAS
BART Source category
name
Facility ID
Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric
Generating Units.
0090002
1750001
0570001
2090008
2090048
1070005
1130014
0550026
1730012
1550033
1490001
0450014
0350012
Facility name
BART-Eligible emission units
Aquila (now Sunflower
Electric)—Arthur
Mullergren.
Aquila (now Sunflower
Electric)—Cimarron
River.
Aquila (now Sunflower
Electric)—Judson
Large.
Kansas City BPU—
Nearman.
Kansas City BPU—
Quindaro.
KCP&L—La Cygne .......
McPherson Municipal
Power Plan #2.
Sunflower Electric—Garden City.
Westar Energy—Gordon
Evans.
Westar Energy—Hutchinson.
Westar Energy—Jeffrey
Westar Energy—Lawrence.
Winfield Municipal
Power Plant #2.
Monarch Cement Co .....
Portland Cement Plants
0010009
Petroleum Refineries .....
0150004
Frontier El Dorado Refining Co.
1130003
0570003
National Cooperative
Refinery Assoc.
(NCRA).
Basic Chemicals (now
OxyChem—Wichita).
Koch Nitrogen ...............
2090010
Owens Corning .............
Chemical Processing
Plants.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Glass Fiber Processing
Plants.
1730070
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas appropriately identified its
BART-eligible sources in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) of the
Regional Haze Rule and the BART
Guidelines.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Unit 3 (Stacks 1 and 2).
Unit 1.
Unit 4.
Unit 1.
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2.
1
2.
1.
Unit S2.
Unit 2 (Stacks 2 and 3).
Unit 4 (Stacks A and B).
Unit 1
Unit 2.
Unit 5.
Unit 4.
No. 4 Kiln Stack, No. 4 Kiln Clinker Cooler, No. 5 Kiln Stack, No. 5 Kiln
Clinker Cooler, Raw Material Unloading, Clinker Grinding and Cement
Handling, Stone Quarry Processing.
Boiler B–105, Boiler B–107, Plant Process Heaters, Refinery Flare System B–1303, Plant Cooling Towers, Storage Tanks, Gas Oil
Hydrotreater.
Alky Heater HA–002, No. 9 Boiler SB–009, No.12 Boiler SB–012, Coker
IR Comp. CR–003, Plat Stab Boil Htr HP–003, Plat Charge Htr HP–
006, Fugitive Emissions.
Boiler 1; Boiler 2; Boiler 3; Chloromethanes.
Ammonia plant—primary reformer; Ammonia plant—other; Nitric acid
plant—absorber tail gas; Ammonium nitrate plant—neutralizer.
70 furnace—N exhaust; 70 furnace—S exhaust; 70 riser/channel/
forehearth; 70 A forming; 70 B forming; 70 C forming; 70 D forming; 70
curing oven charge end; 70 curing oven discharge end; J5 furnace; J5
riser/channel/forehearth; J6 A forming; J6 B forming; J6 C forming; J6
curing oven charge end; J6 curing oven discharge end; J6 smoke stripper; J6 north cooling (A); J6 south cooling (B); J6 asphalt coating; Raw
material processing.
2. BART Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
i.e. those sources that are ‘‘subject to
BART.’’ The BART Guidelines allow
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
states to consider exempting some
BART-eligible sources from further
BART review because they may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, and using air quality
data provided by CENRAP, Kansas
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52615
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
completed a modeling analysis of all
nineteen sources determined to be
BART-eligible, using CALPUFF.18 The
BART guidelines indicate that
CALPUFF, or other appropriate models,
can be used to determine if an
individual source is anticipated to cause
or contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas.
To assess contribution to visibility
impairment at a Class I area, the states
must establish a contribution threshold.
The BART Guidelines state that a single
source that is responsible for a 1.0 dv
change or more should be considered to
‘cause’ visibility impairment at a Class
I area and that a source that is
responsible for a 0.5 dv change should
be considered to ‘contribute’ to visibility
impairment at a Class I area. The
Guidelines state that a lower threshold
can be chosen under certain
circumstances (e.g., many contributing
emission sources close to a Class I area).
As set forth in Appendix 9.2 of the
SIP, the State utilized a contribution
threshold of 0.5 dv. The State selected
this contribution threshold in
accordance with the BART Guidelines,
section III.A.1., based upon the
relatively large distances between the
State’s BART-eligible sources, and the
Class I areas outside the State. Use of
the screening threshold of 0.5 dv is
further justified because the visibility
impacts of sources excluded at this
screening stage of the analysis are well
below 0.5 dv. If the modeling results
showed that a source had at least a 0.5
dv or greater visibility impact on at least
one day in a three year period (2001–
2003), then further BART-subject
analysis was required. The nine Class I
areas that were determined to be
significant for determining impacts from
potential BART-subject sources were:
• Caney Creek Wilderness Area,
Arkansas (CACR)
• Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area,
Arkansas (UPBU)
• Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area,
Colorado (GRSA)
• Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado (ROMO)
• Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area,
Missouri (HEGL)
• Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri
(MING)
• Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area,
Oklahoma (WIMO)
• Badlands National Park, South Dakota
(BADL)
• Wind Cave National Park, South
Dakota (WICA)
This preliminary modeling was
completed using general assumptions
made by the State. The modeling
showed that eight of the nineteen
BART-eligible sources exceeded the
contribution screening threshold of 0.5
dv or greater visibility impact on at least
one day in a three year period. Those
sources are identified in Table 4.
TABLE 4—KANSAS BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS WITH AT LEAST ONE > 0.5 DV VISIBILITY IMPACT DAY ON SELECTED
CLASS I AREAS DURING 2001–2003
Number of days during 2001–2003 with visibility impact > 0.5 dv
Source
CACR
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Kansas City BPU—Nearman Unit 1 ................................
Kansas City BPU—Quindaro Units 1 & 2 ........................
KCP&L—La Cygne Units 1 & 2 .......................................
Monarch Cement Kilns 4 & 5 ...........................................
Westar Energy—Gordon Evans Unit 2 ............................
Westar Energy—Hutchinson Unit 4 .................................
Westar Energy—Jeffrey Units 1 & 2 ................................
Westar Energy—Lawrence Unit 5 ...................................
UPBU
GRSA
ROMO
HEGL
23
13
204
0
33
14
150
14
21
13
249
0
30
7
161
14
3
1
17
0
11
6
27
1
1
1
21
0
13
5
28
1
30
18
278
0
28
6
182
17
The State required each of those eight
sources to submit refined modeling for
further review. The refined modeling
analysis for each source is given in
Appendix 9.8 of the State’s Regional
Haze SIP and was used by the State to
assess each of the eight sources’
potential visibility impacts in more
accurate detail (e.g. revised emission
rates, stack parameters, etc., as provided
by each source). Based on the refined
modeling results, the State determined
that five units at three sources were
BART-subject and required BART
determinations as outlined in CAA
section 169A(g)(2) for each of those
units. Those five units are given below:
• Unit 1 at Kansas City Power and
Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 1070005
• Unit 2 at Kansas City Power and
Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 1070005
• Unit 1 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey
Energy Center, Facility ID 1490001
• Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey
Energy Center, Facility ID 1490001
• Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Gordon
Evans Energy Center, Facility ID
1730012
18 CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species nonsteady-state puff dispersion model that simulates
the effects of time- and space-varying
meteorological conditions on pollution transport,
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be
applied on scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers.
It includes algorithms for subgrid scale effects (such
as terrain impingement), as well as longer range
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet
scavenging and dry deposition, chemical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
After review of the State’s method for
determining BART-subject sources and
the refined analysis of those sources, the
EPA is proposing to find that the State
appropriately identified all of the units
in the State that are BART-subject in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART
Guidelines.
3. BART Determinations
In making BART determinations, CAA
section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that states
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
MING
16
6
233
0
17
3
158
7
WIMO
15
9
142
1
102
17
165
9
BADL
3
0
46
0
32
9
82
2
WICA
2
0
38
0
24
4
55
1
consider the following factors: (1) The
costs of compliance, (2) the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts
of compliance, (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source,
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source, and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. This five
step analysis is commonly referred to as
a ‘‘five factor analysis’’.
As discussed in the TSD to this
notice, Kansas found the most
significant visibility impairment
attributable to the units identified as
subject to BART is dominated by
contributions from NOX and SO2
emissions. PM visibility impairment
attribution from these units is not
significant. Because visibility
transformation, and visibility effects of particulate
matter concentrations). https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52616
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
impairment from PM is insignificant,
the remainder of this notice will focus
the State’s NOX and SO2 BART
determinations.
Each of the five units listed above is
a ‘‘presumptive unit’’ 19 20. For EGUs
greater than 200 MW in capacity and
located at power plants with a total
capacity greater than 750 MW, EPA
established presumptive BART emission
limits.21 Each of the units that Kansas
concluded was subject to BART falls
within this category of sources. As
presumptive units, each of the five units
must as a general matter at least meet
the presumptive emission limits as
described in the BART Guidelines. As
explained in the BART Guidelines,
regardless of fuel type, for SO2 control,
each unit must at least meet a specific
control level of 95 percent or an
emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu unless
an alternative control was determined to
be justified through the five factor
analysis. The presumptive control for
NOX is expressed as either an emission
limit, or the installation of current
combustion control technology. The
decision to assign either a presumptive
NOX emission limit or a combustion
control strategy is determined by the
type of fuel combusted at the EGU.
The State’s BART determination
resulted in a limit which is more
restrictive than the presumptive BART
NOX emission rates for Kansas City
Power and Light’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.10
lb/MMBtu and 0.23 lb/MMBtu,
respectively (and 0.16 lb/MMBtu
weighted average), to 0.13 lb/MMBtu on
a 30-day rolling weighted average using
the already permitted selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) control for Unit 1 and
combustion control for Unit 2
19 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.1.2.3.4—States must
require 750 MW power plants to meet specific
control levels for SO2 of either 95 percent control
or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu, for each EGU greater than 200
MW that is currently uncontrolled unless the State
determines that an alternative control level is
justified based on a careful consideration of the
statutory factors.
20 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.1.2.3.5.—For power
plants with a generating capacity in excess of 750
MW currently using selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
for part of the year, the State should presume that
use of those same controls year-round is BART. For
other sources currently using SCR or SNCR to
reduce NOX emissions during part of the year, the
State should carefully consider requiring the use of
these controls year-round as the additional costs of
operating the equipment throughout the year would
be relatively modest. For coal-fired EGUs greater
than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power
plants and operating without post-combustion
controls (i.e. SCR or SNCR), the EPA has provided
presumptive NOX limits, differentiated by boiler
design and type of coal burned. The State may
determine that an alternative control level is
appropriate based on a careful consideration of the
statutory factors.
21 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.4. and 5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
(described in more detail below and
beginning on page 47 of the TSD to this
rulemaking). The average must remain
below 0.13 lb/MMBtu. In the event Unit
2 suffers an outage in excess of 10
weeks, the State has determined that the
facility shall meet the 0.10 lb/MMBtu
limit for NOX at Unit 1.
EPA has previously stated that most
EGUs can meet the presumptive NOX
limits through the use of current
combustion control technology, i.e. low
NOx burners (LNB).22 States must also
consider advanced combustion control
technology (SCR) in their BART
analyses. Even though the presumptive
NOx emission rate could be met through
use of LNB, through its five factor
analysis, the State considered the costs
and benefits of SCR deployment on
Kansas City Power and Light’s Unit 2.
The State determined that the NOX
BART presumptive emission rates of
0.10 lb/MMBtu and 0.23 lb/MMBtu for
Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively (or 0.16
lb/MMBtu as a weighted average),
resulted in a combined (SO2 and NOX)
modeled visibility improvement of 78–
81% at Class I areas (98th percentile
visibility impact) and a reduction of the
number of days with a visibility impact
greater than 0.5 dv from a range of 57–
138 days to 3–14 days at Class I areas.
During the course of negotiating an
enforceable BART agreement, Kansas
City Power and Light proposed limits
that were more restrictive than the
presumptive BART limits. As provided
above, these limits consist of an
emission rate of 0.13 lb/MMBtu on a 30day rolling weighted average between
the two units.23 At the 0.13 lb/MMBtu
weighted average rate for both units,
which is beyond the presumptive NOX
rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu, EPA would not
anticipate additional significant
visibility improvement for the
additional significant cost of installing
SCR on Unit 2.
The State’s BART determination for
Kansas City Power and Light’s Units 1
and 2 also resulted in a more restrictive
limit than the presumptive BART SO2
emission rates. The State has
determined that an emission rate of 0.10
lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling weighted
22 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.5.—Most EGUs can
meet these presumptive NOX limits through the use
of current combustion control technology, i.e. the
careful control of combustion air and low-NOX
burners. For units that cannot meet these limits
using such technologies, you should consider
whether advanced combustion control technologies
such as rotating opposed fire air should be used to
meet these limits.
23 The weighted average limit is to be met by
utilizing the already permitted SCR control for Unit
1 and pre- or post-combustion control (e.g., low
NOX burner, low NOX burner with overfire air, or
SCR) for Unit 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
average (through the use of scrubbing
technology) is SO2 BART for these units.
The State has determined that Westar
Energy must meet the presumptive
BART NOX emission rates for the Jeffrey
Energy Center’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. As determined through its five
factor analysis, and explained in greater
detail in the TSD to this rulemaking,
these emission rates will be met through
the use of LNB systems for each unit. As
part of the five factor analysis, the State
considered the costs and benefits of
deployment of SCR at Jeffrey Units 1
and 2. Given the high cost and relatively
low visibility improvements resulting
from use of SCR as compared to LNB at
Jeffrey, the State determined, and EPA
agrees, that LNB operated at the
presumptive rate satisfy NOX BART for
Jeffrey Units 1 and 2. For Gordon Evans
Unit 2, which is an oil-burning unit
(that can burn natural gas) that meets
the presumptive plant and unit size
threshold, there is no prescribed
presumptive limit for NOX but
reductions should be gained through the
deployment of ‘‘current combustion
control technology’’ 24 which has
already been defined by EPA as the
implementation of LNB or LNB with
overfire air. A five factor analysis
resulted in identification of a low NOX
burner system as BART for the unit.
However, since the concurrent analysis
for SO2 reduction (discussed below)
demonstrated that control through fuel
switching to natural gas resulted in both
SO2 and NOX emission reductions, and
in visibility improvements beyond those
gained by presumptive BART, Kansas
has determined and EPA agrees that the
fuel switch to natural gas meets the NOX
BART requirements.
The State has determined that Westar
Energy must meet the presumptive SO2
BART emission rate at the Jeffrey Energy
Center’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. These emission rates will be
met by rebuilding the wet scrubber on
each unit. For Gordon Evans, use of low
sulfur fuel was originally determined to
be BART, however, analysis of fuel
switching to natural gas revealed
greater, cost effective emission
reductions, and greater visibility
improvement. Therefore, the State
determined that switching fuel to
natural gas, with 1 percent sulfur fuel
oil available for emergency backup use
only, meets the SO2 BART. Westar
currently has an existing supply of No.6
fuel oil on site and will be allowed to
exhaust this emergency backup supply,
with any future fuel oil purchases being
1 percent sulfur content or less by
weight. Kansas has determined that this
24 Appendix
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
Y to Part 51 section IV.E.5.
23AUP1
52617
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
‘‘alternative BART control for SO2’’
would virtually eliminate SO2 emissions
from Gordon Evans Energy Center’s Unit
2, the exception being an emergency
when fuel oil would be allowed only for
the duration of the emergency. The State
has demonstrated, and EPA agrees, as
shown in Table 5, that a switch to
natural gas provides less visibility
impairment than presumptive BART for
Unit 2 for both SO2 and NOX.
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF PRESUMPTIVE BART VISIBILITY IMPACT AND FUEL SWITCH VISIBILITY IMPACT
Presumptive
case 1 percent S
oil, LNB at 0.8 lb/
MMBtu
(deciview)
Presumptive
case 1 percent S
oil, LNB at 0.2 lb/
MMBtu
(deciview)
Alternative BART
case natural gas
(deciview)
1.575
0.804
3,288
3,844
325
1.02
0.474
822
3.844
326
0.774
0.334
2136
1.7
30.6
Maximum visibility impact ................................................................................................
98 percent visibility impact ..............................................................................................
NOX (lb/hr) .......................................................................................................................
SO2 (lb/hr) ........................................................................................................................
PM10 (lb/hr) ......................................................................................................................
Based on the above analysis, in which
the State carefully considered the five
factors, and which is fully detailed in
the TSD to this proposed rulemaking,
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas appropriately determined
BART for each BART-subject unit in
accordance with the CAA section 169A,
40 CFR 51.308(e)(ii)(A) and (B) and (iii)
of the Regional Haze Rule, and the
BART Guidelines.
TABLE 6—TOTAL 2018 REDUCTIONS IN NOX AND SO2 FROM KANSAS BART-SUBJECT UNITS
tons/yr
Subject-to-BART unit
2002 NOX1
2002 SO21
2018 NOX2
2018 SO22
NOX
reduction
SO2
reduction
30,058
8,362
2,023
9,602
10,892
6,648
19,355
3,211
20,459
23,715
2,576
6,229
138
4,268
4,040
3,948
3,993
0.0
3,532
3,465
27,482
2,133
1,886
5,334
6,852
2,700
15,362
3,211
16,927
20,251
Total BART reductions .............................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
KCP&L—La Cygne 1 .......................................................
KCP&L—La Cygne 2 .......................................................
Westar—Gordon Evans 2 ................................................
Westar—Jeffrey 1 ............................................................
Westar—Jeffrey 2 ............................................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
43,687
58,451
To incorporate the emission rates,
compliance schedule, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and
enforceability requirements, as defined
by the CAA and Federal regulations
promulgated at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)
and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines,
the State entered into Consent
Agreements with Kansas City Power and
Light and Westar Energy on November
19, 2007 (amended February 18, 2009)
and August 30, 2007 (amended February
20, 2009) respectively. These Consent
Agreements were submitted to EPA for
SIP approval as part of the State’s RH
SIP submittal, which we are proposing
to approve in this notice. The
Agreements are enforceable by the State,
and upon approval into the State’s SIP,
are enforceable by EPA as well. The
emission rates, or work practices,
included in those agreements are
summarized below. The Agreements
require the facilities to meet these rates,
or work practices, within 3 to 5 years
after EPA approves the State’s RH SIP):
1. The facilities must meet the
emission rates on a 30-day rolling
average
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. the facilities must monitor via the
use of CEMS or stack test (with the
exception of Unit 2 at Gordon Evans
Energy Center)
3. the facilities must keep continuous
record of monitoring data in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 75, and
4. the facilities must report emissions
data to the State in accordance with 40
CFR Parts 60 or 75. Westar Energy is
required to report to the State fuel oil
usage at Gordon Evans Unit 2 in
accordance with K.A.R. 28–19–512.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to find
that the State of Kansas has met the
requirements for compliance schedules,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,
and enforceability in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) and the
BART Guidelines.
In its Consent Agreement, Kansas City
Power and Light, is required to meet
NOX and SO2 rates based on a 30-day
rolling average of both subject-to-BART
La Cygne Units 1 and 2, except during
periods of startup and shutdown. In the
second Consent Agreement, Westar
Energy is required to meet NOX and SO2
rates based on a 30-day rolling average
at subject-to-BART Jeffrey Energy Center
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Units 1 and 2, except during periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. In
the Regional Haze SIP, the State also
committed, on page 52, to assess the
visibility impacts of emissions from
these BART-subject units during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
as part of its five-year review. Should
the actual emission rates, including
during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction periods, exceed the agreed
upon emission limits, and be found to
negatively impact visibility at a Class I
area, the State commits to address these
issues with a SIP revision.
In the preamble to the BART rule,
EPA offered guidance suggesting that
states should exclude emissions
attributable to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction periods in modeling to
determine which sources should apply
BART controls. EPA did not, however,
suggest that emission limitations for
sources subsequently determined to be
subject to BART should be applicable
only during steady-state operations. Our
review of the Kansas submittal indicates
that the startup, shutdown, malfunction
language in the Agreements appears to
be inconsistent with EPA’s September
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52618
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20, 1999, guidance, ‘‘State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions during Malfunctions,
Startup and Shutdown,’’ because the
Agreements provide an automatic
exemption for startup, shutdown and
malfunction emissions, and the
exemptions for startup and shutdown
are not narrowly defined.25 Because the
Consent Agreements exempt periods of
startup and shutdown for both facilities
from compliance with applicable
emission limits and exempt periods of
malfunction at Westar Energy, they raise
approvability issues. In this action, EPA
is proposing to approve the NOX and
SO2 BART emission rates, compliance
schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for the
Kansas City Power and Light and Westar
Energy subject-to-BART units, and to
disapprove the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction provisions in the respective
Consent Agreements and the State’s
Regional Haze SIP.26
Based on the above, EPA is proposing
to find that the State of Kansas has met
the requirements for establishing BART
emission limitations and schedules for
compliance with those emission
limitations for each BART-eligible
source that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any Class I
area, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines.
EPA’s disapproval of the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction provisions
from EPA’s approval of the SO2 and
NOX BART emission rates in the Kansas
City Power and Light and Westar Energy
Consent Agreements and Regional Haze
SIP does not trigger an obligation on the
part of EPA to issue a FIP pursuant to
section 110(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7410(c). Kansas’ inclusion of the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
25 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs):
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ September
20, 1999; and 52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987).
26 The specific startup, shutdown, and
malfunction provisions in the Kansas Regional Haze
SIP that are being disapproved include: all
references to ‘‘excluding periods of startup and
shutdown’’ in Paragraph 23 of the Kansas City
Power and Light Company Regional Haze
Agreement; the reference to ‘‘excluding periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction’’ in footnote 1
of Appendix A to the Westar Energy, Inc. Regional
Haze Agreement; all references to ‘‘excluding
periods of startup and shutdown’’ in Chapter 9.3.1
of the Kansas Regional Haze SIP; and the sentence
‘‘The Agreements between KDHE and the affected
BART sources currently exclude emissions
associated with startup, shutdowns, and
malfunctions (SSM) in the agreed upon emission
limits.’’ in Chapter 9.5 of the Kansas Regional Haze
SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
provisions as exemptions from the
BART emission rates are not required
elements of the Regional Haze SIPs to be
developed and submitted by States
pursuant to section 169 of the CAA.
EPA is proposing to approve all
required elements of Kansas’ Regional
Haze SIP, including, in particular, the
BART emission rates, compliance
schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines, for
Kansas City Power and Light and Westar
Energy. Therefore, because EPA is
proposing to find that all required
Regional Haze SIP elements have been
met, including BART for subject to
BART units, and is proposing to
approve those elements, EPA has met its
obligation to take action on Kansas’s
Regional Haze SIP.
H. Long Term Strategy
As described in section II.G. of this
notice, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state for achieving its reasonable
progress goals. When a state’s emissions
are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment in a Class I
area located in another state, the
Regional Haze Rule requires the states to
consult, state to state, in order to
develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This is
addressed in section IV.C. above and in
the TSD to this notice. In such cases, the
State must demonstrate that it has
included in its SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goal for the Class I
area, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii). States must consider all
types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing
their LTS, including stationary, minor,
mobile, and area sources, as required by
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv). For more
discussion on the State’s evaluation of
potential sources of visibility
impairment please see the discussion
regarding the State’s emissions
inventory provided in section IV.E.2.
and the TSD to this notice.
The State is also required to consider
a number of emission reductions and
sources listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v):
1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing
Air Pollution Programs
EPA is proposing to find that the State
considered emission reductions for
ongoing air pollution control programs
as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(A). In Chapter 10
(section 10.4.3.1) of the State’s SIP, the
State outlines ongoing air pollution
control programs that can be expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
result in visibility impairing pollutant
reductions as follows: On Board Vapor
Recovery (a 1994 Federal standard); Onboard Diagnostics (a 1988 Federal
standard and revised with the 1990
CAA amendments); Federal on-road and
nonroad emissions standards such as
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur
Program (a 1999 Federal standard), the
Clean Air On-Road Diesel Rule (a 2007
Federal standard), the Clean Air
Nonroad Diesel Rule (a 2004 Federal
standard), the Locomotive Emission
Standards (a 2007 Federal standard), the
Large Spark-Ignition and Recreational
Vehicle Rule (a 2002 Federal standard);
the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance
Plan (required under CAA section
110(a)(1) and Federal regulations
promulgated at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) and
(4)); CAIR (only as it relates to
determination of source
apportionment—please see discussion
in section III. of this proposed
rulemaking); National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Pollutants
(NESHAP) and Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards
(Federal standards); and Visibility
Requirements under the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS)
promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21(o).
2. Measures To Mitigate Construction
Activities
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas has considered measures to
mitigate construction activities as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B).
The State proposed that it already meets
this requirement by meeting the
Visibility Requirements under the NSPS
promulgated at 40 CFR § 52.21(o).
Emissions such as windblown dust and
nonroad diesel emissions related to
commercial and residential construction
activities were also considered by the
State. The SIP explains (on page 81) that
rapid growth is not projected for the
State. In fact only minor growth is
expected for the State, from about 2,700
people to 2,950 people (given in
thousands) from 2005–2020.
Additionally, emissions from diesel
engines (used in construction
equipment) are expected to decline with
the Federal standards for both on-road
and nonroad engines (please see the
emission inventory section (IV.E.2.) of
this proposed rulemaking). Because
commercial and residential growth is
not expected to grow significantly in the
coming years, and reductions are
expected in non-road diesel engines
(commonly used equipment during
commercial and residential
construction) from Federal programs
and because emissions from commercial
and/or residential construction were not
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
identified as major sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, EPA does not
expect emissions from commercial or
residential construction activities taking
place within the State to have a
significant impact on visibility
impairment in Class I areas hosted by
other States.
3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules
for Compliance To Achieve the
Reasonable Progress Goal
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas has completed an analysis of
the emissions reductions needed from
sources in the State to obtain its share
of the emissions reductions needed to
meet the RPGs for Class I areas impacted
by those emissions as required by 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The EPA also
believes the State has established
enforceable emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to meet the
RPGs for those Class I areas as required
by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) and (F).
EPA also believes the Consent
Agreements, discussed in section
IV.G.3. of this proposal, incorporate
those emission limits and establish a
schedule for compliance in order to
meet the RPGs of impacted Class I areas
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C)
and (F).
The State conducted an analysis of
emission reductions that could be
required of sources not already
identified as BART-subject. The analysis
was conducted in 6 steps. The TSD to
this proposed rulemaking provides a
detailed analysis of the steps used to
identify emission reductions needed
from sources in Kansas to meet the
RPGs of impacted Class I areas in other
states. The process is also discussed
briefly below. The results of each step
of the process are described in detail on
the TSD to this proposed rulemaking.
Step 1: Identify all emission units in
the State that emitted equal to 500 tons
per year (tpy) of NOX and/or SO2 using
the 2002 emissions inventory.
Step 2: Identify the most effective
control technologies and screening for
excessive costs.
Step 3: Model visibility impacts and
screening of low-impact facilities.
Step 4: Screen and rank facilities
based on cost per ton per deciviews
improvement.
Step 5: Screen for non-cost regulatory
factors, i.e. time necessary for
compliance, energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and remaining useful life.
Step 6: Sort and final list of facilities
with the potential to need further
emissions reductions.
Kansas identified a total of 30 units
that emitted at least 500 tpy of NOX and
28 units that emitted at least 500 tpy of
SO2. Of this set of units, 8 of the NOX
units and 10 of the SO2 units were
removed from further review for the
following reasons:
• 6 of the NOX units and 6 of the SO2
units were already identified as BARTsubject;
• 2 of the NOX units and 2 of the SO2
units had installed controls since 2002
and emitted less than 500 tpy of either
pollutant.
• 2 of the SO2 units were determined
to have no commercially available
controls.
The remaining set of 22 NOX units
included 11 EGUs, 6 cement kilns, 2 gas
compressor engines, 1 refinery fluid-bed
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), 1
ammonia plant, and 1 glass furnace, all
located at 15 separate facilities. The 18
SO2 units were comprised of 13 EGUs,
4 cement kilns, and 1 refiner FCCU, all
located at 12 facilities.
In the second step each of the
remaining units, described above, were
matched with the emission control
technology selected for it by a CENRAP
contractor utilizing the least marginal
cost.27 For units that were not identified
by the contractor, the units were
matched with control technologies,
control efficiencies and control cost as
determined by EPA’s AirControlNET
version 4.1.28 Units whose cost of
control was determined to be $10,000/
ton reduced or greater were screened
out in this step.
In the third step the visibility impacts
at the Class I areas (previously
identified in section IV.B. of this
proposal) were evaluated for the
remaining units using the CALPUFF
52619
protocol (previously described in
section IV.G.2. of this proposal).
Modeling was conducted on a facilityby-facility basis and NOX and SO2
emissions impacts were calculated in
combination. The modeling was
conducted analyzing pre- and postcontrol’s (controls identified in Step 2 of
the analysis) 98th percentile visibility
impacts. Facilities whose highest precontrol 98th percentile impact was less
than 0.100 dv were screened out in this
step.
As a refinement to Step 3, the State reran CALPUFF for the remaining sources
considering the impacts of NOX and SO2
separately. The State considered the
pollutant emissions’ visibility impacts
separately because potential controls for
a facility, to meet reasonable progress
goals in a Class I area hosted by another
State, could be pollutant dependent.
In the fourth step the State calculated
the cost per ton per unit of dv
improvement ($/ton/dv). The State
estimated that the single value of $/ton/
dv combined the cost and visibility
improvement in a way that its
numerical value increases: (a) As the
cost of controls increases and (b) as the
visibility improvement decreases. The
State determined that the facility with
the lowest $/ton/dv would be the first
to be reviewed for possible controls to
meet reasonable progress goals in Class
I areas hosted by other States.
In the fifth step the State evaluated
the energy and non-cost factors for each
of the remaining facilities. Two units
were screened out in this step due to the
units’ startup dates, 1950 and 1954, and
the likelihood that they would be retired
by 2018.
In the sixth step the State ranked all
of the remaining facilities in increasing
order of $/ton/dv. The State used a cost
of $15,000/ton/dv as an exclusion
threshold from further consideration.
Based on its six step analysis, the
State determined that the
implementation of controls or work
practices, provided in Table 7, were
required to meet RPGs in Class I areas
hosted by other states.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 7—CONTROL OR WORK PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR WESTAR UNITS TO MEET KANSAS LONG TERM STRATEGY
REQUIREMENTS
Facility/unit
Emission rate or work practice
Gordon Evans Energy Center—Unit
1.
Hutchinson—Unit 4 .........................
A fuel switch to
plier, in which
A fuel switch to
plier, in which
27 ‘‘Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis
Plan—9 May 2006’’ page 36. https://
www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
natural gas at all times, with the
case the facility will be allowed to
natural gas at all times, with the
case the facility will be allowed to
exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas suputilize backup #6 fuel oil.
exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas suputilize backup #6 fuel oil.
28 ‘‘Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis
Plan—9 May 2006’’ page 36. https://
www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52620
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—CONTROL OR WORK PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR WESTAR UNITS TO MEET KANSAS LONG TERM STRATEGY
REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Facility/unit
Emission rate or work practice
Murray Gill—Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 .....
A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas supplier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil.
A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas supplier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil.
An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for both SO2 and NOX.
An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2.
An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2; an emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for NOX.
An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for both SO2 and NOX.
An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2.
An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2.
Neosho—Unit 7 ...............................
Jeffery Energy Center—Unit 3 ........
Lawrence—Unit3 .............................
Lawrence—Unit 4 ...........................
Lawrence—Unit 5 ...........................
Tecumseh—Unit 7/9 .......................
Tecumseh—Units 8/10 ...................
As previously discussed in this
section of this proposal, Consent
Agreements (given in Appendix 9.7 of
the SIP) provide a mechanism to enforce
these determinations and set the
compliance schedules for these
measures. The controls detailed above
are expected to achieve approximately
10,409 tpy of NOX and 22,812 tpy of
SO2 reductions.
TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NOX AND SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS OR WORK PRACTICES
REQUIRED BY KANSAS’ LONG TERM STRATEGY
Facility
2002 NOX
Emissions
(tpy)
Unit
2002 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
Post
control
NOX
(tpy)
Post
control
SO2
(tpy)
NOX
Reductions
(tpy)
SO2
Reductions
(tpy)
1
4
3
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
7
7
8
258.7
267.1
10,807.4
728.4
1,986.5
3,546.3
0.0
4.5
181.6
103.8
0.0
1,530.6
1,876.9
617.7
734.3
23,206.0
1,965.4
1,430.0
4,546.3
0.0
0.0
452.1
333.3
0.0
2,692.7
4,514.9
211.9
158.5
4,913.1
0.0
835.4
2,564.7
0.0
4.0
148.6
85.2
0.0
691.6
1,103.1
0.5
0.6
4,913.1
1,965.4
835.4
2,564.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
2,692.7
4,514.9
46.8
108.5
5,894.3
728.4
984.1
981.6
0.0
0.5
33.0
18.7
0.0
839.0
773.8
617.2
733.7
18,292.9
0.0
594.7
1,789.0
0.0
0.0
451.8
333.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total ..................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Gordon Evans ..........................................
Hutchinson ...............................................
Jeffrey ......................................................
Lawrence ..................................................
Lawrence ..................................................
Lawrence ..................................................
Gill ............................................................
Gill ............................................................
Gill ............................................................
Gill ............................................................
Neosho .....................................................
Tecumseh ................................................
Tecumseh ................................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
10,408.7
22,812.4
In summary and as further detailed
beginning on page 48 of the TSD, the
State utilized a six-step process to
determine emission reductions needed
from sources within the State that are
necessary to meet PRGs of Class I areas
hosted by other states. In doing so, the
State carefully considered and
eliminated further controls based upon
the factors. Balancing these factors, and
elimination of controls based
particularly on high cost of control
coupled with minimal contribution to
visibility impacts at Class I areas hosted
by other states, and remaining useful
life, resulted in the list controls required
to meet RPGs in Class I areas hosted by
other states, as set forth above. The State
found in particular that for BPU
Nearman Unit 1, although additional
controls were found to be cost effective,
in light of the source’s relatively minor
contribution to visibility impacts at
Class I areas, no further controls would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
be required. In addition, as previously
discussed in section IV.C. of this
proposed rule, the State of Kansas
consulted with the States of Missouri,
Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, and
determined that these states were not
relying on additional Kansas controls
beyond BART and ‘‘on the books’’
controls to meet the RPGs for the Class
I areas in those states. In addition, as
described in section IV.E.4. of this
proposed rule, the State will again
consider whether further controls are
necessary as part of the State’s five year
review of the SIP.
Based on the analysis above, EPA is
proposing to find that the State of
Kansas has completed an analysis of the
emissions reductions needed for source
in the State in order to obtain its share
of the emissions reductions needed to
meet the RPGs for Class I areas impacted
by emissions from the State, and has
established enforceable emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
limitations and schedules for
compliance necessary to meet the RPGs
for those Class I areas as required by 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(v)(C) and
(F).
4. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas has considered source
retirement and replacement schedules
as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(D). The IPM runs
(previously discussed in section IV.E.4.
of this proposal) projected closure of
several gas-fired boilers in the State.
However, when the State communicated
directly with those facilities they found
that this assumption was incorrect. The
State is aware of only two coal-fired
EGUs that may be retired within the
next 10 years: Kansas City BPU–KAW,
units 1 and 3; and Empire District
Electric-Riverton, units 7 and 8. Kansas
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52621
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
City BPU–KAW units 1 and 3 have been
on cold stand-by since 2001 and 2003
respectively. Units 1 and 3 would be
subject to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting
requirements if the facility were to
restart them. Empire District ElectricRiverton units 7 and 8 have start-up
dates of 1950 and 1954 respectively, and
will likely be retired by 2018. The State
has included a commitment, on page 83
of the State’s Regional Haze SIP, to
address any other sources that are
retired or are replaced in conformance
with existing State SIP requirements
pertaining to PSD and NSR permitting,
in the next SIP planning period.
5. Smoke Management
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Kansas has considered smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management as required by
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) and that it has
considered emissions control strategies
as outlined in the Agency’s ‘‘Interim Air
Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires’’.29 Emissions from area
source fires, by burn type and pollutant
are provided in Table 9.
TABLE 9—2002 KANSAS EMISSIONS BY BURN TYPE AND POLLUTANT
Burn type
2002 tons
Acres
burned
PM2.5
PM10
CO
NOX
SO2
NH3
VOC
Rangeland ........................
Cropland ...........................
Prescribed ........................
3,625,270
1,390,520
38,106
75,943
23,227
1,450
52,901
22,156
1,226
652,250
153,313
14,424
23,185
5,909
228
10,160
777
114
7,487
3,950
143
43,483
11,401
881
Totals ........................
5,053,896
100,620
76,283
819,987
29,322
11,052
11,579
55,765
The impact of planned burning to
visibility at Class I areas was evaluated
by a contractor during the development
of both the planned burning emissions
inventory and the ‘‘Causes of Haze
Assessment’’ for the CENRAP region.30
The July 30, 2004 31 study conducted as
part of the planned burning inventory
analyzed ambient speciated PM2.5 data
from the IMPROVE network at two Class
I areas (Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas) to determine which
chemical compositions characterize
prescribed burning activity. The study
found that levels of elemental carbon
and non-soil potassium were elevated
on days during or after agricultural
burning in the area. However, the
contribution of elemental carbon, the
primary marker of smoke, is a small part
of the PM2.5 mass. While elemental
carbon has relatively high extinction
efficiency, the mass concentrations are
small and do not contribute
significantly to light extinction. The
State has committed to continue support
of the Kansas Smoke Management Plan
initiative.
6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
Resulting From Projected Changes to
Emissions
EPA is proposing to find that the
States evaluation of the net effects on
visibility resulting from projected
emission reduction from Kansas sources
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(G). The 2002 to 2018
projected visibility improvement at the
nine Class I areas, from emission
reductions in Kansas, result mostly from
the implementation of NOX and SO2
controls on the five BART–subject
EGUs. The projected visibility
improvements from these reductions are
shown in Table 10 and are shown in
terms of light extinction.
The impact on the WIMO is expected
to be reduced by 1.03715 Mm¥1, which
represents a 23 percent change in
Kansas’ impact on the WIMO between
2002 and 2018. Further improvement
will come from the control of sources
identified in Table 7 above. Discussion
of any potential emission increases by
the year 2018 is discussed in detail in
the TSD to this notice.
TABLE 10—NET 2002 TO 2018 IMPROVEMENT IN VISIBILITY AT SELECTED CLASS I AREAS DUE TO BART CONTROLS IN
KANSAS
Net 2002–2018 light
extinction difference
(improvement) from
Kansas sources (Mm¥1)
Class I area
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Caney Creek (Arkansas) .....................................................................................................................................................
Upper Buffalo (Arkansas) ....................................................................................................................................................
Great Sand Dunes (Colorado) .............................................................................................................................................
Rocky Mountain (Colorado) .................................................................................................................................................
Hercules-Glades (Missouri) .................................................................................................................................................
Mingo (Missouri) ..................................................................................................................................................................
Wichita Mountains (Oklahoma) ...........................................................................................................................................
Badlands (South Dakota) ....................................................................................................................................................
Wind Cave (South Dakota) ..................................................................................................................................................
V. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve the State
of Kansas’ Regional Haze SIP, submitted
29 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires—https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/
memoranda/firefnl.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
on November 9, 2009, with the
exception of certain provisions related
to startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
30 https://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
31 ‘‘Sonoma
Technology, Inc. Research and
Development of Planned Burning Emission
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.63493
0.44533
0.03322
0.06051
0.56911
0.58719
1.03715
0.12856
0.16741
as explained in section IV.G.3. of this
notice. EPA is proposing to find that the
submittal meets all of the applicable
Inventories for the Central States Regional Air
Planning Association—July 30, 2004’’.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
52622
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Regional Haze requirements set forth in
section 169A and 169B of the Act and
in the Federal regulations codified at 40
CFR § 51.300–308, and the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart F and
Appendix V.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ‘‘collections of information’’
by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of
information’’ as a requirement for
answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on
ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA do not create any new
requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis
would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval
action proposed does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule 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 rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate
environmental health or safety risks.
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
existing technical standards when
developing a new regulation. To comply
with NTTAA, EPA must consider and
use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’
(VCS) if available and applicable when
developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Environmental
protection, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 15, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011–21567 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0601; FRL–9453–1]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen
(NOx), and particulate matter (PM)
emissions from flares. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
September 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0601, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
SUMMARY:
52623
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the
docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the date that it was
amended by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
SJVUAPCD .............................
4311
On February 4, 2010, EPA determined
that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule
4311 met the completeness criteria in 40
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Aug 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Rule title
Amended
Flares ......................................................................................
CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
06/18/09
Submitted
01/10/10
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 4311 into the SIP on February 26,
E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM
23AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52604-52623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21567]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0675, FRL-9455-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Kansas on November 9, 2009, that
addresses Regional Haze for the first implementation period. In so
doing, EPA is proposing to determine that the plan submitted by Kansas
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), for
states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions
of air pollutants located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to those provisions of the CAA that obligate the Agency to
take action on submittals of SIPs. You may submit written comments on
this proposed rule as per the instructions given under the section
Instructions for Comment Submittal.
DATES: Written comments must be received via the methods given in the
Instructions for Comment section on or before September 22, 2011.
[[Page 52605]]
ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment Submittal: Submit your comments,
which must be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0675, by one
of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Wolfersberger.Chris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551-7844 (please alert the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
4. Mail: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
5. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy
Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The https://www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning
and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 or by telephone at (913)
551-7864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
E. Reasonable Progress Goals
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) to the regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
B. Remand of the CAIR
C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas's Submittal
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Kansas' submittal?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Affected Class I Areas
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
1. Monitoring Strategy
2. Emissions Inventory
3. Reporting Requirements
4. SIP Revision Schedule
F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Best Available Retrofit Technology
1. BART Eligible Sources
2. BART Subject Sources
3. BART Determinations
H. Long Term Strategy
1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
2. Measures to Mitigate Construction Activities
3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Compliance to Achieve
the Reasonable Progress Goal
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
5. Smoke Management
6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Resulting From Projected
Changes to Emissions
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional Haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a wide
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. PM2.5 can also
cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness of nutrients
in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the
land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal
life from lack of oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52606]]
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'', or IMPROVE
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (e.g.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the Western United States is
100-150 kilometers (13.6-9.6 deciviews (dv)) 2 3, or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of
the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers
(25 dv or more), or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visibility refers to the clarity with which distant objects
can be viewed. Visual range is the distance at which an object is
just discernible from the background. This could be considered how
far one can see in a given direction. Visual range is primarily
affected by the scattering and absorption of light by particles in
the atmosphere. Scattering by gaseous molecules also reduces the
transmission of light. The diminished intensity of light caused by
this scattering and absorption is called light extinction.
\3\ Deciview means a measurement of visibility impairment. A
deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction,
such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform
incremental changes in perception across the entire range of
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments CAA, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \4\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e. ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas are
those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
Section 169A of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate a list of such
areas where visibility is an important value. 42 U.S.C. 7491. In
1979, EPA identified visibility as an important value in 156 of
these areas. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979); see 40 CFR part 81,
subpart D. The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although States and tribes may designate additional areas
as Class I, the requirements of the visibility program under section
169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I Federal areas.''
Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
``Federal land manager'' (FLM), the Secretary of the department with
authority over such lands. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
``Class I area'' in this notice, we mean a ``mandatory Class I
Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address Regional
Haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713) (Regional Haze Rule or Rule). The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the Federal visibility protection regulations
at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized below in section II. The requirement to
submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. States are required by 40 CFR
51.308(b) to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional
haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
C. Roles Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the Regional Haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze. The State of Kansas participated
in the planning efforts of the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP) which is affiliated with the Central States Air
Resource Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine states--Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and
Louisiana.
States were also required (40 CFR 51.308(i)) to coordinate with
FLMs during the development of the state's strategies to address
Regional Haze. FLMs include the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the National Park Service.
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) require revisions to a SIP to be
adopted by a state after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has
promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40
CFR Part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of
notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area of a
public hearing on proposed revisions, at least a 30-day public comment
period, and the opportunity for a public hearing, and that the state,
in accordance with its laws, submit the revision to the EPA for
approval. Specific information on Kansas' rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP
development and public information process is included in Chapter 2,
and Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas Regional Haze SIP, which is
included in the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
Regional Haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A, and EPA's implementing regulations (40 CFR 51.300-
51.309), require states to establish long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans also
must give specific attention to certain stationary
[[Page 52607]]
sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977 but were not in
operation before August 7, 1962 and require, where appropriate, that
these sources install BART for the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that states consult with other
states and FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs (40 CFR
51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation,
in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on
the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I
area and to offer recommendations on the development of reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) \5\ and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)--for each mandatory Class I area located
within the State, the State must establish goals (expressed in
deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview as the principle
metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in
visibility at one deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provides additional
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which
are interim visibility goals toward meeting the national visibility
goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must contain measures
that make ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program, and as part of the process for
determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of
existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each
Regional Haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five
years midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this,
the Regional Haze Rule requires states to determine the degree of
impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility
days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In
addition, states must develop an estimate of natural visibility
conditions for purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal.
Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural
concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then
calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has
provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the
Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''), and
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-
03-004 September 2003, located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting point for
assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions
represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states
are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment
for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the
five year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future
comparison of baseline conditions to then current conditions will
indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule includes the
requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing,
and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Vital Environments (IMPROVE)
network, i.e. review and use of monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it
must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
reasonable progress goals will be met. The SIP must also provide for
the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
For a state with no mandatory Class I areas, procedures
for using monitoring data and other information to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
[[Page 52608]]
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, the most recent year for which data are
available, and estimates of future projected emissions, along with a
commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The Regional Haze Rule requires control strategies to cover an
initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of
BART. The requirement to evaluate BART applies only to the first
Regional Haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will be continue to be met.
E. Reasonable Progress Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the
national visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs that establish two reasonable progress goals (i.e., two distinct
goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every
Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period.
The Regional Haze Rule does not mandate specific milestones or rates of
progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide
for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e.
``background'') visibility conditions. In setting reasonable progress
goals, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP,
and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing reasonable
progress goals, but are required to consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's Regional Haze Rule
at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) the costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their
SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the reasonable
progress goal for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I
area in the state (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have considerable
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted
in EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators,
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the reasonable progress
goals, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform
rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the ten year
period of the SIP. Uniform progress toward achievement of natural
visibility conditions by 2064 represents a rate of progress which
states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress
they expect to achieve. In setting reasonable progress goals, each
state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also
consult with potentially ``contributing states'', i.e. other nearby
states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the Class I state's areas (51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
States without Class I areas are required to submit Regional Haze
SIPs to address their contribution to visibility impairment. As per the
previous discussion in this proposed rulemaking, the ability of the
long range transport of pollutants to affect visibility conditions
areas makes it imperative that each state evaluate how emissions from
within its borders affect visibility impairment in Class I areas in
other states. However, states without Class I areas, such as Kansas,
are not required to (a) establish reasonable progress goals, (b)
calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at Class I areas,
or (c) monitor and report visibility data for each Class I area within
the state.
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that
certain categories of existing stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``best available retrofit
technology'' as determined by the state.\7\ Under the Regional Haze
Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
toward improving visibility than BART. This is discussed in more detail
in section III. of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). The 26 source
categories are: (1) Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more
than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, (2) Coal
cleaning plants (thermal dryers), (3) Kraft pulp mills, (4) Portland
cement plants, (5) Primary zinc smelters, (6) Iron and steel mill
plants, (7) Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, (8) Primary
copper smelters, (9) Municipal incinerators capable of charging more
than 250 tons of refuse per day, (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and
nitric acid plants, (11) Petroleum refineries, (12) Lime plants,
(13) Phosphate rock processing plants, (14) Coke oven batteries,
(15) Sulfur recovery plants, (16) Carbon black plants (furnace
process), (17) Primary lead smelters, (18) Fuel conversion plants,
(19) Sintering plants, (20) Secondary metal production facilities,
(21) Chemical process plants, (22) Fossil-fuel boilers of more than
250 million British thermal units per hour heat input, (23)
Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding
300,000 barrels, (24) Taconite ore processing facilities, (25) Glass
fiber processing plants, and (26) Charcoal production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule \8\ at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess
of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the
BART Guidelines. A state is
[[Page 52609]]
encouraged, but not required to follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Appendix Y to part 51--F.1. The guidelines provide a process
for making BART determinations that states can use in implementing
the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as
provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States must follow the guidelines
in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750
megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required to use the process
in the guidelines when making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOx, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOCs or ammonia compounds impair visibility in
Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. As a
general matter, any exemption threshold set by the state should not be
higher than 0.5 deciviews (70 FR 39161).
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the Regional Haze Rule and
document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states
consider the following five factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the
remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
A Regional Haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, controls must be installed and
in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years
after EPA's approval of the regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by
the Regional Haze Rule, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source.
As noted above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to implement
an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations
issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a
demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations
provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program
under 40 CFR part 96 or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected
BART-eligible electricity generating units (EGUs) to install, operate,
and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM,
states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions
from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
G. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for
making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze
Rule requires that states include a LTS in their SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet reasonable
progress goals. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within,
or affected by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment in a Class I area located in another state,
the Regional Haze Rule requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emission
management strategies (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the reasonable progress goal for the Class I area. The
RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently
address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two
states belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors are taken into account in
developing their LTS (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)):
Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs,
Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities;
Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the reasonable progress goal;
Source retirement and replacement schedules;
Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state
for these purposes;
Enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and
The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS.
III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
to the regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any
downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes
emission budgets or caps for SO2 and NOX for
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind
states and requires the significantly contributing states to submit SIP
revisions that implement these budgets. States have the flexibility to
choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets,
including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and NOX-
ozone season emissions.
B. Remand of the CAIR
On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate and
remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without
[[Page 52610]]
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. The Court thereby left CAIR in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA could replace it with a rule consistent
with the court's opinion. 550 F.3d at 1178. The Court directed EPA to
``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion but
declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action.
Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency without
vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in subject
states.
Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under
the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several
states established RPGs that reflect the improvement in visibility
expected to result from controls planned for or already installed on
sources within the state to meet the CAIR provisions for this
implementation period for specified pollutants. Many states relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the
legal requirements which leads to these planned controls, and did not
include enforceable measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP
submission to ensure these reductions. States also submitted
demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR
would be reasonable for this implementation period.
On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR).\9\ This rule responds to the court ruling remanding the 2005
CAIR, and achieves emission reductions beyond those originally required
by CAIR through additional air pollution reductions from power plants
beginning in 2012. On July 11, 2011, in conjunction with EPA's
finalization of CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental proposal requesting
comment on inclusion of additional states in the CSAPR ozone season
program. (76 FR 40662) EPA intends to finalize the supplemental
proposal by October 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas' Submittal
The State of Kansas is not in the CAIR program and did not rely on
CAIR for reductions of SO2 or NOX in place of
BART at its BART-subject EGUs. EPA acknowledges that the CAIR program
was a major component in the underlying assumptions used by the State
to determine source apportionment based on the modeled reduction
expected in neighboring states that participate in the CAIR program.
Modeling used by the CENRAP states included assumptions based on
reductions from CENRAP states that relied on CAIR. As more fully
discussed in section IV. F. of this proposal, and page 30 of the SIP,
the State committed to report on its progress towards meeting the
reasonable progress goals established for the Class I areas in other
states within five years of submittal of the SIP, and if the State
determines that the implementation plan is inadequate to ensure the
reasonable progress goals are met, to submit necessary revisions to
EPA. Kansas has committed to review emissions changes and potential new
technology developments that may apply to the sources identified above
as part of the five-year progress report. As described on page 74 of
the SIP, if a determination is made that controls are feasible, cost-
effective, and needed for visibility improvements, the State will
explore additional controls at that time.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Kansas' submittal?
A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze Rule
EPA is proposing to find that that the State of Kansas has met the
requirements of the CAA which require that the State adopt a SIP after
reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the State
has met the requirements of the specific procedural requirements for
SIP revisions promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V.
These requirements include publication of notices by prominent
advertisement in the relevant geographic area of a public hearing on
proposed revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period, and the
opportunity for a public hearing, and that the State, in accordance
with its laws, submit the revision to EPA for approval. Specific
information on Kansas' rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP development and
public information process is included in Chapter 2, and Appendix 2.1,
of the State of Kansas Regional Haze SIP, which is included in the
docket of this proposed rule making.
B. Affected Class I Areas
EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas has adequately
established which Class I areas are impacted by emissions from the
State, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) and as described in the Agency's
``Visibility Monitoring Guidance'' \10\ . There are no Class I areas
hosted by the State of Kansas. States, such as Kansas, that do not host
Class I areas are not required to identify reasonable progress goals or
calculate baseline and natural visibility conditions at Class I areas.
However, states without Class I areas are still required to submit SIPs
that address the apportionment of visibility impact from the emissions
generated by sources within the state's borders at Class I areas hosted
by other states. The following are the Class I areas nearest to the
State of Kansas in all directions around the State's border:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Visibility Monitoring Guidance: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99-003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arkansas (CACR)
Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas (UPBU)
Great Sands Dunes Wilderness Area, Colorado (GRSA)
Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado (ROMO)
Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL)
Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING)
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, Oklahoma (WIMO)
Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL)
Wind Cave National Park, Texas (WICA)
Big Bend National Park, Texas (BIBE)
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas (GUMO)
The 20 percent worst day estimated percent light extinction (for
the base year 2002 and projection year 2018), at these eleven Class I
areas, attributed to emissions from sources in Kansas (shown by
pollutant species and source category), are provided in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) to this proposed rulemaking. The CENRAP computed
these data using IMPROVE data for 2000 to 2004 to define baseline,
natural and 2018 conditions for each of the affected Class I areas. All
CENRAP states relied upon the regional modeling work performed by
CENRAP \11\ (and its contractors) for determining the impact that
sources within a state might have on Class I areas in the region. The
modeling was based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) with
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx)
photochemical model. For Kansas, the CENRAP modeling indicated that
Kansas sources were most likely to have
[[Page 52611]]
the highest visibility impact at the WIMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A contractor to CENRAP, ENVIRON, completed the data
analysis. This analysis can be reviewed in Chapter 4 of the
Technical Support Document developed by ENVIRON and can be found at
https://www.kdheks.gov/bar/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas adequately
identified the Class I areas impacted by sources of air pollution
within the State and the State adequately determined the apportionment
of those pollutants from sources located within the State and as such
has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
EPA is proposing to find that that the State of Kansas participated
in sufficient consultation with other states where emissions from
sources in Kansas are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas hosted by other states and to
coordinate emission management strategies for such Class I areas, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and (d)(3)(i). The State of Kansas
was an active member of the CENRAP. The governing body (voting members)
of CENRAP was considered the Policy Oversight Group (POG). The POG was
made up of 18 voting members representing states and tribes in the
CENRAP region and nonvoting member representing local air agencies, the
FLMs and other stakeholders. CENRAP members also developed a workgroup
structure to address technical and non-technical issues related to
regional haze. There were five workgroups: Monitoring; Emissions
Inventory; Modeling; Communications; and Implementation and Control
Strategies. Any interested party to CENRAP was invited to participate
on any or all of the workgroups. Policy issues were decided by the POG.
The Kansas Regional Haze SIP was developed utilizing data analysis,
modeling results and other technical support documents prepared for
CENRAP members by the workgroups, or parties contracted by CENRAP.\12\
The Kansas SIP (at page 85) indicates that in addition to participation
in the regional planning process, Kansas consulted directly with the
States of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas to determine if
controls beyond presumptive BART (presumptive BART is discussed in
greater detail below) would be required of emission sources in Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This information was provided on the CENRAP Web site,
https://cenrap.org or CENRAP's FTP site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to find that the State of Kansas engaged in
adequate consultation with the FLMs as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i).
The State provided the FLMs with state contacts for submission of
recommendations in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(1), as provided on
page 14 of the Kansas Regional Haze SIP. In addition to the FLMs having
the opportunity to participate in or comment on (as non-voting members
of CENRAP) the development of technical and non-technical documents
used by the State to develop its Regional Haze SIP, the FLMs were given
the opportunity to comment on the State's draft SIP dated November 1,
2007 as required by 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), participate in a public
hearing held on August 20, 2008, the opportunity to comment on a
revised draft SIP dated July 16, 2009, and participate in a second
public hearing held on August 27, 2009. The FLMs submitted comments to
the State of Kansas on December 14, 2007. The State addressed comments
received from the FLMs as shown in Appendix 4.1 of the State's Regional
Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). To address the
requirement for continuing consultation with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), the State of Kansas has committed in its SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout the
implementation period by coordinating and consulting with the FLMs
during development of five-year progress reports and plan revisions.
EPA is proposing to find the State of Kansas provided sufficient
evidence that it engaged in adequate consultation with other states and
the FLMs and therefore has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i) and
(d)(3)(i) and of the Regional Haze Rule.
D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I
areas. As Kansas does not host a Class I area, it is not required to
estimate these metrics. However, as previously discussed in section IV.
B. of this document, the State must still develop a SIP that estimates
the apportionment of visibility impact related to pollutant emissions
from sources within the State on Class I areas hosted by other States.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
As it does not host a Class I area, Kansas is not required to
develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I
areas within the State. However, Kansas is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State and to
document the technical basis on which it is relying to determine its
apportionment of emission reductions necessary for achieving reasonable
progress in each Class I area it affects, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii). Kansas is also required to
develop a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) and
(d)(4)(v). This inventory must include baseline year emissions,
emissions for the most recent year that data is available, and
estimates of future year emissions. A commitment to update the
inventory as well as a commitment to maintain reporting, recording
keeping and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility
improvements are required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi). EPA is
proposing to find that the State has met these requirements, as
explained below.
1. Monitoring Strategy
There are three IMPROVE protocol sites (sites that are not managed
directly by IMPROVE (a Federal program) but by the operating agency)
which are operated in the State of Kansas. One is located at Cedar
Bluff State Park in Trego County in the western part of the State, a
second at the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in the eastern part
of the State (each operated by the State of Kansas), and the third is
located in Reserve, Kansas in the northeastern part of the State and it
is operated by the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and
Nebraska. Descriptions of these monitoring sites and methods for data
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of the State's Regional Haze SIP.
The State has provided a commitment in Chapter 6, section 6.3, of the
State's Regional Haze SIP to maintain the three IMPROVE protocol
monitoring sites, or any other EPA approved network configuration,
contingent upon continued national funding.
The filter samples from the three IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent
for analysis to the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of
California in Davis, and the resultant data are subjected to
preliminary review and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
procedures. Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff site are validated
by the CENRAP contractor. Other visibility-related data collected by
the State of Kansas (PM2.5, SO2, NO2,
and NH3) are subjected to review and QA/QC procedures prior
to reporting.
[[Page 52612]]
After validation, data from the three IMPROVE-protocol sites are
sent by the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of California
in Davis for posting to the IMPROVE Web site and the Visibility
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff
site are reported to the VIEWS database by the CENRAP contractor. Other
visibility-related data collected by the State of Kansas are reported
to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database on a quarterly basis.
EPA is proposing to find that the State's commitment to provide and
utilize data from these sites, or any other EPA approved monitoring
network location, to characterize and monitor model conditions within
the State and to compare visibility conditions in the State to
visibility impairment at Class I areas hosted by other states meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the Regional Haze
Rule.
2. Emissions Inventory
EPA has reviewed the emissions inventory provided by the State of
Kansas and believes that it is sufficient and follows the guidance
provided by the Agency in its ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for the
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' \13\ and its
``2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone,
PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs'' memo.\14\ Kansas is
required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include baseline
year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data is
available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State provided
an inventory of emissions of pollutants that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
PM10 and NH3. As required, the inventory includes
emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most recent year for which
data are available, and estimates of future year (2018) projected
emissions along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for the Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf.
\14\ 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs memo-https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2002 emissions inventory and its improvements were developed by
CENRAP and its contractors as part of the development of a baseline
inventory for the 2002 modeling inventory.\15\ The TSD to this proposal
discusses the improvements to the inventory that were prepared by the
contractor retained to develop and improve three inventory categories
of the baseline 2002 inventory: planned burning, ammonia, mobile source
and fugitive dust. The complete 2002 baseline emissions inventory can
be found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. Methodologies for the development
of the 2002 emissions inventories can be found in Appendix 7.3 of the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the 2018 future year emissions the State grew the 2002
emissions using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS), MOBILE 6.2
vehicle emissions software, and the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
version 2.93 for EGUs.
EPA is proposing to find that the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions
inventories and the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions
inventory meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the
Regional Haze Rule.
Table 1--2002 Kansas Emissions Summary, by Source Category and Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons/yr
Source category -----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 40,278 165,224 16,321 38,366 59,750 143,367
Nonpoint (except fires)................. 87,327 13,851 10,024 10,533 796 3,100
On-road mobile.......................... 74,519 100,152 1,607 2,179 2,816 3,097
Nonroad mobile.......................... 28,138 82,697 5,993 6,549 115 8,101
Nonpoint fire........................... 35,046 29,322 117,597 129,187 19 11,051
Biogenic................................ 575,073 49,616 N/A N/A N/A N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 840,381 440,862 151,542 186,814 63,496 168,716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--2018 Kansas Projected Emissions Summary, by Source Category and Pollutant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons/yr
Source category -----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 54,007 145,647 23,669 50,165 71,623 81,664
Nonpoint (except fires)................. 104,983 15,822 9,143 9,534 1,247 3,860
On-road mobile.......................... 32,724 28,779 655 655 3,892 369
Nonroad mobile.......................... 15,156 38,044 2,696 2,954 52 126
Nonpoint fire........................... 35,046 29,322 117,597 129,187 19 11,051
Biogenic................................ 575,073 49,616 N/A N/A N/A N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................. 816,989
