Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; United States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 37842-37859 [2012-15463]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37842
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9061.
Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached via
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. The current
action, however, is being taken to
address requirements under the 1997
ozone NAAQS. For additional
information see the direct final rule
which is published in the Rules Section
of this Federal Register. In the Final
Rules Section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State’s
implementation plan revision as a direct
final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this rule, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in
commenting on this document should
do so at this time.
Dated: June 8, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–14953 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0457, FRL–9691–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; United
States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze
Federal Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (the Plan) to address regional haze
in the Territory of the United States
Virgin Islands. EPA proposes to
determine that the Plan meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA’s rules concerning reasonable
progress towards the national goal of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
preventing any future and remedying
any existing man-made impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze
program’’). The proposed Plan protects
and improves visibility levels in the
Virgin Islands Class I area, namely the
Virgin Islands National Park on the
island of St. John. The Plan for the
Virgin Islands will address Reasonable
Progress toward improving visibility
and evaluation of Best Available Retrofit
Control Technology. The reader is
referred to the Regional Haze Virgin
Islands Federal Implementation Plan
found in the Docket for this action,
which contains a complete description
of all of the elements to address regional
haze. EPA is taking comments on this
proposal and plans to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before August 24, 2012.
Public Hearing: If you wish to request
a hearing and present testimony, you
should notify Mr. Geoffrey Garrison on
or before July 6, 2012, and indicate the
nature of the issues you wish to provide
oral testimony during the hearing. Mr.
Garrison’s contact information is found
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Oral testimony will be limited to 5
minutes per person. The hearing will be
strictly limited to the subject matter of
this proposal, the scope of which is
discussed below. EPA will not respond
to comments during the public hearing.
EPA will not be providing equipment
for commenters to show overhead slides
or make computerized slide
presentations. A verbatim transcript of
the hearing and written statements will
be made available for copying during
normal working hours at the address
listed for inspection of documents, and
also included in the Docket. Any
member of the public may file a written
statement by the close of the comment
period. Written statements (duplicate
copies preferred) should be submitted to
Docket Number EPA–R2–OAR–2012–
0457, at the address listed for
submitting comments. Note that any
written comments and supporting
information submitted during the
comment period will be considered
with the same weight as any oral
comments presented at the public
hearing. If no requests for a public
hearing are received by close of business
on July 6, 2012, a hearing will not be
held; please contact Mr. Garrison to find
out if the hearing will actually be held
or will be cancelled for lack of any
request to speak.
ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public
hearing, if requested, will be held at
Virgin Islands Department of Planning
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and Natural Resources, St. Thomas
Office, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal
Building, St. Thomas, VI 00802, on July
17, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Comments: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket Number EPA–R02–
OAR–2012–0457, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
• Fax: 212–637–3901.
• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007–1866.
• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner,
Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007–
1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays. Hand
Delivery of comments will also be
accepted by Mr. Jim Casey, Virgin
Islands Coordinator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin
Islands Field Office, Tunick Building,
Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St.
Thomas, VI 00801, 340–714–2333.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket Number EPA–R02–OAR–2012–
0457. 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
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/air/docket.html.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
• Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866.
• Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office,
Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336
Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801.
• Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, St. Croix Public Affairs Office,
4200 Estate St. John #4237,
Christiansted, VI 00820.
EPA requests, if at all possible, that you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Robert F. Kelly, State
Implementation Planning Section, Air
Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007–
1866. The telephone number is (212)
637–4249. Mr. Kelly can also be reached
via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.
• Geoffrey M. Garrison, Community
Involvement Coordinator, Public Affairs
Division, U.S. EPA Region 2, St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands, BB: 340–201–5328,
Email: garrison.geoffrey@epa.gov.
• Jim Casey, Virgin Islands
Coordinator, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field
Office, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336
Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801,
340–714–2333, Email:
casey.jim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used,
we mean the EPA. In most cases in this
document, where we use the term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘state’’ when discussing requirements
or recommendations under the Clean
Air Act or Agency guidance, this
includes the Territory of the Virgin
Islands.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for Regional
Haze SIPs?
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the proposed implementation
plan to address regional haze in the
Virgin Islands?
A. Affected Class I Areas
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to
Visibility Impairment
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and Territory Control
Requirements
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
i. Identification of Pollutants for
Reasonable Progress
ii. Determining Reasonable Progress
Through Island-Specific Emissions
Inventories
iii. Reasonable Progress Goals—2018
Visibility Projections
iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to
URP
v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources
of Visibility Impairment
vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing
Air Pollution Programs
3. BART
i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin
Islands
ii. Sources Subject to BART
iii. BART Evaluations for Sources
Identified as Subject to BART by EPA
C. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37843
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a plan to address
regional haze in the Virgin Islands
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). EPA
proposes a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) which includes measures that will
reduce emissions that contribute to
regional haze in the Virgin Islands and
make progress toward the Reasonable
Progress Goal (RPG) for 2018, as
determined by EPA. RPGs are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the
Act’s national visibility goal of no manmade contribution to visibility
reduction. In addition, EPA proposes
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) control determinations for
sources in the Virgin Islands that may
be subject to BART. This proposed
action and the accompanying FIP
documents that are available in the
Docket explain the basis for EPA’s
proposed actions on the Virgin Islands
Regional Haze FIP.
EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a FIP
The Act requires each state to develop
plans to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility. (CAA sections 110(a), 169A,
and 169B). The plans developed by a
state or Territory are referred to as State
Implementation Plans or SIPs. A state
must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions
to us for approval. Once approved, a SIP
is federally enforceable, that is
enforceable by EPA and citizens under
the Act. If a state fails to make a
required SIP submittal or if we find that
a state’s required submittal is
incomplete or unapprovable, then we
must promulgate a FIP to fill this
regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)).
EPA made a finding of failure to
submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR
2392), determining that the U.S. Virgin
Islands failed to submit a SIP that
addressed any of the required regional
haze SIP elements of 40 CFR 51.308.
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37844
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Under section 110(c) of the Act,
whenever we find that a state has failed
to make a required submission we are
required to promulgate a FIP.
Specifically, section 110(c) provides:
(1) The Administrator shall
promulgate a Federal implementation
plan at any time within 2 years after the
Administrator—
(A) finds that a state has failed to
make a required submission or finds
that the plan or plan revision submitted
by the state does not satisfy the
minimum criteria established under
[section 110(k)(1)(A)], or
(B) disapproves a state
implementation plan submission in
whole or in part, unless the state
corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision, before the Administrator
promulgates such Federal
implementation plan.
Section 302(y) defines the term
‘‘Federal implementation plan’’ in
pertinent part, as:
[A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated
by the Administrator to fill all or a portion
of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion
of an inadequacy in a State implementation
plan, and which includes enforceable
emission limitations or other control
measures, means or techniques (including
economic incentives, such as marketable
permits or auctions or emissions allowances)
* * *.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Thus, because we determined that the
Virgin Islands failed to submit a
Regional Haze SIP, we are required to
promulgate a Regional Haze FIP.
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by many sources and
activities which are located across a
broad geographic area and emit fine
particles and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in
some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), which
also impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. Visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national parks and wilderness areas,
many of which are also referred to as
Federal Class I areas. (CAA section
162(a)).
In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA,
Congress initiated a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act 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 which
impairment results from manmade air
pollution.’’ In 1990 Congress added
section 169B to the Act to address
regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999,
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999).
The requirement to submit a Regional
Haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) of the RHR
required states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a
finding that the Virgin Islands had
failed to submit the Regional Haze SIP
(74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009). EPA’s
January 15, 2009 finding established a
two-year deadline of January 15, 2011
for EPA to either approve a Regional
Haze SIP for the Virgin Islands, or adopt
a FIP. This proposed action is intended
to address the January 15, 2009 finding.
EPA continues to work with the Virgin
Islands Government to develop a State
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.
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 Virgin Islands
National Park is sufficiently far from the
continental United States, therefore
there was no need for the Virgin Islands
government to participate in any of
these RPOs.
III. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
The following is a basic explanation
of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a
complete listing of the regulations under
which this FIP was developed.
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the Act 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 or
‘‘dv’’ as the principal metric for
measuring 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 is
determined by measuring the visual
range, which is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky.
The dv is calculated from visibility
measurements. Each dv change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. For this
reason, EPA believes it is a useful
measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility. Most people can
detect a change in visibility at one dv.
The preamble to the RHR provides
additional details about the deciview
(64 FR 35725, July 1, 1999).
The dv is used in expressing RPGs
(which are interim visibility goals
towards 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 manmade air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., manmade 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, the RHR requires states to
calculate the degree of existing visibility
impairment at each Class I area at the
time of each regional haze SIP submittal
and review progress midway through
each 10-year planning period. To do
this, the RHR requires states to
determine the degree of impairment (in
dv) 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, the RHR
requires states to develop an estimate of
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
natural visibility conditions for the
purposes 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.1
For the initial regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
baseline visibility conditions were used
as the starting points for assessing
current visibility impairment. Baseline
visibility conditions represent the
degree of impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days at the time the regional
haze program was established. Using
monitoring data for 2000 through 2004,
the RHR required states 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.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The submission of a series of regional
haze SIPs from the states that establish
RPGs for Class I areas for each
(approximately) 10-year planning period
is the vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal. 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.
1 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and
Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
States, and in this case, the Virgin
Islands government, have significant
discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following
factors established in the Act and in
EPA’s RHR: (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. (See 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in our Reasonable Progress
guidance.2 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. 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
Class I State’s areas. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
D. Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the Act 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, the Act 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
stationary sources 3 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology’’ as determined by the state.
(CAA 169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed
to conduct BART determinations for
such sources that may be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Rather
than requiring source-specific BART
2 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).
3 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37845
controls, states also have the flexibility
to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as
the alternative provides equal or greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix Y (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. The BART
Guidelines require states to use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines in making a BART
applicability determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with
a total generating capacity in excess of
750 megawatts. The BART Guidelines
encourage, but do not require states to
follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of
sources.
The BART Guidelines recommend
that states address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and PM. The
BART Guidelines direct states to use
their best judgment in determining
whether volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) and
ammonia compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
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 Act 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. (70 FR 39170, July 6, 2005).
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
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37846
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
regional haze SIP, as required by the Act
(section 169A(g)(4)) and by the RHR (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. States
have the flexibility to choose the type of
control measures they will use to meet
the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the Act, 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 Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their
SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all
control measures a state will use to meet
any 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. (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. (40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). Since sources in
the Virgin Islands do not affect visibility
in any other states’ Class I areas, this
particular LTS requirement does not
apply.
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 seven factors
listed below is 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 (RAVI); (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; (7) the anticipated net effect
on visibility due to projected changes in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
states with Class I areas 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 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
reasonably attributable and regional
haze visibility impairment, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated
LTS with its first regional haze SIP
revision. Future coordinated LTSs, 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 reviews of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
If a state has a Class I Federal Area in
the state, the requirements in section
51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met.
These requirements include 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 and this
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 Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environment (IMPROVE) network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. Note that
section 51.308(d)(4) contains a list of
additional items the implementation
plan must address.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR
51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
IV. What is the proposed
implementation plan to address
regional haze in the Virgin Islands?
A. Affected Class I Areas
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d),
we have indentified one Class I area in
the Territory of the Virgin Islands: The
Virgin Islands National Park, where the
FLM—the National Park Service—has
identified visual impairment as an
important value that must be addressed
in regional haze plans. Thus, the Virgin
Islands, and in this case, EPA consulting
with the Government of the Territory of
the Virgin Islands, must develop a
Regional Haze Plan that addresses the
causes of visibility impairment in the
Class I area, that describes the long-term
emission strategy, the consultation
processes, and other requirements in
EPA’s regional haze regulations.
Because the Virgin Islands are home to
a Class I area, we will address the
following Regional Haze Plan elements:
(a) Calculation of baseline and natural
visibility conditions, (b) establishment
of RPGs, (c) monitoring requirements,
and (d) RAVI requirements as required
by EPA’s RHR. These elements will
constitute a FIP, developed in
consultation with the FLM and the
involvement of the Virgin Islands
Government and its environmental
agency, the Virgin Islands Department
of Planning and Natural Resources
(VIDPNR).
1. 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
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, EPA evaluated data
from the IMPROVE air quality station,
located in the Virgin Islands National
Park near Cruz Bay, on the western end
of the island of St. John. On the days
37847
with the worst visibility, the following
table lists the particulate species that
contribute to reduced visibility.
TABLE 1—VISIBILITY REDUCTION FROM PARTICULATES ON THE WORST 20% OF DAYS IN 2004
Coarse Particulates ..............................................................................................................................................
Sea Salt ................................................................................................................................................................
Sulfates .................................................................................................................................................................
Fine Soil ................................................................................................................................................................
Nitrates ..................................................................................................................................................................
Elemental Carbon .................................................................................................................................................
Organic Carbon ....................................................................................................................................................
17.6
9.88
9.29
6.68
2.59
1.40
0.90
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
Mm¥1
36.4%
20.5%
19.2%
13.8%
5.4%
2.9%
1.9%
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Megameters¥1 (Mm¥1) are a unit of visibility impairment. Larger values are greater amounts of interference with visibility.
The size of particulates from Saharan
Dust range from 2 to 5 microns, so
Saharan Dust is a major contributor to
both fine (less than 2.5 microns) soil
and coarse matter (greater than 2.5
microns). As shown in research studies
and ongoing satellite data, Saharan Dust
is transported in large quantities across
the Atlantic Ocean and mixed in the
surface air where it reduces visibility.
This effect is most often seen, and
recorded in particulate samples from the
IMPROVE monitor, in the early summer
months as tropical waves move from
Africa across the Atlantic Ocean to the
Caribbean Sea and beyond. Since fine
soil in the air is often largely Saharan
Dust, and increases in fine soil and
coarse particulate are found during
documented Sahara Dust events, it is
likely that all or most of the fine soil and
coarse particulate found on days with
impaired visibility is a result of Saharan
Dust.
EPA commissioned a microinventory
of emissions on St. John to determine if
other sources, particularly local sources
of fine or coarse dust, could be
contributing to the large amount of fine
soil and coarse particulate found on the
IMPROVE filters and contributing to
high impairment of visibility on St.
John. The largest anthropogenic sources
of particles found in the microinventory
were dirt from the roadways and some
dust from construction activities.
Other potential sources of particulates
that reduce visibility are combustion
sources on the Virgin Islands, including
the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix,
ships that serve St. John and
miscellaneous combustion sources on
St. John.
Trajectory analysis conducted by EPA
for days with the highest contributions
to visibility impairment showed that
fine soil and coarse dust, which are
major contributors to Virgin Islands
haze episodes, match with long range
transport from Africa. Also, sulfates and
nitrates, which were at lower
concentrations than found in the
continental United States, did not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
correspond to a group of particular
sources on days with higher sulfate and
nitrate concentrations. Combustion
products are often found on days when
the trajectories began in the distant
continental United States up to two
weeks earlier and when air patterns are
looping though the Caribbean region in
general. There was no obvious or
consistent source for days high in
combustion products.
These results support the hypothesis
that the major contributor to visibility
impairment in the Virgin Islands
National Park is Saharan Dust. Though
on some days, sulfate is a significant
contributor to visibility impairment (but
still a small contributor compared to
continental United States monitoring
sites). The Docket contains the results of
the modeling using trajectories and
using photochemical dispersion models.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
As described above, the Long Term
Strategy (LTS) is a compilation of
control measures relied on to support
the RPGs for the Virgin Islands National
Park. The LTS for the Virgin Islands for
the first implementation period will
address the emissions reductions from
Federal, territorial and local controls
that take effect in the Territory from the
baseline period starting in 2000 until
2018.
EPA has reviewed potential strategies
to improve visibility in the Virgin
Islands and determined that the
following strategies are reasonably
available for application in the Virgin
Islands: Reductions in sulfur in fuel
from ferries and cruise ships, the
Federal motor vehicle control program,
and the consent decree for the
HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix. In this
action, EPA proposes these controls that
we determined are likely to have the
largest impacts currently on visibility at
the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA
estimated emissions reductions for
2018, based on all controls required
under Federal and Territory regulations
for the 2000–2018 period (including
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BART), and comparing projected
visibility improvement with the uniform
rate of progress for the Virgin Islands
National Park Class I area. While the
LTS for the Virgin Islands does not
reach the reasonable progress goal for
2018 for the Virgin Islands, reducing
other emissions is not feasible due to
the Virgin Islands’ unique
circumstances and lack of major
emission sources, as discussed further
in this proposal.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and Territory Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used to
determine the impact of sources in the
Virgin Islands on visibility in the Class
I area and the impact of planned
emission controls is based on an
emission inventory developed by an
EPA contractor for the island of St. John,
an inventory of significant sources in
recent major source permit applications,
additional information collected from
the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix and
estimated emissions from other islands
surrounding St. John, not included in
the Territory of the United States Virgin
Islands. The emissions reductions used
to determine the effects on improving
visibility in the National Park were
based on projections of Federal and
Territorial emission control programs,
and other emission reductions specific
to the Virgin Islands. EPA has
determined that the major effect on
visibility impairment in the Virgin
Islands National Park is long-range
transport of Saharan Dust.4 However,
EPA has also determined that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates,
nitrates, particulate carbon and other
fine and coarse particulates are
significant to PM mass and visibility
impairment in the Virgin Islands
National Park. The BART guidelines
direct states to exercise judgment in
deciding whether volatile organic
4 Please refer to the Virgin Islands Regional Haze
FIP contained in the Docket for this action, for
additional information regarding Saharan Dust.
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37848
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
compounds and ammonia impair
visibility in their Class I area(s) and
whether their emissions can be
addressed at this time. Total ammonia
emissions in the region are extremely
small and will not be addressed at this
time. As for volatile organic
compounds, they do not directly affect
visibility, but can form particulate
compounds in the presence of nitrogen
oxides and radicals. The development of
an emission inventory for volatile
organic compounds emitted in the
Virgin Islands is in its early stages, so
EPA proposes to defer evaluation of the
impact of these emissions to visibility
reduction to the next round of visibility
plans, covering 2018 to 2028.
The island of St. John has an
inventory that is complete for
particulate matter, sulfur oxides and
nitrogen oxides. The compiled
inventory for other portions of the
Virgin Islands included major point
sources, since these would have the
greatest influence on visibility on St.
John. The proposed FIP has calculated
changes in emissions from two source
groups in the Virgin Islands: The
HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix and
marine vessels that travel to and from
St. John. Reasonable controls are not
available for other sources in the Virgin
Islands because their impact on
visibility in the National Park is very
small or the prospective emission
reductions are not cost effective based
on the EPA’s guidelines. While other
sources, like motor vehicles, may have
fewer emissions by 2018, the EPA has
not calculated changes in emissions
because the Islands’ remote location
makes national defaults for changes like
vehicle turnover problematic for
estimating future emissions in the
Virgin Islands.
For the proposed Haze FIP for the
Virgin Islands, the official inventory
will be the inventory for the island of
St. John. Reductions by 2018 are from
the use of lower sulfur fuels and
nitrogen oxide controls on marine
vessels as part of the Emissions Control
Area (ECA) covering the portions of the
United States in the Caribbean.
TABLE 2—SULFUR OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS
[Tons per year]
Source sector
Baseline 2002
2018
(With measures
for RPG)
Point .............................................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................................
Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................
43.11
0.05
17.89
1.61
94.06
43.11
0.05
17.89
1.61
14.11
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
156.72
76.77
TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN ISLANDS
[Tons per year]
Source sector
Baseline 2002
2018
(With measures
for RPG)
Point .............................................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................................
Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................
477.66
3.69
2.07
25.03
318.23
477.66
3.69
2.07
25.03
63.65
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
826.68
572.1
TABLE 4—DIRECT EMISSIONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER FROM POINT, AREA AND MOBILE SOURCES ON ST. JOHN, VIRGIN
ISLANDS
[Tons per year]
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Source sector
Baseline 2002
2018
(With measures
for RPG)
Point .............................................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .........................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................................
Marine Vessels ............................................................................................................................................
34.33
38.32
1.93
0.73
8.57
34.33
38.32
1.93
0.73
1.28
Total ......................................................................................................................................................
83.88
76.59
Other emission changes in the FIP are
from the effects of the consent decree
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
with HOVENSA, whose impact is in the
following table:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
37849
TABLE 5—EMISSIONS FROM HOVENSA IN TONS PER YEAR
Sulfur oxides
HOVENSA Base 2002 ...............................................................................................
HOVENSA Future 2018 .............................................................................................
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
EPA used emission changes in Tables
2 through 5 with air quality models to
project that 2018 visibility on the 20%
worst days in the Virgin Islands
National Park Class I area would be
improved by 0.16 dv based on
application of these controls. The
uniform rate of progress goal is 1.48 dv
for the period ending in 2018. As a
result, these measures are likely to fall
short of achieving the reasonable
progress goal for 2018 in the Virgin
Islands National Park. However, since a
large portion of the reductions needed
to meet the calculated background
visibility in 2064 includes the impact of
Saharan Dust and sea salt, which cannot
be controlled under this program, the
difficulty of achieving interim
reasonable progress goals is apparent.
EPA proposes that the reasonable
measures will help improve visibility in
the Virgin Islands National Park Class I
area for the first round of the regional
haze plan for the Virgin Islands.
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
In determining if reasonable progress
is being made, states, or EPA in the case
of this FIP, are required to consider the
following factors established in section
169A of the Act and in our Regional
Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources (‘‘the four RP factors’’).
Once these factors have been
considered, the typical method for
determining if a state is making
reasonable progress is to use
meteorological and air quality computer
models to predict the visibility at Class
I areas for the end of the planning
period (2018). Those modeling results
are then assessed to ensure that
visibility is not degrading on the best
days and that it is improving on the
worst days at a reasonable rate, taking
into consideration the relevant statutory
factors, as well as the base period
visibility conditions and the goal of zero
anthropogenic visibility impairment by
2064.
In the case of the Virgin Islands,
though, a different method of
determining reasonable progress is
required. As explained in this proposal,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Nitrogen oxides
12,778
9,318
26,362
21,331
Particulate
matter
2,207
2,192
the dominant cause of visibility
impairment at the Virgin Islands’ Class
I area is international transport of
Saharan Dust and volcanic ash from
Montserrat. However, because the
Saharan Dust and volcanic eruptions
vary greatly from year to year with no
discernible pattern, it is impossible to
predict future emissions. As a result,
there is little value in attempting to
model visibility at the Class I area in
2018. The goal of this FIP therefore is
to evaluate and remedy the causes of
reduced visibility due to human
sources.
for fine soil. Contributions of coarse
mass and fine soil to visibility
impairment, and their emissions
sources, and potential control measures,
should be addressed in future Regional
Haze plan updates. Based on the above
evaluation, EPA has determined that the
first Regional Haze Plan RP evaluation
should focus primarily on significant
human sources of SO2 (sulfate
precursor) and NOX (nitrate precursor).
i. Identification of Pollutants for
Reasonable Progress
EPA has evaluated the particulate
pollutants (ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC),
elemental carbon (EC), fine soil, coarse
mass (CM), and sea salt) that contribute
to visibility impairment at the Virgin
Islands Class I Federal area. The largest
contributor to haze in the Virgin Islands
is coarse mass where all particles are
larger than 2.5 microns, which accounts
for 36 percent of total interference with
visibility on the twenty percent haziest
days at the Virgin Islands National Park.
The next largest contributor is sea salt
at 20 percent; then sulfate at 19 percent;
soils were the fourth largest contributor
at 13 percent.
There is nothing to be done about the
portion of light extinction attributable to
sea salt, as it is entirely from sea spray
generated by wave action and winds.
The days with the highest contributions
to reduced visibility have the highest
amounts of coarse particulates and fine
soil, which indicate the presence of
Saharan Dust. The sources of coarse
mass are difficult to document because
of emission inventory limitations
associated with natural sources and
uncertainty of fugitive (windblown)
emissions. Because of the difficulty in
attributing the sources of visibility
impairment for this pollutant, EPA has
determined that it is not reasonable in
this planning period to recommend
emission control measures for coarse
mass. Similarly, because fine soil
appears to be primarily attributable to
international transport of Saharan Dust,
EPA has determined that it is not
reasonable in this planning period to
recommend emission control measures
Due to the difficulty of modeling to
project visibility at the Virgin Islands
Class I area in 2018, EPA is focusing its
reasonable progress analysis on
reducing anthropogenic emissions of
visibility-impairing pollution. The key
anthropogenic pollutants of concern are
SO2, PM, and NOX. We looked at trends
in emissions of anthropogenic SO2 and
NOX in order to judge if reasonable
progress is being achieved.
Rather than use a full statewide
inventory to judge reasonable progress,
we focused on the inventory for the
island of St. John, where the Class I area
is located, and other major sources
located in the Virgin Islands. As
discussed in this proposal, our analysis
indicates that most emissions do not
significantly impair visibility at the
Class I areas due to the prevailing
winds. Prevailing winds at St. John are
from the east to the west. The Class I
area is east and north of St. Thomas and
St. Croix, respectively. Therefore, these
trade winds tend to transport pollution
from St. Thomas and St. Croix away
from the Class I area. In addition,
modeling performed to estimate the
visibility impact of currently operating
individual sources of pollution
indicates that even very large sources in
the Virgin Islands have relatively small
visibility impacts on the Class I area.
In developing the 2018 reasonable
progress goal, and determining emission
reductions that would help reduce
emissions that impair visibility, EPA
reviewed present and potential actions
that would reduce visibility-impairing
emissions between 2000 and 2018.
Based on EPA’s review, we are
proposing to use the following
reasonable measures to improve
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ii. Determining Reasonable Progress
Through Island-Specific Emissions
Inventories
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37850
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
visibility in the Virgin Islands National
Park Class I area:
• U.S. Caribbean Emission Control
Area for use of lower-sulfur oil in ocean
vessels and large ships.
• Emission reductions from the
HOVENSA Consent Decree.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area
The United States Government,
together with Canada and France,
established the North America Emission
Control Area (ECA) under the auspices
of Annex VI of the International
Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex
VI), a treaty developed by the
International Maritime Organization.
The ECA was amended to include the
designated waters around Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This ECA
will require use of lower sulfur fuels in
ships operating within 50 nautical miles
from the territorial sea baselines of the
included islands. Beginning in 2015,
fuel used by all vessels operating in
these areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent
fuel sulfur (1,000 ppm). This
requirement is expected to reduce PM
and SOX emissions by more than 85
percent. Beginning in 2016, new engines
on vessels operating in these areas must
use emission controls that achieve an 80
percent reduction in NOX emissions.
While these reductions are not
enforceable as part of this FIP, EPA
expects them to occur and they will be
included in the reductions expected in
the period through 2018.
HOVENSA Consent Decree
As discussed in greater detail in the
section which discusses the BART
determinations, HOVENSA, L.L.C.
(HOVENSA) is a petroleum refinery
located in St. Croix. In June 2011, EPA
and HOVENSA entered into a Consent
Decree (CD) to resolve alleged Clean Air
Act violations at the refinery. The CD
requires HOVENSA, among other
things, to achieve emission limits and
install new pollution controls pursuant
to a schedule for compliance. The
measures required by the CD are
expected to reduce emissions of NOX by
5,031 tons per year (tpy) and SO2 by
3,460 tpy.
In January 2012, HOVENSA
announced the refinery would shut
down operations and become an oil
storage terminal. At this time,
HOVENSA has retained its air permits
and remains subject to the CD. Since
HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA
proposes to determine the emission
limitations, pollution controls,
schedules for compliance, reporting,
and recordkeeping provisions of the
HOVENSA CD constitute a long term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
strategy and, therefore, can be used to
address the reasonable progress
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
While EPA’s modeling analysis to
estimate the visibility impact of
currently operating individual sources
of pollution indicates that even very
large sources in the Virgin Islands have
relatively small visibility impacts on the
Class I area, HOVENSA’s modeled
impact of more than 1 deciview
indicates that HOVENSA impairs
visibility in the Class I area on St. John,
which leads us to determine that the
HOVENSA CD contains existing
reasonable measures that can assist in
improving visibility at the Class I area.
Should the existing federally
enforceable HOVENSA CD be modified,
EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary,
revise the FIP after public notice and
comment.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
require HOVENSA to notify EPA 60
days in advance of startup and
resumption of operation of refinery
process units at the HOVENSA, St.
Croix, Virgin Islands facility. EPA
proposes that HOVENSA also provide a
complete analysis of reasonable
measures, consistent with EPA’s
Regional Haze requirements, if it
resumes refinery operations. EPA will
revise the FIP as necessary, after public
notice and comment, in accordance
with regional haze requirements
including the ‘‘reasonable progress’’
provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
EPA proposes to determine that these
measures are the reasonably available
measures that can assist in improving
visibility in the Virgin Islands National
Park Class I area.
iii. Reasonable Progress Goals—2018
Visibility Projections
As explained above, there is no
modeling available for this planning
period that can reliably predict the
change in visibility by 2018 due to
changes in the emission inventory for
all sources (shipping, mobile sources,
point sources, etc.) in the Virgin
Islands.5 In the absence of reliable
visibility modeling for 2018, EPA is
using the island-specific inventories and
a post-control emission inventory to
judge whether reasonable progress is
being made.
In order to show how the future
emission changes may affect the aerosol
levels in the Virgin Islands National
Park Class I area, EPA estimated the
effect that the changes in the islandspecific inventories for NOX, SO2 and
5 As described above, there is acceptable
modeling for point sources for the BART and the
reasonable progress analysis for point sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM will have on the visibility in the
National Park. The details of this
analysis are discussed in the FIP and the
modeling is described in the
contractor’s report in the Docket.
At the Virgin Islands National Park,
the projected visibility for 2018 post
control case is slightly better due to the
emission reductions anticipated by EPA.
Visibility on the worst twenty percent
days is improved by 0.16 dv and there
is no change in visibility on the twenty
percent best days.
iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to
URP
The amount of improvement needed
to achieve the URP for 2018 at the
Virgin Islands National Park is 1.46 dv.
Based on the projections of visibility,
discussed above, the amount of
improvement by 2018 would be 0.16 dv.
Therefore, the URP will not be met in
the Virgin Islands National Park. Based
on our decision on the lack of other
reasonable emission controls available
for the Regional Haze FIP, we propose
to determine that the amount of controls
EPA is anticipating by 2018 is the
reasonable progress that can be attained
in the Virgin Islands.
v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if
a state has emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area located in another state or
states, each of the relevant states must
consult with the other(s). Since the
Virgin Islands are about 1,200 miles
from the next nearest Class I area—the
Everglades in Florida—we propose to
determine that emissions from the
Virgin Islands are not reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area located in another state or
states. Because of the distance from the
continental United States and the lack
of impact modeled from a representative
major source in Puerto Rico, we also
propose to determine that no emissions
from any other state are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in the Virgin Islands’
mandatory Class I Federal area.
The Regional Haze Rule also requires
any state that has participated in a
regional planning process, to ‘‘ensure it
has included all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon
through that process’’ and to
demonstrate the technical basis for this
apportionment. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)
and (iii). Since the Virgin Islands was
not included in any regional planning
organizations, there is no obligation for
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
emission reductions on the part of the
Virgin Islands. Therefore, we propose to
determine that no additional emissions
reductions are necessary in the Virgin
Islands to meet the progress goal for any
mandatory Class I Federal area outside
of the Virgin Islands.
vi. Identification of Anthropogenic
Sources of Visibility Impairment
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv),
states are required to identify all
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment considered in developing
the long-term strategy, including major
and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources. As explained
in section III.C above, we have
considered each of these categories in
developing our long-term strategy.
vii. Emissions Reductions Due to
Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
Our LTS incorporates emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Rules
One of the primary regulatory tools
for addressing visibility impairment
from industrial sources under the Act is
the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD
requirements apply to new major
sources and major sources making a
major modification in attainment areas.
Among other things, the PSD permit
program is designed to protect air
quality and visibility in Class I Areas by
requiring best available control
technology and involving the public in
permit decisions. EPA has promulgated
a PSD FIP for the Virgin Islands to
address the Act’s PSD requirements (40
CFR 52.2779(b)). EPA does new source
permitting for the Virgin Islands,
according to the procedures in the PSD
FIP, including implementing
requirements for input from the relevant
FLM and considering potential visibility
impacts to Class I areas from new major
stationary sources or major
modifications of existing major
stationary sources. See 40 CFR
52.21(p)(1).
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Rules
EPA has promulgated a FIP for the
Virgin Islands, which incorporates the
provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.29, to
address RAVI in the Virgin Islands. See
40 CFR 52.2781. As part of its review of
new sources for impairment of visibility
at the Class I area in the Virgin Islands,
EPA is responsible for determining if
sources have a reasonably attributable
impairment to visibility in the Class I
area.
On-going Implementation of Federal
Mobile Source Rules
37851
Virgin Islands from 2000 to 2018, due to
several existing Federal mobile source
regulations. However, we have not
quantified these reductions due to
uncertainties in the composition of the
fleet, use of fuels and vehicle turnover,
as compared to EPA’s assumptions in
our mobile emissions models.
Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of
Construction Activities
Potential sources of emissions from
construction activities include exhaust
from fuel-burning equipment on the
site; vehicles working on the site,
delivering materials, and hauling away
excavate; employee vehicles; and
fugitive dust from exposed earth,
material stockpiles, and vehicles on
roadways, especially unpaved site
accesses. These activities can result in
emissions of NOX, SO2, particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine
exhaust and as fugitive dust from
roadways and material handling), and
primary organic aerosols.
The VIDPNR regulates emissions of
air pollutants, including construction
emissions, and EPA will work with the
VIDPNR to determine if local
regulations and enforcement can help
reduce pollutants that contribute to
regional haze in the National Park.
Mobile source NOX and SO2
emissions are expected to decrease in
TABLE 6—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS AND PROJECTED FUTURE VISIBILITY FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Baseline visibility
(2000–2004)
20% Worst Days ..............................................................................
20% Best Days ................................................................................
Natural
background
conditions for
2064
17.02
8.54
Improvement to
reach reasonable
progress goal for
2018
10.68
4.41
1.48
0.96
2018 Projected
improvement
0.16
0.00
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(All values expressed as deciviews—lower deciviews means better visibility.)
3. BART
BART is an element of EPA’s LTS, as
well as a requirement to evaluate
controls for older sources that affect
Class I areas, for the first
implementation period. The BART
regional haze requirement consists of
three steps: (a) Identification of all the
BART-eligible sources; (b) an
assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART;
and (c) the determination of the BART
controls.
i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin
Islands
The first component of a BART
evaluation is to identify all the BART
eligible sources within the United States
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
Virgin Islands (‘‘Virgin Islands’’ or
‘‘Territory’’). While the Virgin Islands’
Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (VIDPNR), the Territory’s
environmental agency, did not submit a
SIP, EPA’s evaluation process of
identifying BART-eligible sources
included a review of Title V permits, a
review of Title V applications received
from VIDPNR, and direct
communications with HOVENSA, LLC,
one of the BART-eligible sources. To
establish which facilities are BARTeligible, EPA evaluated eligibility
criteria for combustion and other
process units at the following eight
sources throughout the Territory:
• HOVENSA, LLC (St. Croix)
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Three of the Virgin Islands Water
and Power Authority (VI WAPA)
facilities—one on each of the islands
(St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John)
• St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP
(St. Croix)
• Wyndham Sugar Bay Beach Club &
Resort (St. Thomas)
• Divi Carina Bay Hotel (St. Croix)
• Buccaneer Hotel (St. Croix)
EPA identified three of the eight
sources, including multiple combustion
or process units at each source, as
BART-eligible. The three BART-eligible
sources identified by EPA as potentially
impacting the Class I area, summarized
in Table 7, met the following criteria to
be classified as BART-eligible:
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
• One or more emissions units at the
facility are within one of the 26
categories listed in the BART Guidelines
(70 FR 39104, 39158; July 6, 2005);
• The emission unit(s) began
operation after August 6, 1962, and were
still in existence on August 7, 1977;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
• Potential emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM10 from subject units are 250
tons or more per year.
remaining five sources met these criteria
and therefore were removed from
consideration for BART review.
These criteria are in section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix Y. None of the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
EP25JN12.008</GPH>
37852
37853
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
The BART Guidelines recommend
addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as
visibility-impairment pollutants. The
Guidelines note that states can decide
whether to evaluate VOC or ammonia
emissions. EPA is not developing
additional strategies for VOC or
ammonia emissions in its FIP. EPA
proposes to determine that the lack of
tools available to estimate emissions
and subsequently model VOC and
ammonia effects on visibility inhibits
EPA from addressing BART for these
pollutants and that SO2, NOX, PM10, and
PM2.5 are the pollutants reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment to target under BART.
ii. Sources Subject to BART
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,
i.e., those sources that are subject to
BART. The BART Guidelines allow us
to consider exempting some BARTeligible sources from further BART
review because a source may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, the EPA, through the
use of a contractor, performed
dispersion modeling to assess the extent
of each BART-eligible source’s
contribution to visibility impairment at
the Class I area and we propose to rely
on that modeling described below.
Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines provide that we
may use the CALPUFF 6 modeling
system or another appropriate model to
predict the visibility impacts from a
single source on a Class I area and to,
therefore, determine whether an
individual source is anticipated to cause
or contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to
BART.’’ The Guidelines state that we
find CALPUFF is the best regulatory
modeling application currently
available for predicting a single source’s
contribution to visibility impairment (70
FR 39162, July 6, 2005). The BART
Guidelines also recommend that a
modeling protocol be developed for
making individual source attributions,
which in this case is the EPA-approved
workplan developed by the contractor.
To determine whether each BARTeligible source has a significant impact
on visibility, we propose to use the
CALPUFF modeling to estimate daily
visibility impacts above estimated
natural conditions at the Class I area,
which is the Virgin Islands National
Park, covering much of St. John as well
as Hassel Island near St. Thomas. There
are no other Class I areas within 300
kilometers (km) of any BART-eligible
facility in the Virgin Islands. Emissions
were modeled with four years worth of
meteorological data, from 2007 through
2010. We used these years because more
meteorological data were available and
the output provided from the modeling
was closer to the actual monitored data
than the period 2001 to 2004. The
modeling evaluated the impact of three
BART sources on the Class I area. EPA
believes that this modeling provides a
reasonable estimate of daily visibility
impacts above estimated natural
conditions at the Class I area. Therefore,
we propose to use the results of this
CALPUFF modeling to determine
whether each BART-eligible source has
a significant impact on visibility.
Contribution Threshold
For the modeling to determine the
applicability of BART to single sources,
the BART Guidelines note that the first
step is to set a contribution threshold to
assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at a
Class I area. The BART Guidelines state
that, ‘‘[a] single source that is
responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or
more should be considered to ‘cause’
visibility impairment’’ (70 FR 39161,
July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also
state that ‘‘the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source
contributes to visibility impairment may
reasonably differ across states,’’ but,
‘‘[a]s a general matter, any threshold
that you use for determining whether a
source ‘contributes’ to visibility
impairment should not be higher than
0.5 deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a
contribution threshold, states or EPA
should ‘‘consider the number of
emissions sources affecting the Class I
areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources’ impacts.’’ Id. The
Guidelines affirm that states and EPA
are free to use a lower threshold if it can
be concluded that the location of a large
number of BART-eligible sources in
proximity to a Class I area justifies this
approach.
EPA proposes to follow the BART
Guidelines for determining which
sources are subject to BART for the
Virgin Islands FIP. EPA took into
consideration that the Virgin Islands
BART sources only affect one Class I
area, so numerous small impacts at
many Class I areas will not occur. With
only three BART sources, the situation
is much different than in the eastern
United States where over one hundred
sources can have overlapping plumes
that make a larger impact on several
Class I areas (70 FR 39121, July 6, 2005).
As shown in Table 8, EPA proposes to
exempt two of the three BART-eligible
sources in the Territory from further
review under the BART requirements.
The visibility impacts attributable to
each of the VIWAPA sources is very low
(at or less than 0.1 deciviews). Our
proposed approach to contribution is to
capture any source responsible for a
major visibility impact, while excluding
other sources with very small impacts.
Sources Identified by EPA as BART–
Eligible and Subject to BART
The results of the CALPUFF modeling
are summarized in Table 8. EPA is
proposing that the VIWAPA facilities
not be subject to BART because the
demonstrated impacts are very low at all
Class I area receptors. EPA proposes that
the HOVENSA facility is subject to
BART because of the high demonstrated
impacts at receptors in the Class I area.
TABLE 8—INDIVIDUAL BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE VISIBILITY IMPACTS ON VIRGIN ISLANDS CLASS I AREA
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Facility and location
Class I area and locations of modeling receptor
VI WAPA ..................................................................
St Thomas ................................................................
Average 4-year
98th percentile
visibility impact
(deciviews)
St. John ....................................................................
Hassel Island, St. Thomas .......................................
6 Note that our reference to CALPUFF
encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system,
which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post
processors. The different versions of CALPUFF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
have corresponding versions of CALMET,
CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with
previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer
version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.06
0.04
Subject to BART?
No.
of the CALPUFF modeling system are available
from the model developer at https://www.src.com/
calpuff/calpuff1.htm.
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37854
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—INDIVIDUAL BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCE VISIBILITY IMPACTS ON VIRGIN ISLANDS CLASS I AREA—Continued
Facility and location
Class I area and locations of modeling receptor
VI WAPA ..................................................................
St. Croix ....................................................................
HOVENSA ................................................................
St. Croix ....................................................................
St. John ....................................................................
Hassel Island, St. Thomas .......................................
St. John ....................................................................
Hassel Island, St. Thomas .......................................
iii. BART Evaluations for Sources
Identified as Subject to BART by EPA
The third and 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 Act 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 that may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. However, a
source that implements the maximum
feasible level of control for its emissions
has met the BART requirements, and no
further analysis is needed. Conversely, a
source that limits its emissions via an
enforceable permit limit, or shuts down
and surrenders its permits, no longer
needs to be subject to BART review.
EPA determined that HOVENSA is
subject to BART review. The following
summarizes EPA’s BART analyses and
evaluation for each of the HOVENSA
units listed in Table 7 that are subject
to BART. For further details the reader
is referred to EPA’s BART analyses
contained in the FIP, located in the
docket for this proposal at EPA’s Web
site at www.regulations.gov.
BART Determinations for HOVENSA
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Average 4-year
98th percentile
visibility impact
(deciviews)
a. Facility Description and Current
Status
HOVENSA is a petroleum refinery
located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Operations began in 1966 but in October
1998, the Amerada Hess Corporation
and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.
formed a new corporation, HOVENSA,
L.L.C. (HOVENSA) which acquired
ownership and operational control of
the St. Croix refinery. HOVENSA has a
design capacity of 545,000 barrels of
crude oil per day, the majority of which
is received from Venezuela.
In June 2011, EPA and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into
a consent decree (CD) requiring
HOVENSA to pay a civil penalty and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
requiring the implementation of new
pollution controls that would help
protect the public health and resolve
alleged Clean Air Act violations at the
St. Croix refinery. The alleged violations
cover emissions of SO2, NOX, VOCs and
benzene from the Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit (FCCU), refinery heaters,
boilers, generating combustion turbines,
compressor engines, flares, sulfur
recovery units and process units related
to VOC and benzene emissions. EPA
estimates that for the affected process
heaters, boilers, generating turbines, and
compressor engines, the cumulative
reduction in NOX emissions,
attributable to the CD, which are
defined there as ‘‘Qualifying Controls’’
are as follows: 1,079 tpy by June 2015,
3,663 tpy by June 2016 and 4,744 tpy by
June 2019.7 Also, EPA estimates that for
the affected FCCU, FCCU catalytic
regenerator, boilers, process heaters,
generating combustion turbines, sulfur
recovery plants, and flares, the
reduction in SO2 emissions, attributable
to the CD is 3,460 tpy. The CD requires
SO2 reductions from the flares within
the 2018–2021 timeframe whereas SO2
reductions for other units are to be
implemented within the period of 2011–
2014. A copy of the CD is included in
the Docket. For further information the
reader is referred to https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/
hovensa.html.
On January 18, 2012, HOVENSA
announced the refinery on St. Croix
would shut down operations and
become an oil storage terminal.
Currently, HOVENSA has shutdown all
refinery operations except for some
process unit cleanout operations.
HOVENSA is still finalizing
intermediate and long term plans for
operation of the bulk storage terminal to
determine what utilities will continue to
be needed. In the meantime, HOVENSA
has retained its air permits and remains
subject to the CD. Since HOVENSA has
retained its permits, EPA evaluated
7 See Appendix A of the CD for a list of affected
sources: heaters and boilers greater than 40 mm
BTU/hour, generating turbines and compressor
engines.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.09
0.10
1.91
2.35
Subject to BART?
No.
Yes.
BART for HOVENSA’s BART-eligible
sources.
b. BART Analysis
Eight Boilers
HOVENSA owns and operates nine
steam boilers that are capable of
combusting either refinery fuel gas
(RFG) or No. 6 fuel oil and the heat
input to the boilers is in the range of 205
to 405 mm BTU/hr. One of the boilers
(Boiler 10) was constructed in 1999 and
therefore is not BART-eligible. EPA has
determined there are eight boilers
subject to BART. SO2 emissions are
controlled by a permit limiting the
sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50%
or 1.0% depending upon wind
conditions as defined in the permit. In
addition, the June 2011 CD will lower
SO2 emissions by requiring that the
combustion of RFG by the boilers,
containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S), meet
the requirements of the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) part 60,
Subparts J and Ja. The June 2011 CD
requires the facility to lower the sulfur
content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.55%
maximum, 0.50% annually, and to a
low limit of 0.30% depending upon
wind conditions as defined in the CD.
There are no existing controls for NOX
and PM emissions from the BARTeligible boilers.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM
emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis,
EPA is proposing that current
operations represent BART for each of
the boilers subject to BART. For SO2
and PM control, EPA’s contractor
evaluated Duct Injection and Fabric
Filters (DIFF) using lime as the alkaline
reagent. DIFF is a semi-wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) process. The
fabric filter is the PM control device.
EPA has determined that the DIFF
controls evaluated for the boilers subject
to BART are not cost effective. EPA
determined that the cost effectiveness
for the eight boilers subject to BART
varied from about $19,100 to $39,600
per ton of SO2 and PM reduced, which
is too costly to be cost effective per ton
of reduced emissions. In addition, it is
EPA’s opinion that if maximum controls
had been evaluated, such as lime or
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
limestone wet FGD, the cost
effectiveness would be even higher than
for the DIFF controls evaluated.
Therefore, EPA determines that for SO2
and PM controls, current operation is
considered as BART.
For control of NOX emissions, EPA’s
contractor evaluated selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) using
ammonia as the reagent. EPA has
determined that implementation of
SNCR controls for boilers subject to
BART are cost effective. The actual cost
effectiveness for the boilers is in the
range of about $710 to $860 per ton of
NOX removed. As summarized in Table
8, the visibility impact (98th percentile,
4 year average) of all BART-eligible
sources from HOVENSA in the Class I
area at St. John is 1.91 dv for all
pollutants. EPA further analyzed the
contribution of various chemical species
and components on the visibility
impacts and has established that the
contribution of NOX compounds is
about 5% which would be equivalent to
0.09 dv visibility impact at St. John from
all HOVENSA units subject to BART,
including the 8 boilers subject to BART.
Since the visibility impact due to NOX
emissions from all HOVENSA units
subject to BART is only about 0.09 dv,
EPA proposes that the implementation
of any NOX controls (even SNCR or
selective catalytic reduction (SCR))
would not have any significant visibility
impact on the Class I area in the Virgin
Islands and therefore EPA proposes to
determine that current operation of the
boilers subject to BART is considered
BART for controlling NOX emissions.
Also, as discussed in the Reasonable
Progress Goals section, EPA is
proposing to require HOVENSA to
provide a complete analysis of
reasonable measures, if it resumes
refinery operations.
Combustion Turbines
HOVENSA owns and operates eleven
combustion turbines that are capable of
combusting two or more of the
following fuel combinations: refinery
fuel gas (RFG), liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) and distillate oil. Two of the
turbines were constructed in 1993 and
2009 and are therefore not BARTeligible. EPA has determined nine
turbines are subject to BART. SO2
emissions are controlled by limiting the
fuel sulfur content as follows: distillate
oil has a permit sulfur limit of 0.20%;
LPG does not contain any sulfur; RFG
sulfur content will be limited by the CD
that requires the combustion of RFG
with limits on the H2S content in
accordance with the NSPS requirements
at subpart J or Ja. For NOX, only one
turbine has implemented control
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
technology (steam injection). For PM,
none of the turbines subject to BART
have any controls.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM
emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis,
EPA is proposing that current
operations represent BART for each of
the nine combustion turbines subject to
BART. For SO2 and PM control, as with
the boilers discussed above, EPA’s
contractor evaluated Duct Injection and
Fabric Filters (DIFF) using lime as the
alkaline reagent. Based upon this
analysis, EPA has determined that the
DIFF controls evaluated for the nine
combustion turbines are not cost
effective. EPA determined that the cost
effectiveness for the nine combustion
turbines varied from about $122,300 (8
turbines) to $359,186 (1 turbine) per ton
of SO2 and PM reduced. The cost
effectiveness values for the combustion
turbines are much higher than for the
boilers because the SO2 emissions from
the boilers are much higher (by a factor
of 2 to 4 times) than from the turbines.
Therefore, EPA determines that for SO2
and PM controls, current operation is
considered as BART.
For control of NOX emissions from the
turbines (as discussed above for the
boilers) EPA’s contractor evaluated
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
using ammonia as the reagent. EPA has
determined, except for one turbine, that
implementation of SNCR controls for
eight turbines are cost effective. The
actual cost effectiveness for the turbines
is from about $1,750 to $1,890 per ton
of NOX removed. The one turbine where
control is not cost effectiveness had a
value of $9,500/ton, because the NOX
emissions are much lower due to NOX
controls installed on the turbine. Even
though controls on eight of the nine
turbines are cost effective, EPA has
determined, for the same reasons
discussed above for the boilers, that the
visibility impact due to NOX emissions
is only about 0.09 dv from HOVENSA
units subject to BART, and therefore the
implementation of any new NOX
controls (even SNCR or SCR) would not
have any significant visibility impact on
the Class I area in the Virgin Islands.
Therefore, EPA is determining that
current operations of the nine turbines
subject to BART are considered BART
for controlling NOX emissions.
Process Heaters
HOVENSA owns seventy process
heaters of which twenty-one were shut
down in early 2011. Of the seventy
heaters, EPA has determined that sixtyfour are subject to BART whereas the
remaining six heaters were constructed
after 1977 and are therefore not BARTeligible. Of the sixty-four process
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37855
heaters subject to BART, fifteen are
capable of combusting either RFG or No.
6 fuel oil whereas the remaining fortynine heaters combust only RFG.
For the fifteen heaters capable of
combusting No. 6 fuel oil, SO2
emissions are controlled by permits
limiting the sulfur content of No. 6 fuel
oil to 0.50% or 1.0%. The June 2011 CD
provides for lowering SO2 emissions by
establishing lower sulfur content of No.
6 fuel oil. In addition, the CD requires
process heaters to meet the NSPS at part
60, either subpart J or Ja. None of the
process heaters subject to BART have
any controls for either NOX or PM.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM
emissions, based upon EPA’s analysis,
EPA is proposing that current
operations represent BART for each of
the sixty-four process heaters subject to
BART. Although EPA’s contractor
determined cost effectiveness for only
the boilers and combustion turbines,
EPA has concluded that, for control of
SO2, NOX and PM, there is sufficient
information to make a determination
that current operation represents BART
for each of the process heaters subject to
BART. For the SO2 and PM BART
determination, EPA notes that the SO2
emissions, heat input and fuel type for
each of the six largest process heaters is
similar to that of most of the boilers
which EPA determined BART control
was not cost effective. It is EPA’s
judgment from this size comparison
between the boilers and the six largest
heaters that the cost effectiveness for the
process heaters would be less than the
cost effectiveness for the boilers, but
still would result in determining
additional controls as not being cost
effective. The great majority of the
remainder of the process heaters
combust only RFG, have a smaller heat
input (each by a factor of about 2.75
average) and have lower SO2 emissions
(each by a factor of about 7.8 on average)
than the six larger heaters. Based upon
this comparison, EPA would expect that
controls for the remaining smaller
process heaters will not be cost
effective. Therefore, for SO2 and PM
emissions, EPA proposes to determine
that the controls for all the process
heaters subject to BART are not cost
effective and that current operation is
considered BART.
As discussed above for the boilers and
combustion turbines, EPA determined
that implementation of controls on NOX
emissions from all BART units at
HOVENSA have an insignificant
visibility impact on the Class I area and
EPA is proposing to determine this is
also true for the process heaters.
Therefore EPA proposes that current
operation of the process heaters subject
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37856
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
to BART is considered as BART for
controlling NOX emissions.
Other Significant HOVENSA Emission
Units Subject to BART
HOVENSA owns and operates many
other emission units that are subject to
BART, including reciprocating gas
compressors, tail gas treatment units,
tail gas incinerators, flares, water intake
pumps and a desalination water pump.
For many of these units, actual
emissions are negligible and PTE
emissions are small. Also, the June 2011
CD contains additional compliance
requirements for these units, such as
meeting the NSPS emission limits under
part 60 subparts J or Ja.
In all cases, EPA is proposing that
current operations represent BART
control for SO2, NOX and PM emissions
for each of these sources subject to
BART. It is EPA’s judgment that any
detailed cost analysis would conclude
that implementation of any additional
control technologies for controlling
emissions of SO2, NOX or PM would
have resulted in higher cost
effectiveness values. Also, for the same
reasons discussed above for the boilers,
turbines and process heaters, EPA
proposes that any reduction in NOX
emissions will not significantly improve
visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin
Islands and therefore current operation
of each source subject to BART (without
any new controls) represents BART for
controlling NOX emissions.
The reader is referred to the Regional
Haze Virgin Islands FIP found in the
Docket for this proposal, which contains
a complete description of all of the
HOVENSA emission units subject to
BART, and the respective BART
determinations.
While there is uncertainty at this time
regarding future operations at
HOVENSA, the CD does contain
emission reductions and emission limit
requirements which allow us to project
that should HOVENSA resume
operating as a refinery, it may be at a
lower capacity factor, with much less
sulfur. Although these resulting
reductions in sulfur emissions are not
enforceable requirements under this
action, they suggest that SO2 emissions
from HOVENSA may decrease even in
the absence of any BART requirements.
This analysis also indicates that at least
some of the units at HOVENSA may be
coming to the end of their useful life
and not operate again.
In summary, EPA’s BART evaluation
of the boilers, turbines, process heaters,
and several other source categories that
are subject to BART has determined that
no additional control is consistent with
BART, given the unique situation with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
HOVENSA and the unique visibility
conditions in the Virgin Islands, and is
proposing that current operations
represent BART for HOVENSA. As
such, EPA’s Federal plan includes the
establishment of emission limits for
SO2, NOX and PM equivalent to the
potential to emit (PTE) for each unit
subject to BART, as derived from
HOVENSA’s permit limit conditions.
EPA’s Federal plan includes these PTE
limits in the spreadsheets found in the
Attachments to the FIP.
C. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
Under section 169A(d) of the Act, we
are required to consult with the
appropriate FLM(s) before proposing the
Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP. We
must also include a summary of the
FLMs’ conclusions and
recommendations in this notice. EPA
has consulted informally with the FLMs
throughout the development of the
Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP,
including periodic updates during
national teleconferences between EPA
and the FLMs for the past several years.
EPA also had two formal discussions
with the FLMs as part of the
consultation process. On May 28, 2008,
EPA Region 2 held a teleconference
with representatives of the National
Park Service to brief them about our
technical findings regarding regional
haze in the Virgin Islands. Most
recently, on May 9, 2012, EPA Region 2
held discussions about our final plans
for addressing regional haze in the
Virgin Islands. Following that
discussion, EPA provided the National
Park Service with copies of the BART
analysis for their comments. EPA
provided the FLMs with a copy of the
proposed FIP just prior to publishing
this proposal and acknowledges, as does
the FLM, that any formal comments by
the FLMs will be provided to EPA
during the public comment period for
this proposal.
In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4)
specifies the regional haze FIP must
provide procedures for continuing
consultation with the FLMs on the
implementation of the visibility
protection program required by 40 CFR
subpart P, including development and
review of implementation plan revisions
and 5-year progress reports, and on the
implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas. We intend to
continue to consult with the FLMs
regarding all aspects of the visibility
protection program and we encourage
the Virgin Islands government to do the
same.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
EPA commits to coordinate with the
Virgin Islands government in order to
revise and submit a regional haze
implementation plan by July 31, 2018,
to address the next ten years of progress
toward the national goal in the Act of
eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and
to submit a plan every ten years
thereafter, in accordance with the
requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f)
of the Federal rule for regional haze.
EPA’s commitment includes continuing
to consult with the FLMs on the
implementation of section 51.308 and
this FIP, including development and
review of future SIP revisions and fiveyear progress reports, and on the
implementation of other programs
affecting the impairment of visibility in
Class I areas. EPA commits to address
the following in its Mid-Course Review
report: address any uncertainties
encountered during regional haze
planning process; report on the progress
of the BART analysis, determinations,
and implementation; report on whether
additional potential actions identified in
its plan or through public comment,
will be implemented and the status of
those efforts. The reasonable progress
report will evaluate the progress made
towards the RPGs for the Virgin Islands
National Park. EPA will work with the
Virgin Islands territorial government to
prepare and submit updates to the
emission inventories, a mid-course
review and a revised plan for the next
ten-year period starting in 2018.
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
EPA is the reviewing agency for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program in the Virgin Islands and
is responsible for preventing new and
modified sources from significantly
impacting visibility in the Class I area
of the Virgin Islands National Park on
St. John and Hassel Islands. EPA will
review the impact of proposed sources
on visibility under 40 CFR 52.26 and
52.28, by implementing the PSD permit
requirements for new or modified major
sources of air pollutants located within
100 kilometers of the Class I area, or
within a larger radius on a case-by-case
basis, in accordance with all applicable
Federal rules for review of the impacts
on Class I areas. We propose to find that
the Regional Haze FIP appropriately
supplements and augments EPA’s FIP
for RAVI visibility provisions by
updating the monitoring and LTS
provisions to address regional haze. We
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
discuss the relevant monitoring
provisions further below.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires the
Virgin Islands to consider smoke
management techniques for the
purposes of agricultural and forestry
management in developing reasonable
progress goals. Smoke Management
Programs are only required when smoke
impacts from fires managed for resource
benefits contribute significantly to
regional haze. The results of the
emissions inventory indicate that
emissions from agricultural, managed,
and prescribed burning are very minor
source categories. It is unlikely that fires
for agricultural or forestry management
cause large impacts on visibility in the
Virgin Islands National Park. On rare
occasions, smoke from major fires
degrades the air quality and visibility in
the Virgin Islands. However, these fires
are generally unwanted wildfires that
are not subject to smoke management
programs. Since there is no evidence of
agricultural burning contributing to
haze at Class I areas, we propose to
determine that no further controls on
agricultural burning or forest fires are
reasonable at this time.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the
FIP contain a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
regional haze visibility impairment that
is representative of all mandatory Class
I Federal areas within the state. This
monitoring strategy must be coordinated
with the monitoring strategy required in
40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this
requirement may be met through
participation in the IMPROVE network.
Consistent with EPA’s monitoring
regulations for RAVI and regional haze,
EPA will rely on the IMPROVE network
for compliance purposes, in addition to
any RAVI monitoring that may be
needed in the future. Therefore, we
propose to find that we have satisfied
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
The primary monitoring network for
regional haze in the United States is the
IMPROVE network. There is currently
one IMPROVE site in the Virgin Islands,
in the Virgin Islands National Park.
IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000–
2004 serves as the baseline for the
regional haze program, and is relied
upon in our proposed FIP. Data
produced by the IMPROVE monitoring
network are essential for the verification
of the effects of changes in emissions on
visibility in Class I areas and will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
needed for preparing the 5-year progress
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions,
each of which relies on analysis of the
preceding five years of data. EPA will
continue to encourage the National Park
Service to continue to operate and
maintain the monitoring site in the
Virgin Islands National Park, providing
support as EPA deems appropriate.
V. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing a Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
for the Territory of the United States
Virgin Islands. This FIP addresses
progress toward reducing regional haze
for the first implementation period
ending in 2018. The proposed FIP
includes emission reductions to begin
the reasonable progress needed to
achieve the overall objective of no manmade interference with visibility by
2064. The proposed FIP relies on
emission reductions from existing
emissions controls and programs
currently in effect, and proposes to
require HOVENSA to notify EPA in the
event it resumes operation of the
refinery process units and to provide an
analysis for reasonable measures
consistent with EPA’s Regional Haze
Guidelines. Thus, EPA is proposing a
Regional Haze Plan to satisfy the
requirements of the Act. EPA is taking
this action pursuant to CAA sections
110(a), 301(a), 169A and 169B. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document and
will consider these comments before
taking final action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The
proposed Virgin Islands Regional Haze
FIP requires implementation of existing
emissions controls and emission
reduction strategies on one facility and
is not a rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a
‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as
a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37857
requirements imposed on ten or more
persons* * *.’’44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
Because the proposed FIP applies to just
one facility, the Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. The OMB
control numbers for our regulations in
40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this proposed
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
37858
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
purposes of the regional haze program
consists of imposing existing Federal
controls to meet the BART requirement
for SO2, NOX, and PM emissions on
specific units at one facility in the
Virgin Islands. The net result of this FIP
action is that EPA is proposing existing
direct emission controls on selected
units at only one facility. The facility in
question is a large petroleum refinery
that is not owned by a small entity, and
therefore is not a small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
that exceed the inflation-adjusted
UMRA threshold of $100 million by
State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector in any 1 year. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
The proposed Virgin Islands Regional
Haze FIP does not have federalism
implications. This action will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. In this action,
EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under
CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a
Regional Haze FIP following its finding
that the Virgin Islands had failed to
submit a regional haze SIP. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5–
501 of the EO has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to EO 13045 because it
implements specific standards
established by Congress in statutes.
However, to the extent this proposed
rule will limit emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM the rule will have a beneficial
effect on children’s health by reducing
air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. EPA
believes that VCS are inapplicable to
this action. Today’s action does not
require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994), establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this
proposed rule, if finalized, will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on minority or low-income populations
because it limits increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 14, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CCC—Virgin Islands
2. In § 52.2781, add paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
§ 52.2781
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin
Islands National Park.
(1) Applicability. This section
addresses Clean Air Act requirements
and EPA’s rules to prevent and remedy
future and existing man-made
impairment of visibility in the
mandatory Class I area of the Virgin
Islands National Park through a
Regional Haze Program. This section
applies to the owner and operator of
HOVENSA L.L.C. (HOVENSA), a
petroleum refinery located on St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
(2) Definitions. Terms not defined
below shall have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s
regulations implementing the Clean Air
Act. For purposes of this section:
NOX means nitrogen oxides.
Owner/operator means any person
who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a facility or source identified
in paragraph (a) of this section.
PM means particulate matter.
Process unit means any collection of
structures and/or equipment that
processes, assembles, applies, blends, or
otherwise uses material inputs to
produce or store an intermediate or a
completed product. A single stationary
source may contain more than one
process unit, and a process unit may
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules
contain more than one emissions unit.
For a petroleum refinery, there are
several categories of process units that
could include: those that separate and/
or distill petroleum feedstocks; those
that change molecular structures;
petroleum treating processes; auxiliary
facilities, such as steam generators and
hydrogen production units; and those
that load, unload, blend or store
intermediate or completed products.
SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
Startup means the setting in operation
of an affected facility for any purpose.
(3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On
June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA
entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in
the U.S. District Court for the Virgin
Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act
violations at its St. Croix, Virgin Islands
facility. The CD requires HOVENSA,
among other things, to achieve emission
limits and install new pollution controls
pursuant to a schedule for compliance.
The measures required by the CD are
expected to reduce emissions of NOX by
5,031 tons per year (tpy) and SO2 by
3,460 tpy. The emission limitations,
pollution controls, schedules for
compliance, reporting, and
recordkeeping provisions of the
HOVENSA CD constitute an element of
the long term strategy and address the
reasonable progress provisions of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing
federally enforceable HOVENSA CD be
revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if
necessary, revise the FIP after public
notice and comment.
(4) HOVENSA requirement for
notification and four factor analysis.
HOVENSA must notify EPA 60 days in
advance of startup and resumption of
operation of refinery process units at the
HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin Islands
facility. HOVENSA shall submit such
notice to the Director of the Clean Air
and Sustainability Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York, 10007–1866.
HOVENSA’s notification to EPA that it
intends to start up refinery process units
must include a complete analysis of
reasonable measures needed to comply
with regional haze requirements. EPA
will revise the FIP as necessary, after
public notice and comment, in
accordance with regional haze
requirements including the ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ provisions in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1). HOVENSA will be
required to install any controls that are
required by the revised FIP as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:54 Jun 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
than 5 years after the effective date of
the revised FIP.
[FR Doc. 2012–15463 Filed 6–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0168; FRL–9692–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Revisions to UAC Rule 401—Permit:
New and Modified Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Utah
on April 17, 2008 and partially approve
SIP revisions submitted by the State of
Utah on September 15, 2006. The
revisions contain new rules in Utah’s
Title 307 Rule 401 (Permit: New and
Modified Sources). The intended effect
of this action is to propose to approve
the rules that are consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA.) This action is
being taken under sections 110 and 112
of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2012–0168, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director,
Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–
0168. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37859
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. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
E:\FR\FM\25JNP1.SGM
25JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37842-37859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15463]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0457, FRL-9691-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
United States Virgin Islands; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan
(the Plan) to address regional haze in the Territory of the United
States Virgin Islands. EPA proposes to determine that the Plan meets
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's rules concerning
reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future
and remedying any existing man-made impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). The proposed Plan protects and improves visibility levels
in the Virgin Islands Class I area, namely the Virgin Islands National
Park on the island of St. John. The Plan for the Virgin Islands will
address Reasonable Progress toward improving visibility and evaluation
of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. The reader is referred
to the Regional Haze Virgin Islands Federal Implementation Plan found
in the Docket for this action, which contains a complete description of
all of the elements to address regional haze. EPA is taking comments on
this proposal and plans to follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before August 24,
2012.
Public Hearing: If you wish to request a hearing and present
testimony, you should notify Mr. Geoffrey Garrison on or before July 6,
2012, and indicate the nature of the issues you wish to provide oral
testimony during the hearing. Mr. Garrison's contact information is
found in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes per person. The hearing
will be strictly limited to the subject matter of this proposal, the
scope of which is discussed below. EPA will not respond to comments
during the public hearing. EPA will not be providing equipment for
commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide
presentations. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written
statements will be made available for copying during normal working
hours at the address listed for inspection of documents, and also
included in the Docket. Any member of the public may file a written
statement by the close of the comment period. Written statements
(duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted to Docket Number EPA-
R2-OAR-2012-0457, at the address listed for submitting comments. Note
that any written comments and supporting information submitted during
the comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral
comments presented at the public hearing. If no requests for a public
hearing are received by close of business on July 6, 2012, a hearing
will not be held; please contact Mr. Garrison to find out if the
hearing will actually be held or will be cancelled for lack of any
request to speak.
ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public hearing, if requested, will be held
at Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources, St.
Thomas Office, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal Building, St. Thomas, VI
00802, on July 17, 2012, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2012-0457, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
Fax: 212-637-3901.
Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays. Hand Delivery of comments will also be
accepted by Mr. Jim Casey, Virgin Islands Coordinator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office, Tunick
Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801, 340-714-
2333.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket Number EPA-R02-OAR-
2012-0457. 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
[[Page 37843]]
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 or
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/air/docket.html.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands
Field Office, Tunick Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St.
Thomas, VI 00801.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, St. Croix
Public Affairs Office, 4200 Estate St. John 4237,
Christiansted, VI 00820.
EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation Planning Section,
Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007-1866. The telephone number is (212) 637-4249. Mr. Kelly can also
be reached via electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov.
Geoffrey M. Garrison, Community Involvement Coordinator,
Public Affairs Division, U.S. EPA Region 2, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands, BB: 340-201-5328, Email: garrison.geoffrey@epa.gov.
Jim Casey, Virgin Islands Coordinator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Virgin Islands Field Office, Tunick
Building, Suite 102, 1336 Beltjen Road, St. Thomas, VI 00801, 340-714-
2333, Email: casey.jim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever
``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. In
most cases in this document, where we use the term ``state'' when
discussing requirements or recommendations under the Clean Air Act or
Agency guidance, this includes the Territory of the Virgin Islands.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the proposed implementation plan to address regional
haze in the Virgin Islands?
A. Affected Class I Areas
1. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and Territory
Control Requirements
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
i. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
ii. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific
Emissions Inventories
iii. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP
v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility
Impairment
vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
3. BART
i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin Islands
ii. Sources Subject to BART
iii. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as Subject to BART
by EPA
C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a plan to address regional haze in the Virgin
Islands under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) sections 301(a) and
110(k)(3). EPA proposes a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which
includes measures that will reduce emissions that contribute to
regional haze in the Virgin Islands and make progress toward the
Reasonable Progress Goal (RPG) for 2018, as determined by EPA. RPGs are
interim visibility goals towards meeting the Act's national visibility
goal of no man-made contribution to visibility reduction. In addition,
EPA proposes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control
determinations for sources in the Virgin Islands that may be subject to
BART. This proposed action and the accompanying FIP documents that are
available in the Docket explain the basis for EPA's proposed actions on
the Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP.
EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP
The Act requires each state to develop plans to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. (CAA sections
110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans developed by a state or Territory
are referred to as State Implementation Plans or SIPs. A state must
submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to us for approval. Once approved, a
SIP is federally enforceable, that is enforceable by EPA and citizens
under the Act. If a state fails to make a required SIP submittal or if
we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete or
unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory
gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)).
EPA made a finding of failure to submit on January 15, 2009 (74 FR
2392), determining that the U.S. Virgin Islands failed to submit a SIP
that addressed any of the required regional haze SIP elements of 40 CFR
51.308.
[[Page 37844]]
Under section 110(c) of the Act, whenever we find that a state has
failed to make a required submission we are required to promulgate a
FIP. Specifically, section 110(c) provides:
(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation
plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--
(A) finds that a state has failed to make a required submission or
finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not
satisfy the minimum criteria established under [section 110(k)(1)(A)],
or
(B) disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or
in part, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the
Administrator promulgates such Federal implementation plan.
Section 302(y) defines the term ``Federal implementation plan'' in
pertinent part, as:
[A] plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by the Administrator
to fill all or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a
portion of an inadequacy in a State implementation plan, and which
includes enforceable emission limitations or other control measures,
means or techniques (including economic incentives, such as
marketable permits or auctions or emissions allowances) * * *.
Thus, because we determined that the Virgin Islands failed to
submit a Regional Haze SIP, we are required to promulgate a Regional
Haze FIP.
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by many
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area
and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
Visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the
time at most national parks and wilderness areas, many of which are
also referred to as Federal Class I areas. (CAA section 162(a)).
In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress initiated a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness
areas. Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act 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 which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' In 1990 Congress added
section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues. On July 1,
1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714, July
1, 1999). The requirement to submit a Regional Haze SIP applies to all
50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) of the RHR required states to submit the first implementation
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than
December 17, 2007.
On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a finding that the Virgin Islands
had failed to submit the Regional Haze SIP (74 FR 2392, January 15,
2009). EPA's January 15, 2009 finding established a two-year deadline
of January 15, 2011 for EPA to either approve a Regional Haze SIP for
the Virgin Islands, or adopt a FIP. This proposed action is intended to
address the January 15, 2009 finding. EPA continues to work with the
Virgin Islands Government to develop a State Implementation Plan for
Regional Haze.
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 Virgin Islands National Park is sufficiently far
from the continental United States, therefore there was no need for the
Virgin Islands government to participate in any of these RPOs.
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
The following is a basic explanation of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308
for a complete listing of the regulations under which this FIP was
developed.
A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the Act 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 or ``dv'' as the principal metric
for measuring 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 is determined by measuring the visual range,
which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark
object can be viewed against the sky. The dv is calculated from
visibility measurements. Each dv change is an equal incremental change
in visibility perceived by the human eye. For this reason, EPA believes
it is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility.
Most people can detect a change in visibility at one dv. The preamble
to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35725,
July 1, 1999).
The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility
goals towards 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 manmade air pollution
by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., manmade 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, the RHR requires
states to calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at
each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and
review progress midway through each 10-year planning period. To do
this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in
dv) 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, the RHR requires
states to develop an estimate of
[[Page 37845]]
natural visibility conditions for the purposes 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf),
(hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to
as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the initial regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, baseline visibility conditions were used as the starting points
for assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data for 2000
through 2004, the RHR required states 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 submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states
that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each (approximately) 10-year
planning period is the vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards
achieving the natural visibility goal. 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, and in this case, the Virgin Islands government, have
significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors established in the Act and in EPA's RHR:
(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. (See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have considerable
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted
in our Reasonable Progress guidance.\2\ 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. 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 Class I State's areas. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the Act 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, the Act 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 stationary sources \3\ built between
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available
Retrofit Control Technology'' as determined by the state. (CAA
169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such 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 equal or greater reasonable progress towards
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
Y (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. The BART Guidelines require states to use the
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART
applicability determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. The
BART Guidelines encourage, but do not require states to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
The BART Guidelines recommend that states address all visibility
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
PM. The BART Guidelines direct states to use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia
(NH3) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
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 Act 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. (70 FR 39170, July 6,
2005).
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
[[Page 37846]]
regional haze SIP, as required by the Act (section 169A(g)(4)) and by
the RHR (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.
States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they
will use to meet the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the Act, 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 Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their SIPs. The LTS
is the compilation of all control measures a state will use to meet any
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. (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. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). Since sources in the
Virgin Islands do not affect visibility in any other states' Class I
areas, this particular LTS requirement does not apply.
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 seven factors listed below is 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 (RAVI); (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; (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. (40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for states with Class I areas 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 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 reasonably attributable
and regional haze visibility impairment, and the state must submit the
first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP revision.
Future coordinated LTSs, 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 reviews of a
state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and
must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
If a state has a Class I Federal Area in the state, the
requirements in section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met. These
requirements include 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 and this 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 Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it
must be reviewed every five years. Note that section 51.308(d)(4)
contains a list of additional items the implementation plan must
address.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of 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.
IV. What is the proposed implementation plan to address regional haze
in the Virgin Islands?
A. Affected Class I Areas
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), we have indentified one Class
I area in the Territory of the Virgin Islands: The Virgin Islands
National Park, where the FLM--the National Park Service--has identified
visual impairment as an important value that must be addressed in
regional haze plans. Thus, the Virgin Islands, and in this case, EPA
consulting with the Government of the Territory of the Virgin Islands,
must develop a Regional Haze Plan that addresses the causes of
visibility impairment in the Class I area, that describes the long-term
emission strategy, the consultation processes, and other requirements
in EPA's regional haze regulations. Because the Virgin Islands are home
to a Class I area, we will address the following Regional Haze Plan
elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and natural visibility
conditions, (b) establishment of RPGs, (c) monitoring requirements, and
(d) RAVI requirements as required by EPA's RHR. These elements will
constitute a FIP, developed in consultation with the FLM and the
involvement of the Virgin Islands Government and its environmental
agency, the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
(VIDPNR).
1. 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
[[Page 37847]]
of further reducing emissions from different pollutants, EPA evaluated
data from the IMPROVE air quality station, located in the Virgin
Islands National Park near Cruz Bay, on the western end of the island
of St. John. On the days with the worst visibility, the following table
lists the particulate species that contribute to reduced visibility.
Table 1--Visibility Reduction From Particulates on the Worst 20% of Days
in 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse Particulates............ 17.6 Mm-1 36.4%
Sea Salt....................... 9.88 Mm-1 20.5%
Sulfates....................... 9.29 Mm-1 19.2%
Fine Soil...................... 6.68 Mm-1 13.8%
Nitrates....................... 2.59 Mm-1 5.4%
Elemental Carbon............... 1.40 Mm-1 2.9%
Organic Carbon................. 0.90 Mm-1 1.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Megameters-1 (Mm-1) are a unit of visibility impairment. Larger values
are greater amounts of interference with visibility.
The size of particulates from Saharan Dust range from 2 to 5
microns, so Saharan Dust is a major contributor to both fine (less than
2.5 microns) soil and coarse matter (greater than 2.5 microns). As
shown in research studies and ongoing satellite data, Saharan Dust is
transported in large quantities across the Atlantic Ocean and mixed in
the surface air where it reduces visibility. This effect is most often
seen, and recorded in particulate samples from the IMPROVE monitor, in
the early summer months as tropical waves move from Africa across the
Atlantic Ocean to the Caribbean Sea and beyond. Since fine soil in the
air is often largely Saharan Dust, and increases in fine soil and
coarse particulate are found during documented Sahara Dust events, it
is likely that all or most of the fine soil and coarse particulate
found on days with impaired visibility is a result of Saharan Dust.
EPA commissioned a microinventory of emissions on St. John to
determine if other sources, particularly local sources of fine or
coarse dust, could be contributing to the large amount of fine soil and
coarse particulate found on the IMPROVE filters and contributing to
high impairment of visibility on St. John. The largest anthropogenic
sources of particles found in the microinventory were dirt from the
roadways and some dust from construction activities.
Other potential sources of particulates that reduce visibility are
combustion sources on the Virgin Islands, including the HOVENSA
refinery on St. Croix, ships that serve St. John and miscellaneous
combustion sources on St. John.
Trajectory analysis conducted by EPA for days with the highest
contributions to visibility impairment showed that fine soil and coarse
dust, which are major contributors to Virgin Islands haze episodes,
match with long range transport from Africa. Also, sulfates and
nitrates, which were at lower concentrations than found in the
continental United States, did not correspond to a group of particular
sources on days with higher sulfate and nitrate concentrations.
Combustion products are often found on days when the trajectories began
in the distant continental United States up to two weeks earlier and
when air patterns are looping though the Caribbean region in general.
There was no obvious or consistent source for days high in combustion
products.
These results support the hypothesis that the major contributor to
visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands National Park is Saharan
Dust. Though on some days, sulfate is a significant contributor to
visibility impairment (but still a small contributor compared to
continental United States monitoring sites). The Docket contains the
results of the modeling using trajectories and using photochemical
dispersion models.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
As described above, the Long Term Strategy (LTS) is a compilation
of control measures relied on to support the RPGs for the Virgin
Islands National Park. The LTS for the Virgin Islands for the first
implementation period will address the emissions reductions from
Federal, territorial and local controls that take effect in the
Territory from the baseline period starting in 2000 until 2018.
EPA has reviewed potential strategies to improve visibility in the
Virgin Islands and determined that the following strategies are
reasonably available for application in the Virgin Islands: Reductions
in sulfur in fuel from ferries and cruise ships, the Federal motor
vehicle control program, and the consent decree for the HOVENSA
refinery on St. Croix. In this action, EPA proposes these controls that
we determined are likely to have the largest impacts currently on
visibility at the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA estimated emissions
reductions for 2018, based on all controls required under Federal and
Territory regulations for the 2000-2018 period (including BART), and
comparing projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of
progress for the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area. While the
LTS for the Virgin Islands does not reach the reasonable progress goal
for 2018 for the Virgin Islands, reducing other emissions is not
feasible due to the Virgin Islands' unique circumstances and lack of
major emission sources, as discussed further in this proposal.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and Territory Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used to determine the impact of sources in
the Virgin Islands on visibility in the Class I area and the impact of
planned emission controls is based on an emission inventory developed
by an EPA contractor for the island of St. John, an inventory of
significant sources in recent major source permit applications,
additional information collected from the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix
and estimated emissions from other islands surrounding St. John, not
included in the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. The
emissions reductions used to determine the effects on improving
visibility in the National Park were based on projections of Federal
and Territorial emission control programs, and other emission
reductions specific to the Virgin Islands. EPA has determined that the
major effect on visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands National
Park is long-range transport of Saharan Dust.\4\ However, EPA has also
determined that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates, nitrates,
particulate carbon and other fine and coarse particulates are
significant to PM mass and visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands
National Park. The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment
in deciding whether volatile organic
[[Page 37848]]
compounds and ammonia impair visibility in their Class I area(s) and
whether their emissions can be addressed at this time. Total ammonia
emissions in the region are extremely small and will not be addressed
at this time. As for volatile organic compounds, they do not directly
affect visibility, but can form particulate compounds in the presence
of nitrogen oxides and radicals. The development of an emission
inventory for volatile organic compounds emitted in the Virgin Islands
is in its early stages, so EPA proposes to defer evaluation of the
impact of these emissions to visibility reduction to the next round of
visibility plans, covering 2018 to 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Please refer to the Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP
contained in the Docket for this action, for additional information
regarding Saharan Dust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The island of St. John has an inventory that is complete for
particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The compiled
inventory for other portions of the Virgin Islands included major point
sources, since these would have the greatest influence on visibility on
St. John. The proposed FIP has calculated changes in emissions from two
source groups in the Virgin Islands: The HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix
and marine vessels that travel to and from St. John. Reasonable
controls are not available for other sources in the Virgin Islands
because their impact on visibility in the National Park is very small
or the prospective emission reductions are not cost effective based on
the EPA's guidelines. While other sources, like motor vehicles, may
have fewer emissions by 2018, the EPA has not calculated changes in
emissions because the Islands' remote location makes national defaults
for changes like vehicle turnover problematic for estimating future
emissions in the Virgin Islands.
For the proposed Haze FIP for the Virgin Islands, the official
inventory will be the inventory for the island of St. John. Reductions
by 2018 are from the use of lower sulfur fuels and nitrogen oxide
controls on marine vessels as part of the Emissions Control Area (ECA)
covering the portions of the United States in the Caribbean.
Table 2--Sulfur Oxides Emissions From Point, Area and Mobile Sources on
St. John, Virgin Islands
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 (With
Source sector Baseline 2002 measures for
RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 43.11 43.11
Area.............................. 0.05 0.05
Non-Road Mobile................... 17.89 17.89
On-Road Mobile.................... 1.61 1.61
Marine Vessels.................... 94.06 14.11
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 156.72 76.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Point, Area and Mobile Sources on
St. John, Virgin Islands
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 (With
Source sector Baseline 2002 measures for
RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 477.66 477.66
Area.............................. 3.69 3.69
Non-Road Mobile................... 2.07 2.07
On-Road Mobile.................... 25.03 25.03
Marine Vessels.................... 318.23 63.65
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 826.68 572.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Direct Emissions of Particulate Matter From Point, Area and
Mobile Sources on St. John, Virgin Islands
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 (With
Source sector Baseline 2002 measures for
RPG)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 34.33 34.33
Area.............................. 38.32 38.32
Non-Road Mobile................... 1.93 1.93
On-Road Mobile.................... 0.73 0.73
Marine Vessels.................... 8.57 1.28
-------------------------------------
Total......................... 83.88 76.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other emission changes in the FIP are from the effects of the
consent decree with HOVENSA, whose impact is in the following table:
[[Page 37849]]
Table 5--Emissions From HOVENSA in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate
Sulfur oxides Nitrogen oxides matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOVENSA Base 2002...................................... 12,778 26,362 2,207
HOVENSA Future 2018.................................... 9,318 21,331 2,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA used emission changes in Tables 2 through 5 with air quality
models to project that 2018 visibility on the 20% worst days in the
Virgin Islands National Park Class I area would be improved by 0.16 dv
based on application of these controls. The uniform rate of progress
goal is 1.48 dv for the period ending in 2018. As a result, these
measures are likely to fall short of achieving the reasonable progress
goal for 2018 in the Virgin Islands National Park. However, since a
large portion of the reductions needed to meet the calculated
background visibility in 2064 includes the impact of Saharan Dust and
sea salt, which cannot be controlled under this program, the difficulty
of achieving interim reasonable progress goals is apparent. EPA
proposes that the reasonable measures will help improve visibility in
the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area for the first round of
the regional haze plan for the Virgin Islands.
2. Reasonable Progress Goals
In determining if reasonable progress is being made, states, or EPA
in the case of this FIP, are required to consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the Act and in our Regional Haze Rule at
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources (``the four RP factors''). Once
these factors have been considered, the typical method for determining
if a state is making reasonable progress is to use meteorological and
air quality computer models to predict the visibility at Class I areas
for the end of the planning period (2018). Those modeling results are
then assessed to ensure that visibility is not degrading on the best
days and that it is improving on the worst days at a reasonable rate,
taking into consideration the relevant statutory factors, as well as
the base period visibility conditions and the goal of zero
anthropogenic visibility impairment by 2064.
In the case of the Virgin Islands, though, a different method of
determining reasonable progress is required. As explained in this
proposal, the dominant cause of visibility impairment at the Virgin
Islands' Class I area is international transport of Saharan Dust and
volcanic ash from Montserrat. However, because the Saharan Dust and
volcanic eruptions vary greatly from year to year with no discernible
pattern, it is impossible to predict future emissions. As a result,
there is little value in attempting to model visibility at the Class I
area in 2018. The goal of this FIP therefore is to evaluate and remedy
the causes of reduced visibility due to human sources.
i. Identification of Pollutants for Reasonable Progress
EPA has evaluated the particulate pollutants (ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), fine
soil, coarse mass (CM), and sea salt) that contribute to visibility
impairment at the Virgin Islands Class I Federal area. The largest
contributor to haze in the Virgin Islands is coarse mass where all
particles are larger than 2.5 microns, which accounts for 36 percent of
total interference with visibility on the twenty percent haziest days
at the Virgin Islands National Park. The next largest contributor is
sea salt at 20 percent; then sulfate at 19 percent; soils were the
fourth largest contributor at 13 percent.
There is nothing to be done about the portion of light extinction
attributable to sea salt, as it is entirely from sea spray generated by
wave action and winds. The days with the highest contributions to
reduced visibility have the highest amounts of coarse particulates and
fine soil, which indicate the presence of Saharan Dust. The sources of
coarse mass are difficult to document because of emission inventory
limitations associated with natural sources and uncertainty of fugitive
(windblown) emissions. Because of the difficulty in attributing the
sources of visibility impairment for this pollutant, EPA has determined
that it is not reasonable in this planning period to recommend emission
control measures for coarse mass. Similarly, because fine soil appears
to be primarily attributable to international transport of Saharan
Dust, EPA has determined that it is not reasonable in this planning
period to recommend emission control measures for fine soil.
Contributions of coarse mass and fine soil to visibility impairment,
and their emissions sources, and potential control measures, should be
addressed in future Regional Haze plan updates. Based on the above
evaluation, EPA has determined that the first Regional Haze Plan RP
evaluation should focus primarily on significant human sources of
SO2 (sulfate precursor) and NOX (nitrate
precursor).
ii. Determining Reasonable Progress Through Island-Specific Emissions
Inventories
Due to the difficulty of modeling to project visibility at the
Virgin Islands Class I area in 2018, EPA is focusing its reasonable
progress analysis on reducing anthropogenic emissions of visibility-
impairing pollution. The key anthropogenic pollutants of concern are
SO2, PM, and NOX. We looked at trends in
emissions of anthropogenic SO2 and NOX in order
to judge if reasonable progress is being achieved.
Rather than use a full statewide inventory to judge reasonable
progress, we focused on the inventory for the island of St. John, where
the Class I area is located, and other major sources located in the
Virgin Islands. As discussed in this proposal, our analysis indicates
that most emissions do not significantly impair visibility at the Class
I areas due to the prevailing winds. Prevailing winds at St. John are
from the east to the west. The Class I area is east and north of St.
Thomas and St. Croix, respectively. Therefore, these trade winds tend
to transport pollution from St. Thomas and St. Croix away from the
Class I area. In addition, modeling performed to estimate the
visibility impact of currently operating individual sources of
pollution indicates that even very large sources in the Virgin Islands
have relatively small visibility impacts on the Class I area.
In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, and determining
emission reductions that would help reduce emissions that impair
visibility, EPA reviewed present and potential actions that would
reduce visibility-impairing emissions between 2000 and 2018. Based on
EPA's review, we are proposing to use the following reasonable measures
to improve
[[Page 37850]]
visibility in the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area:
U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area for use of lower-
sulfur oil in ocean vessels and large ships.
Emission reductions from the HOVENSA Consent Decree.
U.S. Caribbean Emission Control Area
The United States Government, together with Canada and France,
established the North America Emission Control Area (ECA) under the
auspices of Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI), a treaty developed by the
International Maritime Organization. The ECA was amended to include the
designated waters around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This
ECA will require use of lower sulfur fuels in ships operating within 50
nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines of the included
islands. Beginning in 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in these
areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent fuel sulfur (1,000 ppm). This
requirement is expected to reduce PM and SOX emissions by
more than 85 percent. Beginning in 2016, new engines on vessels
operating in these areas must use emission controls that achieve an 80
percent reduction in NOX emissions. While these reductions
are not enforceable as part of this FIP, EPA expects them to occur and
they will be included in the reductions expected in the period through
2018.
HOVENSA Consent Decree
As discussed in greater detail in the section which discusses the
BART determinations, HOVENSA, L.L.C. (HOVENSA) is a petroleum refinery
located in St. Croix. In June 2011, EPA and HOVENSA entered into a
Consent Decree (CD) to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at the
refinery. The CD requires HOVENSA, among other things, to achieve
emission limits and install new pollution controls pursuant to a
schedule for compliance. The measures required by the CD are expected
to reduce emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per year (tpy) and
SO2 by 3,460 tpy.
In January 2012, HOVENSA announced the refinery would shut down
operations and become an oil storage terminal. At this time, HOVENSA
has retained its air permits and remains subject to the CD. Since
HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA proposes to determine the
emission limitations, pollution controls, schedules for compliance,
reporting, and recordkeeping provisions of the HOVENSA CD constitute a
long term strategy and, therefore, can be used to address the
reasonable progress provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). While EPA's
modeling analysis to estimate the visibility impact of currently
operating individual sources of pollution indicates that even very
large sources in the Virgin Islands have relatively small visibility
impacts on the Class I area, HOVENSA's modeled impact of more than 1
deciview indicates that HOVENSA impairs visibility in the Class I area
on St. John, which leads us to determine that the HOVENSA CD contains
existing reasonable measures that can assist in improving visibility at
the Class I area. Should the existing federally enforceable HOVENSA CD
be modified, EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, revise the FIP
after public notice and comment.
In addition, EPA is proposing to require HOVENSA to notify EPA 60
days in advance of startup and resumption of operation of refinery
process units at the HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin Islands facility. EPA
proposes that HOVENSA also provide a complete analysis of reasonable
measures, consistent with EPA's Regional Haze requirements, if it
resumes refinery operations. EPA will revise the FIP as necessary,
after public notice and comment, in accordance with regional haze
requirements including the ``reasonable progress'' provisions in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
EPA proposes to determine that these measures are the reasonably
available measures that can assist in improving visibility in the
Virgin Islands National Park Class I area.
iii. Reasonable Progress Goals--2018 Visibility Projections
As explained above, there is no modeling available for this
planning period that can reliably predict the change in visibility by
2018 due to changes in the emission inventory for all sources
(shipping, mobile sources, point sources, etc.) in the Virgin
Islands.\5\ In the absence of reliable visibility modeling for 2018,
EPA is using the island-specific inventories and a post-control
emission inventory to judge whether reasonable progress is being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As described above, there is acceptable modeling for point
sources for the BART and the reasonable progress analysis for point
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to show how the future emission changes may affect the
aerosol levels in the Virgin Islands National Park Class I area, EPA
estimated the effect that the changes in the island-specific
inventories for NOX, SO2 and PM will have on the
visibility in the National Park. The details of this analysis are
discussed in the FIP and the modeling is described in the contractor's
report in the Docket.
At the Virgin Islands National Park, the projected visibility for
2018 post control case is slightly better due to the emission
reductions anticipated by EPA. Visibility on the worst twenty percent
days is improved by 0.16 dv and there is no change in visibility on the
twenty percent best days.
iv. Visibility Improvement Compared to URP
The amount of improvement needed to achieve the URP for 2018 at the
Virgin Islands National Park is 1.46 dv. Based on the projections of
visibility, discussed above, the amount of improvement by 2018 would be
0.16 dv. Therefore, the URP will not be met in the Virgin Islands
National Park. Based on our decision on the lack of other reasonable
emission controls available for the Regional Haze FIP, we propose to
determine that the amount of controls EPA is anticipating by 2018 is
the reasonable progress that can be attained in the Virgin Islands.
v. Interstate Consultation Requirement
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), if a state has emissions that
are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in
any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another state or states,
each of the relevant states must consult with the other(s). Since the
Virgin Islands are about 1,200 miles from the next nearest Class I
area--the Everglades in Florida--we propose to determine that emissions
from the Virgin Islands are not reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in
another state or states. Because of the distance from the continental
United States and the lack of impact modeled from a representative
major source in Puerto Rico, we also propose to determine that no
emissions from any other state are reasonably anticipated to contribute
to visibility impairment in the Virgin Islands' mandatory Class I
Federal area.
The Regional Haze Rule also requires any state that has
participated in a regional planning process, to ``ensure it has
included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process'' and to
demonstrate the technical basis for this apportionment. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii). Since the Virgin Islands was not included
in any regional planning organizations, there is no obligation for
[[Page 37851]]
emission reductions on the part of the Virgin Islands. Therefore, we
propose to determine that no additional emissions reductions are
necessary in the Virgin Islands to meet the progress goal for any
mandatory Class I Federal area outside of the Virgin Islands.
vi. Identification of Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility Impairment
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv), states are required to
identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered
in developing the long-term strategy, including major and minor
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. As explained in
section III.C above, we have considered each of these categories in
developing our long-term strategy.
vii. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
Our LTS incorporates emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rules
One of the primary regulatory tools for addressing visibility
impairment from industrial sources under the Act is the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD requirements apply to
new major sources and major sources making a major modification in
attainment areas. Among other things, the PSD permit program is
designed to protect air quality and visibility in Class I Areas by
requiring best available control technology and involving the public in
permit decisions. EPA has promulgated a PSD FIP for the Virgin Islands
to address the Act's PSD requirements (40 CFR 52.2779(b)). EPA does new
source permitting for the Virgin Islands, according to the procedures
in the PSD FIP, including implementing requirements for input from the
relevant FLM and considering potential visibility impacts to Class I
areas from new major stationary sources or major modifications of
existing major stationary sources. See 40 CFR 52.21(p)(1).
Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment Rules
EPA has promulgated a FIP for the Virgin Islands, which
incorporates the provisions of 40 CFR 52.26, 52.29, to address RAVI in
the Virgin Islands. See 40 CFR 52.2781. As part of its review of new
sources for impairment of visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin
Islands, EPA is responsible for determining if sources have a
reasonably attributable impairment to visibility in the Class I area.
On-going Implementation of Federal Mobile Source Rules
Mobile source NOX and SO2 emissions are
expected to decrease in Virgin Islands from 2000 to 2018, due to
several existing Federal mobile source regulations. However, we have
not quantified these reductions due to uncertainties in the composition
of the fleet, use of fuels and vehicle turnover, as compared to EPA's
assumptions in our mobile emissions models.
Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
Potential sources of emissions from construction activities include
exhaust from fuel-burning equipment on the site; vehicles working on
the site, delivering materials, and hauling away excavate; employee
vehicles; and fugitive dust from exposed earth, material stockpiles,
and vehicles on roadways, especially unpaved site accesses. These
activities can result in emissions of NOX, SO2,
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 from engine
exhaust and as fugitive dust from roadways and material handling), and
primary organic aerosols.
The VIDPNR regulates emissions of air pollutants, including
construction emissions, and EPA will work with the VIDPNR to determine
if local regulations and enforcement can help reduce pollutants that
contribute to regional haze in the National Park.
Table 6--Reasonable Progress Goals and Projected Future Visibility for the Virgin Islands National Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Improvement to
Baseline background reach reasonable 2018 Projected
visibility (2000- conditions for progress goal improvement
2004) 2064 for 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days.......................... 17.02 10.68 1.48 0.16
20% Best Days........................... 8.54 4.41 0.96 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(All values expressed as deciviews--lower deciviews means better visibility.)
3. BART
BART is an element of EPA's LTS, as well as a requirement to
evaluate controls for older sources that affect Class I areas, for the
first implementation period. The BART regional haze requirement
consists of three steps: (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.
i. BART-Eligible Sources in the Virgin Islands
The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the
BART eligible sources within the United States Virgin Islands (``Virgin
Islands'' or ``Territory''). While the Virgin Islands' Department of
Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR), the Territory's environmental
agency, did not submit a SIP, EPA's evaluation process of identifying
BART-eligible sources included a review of Title V permits, a review of
Title V applications received from VIDPNR, and direct communications
with HOVENSA, LLC, one of the BART-eligible sources. To establish which
facilities are BART-eligible, EPA evaluated eligibility criteria for
combustion and other process units at the following eight sources
throughout the Territory:
HOVENSA, LLC (St. Croix)
Three of the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VI
WAPA) facilities--one on each of the islands (St. Croix, St. Thomas and
St. John)
St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP (St. Croix)
Wyndham Sugar Bay Beach Club & Resort (St. Thomas)
Divi Carina Bay Hotel (St. Croix)
Buccaneer Hotel (St. Croix)
EPA identified three of the eight sources, including multiple
combustion or process units at each source, as BART-eligible. The three
BART-eligible sources identified by EPA as potentially impacting the
Class I area, summarized in Table 7, met the following criteria to be
classified as BART-eligible:
[[Page 37852]]
One or more emissions units at the facility are within one
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39104, 39158;
July 6, 2005);
The emission unit(s) began operation after August 6, 1962,
and were still in existence on August 7, 1977;
Potential emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.
These criteria are in section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix Y. None of the remaining five sources met these
criteria and therefore were removed from consideration for BART review.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JN12.008
[[Page 37853]]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO2,
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment
pollutants. The Guidelines note that states can decide whether to
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. EPA is not developing additional
strategies for VOC or ammonia emissions in its FIP. EPA proposes to
determine that the lack of tools available to estimate emissions and
subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility inhibits EPA
from addressing BART for these pollutants and that SO2,
NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are the
pollutants reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment to target under BART.
ii. Sources Subject to BART
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, i.e., those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow us to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because a source may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent
with the BART Guidelines, the EPA, through the use of a contractor,
performed dispersion modeling to assess the extent of each BART-
eligible source's contribution to visibility impairment at the Class I
area and we propose to rely on that modeling described below.
Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines provide that we may use the CALPUFF \6\
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore,
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that we find CALPUFF is the
best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting
a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162,
July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines also recommend that a modeling
protocol be developed for making individual source attributions, which
in this case is the EPA-approved workplan developed by the contractor.
To determine whether each BART-eligible source has a significant impact
on visibility, we propose to use the CALPUFF modeling to estimate daily
visibility impacts above estimated natural conditions at the Class I
area, which is the Virgin Islands National Park, covering much of St.
John as well as Hassel Island near St. Thomas. There are no other Class
I areas within 300 kilometers (km) of any BART-eligible facility in the
Virgin Islands. Emissions were modeled with four years worth of
meteorological data, from 2007 through 2010. We used these years
because more meteorological data were available and the output provided
from the modeling was closer to the actual monitored data than the
period 2001 to 2004. The modeling evaluated the impact of three BART
sources on the Class I area. EPA believes that this modeling provides a
reasonable estimate of daily visibility impacts above estimated natural
conditions at the Class I area. Therefore, we propose to use the
results of this CALPUFF modeling to determine whether each BART-
eligible source has a significant impact on visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer at https://www.src.com/calpuff/calpuff1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribution Threshold
For the modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single
sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source
is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a
Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered
to `cause' visibility impairment'' (70 FR 39161, July 6, 2005). The
BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may
reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes'
to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id.
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states or EPA should
``consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas
at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' Id.
The Guidelines affirm that states and EPA are free to use a lower
threshold if it can be concluded that the location of a large number of
BART-eligible sources in proximity to a Class I area justifies this
approach.
EPA proposes to follow the BART Guidelines for determining which
sources are subject to BART for the Virgin Islands FIP. EPA took into
consideration that the Virgin Islands BART sources only affect one
Class I area, so numerous small impacts at many Class I areas will not
occur. With only three BART sources, the situation is much different
than in the eastern United States where over one hundred sources can
have overlapping plumes that make a larger impact on several Class I
areas (70 FR 39121, July 6, 2005). As shown in Table 8, EPA proposes to
exempt two of the three BART-eligible sources in the Territory from
further review under the BART requirements. The visibility impacts
attributable to each of the VIWAPA sources is very low (at or less than
0.1 deciviews). Our proposed approach to contribution is to capture any
source responsible for a major visibility impact, while excluding other
sources with very small impacts.
Sources Identified by EPA as BART-Eligible and Subject to BART
The results of the CALPUFF modeling are summarized in Table 8. EPA
is proposing that the VIWAPA facilities not be subject to BART because
the demonstrated impacts are very low at all Class I area receptors.
EPA proposes that the HOVENSA facility is subject to BART because of
the high demonstrated impacts at receptors in the Class I area.
Table 8--Individual BART-eligible Source Visibility Impacts on Virgin Islands Class I Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 4-year
Class I area and 98th percentile
Facility and location locations of modeling visibility Subject to BART?
receptor impact
(deciviews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI WAPA.............................. St. John................ 0.06 No.
St Thomas............................ Hassel Island, St. 0.04
Thomas.
[[Page 37854]]
VI WAPA.............................. St. John................ 0.09 No.
St. Croix............................ Hassel Island, St. 0.10
Thomas.
HOVENSA.............................. St. John................ 1.91 Yes.
St. Croix............................ Hassel Island, St. 2.35 .............................
Thomas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as Subject to BART by EPA
The third and 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 Act 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 that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. However, a source that implements the maximum
feasible level of control for its emissions has met the BART
requirements, and no further analysis is needed. Conversely, a source
that limits its emissions via an enforceable permit limit, or shuts
down and surrenders its permits, no longer needs to be subject to BART
review.
EPA determined that HOVENSA is subject to BART review. The
following summarizes EPA's BART analyses and evaluation for each of the
HOVENSA units listed in Table 7 that are subject to BART. For further
details the reader is referred to EPA's BART analyses contained in the
FIP, located in the docket for this proposal at EPA's Web site at
www.regulations.gov.
BART Determinations for HOVENSA
a. Facility Description and Current Status
HOVENSA is a petroleum refinery located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands. Operations began in 1966 but in October 1998, the Amerada Hess
Corporation and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. formed a new corporation,
HOVENSA, L.L.C. (HOVENSA) which acquired ownership and operational
control of the St. Croix refinery. HOVENSA has a design capacity of
545,000 barrels of crude oil per day, the majority of which is received
from Venezuela.
In June 2011, EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered
into a consent decree (CD) requiring HOVENSA to pay a civil penalty and
requiring the implementation of new pollution controls that would help
protect the public health and resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations
at the St. Croix refinery. The alleged violations cover emissions of
SO2, NOX, VOCs and benzene from the Fluidized
Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU), refinery heaters, boilers, generating
combustion turbines, compressor engines, flares, sulfur recovery units
and process units related to VOC and benzene emissions. EPA estimates
that for the affected process heaters, boilers, generating turbines,
and compressor engines, the cumulative reduction in NOX
emissions, attributable to the CD, which are defined there as
``Qualifying Controls'' are as follows: 1,079 tpy by June 2015, 3,663
tpy by June 2016 and 4,744 tpy by June 2019.\7\ Also, EPA estimates
that for the affected FCCU, FCCU catalytic regenerator, boilers,
process heaters, generating combustion turbines, sulfur recovery
plants, and flares, the reduction in SO2 emissions,
attributable to the CD is 3,460 tpy. The CD requires SO2
reductions from the flares within the 2018-2021 timeframe whereas
SO2 reductions for other units are to be implemented within
the period of 2011-2014. A copy of the CD is included in the Docket.
For further information the reader is referred to https://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/hovensa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Appendix A of the CD for a list of affected sources:
heaters and boilers greater than 40 mm BTU/hour, generating turbines
and compressor engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 18, 2012, HOVENSA announced the refinery on St. Croix
would shut down operations and become an oil storage terminal.
Currently, HOVENSA has shutdown all refinery operations except for some
process unit cleanout operations. HOVENSA is still finalizing
intermediate and long term plans for operation of the bulk storage
terminal to determine what utilities will continue to be needed. In the
meantime, HOVENSA has retained its air permits and remains subject to
the CD. Since HOVENSA has retained its permits, EPA evaluated BART for
HOVENSA's BART-eligible sources.
b. BART Analysis
Eight Boilers
HOVENSA owns and operates nine steam boilers that are capable of
combusting either refinery fuel gas (RFG) or No. 6 fuel oil and the
heat input to the boilers is in the range of 205 to 405 mm BTU/hr. One
of the boilers (Boiler 10) was constructed in 1999 and therefore is not
BART-eligible. EPA has determined there are eight boilers subject to
BART. SO2 emissions are controlled by a permit limiting the
sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50% or 1.0% depending upon wind
conditions as defined in the permit. In addition, the June 2011 CD will
lower SO2 emissions by requiring that the combustion of RFG
by the boilers, containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S), meet the
requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) part 60,
Subparts J and Ja. The June 2011 CD requires the facility to lower the
sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.55% maximum, 0.50% annually, and
to a low limit of 0.30% depending upon wind conditions as defined in
the CD. There are no existing controls for NOX and PM
emissions from the BART-eligible boilers.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions,
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations
represent BART for each of the boilers subject to BART. For
SO2 and PM control, EPA's contractor evaluated Duct
Injection and Fabric Filters (DIFF) using lime as the alkaline reagent.
DIFF is a semi-wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) process. The fabric
filter is the PM control device. EPA has determined that the DIFF
controls evaluated for the boilers subject to BART are not cost
effective. EPA determined that the cost effectiveness for the eight
boilers subject to BART varied from about $19,100 to $39,600 per ton of
SO2 and PM reduced, which is too costly to be cost effective
per ton of reduced emissions. In addition, it is EPA's opinion that if
maximum controls had been evaluated, such as lime or
[[Page 37855]]
limestone wet FGD, the cost effectiveness would be even higher than for
the DIFF controls evaluated. Therefore, EPA determines that for
SO2 and PM controls, current operation is considered as
BART.
For control of NOX emissions, EPA's contractor evaluated
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) using ammonia as the reagent.
EPA has determined that implementation of SNCR controls for boilers
subject to BART are cost effective. The actual cost effectiveness for
the boilers is in the range of about $710 to $860 per ton of
NOX removed. As summarized in Table 8, the visibility impact
(98th percentile, 4 year average) of all BART-eligible sources from
HOVENSA in the Class I area at St. John is 1.91 dv for all pollutants.
EPA further analyzed the contribution of various chemical species and
components on the visibility impacts and has established that the
contribution of NOX compounds is about 5% which would be
equivalent to 0.09 dv visibility impact at St. John from all HOVENSA
units subject to BART, including the 8 boilers subject to BART. Since
the visibility impact due to NOX emissions from all HOVENSA
units subject to BART is only about 0.09 dv, EPA proposes that the
implementation of any NOX controls (even SNCR or selective
catalytic reduction (SCR)) would not have any significant visibility
impact on the Class I area in the Virgin Islands and therefore EPA
proposes to determine that current operation of the boilers subject to
BART is considered BART for controlling NOX emissions. Also,
as discussed in the Reasonable Progress Goals section, EPA is proposing
to require HOVENSA to provide a complete analysis of reasonable
measures, if it resumes refinery operations.
Combustion Turbines
HOVENSA owns and operates eleven combustion turbines that are
capable of combusting two or more of the following fuel combinations:
refinery fuel gas (RFG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and distillate
oil. Two of the turbines were constructed in 1993 and 2009 and are
therefore not BART-eligible. EPA has determined nine turbines are
subject to BART. SO2 emissions are controlled by limiting
the fuel sulfur content as follows: distillate oil has a permit sulfur
limit of 0.20%; LPG does not contain any sulfur; RFG sulfur content
will be limited by the CD that requires the combustion of RFG with
limits on the H2S content in accordance with the NSPS
requirements at subpart J or Ja. For NOX, only one turbine
has implemented control technology (steam injection). For PM, none of
the turbines subject to BART have any controls.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions,
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations
represent BART for each of the nine combustion turbines subject to
BART. For SO2 and PM control, as with the boilers discussed
above, EPA's contractor evaluated Duct Injection and Fabric Filters
(DIFF) using lime as the alkaline reagent. Based upon this analysis,
EPA has determined that the DIFF controls evaluated for the nine
combustion turbines are not cost effective. EPA determined that the
cost effectiveness for the nine combustion turbines varied from about
$122,300 (8 turbines) to $359,186 (1 turbine) per ton of SO2
and PM reduced. The cost effectiveness values for the combustion
turbines are much higher than for the boilers because the
SO2 emissions from the boilers are much higher (by a factor
of 2 to 4 times) than from the turbines. Therefore, EPA determines that
for SO2 and PM controls, current operation is considered as
BART.
For control of NOX emissions from the turbines (as
discussed above for the boilers) EPA's contractor evaluated selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) using ammonia as the reagent. EPA has
determined, except for one turbine, that implementation of SNCR
controls for eight turbines are cost effective. The actual cost
effectiveness for the turbines is from about $1,750 to $1,890 per ton
of NOX removed. The one turbine where control is not cost
effectiveness had a value of $9,500/ton, because the NOX
emissions are much lower due to NOX controls installed on
the turbine. Even though controls on eight of the nine turbines are
cost effective, EPA has determined, for the same reasons discussed
above for the boilers, that the visibility impact due to NOX
emissions is only about 0.09 dv from HOVENSA units subject to BART, and
therefore the implementation of any new NOX controls (even
SNCR or SCR) would not have any significant visibility impact on the
Class I area in the Virgin Islands. Therefore, EPA is determining that
current operations of the nine turbines subject to BART are considered
BART for controlling NOX emissions.
Process Heaters
HOVENSA owns seventy process heaters of which twenty-one were shut
down in early 2011. Of the seventy heaters, EPA has determined that
sixty-four are subject to BART whereas the remaining six heaters were
constructed after 1977 and are therefore not BART-eligible. Of the
sixty-four process heaters subject to BART, fifteen are capable of
combusting either RFG or No. 6 fuel oil whereas the remaining forty-
nine heaters combust only RFG.
For the fifteen heaters capable of combusting No. 6 fuel oil,
SO2 emissions are controlled by permits limiting the sulfur
content of No. 6 fuel oil to 0.50% or 1.0%. The June 2011 CD provides
for lowering SO2 emissions by establishing lower sulfur
content of No. 6 fuel oil. In addition, the CD requires process heaters
to meet the NSPS at part 60, either subpart J or Ja. None of the
process heaters subject to BART have any controls for either
NOX or PM.
For control of SO2, NOX and PM emissions,
based upon EPA's analysis, EPA is proposing that current operations
represent BART for each of the sixty-four process heaters subject to
BART. Although EPA's contractor determined cost effectiveness for only
the boilers and combustion turbines, EPA has concluded that, for
control of SO2, NOX and PM, there is sufficient
information to make a determination that current operation represents
BART for each of the process heaters subject to BART. For the
SO2 and PM BART determination, EPA notes that the
SO2 emissions, heat input and fuel type for each of the six
largest process heaters is similar to that of most of the boilers which
EPA determined BART control was not cost effective. It is EPA's
judgment from this size comparison between the boilers and the six
largest heaters that the cost effectiveness for the process heaters
would be less than the cost effectiveness for the boilers, but still
would result in determining additional controls as not being cost
effective. The great majority of the remainder of the process heaters
combust only RFG, have a smaller heat input (each by a factor of about
2.75 average) and have lower SO2 emissions (each by a factor
of about 7.8 on average) than the six larger heaters. Based upon this
comparison, EPA would expect that controls for the remaining smaller
process heaters will not be cost effective. Therefore, for
SO2 and PM emissions, EPA proposes to determine that the
controls for all the process heaters subject to BART are not cost
effective and that current operation is considered BART.
As discussed above for the boilers and combustion turbines, EPA
determined that implementation of controls on NOX emissions
from all BART units at HOVENSA have an insignificant visibility impact
on the Class I area and EPA is proposing to determine this is also true
for the process heaters. Therefore EPA proposes that current operation
of the process heaters subject
[[Page 37856]]
to BART is considered as BART for controlling NOX emissions.
Other Significant HOVENSA Emission Units Subject to BART
HOVENSA owns and operates many other emission units that are
subject to BART, including reciprocating gas compressors, tail gas
treatment units, tail gas incinerators, flares, water intake pumps and
a desalination water pump. For many of these units, actual emissions
are negligible and PTE emissions are small. Also, the June 2011 CD
contains additional compliance requirements for these units, such as
meeting the NSPS emission limits under part 60 subparts J or Ja.
In all cases, EPA is proposing that current operations represent
BART control for SO2, NOX and PM emissions for
each of these sources subject to BART. It is EPA's judgment that any
detailed cost analysis would conclude that implementation of any
additional control technologies for controlling emissions of
SO2, NOX or PM would have resulted in higher cost
effectiveness values. Also, for the same reasons discussed above for
the boilers, turbines and process heaters, EPA proposes that any
reduction in NOX emissions will not significantly improve
visibility at the Class I area in the Virgin Islands and therefore
current operation of each source subject to BART (without any new
controls) represents BART for controlling NOX emissions.
The reader is referred to the Regional Haze Virgin Islands FIP
found in the Docket for this proposal, which contains a complete
description of all of the HOVENSA emission units subject to BART, and
the respective BART determinations.
While there is uncertainty at this time regarding future operations
at HOVENSA, the CD does contain emission reductions and emission limit
requirements which allow us to project that should HOVENSA resume
operating as a refinery, it may be at a lower capacity factor, with
much less sulfur. Although these resulting reductions in sulfur
emissions are not enforceable requirements under this action, they
suggest that SO2 emissions from HOVENSA may decrease even in
the absence of any BART requirements. This analysis also indicates that
at least some of the units at HOVENSA may be coming to the end of their
useful life and not operate again.
In summary, EPA's BART evaluation of the boilers, turbines, process
heaters, and several other source categories that are subject to BART
has determined that no additional control is consistent with BART,
given the unique situation with HOVENSA and the unique visibility
conditions in the Virgin Islands, and is proposing that current
operations represent BART for HOVENSA. As such, EPA's Federal plan
includes the establishment of emission limits for SO2,
NOX and PM equivalent to the potential to emit (PTE) for
each unit subject to BART, as derived from HOVENSA's permit limit
conditions. EPA's Federal plan includes these PTE limits in the
spreadsheets found in the Attachments to the FIP.
C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
Under section 169A(d) of the Act, we are required to consult with
the appropriate FLM(s) before proposing the Virgin Islands Regional
Haze FIP. We must also include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in this notice. EPA has consulted informally with the
FLMs throughout the development of the Virgin Islands Regional Haze
FIP, including periodic updates during national teleconferences between
EPA and the FLMs for the past several years. EPA also had two formal
discussions with the FLMs as part of the consultation process. On May
28, 2008, EPA Region 2 held a teleconference with representatives of
the National Park Service to brief them about our technical findings
regarding regional haze in the Virgin Islands. Most recently, on May 9,
2012, EPA Region 2 held discussions about our final plans for
addressing regional haze in the Virgin Islands. Following that
discussion, EPA provided the National Park Service with copies of the
BART analysis for their comments. EPA provided the FLMs with a copy of
the proposed FIP just prior to publishing this proposal and
acknowledges, as does the FLM, that any formal comments by the FLMs
will be provided to EPA during the public comment period for this
proposal.
In addition, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze FIP
must provide procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs on
the implementation of the visibility protection program required by 40
CFR subpart P, including development and review of implementation plan
revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. We intend to continue to
consult with the FLMs regarding all aspects of the visibility
protection program and we encourage the Virgin Islands government to do
the same.
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
EPA commits to coordinate with the Virgin Islands government in
order to revise and submit a regional haze implementation plan by July
31, 2018, to address the next ten years of progress toward the national
goal in the Act of eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and to submit a
plan every ten years thereafter, in accordance with the requirements
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional haze. EPA's
commitment includes continuing to consult with the FLMs on the
implementation of section 51.308 and this FIP, including development
and review of future SIP revisions and five-year progress reports, and
on the implementation of other programs affecting the impairment of
visibility in Class I areas. EPA commits to address the following in
its Mid-Course Review report: address any uncertainties encountered
during regional haze planning process; report on the progress of the
BART analysis, determinations, and implementation; report on whether
additional potential actions identified in its plan or through public
comment, will be implemented and the status of those efforts. The
reasonable progress report will evaluate the progress made towards the
RPGs for the Virgin Islands National Park. EPA will work with the
Virgin Islands territorial government to prepare and submit updates to
the emission inventories, a mid-course review and a revised plan for
the next ten-year period starting in 2018.
E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
EPA is the reviewing agency for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program in the Virgin Islands and is responsible
for preventing new and modified sources from significantly impacting
visibility in the Class I area of the Virgin Islands National Park on
St. John and Hassel Islands. EPA will review the impact of proposed
sources on visibility under 40 CFR 52.26 and 52.28, by implementing the
PSD permit requirements for new or modified major sources of air
pollutants located within 100 kilometers of the Class I area, or within
a larger radius on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with all
applicable Federal rules for review of the impacts on Class I areas. We
propose to find that the Regional Haze FIP appropriately supplements
and augments EPA's FIP for RAVI visibility provisions by updating the
monitoring and LTS provisions to address regional haze. We
[[Page 37857]]
discuss the relevant monitoring provisions further below.
F. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires the Virgin Islands to consider
smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and
forestry management in developing reasonable progress goals. Smoke
Management Programs are only required when smoke impacts from fires
managed for resource benefits contribute significantly to regional
haze. The results of the emissions inventory indicate that emissions
from agricultural, managed, and prescribed burning are very minor
source categories. It is unlikely that fires for agricultural or
forestry management cause large impacts on visibility in the Virgin
Islands National Park. On rare occasions, smoke from major fires
degrades the air quality and visibility in the Virgin Islands. However,
these fires are generally unwanted wildfires that are not subject to
smoke management programs. Since there is no evidence of agricultural
burning contributing to haze at Class I areas, we propose to determine
that no further controls on agricultural burning or forest fires are
reasonable at this time.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the FIP contain a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
RAVI. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement
may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network. Consistent
with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, EPA will
rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any
RAVI monitoring that may be needed in the future. Therefore, we propose
to find that we have satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
The primary monitoring network for regional haze in the United
States is the IMPROVE network. There is currently one IMPROVE site in
the Virgin Islands, in the Virgin Islands National Park. IMPROVE
monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional
haze program, and is relied upon in our proposed FIP. Data produced by
the IMPROVE monitoring network are essential for the verification of
the effects of changes in emissions on visibility in Class I areas and
will be needed for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. EPA will continue to encourage the National Park
Service to continue to operate and maintain the monitoring site in the
Virgin Islands National Park, providing support as EPA deems
appropriate.
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
for the Territory of the United States Virgin Islands. This FIP
addresses progress toward reducing regional haze for the first
implementation period ending in 2018. The proposed FIP includes
emission reductions to begin the reasonable progress needed to achieve
the overall objective of no man-made interference with visibility by
2064. The proposed FIP relies on emission reductions from existing
emissions controls and programs currently in effect, and proposes to
require HOVENSA to notify EPA in the event it resumes operation of the
refinery process units and to provide an analysis for reasonable
measures consistent with EPA's Regional Haze Guidelines. Thus, EPA is
proposing a Regional Haze Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Act.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA sections 110(a), 301(a), 169A
and 169B. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document and will consider these comments before taking final
action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed Virgin Islands
Regional Haze FIP requires implementation of existing emissions
controls and emission reduction strategies on one facility and is not a
rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons* * *.''44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for
[[Page 37858]]
purposes of the regional haze program consists of imposing existing
Federal controls to meet the BART requirement for SO2,
NOX, and PM emissions on specific units at one facility in
the Virgin Islands. The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is
proposing existing direct emission controls on selected units at only
one facility. The facility in question is a large petroleum refinery
that is not owned by a small entity, and therefore is not a small
entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100
million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in
any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The proposed Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP does not have
federalism implications. This action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. In this action, EPA is fulfilling its
statutory duty under CAA section 110(c) to promulgate a Regional Haze
FIP following its finding that the Virgin Islands had failed to submit
a regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence
the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it
implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes.
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM the rule will have a beneficial
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it limits
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
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, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 14, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CCC--Virgin Islands
2. In Sec. 52.2781, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2781 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(d) Regional Haze Plan for Virgin Islands National Park.
(1) Applicability. This section addresses Clean Air Act
requirements and EPA's rules to prevent and remedy future and existing
man-made impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I area of the
Virgin Islands National Park through a Regional Haze Program. This
section applies to the owner and operator of HOVENSA L.L.C. (HOVENSA),
a petroleum refinery located on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.
(2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
NOX means nitrogen oxides.
Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a facility or source identified in paragraph
(a) of this section.
PM means particulate matter.
Process unit means any collection of structures and/or equipment
that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material
inputs to produce or store an intermediate or a completed product. A
single stationary source may contain more than one process unit, and a
process unit may
[[Page 37859]]
contain more than one emissions unit. For a petroleum refinery, there
are several categories of process units that could include: those that
separate and/or distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change
molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary
facilities, such as steam generators and hydrogen production units; and
those that load, unload, blend or store intermediate or completed
products.
SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected facility for
any purpose.
(3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA
entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in the U.S. District Court for the
Virgin Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at its St.
Croix, Virgin Islands facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, among other
things, to achieve emission limits and install new pollution controls
pursuant to a schedule for compliance. The measures required by the CD
are expected to reduce emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per
year (tpy) and SO2 by 3,460 tpy. The emission limitations,
pollution controls, schedules for compliance, reporting, and
recordkeeping provisions of the HOVENSA CD constitute an element of the
long term strategy and address the reasonable progress provisions of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing federally enforceable HOVENSA CD
be revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if necessary, revise the FIP after
public notice and comment.
(4) HOVENSA requirement for notification and four factor analysis.
HOVENSA must notify EPA 60 days in advance of startup and resumption of
operation of refinery process units at the HOVENSA, St. Croix, Virgin
Islands facility. HOVENSA shall submit such notice to the Director of
the Clean Air and Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York, 10007-1866. HOVENSA's notification to EPA that it intends to
start up refinery process units must include a complete analysis of
reasonable measures needed to comply with regional haze requirements.
EPA will revise the FIP as necessary, after public notice and comment,
in accordance with regional haze requirements including the
``reasonable progress'' provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). HOVENSA will
be required to install any controls that are required by the revised
FIP as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after
the effective date of the revised FIP.
[FR Doc. 2012-15463 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
