Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 3984-3997 [2012-1512]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, and
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012–1604 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, FRL–9622–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing limited
approval of a revision to the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, through the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on
December 20, 2010 that addresses
regional haze for the first
implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that
require states to prevent any future, and
remedy any existing, anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of this SIP
revision to implement the regional haze
requirements for Pennsylvania on the
basis that the revisions, as a whole,
strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
also proposing to approve this revision
as meeting the infrastructure
requirements relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. In a
separate action, EPA has previously
proposed a limited disapproval of the
Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because
of deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit)
to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), see 76 FR 82219, December 30,
2011. Consequently, we are not taking
action in this notice to address the
Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2012–0002 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012–
0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received 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 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email 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.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the Commonwealth’s
submittal are available at the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by
email at mailto:linden.melissa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 20, 2010, the PADEP
submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the first
implementation period.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed
action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA’s analysis of Pennsylvania’s
regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to
Visibility Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. BART
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 broad 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. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (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 1 in many Class I
1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers 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
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35714,
July 1, 1999.
B. Background Information
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the 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 2 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.’’ See 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 were 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 35714), the RHR. The RHR
revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of 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). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR
69122, November 30, 1979). 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
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
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.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3985
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 EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
section II of this notice. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.3
Section 51.308(b) requires states to
submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm 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 the 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 (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic Region Air
Management Association (MARAMA),
the Northeast States for Coordination
Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU) regional
planning organization. MANE–VU is a
collaborative effort of state governments,
3 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico
must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section
74–2–4).
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3986
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility,
and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the
United States. Member states and tribal
governments include: Connecticut,
Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation,
Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,
and Vermont.
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require
that within three years of promulgation
of a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), a state must ensure
that its SIP, among other requirements,
‘‘contains adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other types of
emission activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State to protect visibility.’’
Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires
that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable
requirements of part C of (Subchapter I)
(relating to visibility protection).’’
EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the
visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission
of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by
sections 169A and 169B of the CAA.
EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state
could meet such visibility requirements
through its regional haze SIP. EPA’s
rationale supporting this
recommendation was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that
through this process states would
coordinate on emissions controls to
protect visibility on an interstate basis.
The common understanding was that, as
a result of this collaborative
environment, each state would take
action to achieve the emissions
reductions relied upon by other states in
their reasonable progress
demonstrations under the RHR. This
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
interpretation is consistent with the
requirement in the RHR that a state
participating in a regional planning
process must include ‘‘all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process.’’ See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
The regional haze program, as
reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range
transport of pollutants for visibility and
encourages states to work together to
develop plans to address haze. The
regulations explicitly require each state
to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission
reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for
neighboring Class I areas. States
working together through a regional
planning process, are required to
address an agreed upon share of their
contribution to visibility impairment in
the Class I areas of their neighbors. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze
SIPs will contain measures that will
achieve these emissions reductions and
will meet the applicable visibility
related requirements of section
110(a)(2).
As a result of the regional planning
efforts in the MANE–VU, all states in
the MANE–VU region contributed
information to a Technical Support
Committee (TSC) which provides an
analysis of the causes of haze, and the
levels of contribution from all sources
within each state to the visibility
degradation of each Class I area. The
MANE–VU states consulted in the
development of reasonable progress
goals, using the products of this
technical consultation process to codevelop their reasonable progress goals
for the MANE–VU Class I areas. The
modeling done by MANE–VU relied on
assumptions regarding emissions over
the relevant planning period and
embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in
each of the states in MANE–VU,
including reductions from BART and
other measures to be adopted as part of
the state’s long term strategy for
addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional
haze SIPs that have been prepared by
the states in the MANE–VU region are
based, in part, on the emissions
reductions from nearby states that were
agreed on through the MANE–VU
process.
Pennsylvania submitted a regional
haze SIP on December 20, 2010, to
address the requirements of the RHR.
On December 7, 2007, Pennsylvania
submitted its original 1997 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SIP revisions. On June 6, 2008,
Pennsylvania submitted amendments
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On April 26,
2010, Pennsylvania submitted the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On
May 24, 2011, Pennsylvania submitted
an amendment to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. In these
submittals, Pennsylvania stated that
their regional haze SIP would meet the
requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pennsylvania also indicated it will meet
the visibility requirements of
110(a)(2)(J), and specifically references
the regional haze SIP submitted on
December 20, 2010. EPA has reviewed
Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP and, as
explained in section IV of this action,
proposes to find that Pennsylvania’s
regional haze submittal meets the
portions of the requirements of the CAA
sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. What are the requirements for the
regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. Section
169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as
the principal 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
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.4
The deciview is used in expressing
RPGs (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 ensure
‘‘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 (40
CFR 81.401–437), 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
RHR 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
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the 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
4 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725,
July 1, 1999.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–004 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 points 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 the 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.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
states that establish two RPGs (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 RHR 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 RPGs, 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 RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR 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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3987
their SIPs how these factors are
considered when selecting the RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. 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 RPGs, 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 10-year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by
the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress that states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In
setting RPGs, 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
state’s Class I areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. 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 states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources5 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, 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
5 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3988
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
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 in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric 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 encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing 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
VOC or NH3 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 emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
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, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
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 RHR 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 the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (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 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR
part 97, do not require affected BART
eligible electric generating units (EGUs)
to install, operate, and maintain BART
for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 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. On
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the
Transport Rule would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the
national goal than would BART in the
states in which the Transport Rule
applies. 76 FR 82219. EPA also
proposed to revise the RHR to allow
states to meet the requirements of an
alternative program in lieu of BART by
participation in the trading programs
under the Transport Rule. EPA has not
taken final action on that rule.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a 10
to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a LTS in their regional haze 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 applicable RPGs.
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 visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing states
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. See
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 RPGs 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 listed below are taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) emissions
limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPG; (4)
source retirement and replacement
schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans
as currently exist within the state for
these purposes; (6) enforceability of
emissions limitations and control
measures; and (7) the anticipated net
effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile
source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
As noted in EPA’s separate notice
proposing revisions to the RHR (76 FR
82219, December 30, 2011) a number of
states, including Pennsylvania, fully
consistent with EPA’s regulations at the
time, relied on the trading programs of
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
and the requirement for a long-term
strategy sufficient to achieve the stateadopted reasonable progress goals. In
that notice, we proposed a limited
disapproval of Pennsylvania’s long-term
strategy and for that reason are not
taking action on the long-term strategy
in this notice. Comments on that
proposed determination may be directed
to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729.
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and
(c). On or before this date, the state must
revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and
periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.
The periodic review of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
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. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the 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 RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
• 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;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
• 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,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR 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 sources for
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 continue to be
met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 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 the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3989
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.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of
Pennsylvania’s regional haze submittal?
On December 20, 2010, PADEP
submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP to address regional haze as required
by EPA’s RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
Pennsylvania has no Class I areas
within its borders, but has been
identified as influencing the visibility
impairment of all MANE–VU Class I
areas (Brigantine Wilderness Area in
New Jersey; Acadia National Park,
Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and
Roosevelt/Campobello International
Park in Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness
Area and Presidential Range/Dry River
Wilderness Area in New Hampshire;
Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont;
Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek
Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and
Shenandoah National Park and James
River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia).
Pennsylvania is responsible for
developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses these Class I areas, that
describes its long-term emission
strategy, its role in the consultation
processes, and how the SIP meets the
other requirements in EPA’s regional
haze regulations. However, since
Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within
its borders, Pennsylvania is not required
to address the following regional haze
SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline
and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of reasonable progress
goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and
(d) RAVI requirements.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section II. E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state to obtain its share of emission
reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and New Jersey, the Class I
area states. Pennsylvania’s LTS for the
first implementation period addresses
the emissions reductions from federal,
state, and local controls that take effect
in the Commonwealth from the baseline
period starting in 2002 until 2018.
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3990
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Pennsylvania participated in the
MANE–VU regional strategy
development process. As a participant,
Pennsylvania supported a regional
approach towards deciding which
control measures to pursue for regional
haze, which was based on technical
analyses documented in the following
reports: (a) Contributions to Regional
Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
United States; (b) Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze
in MANE–VU Class I Areas; (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART-Eligible
Sources: Survey of Options for
Conducting BART Determinations; and
(d) Assessment of Control Technology
Options for BART-Eligible Sources:
Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial
Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and
Pulp Facilities.
The LTS was developed by
Pennsylvania, in coordination with
MANE–VU, identifying the emissions
units within Pennsylvania that likely
have the largest impacts currently on
visibility at the MANE–VU Class I areas,
estimating emissions reductions for
2018, based on all controls required
under federal and state regulations for
the 2002–2018 period (including
BART), and comparing projected
visibility improvement with the uniform
rate of progress for the MANE–VU Class
I areas.
Pennsylvania’s LTS includes
measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon
through the consultation process with
Class I area states and includes
enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by
MANE–VU for the Class I areas.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU
with assistance from Pennsylvania. The
2018 emissions inventory was
developed by projecting 2002 emissions
and assuming emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity
as well as applying reductions expected
from federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART
guidelines direct states to exercise
judgment in deciding whether VOC and
NH3 impair visibility in their Class I
area(s). As discussed further in section
III.B.3, below, MANE–VU demonstrated
that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates
are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass
and visibility impairment at Class I
areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
region and it was also determined that
the total ammonia emissions in the
MANE–VU region are extremely small.
MANE–VU developed emissions
inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point
sources, (2) area sources, (3) off-road
mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile
sources. The New York Department of
Environmental Conservation also
developed an inventory of biogenic
emissions for the entire MANE–VU
region. Stationary point sources are
those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending
on the pollutant, with data provided at
the facility level. Stationary area sources
are those sources whose individual
emissions are relatively small, but due
to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Off-road
mobile sources are equipment that can
move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles
that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are
estimated by vehicle type and road type.
Biogenic sources are natural sources like
trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay
of plants. Stationary point sources
emission data is tracked at the facility
level. For all other source types
emissions are summed on the county
level.
There are many federal and state
control programs being implemented
that MANE–VU and Pennsylvania
anticipate will reduce emissions
between the baseline period and 2018.
Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve
substantial visibility improvement by
2018 in the MANE–VU Class I areas. To
assess emissions reductions from
ongoing air pollution control programs,
BART, and reasonable progress goals
MANE–VU developed 2018 emissions
projections called Best and Final. The
emissions inventory provided by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the
Best and Final 2018 projections is based
on adopted and enforceable
requirements.
Pennsylvania also relied on emission
reductions from various federal
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules in the
development of the 2018 emission
inventory projections. These MACT
rules include the combustion turbine
and reciprocating internal combustion
engines MACT, the industrial boiler and
process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7,
and 10 year MACT standards.
On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District
Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur
and remand of the Industrial Boiler
MACT Rule.6 This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the
vacatur and remand of the Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator
(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed
a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to
address the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75
FR 32006) and issued a final rule on
March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The
MANE–VU modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial
Boiler MACT rule. Pennsylvania did not
redo its modeling analysis when the
rule was re-issued. However, the
expected reductions in SO2 and PM are
small relative to the Pennsylvania
inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the
expected reductions of the new rule
acceptable since the final rule requires
compliance by 2014, it provides
Pennsylvania time to assure the
required controls are in place prior to
the end of the first implementation
period in 2018. In addition, the RHR
requires that any resulting differences
between emissions projections and
actual emissions reductions that may
occur will be addressed during the fiveyear review prior to the next 2018
regional haze SIP. Tables 1 and 2 are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emissions inventories
for Pennsylvania. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emission growth as
well as emission reductions due to
ongoing emission control strategies,
BART, and reasonable progress goals.
TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR
VOC
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
6 See
37,323
240,785
176,090
NOX
PM2.5
297,379
47,591
346,472
20,115
74,925
5,450
PM10
40,587
391,897
7,468
NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
NH3
1,388
79,911
10,497
SO2
995,175
63,679
10,882
3991
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR—Continued
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
102,331
103,824
8,440
9,738
55
7,915
Total ..................................................
556,529
795,266
108,930
449,690
91,851
1,077,651
TABLE 2—2018 EMISSION SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
46,004
230,011
78,624
69,956
162,067
50,829
91,516
55,771
39,468
50,842
2,064
5,808
60,480
195,467
2,148
6,949
3,381
117,400
13,933
73
266,455
42,072
1,436
607
Total ..................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
424,595
360,183
98,182
265,044
134,787
310,570
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE–VU performed modeling for
the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast states and the
District of Columbia. The modeling
analysis is a complex technical
evaluation that began with selection of
the modeling system. MANE–VU used
the following modeling system:
• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State
University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5)
version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model
routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional
haze regulatory modeling studies.
• Emissions Model: The Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system
is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated
emission inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic
emission sources for photochemical grid
models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s
Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a
photochemical grid model capable of
addressing ozone, PM, visibility and
acid deposition at a regional scale.
• Air Quality Model: The Regional
Model for Aerosols and Deposition
(REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid
model that was primarily used to
determine the attribution of sulfate
species in the Eastern U.S. via the
species-tagging scheme.
• Air Quality Model: The California
Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a
non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model
used to access the contribution of
individual states’ emissions to sulfate
levels at selected Class I receptor sites.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in
the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018
was carried out on a grid of 12x12
kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11
MANE–VU states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of
Columbia and states adjacent to them.
This grid is nested within a larger
national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36
km grid cells that covers the continental
United States, portions of Canada and
Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans along the east and west
coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for
evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the
selection of the entire year of 2002
(January 1–December 31) as the best
period of meteorology available for
conducting the CMAQ modeling. The
MANE–VU states modeling was
developed consistent with EPA’s
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
located at https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002),
April 2007, and EPA document,
Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, EPA–454/R–05–001,
August 2005, updated November 2005
(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’).
MANE–VU examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
modeling assessment predicts future
levels of emissions and visibility
impairment used to support the LTS
and to compare predicted, modeled
visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping
with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress
and examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
MANE–VU used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants
to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, MANE–VU
developed emission sensitivity model
runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility
and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the
20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most
significantly impacting visibility in the
MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s
contribution assessment, demonstrated
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3992
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that sulfate is the major contributor to
PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles
commonly account for more than 50
percent of particle-related light
extinction at northeastern Class I areas
on the clearest days and for as much as
or more than 80 percent on the haziest
days. The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by MANE–VU predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
MANE–VU region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant. As a
result of the dominant role of sulfate in
the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region,
MANE–VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach would
rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United
States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
Since the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania does not have a Class I
area, it is not required to establish RPGs.
However, Pennsylvania has been
identified as influencing the visibility
impairment of MANE–VU Class I Areas;
Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek
Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and
Shenandoah National Park and James
River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia.
As such, Pennsylvania participated in
consultations to discuss the reasonable
progress goals considered by Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
Class I area states, West Virginia and
Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia
wrote emails to Pennsylvania stating no
additional reductions were needed from
the Commonwealth to meet their RPGs.
See Appendix D of the Pennsylvania
submittal. West Virginia and Virginia
determined that Pennsylvania met their
RPGs with just the implementation of
CAIR. See Appendix K of the
Pennsylvania submittal. The VISTAS
modeling that was done is different
from the MANE–VU modeling because
they used different assumptions about
the efficiency of CAIR. EPA has
determined that both RPOs modeling
are acceptable. See EPA’s Technical
Support Document (TSD) for the
Modeling Portions of Pennsylvania’s
Regional Haze SIP. As a result, the
MANE–VU Class I area states adopted
four RPGs that will provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility (MANE–VU ‘‘Asks’’):
timely implementation of BART
requirements; a 90 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU
stacks identified by MANE–VU
comprising a total of 167 stacks (15 of
which are located in Pennsylvania);
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil
strategy; and continued evaluation of
other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions. States were
required to reduce SO2 emissions from
the highest emission stacks in the
eastern United States by 90 percent or
if it was infeasible to achieve that level
of reduction, an alternative had to be
identified which could include other
point sources. Table 3 shows
Pennsylvania’s 15 stacks identified and
the anticipated controls.
TABLE 3—EGU STACKS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND CONTROLS IDENTIFIED FROM THE MANE–VU 167 STACK LIST
Facility name & stack ID in appendix I
Facility ID
ORISPL
Unit ID
Unit type
3178
3140
2
2
Coal Steam ............
Coal Steam ............
Brunner Island .........................................
3140
3
Coal Steam ............
Cheswick AC_04 ......................................
Hatfields Ferry PA_35 ..............................
8226
3179
1
2
Coal Steam ............
Coal Steam ............
Homer City PA_37 ...................................
Homer City PA_37 ...................................
Keystone PA_39 ......................................
3122
3122
3136
1
2
1
Coal Steam ............
Coal Steam ............
Coal Steam ............
Keystone PA_39 ......................................
3136
2
Coal Steam ............
Martins Creek PA_08 ...............................
Montour PA_07 ........................................
3148
3149
2
1
Coal Steam ............
Coal Steam ............
Montour PA_07 ........................................
3149
2
Coal Steam ............
Portland PA_09 ........................................
Portland ....................................................
Shawville ..................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Armstrong ................................................
Brunner Island PA_26 ..............................
3113
3113
3131
1
2
1
Anticipated controls & permit
status
Anticipated
reduction in
SO2 emissions
(percent)
Coal Steam.
Coal Steam.
Coal Steam.
Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 67–05005D.
Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 67–05005D.
Wet Scrubber in 2010 ...............
Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 30–00099F.
....................................................
....................................................
Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 03–00027B.
Wet Scrubber in 2010 Plan Approval No. 03–00027B.
N/A.
Wet Scrubber in operation. Plan
Approval No.: 47–00001B.
Wet Scrubber in operation. Plan
Approval No.: 47–00001B.
* 90
95
95
95
95
** 95
** 95
95
95
95
95
* The PADEP is currently in litigation with Allegheny Energy, owner of Armstrong, to require SO2 controls as part of NSR and PSD alleged violations by the Department.
** In June 2008, May and November 2010, EPA issued notices of violation to EME Homer City Generating Facility to require SO2 controls as
part of NSR alleged violations under the Clean Air Act. In addition, the PADEP, together with New York State in July 2010, filed a 60-day notice
of intent to sue related to these violations.
Pennsylvania also identified
additional EGUs that would be
controlled to meet the reductions
required in the MANE–VU Asks for the
167 stacks. These additional sources are
listed in Table 4. Pennsylvania averaged
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
the EGU emission reductions for the 15
identified stacks and an additional 6
EGU stacks to meet the 90 percent
control needed. EPA agrees that
Pennsylvania has met the MANE–VU
‘‘Ask’’ of 90 percent control on its share
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the 167 stacks identified. EPA’s
analysis of Pennsylvania’s averaging can
be found in the TSD accompanying this
rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3993
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—ADDITIONAL EGU STACKS AND CONTROLS
Facility ID
ORISPL
Facility name
Unit ID
Anticipated controls & permit
status
Wet Scrubber in 2010 with a
new stack that will exhaust all
six boilers. Plan Approval No.
55–00001C.
FGD—Dry Scrubber (spray
dryer absorber) in 2010. Plan
Approval No. 17–00001D.
WPS Res. Sunbury Six Boilers (Units 1–
4).
3152
1–4
Coal Steam ............
Reliant Shawville Units 3 & 4 ..................
3131
3, 4
Coal Steam ............
On September 25, 2010, the
Pennsylvania Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) proposed the
Commonwealth’s statewide low-sulfur
heating and distillate oil regulation, in
response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ that
states adopt a low-sulfur fuel oil
strategy. The Commonwealth has not
finalized this strategy at the time of this
proposal. However, following
Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal on
December 20, 2010, additional point
sources have become subject to federally
enforceable SO2 emission limits due to
facility closures and federal actions. In
addition, controls on Pennsylvania’s
EGUs that are included on the list of 167
stacks have resulted in emissions
reductions greater than the 90 percent
reduction of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’
These additional point source SO2
reductions are somewhat less than the
reductions projected to result from
adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil
strategy. However, this shortfall is not
anticipated to interfere with the ability
of other states to meet their respective
reasonable progress goals.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to find
that for the first planning period the
enforceable emission reductions and
potential visibility benefits achieved by
reducing SO2 emissions at additional
point sources adequately substitute for
the emission reductions and potential
visibility benefits that would have been
Anticipated reduction in SO2
emissions
(percent)
Unit type
achieved by Pennsylvania’s adoption of
a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. A detailed
discussion of this aspect of our proposal
can be found in the TSD for this notice.
We also note that implementation of
recent federal measures is expected to
result in further SO2 emission
reductions during the first planning
period. Although expected emission
reductions cannot be relied upon to
demonstrate that Pennsylvania has
obtained its share of the emission
reductions needed to meet the RPGs for
the area, once these measures are
implemented and the reductions
quantified, EPA expects that
Pennsylvania’s overall SO2 emission
reductions will exceed those agreed to
in the RPO process.
5. BART
BART is an element of Pennsylvania’s
LTS. The BART regional haze
requirement consists of three
components: (a) Identification of all the
BART eligible sources; (b) an
assessment of whether the BART
eligible sources are subject to BART;
and (c) the determination of the BART
controls.
The first component of a BART
evaluation is to identify all the BART
eligible sources. The BART eligible
sources were identified by utilizing the
criteria in the BART Guidelines as
follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
County
EXELON GENERATION CO/EDDYSTONE ..................................................................................................................
ISG PLATE LLC/COATESVILLE ....................................................................................................................................
SUNOCO INC (R&M)/MARCUS HOOK REFINERY .....................................................................................................
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO/TRAINER REF ........................................................................................................................
PPL MONTOUR LLC/MONTOUR SES ..........................................................................................................................
PPL MARTINS CREEK LLC/MARTINS CREEK ............................................................................................................
RELIANT ENERGY/PORTLAND GENERATING STATION ..........................................................................................
LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHALL PLT ..............................................................................................................................
KEYSTONE PORTLAND CE/EAST ALLEN ..................................................................................................................
ORION POWER MIDWEST/NEW CASTLE PLT ...........................................................................................................
CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT ..........................................................................................................................
ESSROC/BESSEMER ....................................................................................................................................................
AK STEEL CORP/BUTLER WORKS .............................................................................................................................
UNITED REFINING CO/WARREN PLT .........................................................................................................................
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
95
• Determine whether one or more
emissions units at the facility fit within
one of the 26 categories listed in the
BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158–39159);
• Determine whether the emission
unit(s) was in existence on August 7,
1977 and begun operation after August
6, 1962;
• Determine whether potential
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 from
subject units are 250 tons or more per
year.
The BART Guidelines recommend
addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as
visibility-impairment pollutants and
leave it up to the discretion of states to
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions.
Because of the lack of tools available to
estimate emissions and subsequently
model VOC and ammonia effects on
visibility Pennsylvania did not address
them for BART. Pennsylvania identified
34 sources as BART-eligible as listed in
Table 5. Pennsylvania also identified
nine sources that are relatively small
emission sources with the potential
emissions that exceed the 250 tons per
year or more, but have actual emissions
well below 250 tons per year to accept
federally enforceable limits to make
them not BART-eligible which are listed
in Table 6. If any of the sources in Table
6 request an increase in NOX, SO2 and
PM emissions greater than 250 tons per
year of any one of these pollutants the
facility would become subject to BART.
TABLE 5—PENNSYLVANIA BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
95
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Delaware.
Chester.
Delaware.
Delaware.
Montour.
Northampton.
Northampton.
Lehigh.
Northampton.
Lawrence.
Lawrence.
Lawrence.
Butler.
Warren.
3994
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—PENNSYLVANIA BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES—Continued
Facility
County
PPL BRUNNER ISLAND LLC/BRUNNER ISLAND .......................................................................................................
APPLETON PAPERS INC/SPRING MILL ......................................................................................................................
PH GLATFELTER CO/SPRING GROVE .......................................................................................................................
LEHIGH CEMENT CO/EVANSVILLE CEMENT PLT ....................................................................................................
CARMEUSE LIME INC/MILLARD LIME PLT .................................................................................................................
LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................
ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/HATFIELDS FERRY POWER STA .........................................................................
ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/MITCHELL POWER STA .........................................................................................
EME HOMER CITY GEN LP ..........................................................................................................................................
RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST/CONEMAUGH PLT ................................................................................................
RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST MGMT/KEYSTONE POWER PLT ..........................................................................
FIRSTENERGY GEN CORP/BRUCE MANSFIELD PLT ...............................................................................................
DYNO NOBEL INC/DONORA ........................................................................................................................................
RELIANT/CHESWICK ....................................................................................................................................................
US STEEL/CLAIRTON WORKS ....................................................................................................................................
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM/BRACKENRIDGE .....................................................................................................................
SUNOCO CHEMICALS/FRANKFORD PLANT ..............................................................................................................
SUNOCO INC (R&M)/PHILADELPHIA REFINERY .......................................................................................................
TRIGEN/EDISON STATION ...........................................................................................................................................
TRIGEN/SCHUYLKILL STATION ...................................................................................................................................
York.
Blair.
York.
Berks.
Lebanon.
York.
Greene.
Washington.
Indiana.
Indiana.
Armstrong.
Beaver.
Washington.
Allegheny.
Allegheny.
Allegheny.
Philadelphia.
Philadelphia.
Philadelphia.
Philadelphia.
TABLE 6—PENNSYLVANIA FACILITIES NOT BART-ELIGIBLE DUE TO FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE PERMIT RESTRICTIONS
Facility
County
VICTAULIC CO AMER/FORKS FACILITY ........................................................................................................
AMERICAN REFINING GR/BRADFORD ..........................................................................................................
MERCER LIME & STONE/BRANCHTON .........................................................................................................
DUFERCO FARRELL CORP/FARRELL PLT ....................................................................................................
INMETCO/ELLWOOD CITY ..............................................................................................................................
INDSPEC CHEM CORP/PETROLIA .................................................................................................................
LWB REFRACTORIES CO/W MANCHESTER .................................................................................................
EXIDE TECH/READING SMELTER ..................................................................................................................
HORSEHEAD CORP/MONACA SMELTER ......................................................................................................
The second component of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BART
eligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area
are subject to BART. As discussed in the
BART Guidelines, a state may choose to
consider all BART eligible sources to be
subject to BART (70 FR 39161).
Consistent with the MANE–VU Board’s
decision in June 2004 that because of
the collective importance of BART
sources, BART determinations should
be made by the MANE–VU states for
each BART eligible source.
Pennsylvania identified each of its
BART eligible sources as subject to
BART.
The final component of a BART
evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject
sources. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of
the CAA requires that states 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. Section
(e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state
may opt to implement an emissions
Northampton.
McKean.
Butler.
Mercer.
Lawrence.
Butler.
York.
Berks.
Beaver.
trading program or other alternative
measure rather than to require sources
subject to BART to install, operate, and
maintain BART. To do so, the state must
demonstrate that the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure
will achieve greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART. The
34 sources in Pennsylvania that the
Commonwealth found to be subject to
BART are discussed below in Table 7.
For the EGUs, Pennsylvania relied on
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements
for SO2 and NOX. As CAIR does not
address PM emissions, Pennsylvania
conducted BART analyses for PM for
these EGUs subject to BART.
TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BART Source name & unit ID
Pollutant and emission limit
ConocoPhillips FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID C01 ..........................................
SO2: 25 parts per million volumetric dry (ppmvd) (365-day rolling average).
PM: 0.5 pound (lb)/1000 lb coke burn (3-hr average).
NOX: 121.1 ppmvd (365-day).
155.3 ppmvd (7-day).
NOX: 0.12 pound per million metric british thermal units (lb/MMBtu).
SO2: 0.011 lb/MMBtu (both limits are on an annual basis).
ConocoPhillips Platform Feed Heater Unit ID 738 ..................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
3995
TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS—Continued
BART Source name & unit ID
Pollutant and emission limit
Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID 101 and
COB1.
Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery 17–2A, H–01 Heater .......................
United Refining Co. Boiler 4 .....................................................................
United Refining Co. Crude Heater—North ...............................................
Carmeuse Lime Inc. Kiln Number 5 .........................................................
Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln Number 1 ...............................
Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln Number 2 ...............................
Lehigh Cement Co. York Operations White Cement Kiln ........................
Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K–2 ...................................................
Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K–3 ...................................................
CEMEX Inc. Wampum Plant Kiln No. 3 ...................................................
ESSROC Cement Bessemer Plant Kiln No. 5 .........................................
Keystone Cement Co. East Allen Plant Kiln No. 2 ..................................
ISG Plate LLC Coatesville Plant Electric Arc Furnace D ........................
AK Steel Corp. Butler Works Electric Arc Furnaces: #2, #3, and #4 ......
PH Glatfelter Co. Spring Grove Plant No. 1 Power Boiler ......................
Appleton Papers Inc. Spring Mill Plant No. 3 Power Boiler .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dyno Nobel Inc. Donora Plant Ammonia Oxidation Plant .......................
Allegheny Energy Hatfields Ferry Power Main Boilers (#1, #2, and #3)
PPL Brunner Island Brunner Island Boilers 2 and 3 ................................
Exelon Generation Eddystone Plant Boilers 3 and 4 ..............................
EME Homer City Homer City Plant Main Boilers (#1, #2, #3) .................
PPL Montour LLC Montour SES Boilers 1 and 2 ....................................
Reliant Energy LLC Portland Generating Boiler #2 .................................
First Energy Corp. Bruce Mansfield Plt Main Boilers (#1, #2, #3) ..........
Allegheny Energy Mitchell Power Station Boiler #3 .................................
Orion Power Midwest New Castle Plant Boiler #5 ..................................
Reliant Energy NE Keystone Power Plant Boilers 1 and 2 .....................
PPL Martins Creek Martins Creek Plant Boilers 3 and 4 ........................
Reliant Energy NE Conemaugh Plant Boilers 1 and 2 ............................
Trigen Edison Station Philadelphia Boilers 3 and 4 ................................
Trigen Schuylkill Station Philadelphia Boiler #26 .....................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling average).
NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling average).
PM: 1.0 lb/1000 lb coke burn.
NOX: 0.25 lb/MMBtu (24-hr basis).
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
NOX: 0.173 lb/MMBtu.
SO2: 24.3 lbs/hr.
NOX: 0.226 lb/MMBtu.
SO2: 207.7 lbs/hr.
NOX: 6.0 lb/ton lime.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
NOX: 367.7 pound per hour (lbs/hr).
SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr.
PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period.
PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month period.
NOX: 367.7 lbs/hr.
SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr.
PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period.
PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month period.
NOX: 8.2 lbs/ton.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (grains/dscf).
NOX: 297.7 lbs/hr.
NOX: 260.5 lbs/hr.
SO2: 362 lbs/hr.
PM: 14.8 lbs/hr.
NOX: 202.3 lbs/hr.
NOX: 166.0 lbs/hr.
SO2: 195.0 lbs/hr.
PM: 7.3 lbs/hr.
NOX: 6.2 lbs/ton clinker. (May–Sep 6.0 lbs/ton).
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
NOX: 476 lbs/hr.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
NOX: 529 lbs/hr.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.02 grains/dscf.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.02 grains/dscf (primary baghouse).
PM: 0.0052 grains/dscf (secondary baghouses).
NOX: 75 lbs/hr.
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM: 0.0036 grains/dscf.
NOX: 0.66 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
SO2: 3.7 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
PM: 3.6 × Heat Input (lbs/MMBtu) raised to a negative 0.56 power.
NOX: 0.63 lb/MMBtu.
SO2: 4.0 lb/MMBtu (over any 1-hr period).
PM: 3.6 × Heat Input (lbs/MMBtu) raised to a negative 0.56 power.
NOX: 396 tons/12-month period.
NO2: 5.5 lb/ton acid product (expressed as 100% HNO3).
PM: 0.075 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
NOX: 0.5 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler.
SO2: 0.5% sulfur (#6 fuel oil), 0.2% sulfur (#2 oil).
NOX: 0.36 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling avg).
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
SO2: 0.5% sulfur (#6 fuel oil).
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
3996
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS—Continued
BART Source name & unit ID
Pollutant and emission limit
Sunoco Chemicals Frankfort Plant Philadelphia Boiler No. 3 .................
Sunoco Refinery, Inc Philadelphia FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID 1232 ..........
Sunoco Refinery Inc. Philadelphia Process Heaters ...............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Allegheny County
Basic Oxygen Furnaces ...........................................................................
Slab Grinder .............................................................................................
Plate Burner/Torch Cutter ........................................................................
Loftus Soaking Pits ...................................................................................
US Steel Clairton, Allegheny County, Clairton Coke Works
Desulfurization Plant .................................................................................
Boiler #2 ...................................................................................................
R1 Boiler ...................................................................................................
T1 Boiler ...................................................................................................
Orion Power Cheswick Plant Allegheny County Boiler No. 1 ..................
EPA agrees with PADEP’s analyses
and conclusions for the BART emission
units located in Table 7 above. EPA has
reviewed the Pennsylvania analyses and
concluded they were conducted in a
manner that is consistent with EPA’s
BART Guidelines. EPA has determined
that Pennsylvania’s submittals meet the
requirements of section 169A(g)(2) of
the CAA to consider available
technology, the cost of compliance, the
energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
any pollution control equipment in use
at the source, the remaining useful life
of the source, and the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. Therefore,
the conclusions reflect a reasonable
application of EPA’s guidance to these
sources. EPA’s analysis of these BART
determinations can be found in the
accompanying TSD for this rulemaking.
The BART determinations for each of
the facilities discussed above and the
resulting BART emission limits were
adopted by Pennsylvania into its
regional haze SIP. PADEP incorporated
the BART emission limits into Title V
permits. The BART units in
Pennsylvania are required to comply
with these emission limits no later than
five years after publication in the
Federal Register of EPA’s final approval
of the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP,
to allow time for needed operational
changes.
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU
State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation
Framework that documented the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
NOX: 0.3 lbs/MMBtu.
PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
SO2: 0.52 lbs/MMBtu.
SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling average).
NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling average).
PM: 0.5 lb/1000 lb coke burn.
NOX: 0.020 lb/MMBtu (24-hr basis).
SO2: 500 ppmvd.
PM:
PM:
PM:
PM:
68 tons per year (tpy).
230 tpy.
13 tpy.
14 tpy, NOX: 194 tpy.
SO2: 590 tpy; NOX: 27 tpy.
SO2: 1508 tpy; NOX: 1285 tpy.
SO2: 796 tpy: NOX: 525 tpy.
SO2: 572 tpy; NOX: 358 tpy.
SO2: 67,452 typ; NOX: 10,840 tpy.
PM10: 361 tpy.
consultation process within the context
of regional haze planning, and was
intended to create greater certainty and
understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU
states held ten consultation meetings
and/or conference calls from March 1,
2007 through March 21, 2008. In
addition to MANE–VU members
attending these meetings and conference
calls, participants from VISTAS,
Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal
Land Managers were also in attendance.
In addition to the conference calls and
meeting, the FLMs were given the
opportunity to review and comment on
each of the technical documents
developed by MANE–VU.
Pennsylvania submitted a draft
regional haze SIP to the relevant FLMs
for review and comment pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLM provided
comments on the draft regional haze SIP
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
The comments received from the FLMs
were addressed and incorporated in
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision. The FLM’s
comments and PADEP’s responses can
be found in Appendix AA of the
Pennsylvania submittal. The PADEP
provided public notice of the
opportunity to comment on the SIP
revision and provided public notice of
public hearing on October 9, 2010. The
PADEP did not receive any comments
during the public comment period.
Pennsylvania commits in their SIP to
ongoing consultation with the FLMs on
Regional Haze issues throughout the
implementation.
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
Consistent with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g), Pennsylvania has
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
committed to submitting a report on
reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP
revision) to the EPA every five years
following the initial submittal of its
regional haze SIP. The reasonable
progress report will evaluate the
progress made towards the RPGs for the
MANE–VU Class I areas influenced by
Pennsylvania.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of the revision to the Pennsylvania SIP
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania through the PADEP on
December 20, 2010 as meeting some of
the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40
CFR 51.300–308, as described
previously in this action. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to find that this
revision meets the applicable visibility
related requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2) including but not limited to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J),
relating to visibility protection for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is
taking this action pursuant to those
provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before
taking final action. In a separate action,
EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Pennsylvania
regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s
regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (D.C.
Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules
82219. Consequently, we are not taking
action in this notice to address the
Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:43 Jan 25, 2012
Jkt 226001
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
3997
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed limited
approval of Pennsylvania’s Regional
Haze Plan does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 17, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012–1512 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM
26JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3984-3997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002, FRL-9622-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing limited approval of a revision to the
Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) on December 20, 2010 that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules
that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 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 proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to
implement the regional haze requirements for Pennsylvania on the basis
that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is
also proposing to approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure
requirements relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. In a separate
action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the
Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
Commonwealth's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to
EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), see 76 FR 82219, December
30, 2011. Consequently, we are not taking action in this notice to
address the Commonwealth's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0002 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the Commonwealth's
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden, (215) 814-2096, or by
email at mailto:linden.melissa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 2010, the PADEP submitted a
revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the first
implementation period.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
[[Page 3985]]
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's regional haze
submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. BART
C. Consultation With States and FLMs
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.
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 broad
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. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (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 \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers 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 or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background Information
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the 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 \2\ 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.'' See 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 were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of 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).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). 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 as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in 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.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, 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 35714), the RHR. The RHR 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 EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section II of this notice. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of 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 the 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 (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU is a
collaborative effort of state governments,
[[Page 3986]]
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member states and
tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St.
Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont.
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), a state must ensure that its SIP, among other
requirements, ``contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source or
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to
protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that
such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of part C of (Subchapter I)
(relating to visibility protection).''
EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a
state could meet such visibility requirements through its regional haze
SIP. EPA's rationale supporting this recommendation was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a
collaborative environment among the states, and that through this
process states would coordinate on emissions controls to protect
visibility on an interstate basis. The common understanding was that,
as a result of this collaborative environment, each state would take
action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by other states
in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the RHR that a
state participating in a regional planning process must include ``all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process.'' See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical
Support Committee (TSC) which provides an analysis of the causes of
haze, and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state
to the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the
MANE-VU process.
Pennsylvania submitted a regional haze SIP on December 20, 2010, to
address the requirements of the RHR. On December 7, 2007, Pennsylvania
submitted its original 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP revisions. On June 6, 2008, Pennsylvania submitted
amendments for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. On April 26, 2010, Pennsylvania submitted the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On May 24, 2011,
Pennsylvania submitted an amendment to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. In these submittals, Pennsylvania stated that their
regional haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Pennsylvania also
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and
specifically references the regional haze SIP submitted on December 20,
2010. EPA has reviewed Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP and, as
explained in section IV of this action, proposes to find that
Pennsylvania's regional haze submittal meets the portions of the
requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal 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
[[Page 3987]]
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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (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 ensure
``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 (40 CFR 81.401-437), 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 RHR 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 also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the 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, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 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 points 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 the 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.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (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 RHR
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 RPGs, 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 RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR 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 RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. 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 RPGs, 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 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount
of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, 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
state's Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. 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 states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources\5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, 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
[[Page 3988]]
reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric 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 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 VOC or NH3 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 emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states 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. 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, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, 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 RHR 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 the Clean Air Interstate Rule (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 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 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. On December 30, 2011, EPA
proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would
achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than
would BART in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR
82219. EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to meet the
requirements of an alternative program in lieu of BART by participation
in the trading programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken
final action on that rule.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze 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 applicable
RPGs. 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 visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 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 RPGs 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 listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011) a number of states, including
Pennsylvania, fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time,
relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement
[[Page 3989]]
and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the
state-adopted reasonable progress goals. In that notice, we proposed a
limited disapproval of Pennsylvania's long-term strategy and for that
reason are not taking action on the long-term strategy in this notice.
Comments on that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 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. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the 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
RPGs 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;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
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, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR 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 sources for 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 continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 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 the RPGs 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.
III. What is EPA's analysis of Pennsylvania's regional haze submittal?
On December 20, 2010, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of all MANE-VU
Class I areas (Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; Acadia
National Park, Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and Roosevelt/Campobello
International Park in Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness Area and
Presidential Range/Dry River Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Lye
Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont; Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek
Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and Shenandoah National Park and
James River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia). Pennsylvania is
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these
Class I areas, that describes its long-term emission strategy, its role
in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets the other
requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However, since
Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within its borders, Pennsylvania is
not required to address the following regional haze SIP elements: (a)
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section II. E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New Jersey, the Class
I area states. Pennsylvania's LTS for the first implementation period
addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and local
controls that take effect in the Commonwealth from the baseline period
starting in 2002 until 2018.
[[Page 3990]]
Pennsylvania participated in the MANE-VU regional strategy development
process. As a participant, Pennsylvania supported a regional approach
towards deciding which control measures to pursue for regional haze,
which was based on technical analyses documented in the following
reports: (a) Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic United States; (b) Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of
BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART
Determinations; and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options for
BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers,
Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities.
The LTS was developed by Pennsylvania, in coordination with MANE-
VU, identifying the emissions units within Pennsylvania that likely
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the MANE-VU Class I
areas, estimating emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls
required under federal and state regulations for the 2002-2018 period
(including BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for the MANE-VU Class I areas.
Pennsylvania's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with
Class I area states and includes enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for the Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from
Pennsylvania. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases
in economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from
federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct states
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section
III.B.3, below, MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of
sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic region and it was also determined that the total ammonia
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small.
MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) area sources, (3)
off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources. The New York
Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an inventory of
biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage
per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the
facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose
individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number
of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category
could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can
move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road
type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, grasses,
and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission data is
tracked at the facility level. For all other source types emissions are
summed on the county level.
There are many federal and state control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Pennsylvania anticipate will reduce emissions between
the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 in the MANE-VU Class I areas. To assess emissions reductions
from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and reasonable
progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections called Best
and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on
adopted and enforceable requirements.
Pennsylvania also relied on emission reductions from various
federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the
development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT
rules include the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal
combustion engines MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT
and the 2, 4, 7, and 10 year MACT standards.
On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was
vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the
vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The MANE-VU modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Pennsylvania
did not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued.
However, the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small
relative to the Pennsylvania inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the
expected reductions of the new rule acceptable since the final rule
requires compliance by 2014, it provides Pennsylvania time to assure
the required controls are in place prior to the end of the first
implementation period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual
emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. Tables 1 and 2
are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emissions
inventories for Pennsylvania. The 2018 estimated emissions include
emission growth as well as emission reductions due to ongoing emission
control strategies, BART, and reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Pennsylvania in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 37,323 297,379 20,115 40,587 1,388 995,175
Area.................................................... 240,785 47,591 74,925 391,897 79,911 63,679
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 176,090 346,472 5,450 7,468 10,497 10,882
[[Page 3991]]
Off-Road Mobile......................................... 102,331 103,824 8,440 9,738 55 7,915
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 556,529 795,266 108,930 449,690 91,851 1,077,651
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Pennsylvania in Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 46,004 162,067 39,468 60,480 3,381 266,455
Area.................................................... 230,011 50,829 50,842 195,467 117,400 42,072
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 78,624 91,516 2,064 2,148 13,933 1,436
Off-Road Mobile......................................... 69,956 55,771 5,808 6,949 73 607
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 424,595 360,183 98,182 265,044 134,787 310,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at https://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-
454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,
located at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/, EPA-
454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling
Guidance'').
MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment,
demonstrated
[[Page 3992]]
that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 50
percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80 percent
on the haziest days. The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by
MANE-VU predict that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources will result in the greatest
improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region,
more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the
dominant role of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach would rely heavily on broad-based
regional SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
Since the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have a Class I
area, it is not required to establish RPGs. However, Pennsylvania has
been identified as influencing the visibility impairment of MANE-VU
Class I Areas; Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek Wilderness Area in
West Virginia; and Shenandoah National Park and James River Face
Wilderness Area in Virginia. As such, Pennsylvania participated in
consultations to discuss the reasonable progress goals considered by
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) Class I area states, West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia
and Virginia wrote emails to Pennsylvania stating no additional
reductions were needed from the Commonwealth to meet their RPGs. See
Appendix D of the Pennsylvania submittal. West Virginia and Virginia
determined that Pennsylvania met their RPGs with just the
implementation of CAIR. See Appendix K of the Pennsylvania submittal.
The VISTAS modeling that was done is different from the MANE-VU
modeling because they used different assumptions about the efficiency
of CAIR. EPA has determined that both RPOs modeling are acceptable. See
EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Modeling Portions of
Pennsylvania's Regional Haze SIP. As a result, the MANE-VU Class I area
states adopted four RPGs that will provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility (MANE-VU ``Asks''): timely
implementation of BART requirements; a 90 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (15 of which are located in
Pennsylvania); adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and
continued evaluation of other control measures to reduce SO2
and NOX emissions. States were required to reduce
SO2 emissions from the highest emission stacks in the
eastern United States by 90 percent or if it was infeasible to achieve
that level of reduction, an alternative had to be identified which
could include other point sources. Table 3 shows Pennsylvania's 15
stacks identified and the anticipated controls.
Table 3--EGU Stacks in Pennsylvania and Controls Identified From the MANE-VU 167 Stack List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anticipated
Facility name & stack ID in Facility ID Anticipated reduction in
appendix I ORISPL Unit ID Unit type controls & permit SO2 emissions
status (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong...................... 3178 2 Coal Steam....... * 90
Brunner Island PA--26.......... 3140 2 Coal Steam....... Wet Scrubber in 95
2009 Plan
Approval No. 67-
05005D.
Brunner Island.........
