Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan, 51915-51930 [2012-21056]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23,
as well as the following regulations,
apply.
(2) No vessels, except for fireworks
barge and accompanying vessels, will be
allowed to transit the safety zone
without the permission of the COTP.
(3) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
COTP or the designated representative.
Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light, or other means, the operator of a
vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the regulated area
shall contact the COTP or the
designated representative via VHF
channel 16 or 718–354–4353 (Sector
New York command center) to obtain
permission to do so.
(5) Spectators or other vessels shall
not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the
transit of event participants or official
patrol vessels in the regulated areas
during the effective dates and times, or
dates and times as modified through the
Local Notice to Mariners, unless
authorized by COTP or the designated
representative.
(6) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel or the designated
representative, by siren, radio, flashing
light or other means, the operator of the
vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure
to comply with a lawful direction may
result in expulsion from the area,
citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or the designated
representative may delay or terminate
any marine event in this subpart at any
time it is deemed necessary to ensure
the safety of life or property.
Dated: August 17, 2012.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2012–21193 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0296; FRL–9720–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
New York; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan and Federal
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action on
the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New
York. EPA is approving seventeen
source-specific SIP revisions containing
permits for Best Available Retrofit
Technology, revisions for Title 6 of the
New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations, Part 249, ‘‘Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)’’ and
section 19–0325 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law which
regulates the sulfur content of fuel oil.
These revisions to the SIP addressing
regional haze were submitted by the
State of New York on March 15, 2010,
and supplemented on August 2, 2010,
April 16, 2012 and July 2, 2012. These
SIP revisions were submitted to address
Clean Air Act requirements and EPA’s
rules for states to prevent and remedy
future and existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas through a regional haze
program. Although New York State
addressed most of the issues identified
in EPA’s proposal, EPA is promulgating
a Federal Implementation Plan to
address two sources where EPA is
disapproving New York’s BART
determinations.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on
September 27, 2012.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0296. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
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, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007–1866. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is 212–637–4249.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert F. Kelly, Air 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51915
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What additional SIP revisions did New
York submit consistent with EPA’s
proposal?
A. SIP Revisions for BART Determinations
B. SIP Revision for 6 NYCRR, Part 249,
‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)’’
C. SIP Revision for New York’s Low Sulfur
Fuel Oil Strategy
III. What is contained in EPA’s federal
implementation plan for New York’s
regional haze program?
IV. What comments did EPA receive on its
proposal and what were EPA’s
responses?
V. What are EPA’s conclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used,
we mean the EPA.
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving New York’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
addressing regional haze submitted on
March 15, 2010, and supplemented on
August 2, 2010, April 16, 2012, and July
2, 2012. EPA is supplementing New
York’s SIP with a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for three
units at two BART sources where EPA
is disapproving these BART
determinations. The following
paragraphs summarize each of EPA’s
actions.
EPA is approving aspects of New
York’s Regional Haze SIP revision as
follows:
• The measures enacted by New York
are shown to produce emission
reductions that are sufficient to meet
New York’s share of the emission
reductions needed to meet reasonable
progress goals (found at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)) at Class I areas affected by
New York’s emissions.
• New York’s Long Term Strategy,
since New York submitted final
approvable permit modifications for all
facilities on April 16, 2012 and July 2,
2012 (except for the Roseton and
Danskammer Generating Stations), in a
timely manner with the level of control
in EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal. EPA’s
FIP contains BART determinations and
emission limits for the Roseton and
Danskammer Generating Stations.
• New York’s SIP revision consisting
of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations (6 NYCRR), Part 249,
‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART).’’
• New York’s SIP revision consisting
of section 19–0325 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law which
regulates the sulfur content of fuel oil.
EPA is approving the following
facility BART determinations and
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
51916
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
emissions limits since New York
submitted final permit modifications to
EPA as SIP revisions on April 16, 2012
and July 2, 2012, and the revisions
match the terms of our April 25, 2012
proposal published in the Federal
Register (77 FR 24794):
• ALCOA Massena Operations (West
Plant)
• Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
• Bowline Generating Station [GenOn]
• Con Edison 59th Street Station
• EF Barrett Power Station [National
Grid (NG)]
• Holcim (US) Inc—Catskill Plant
• International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
• Kodak Operations at Eastman
Business Park
• Lafarge Building Materials
• Lehigh Northeast Cement
• Northport Power Station [NG]
• Oswego Harbor Power [NRG]
• Owens-Corning Insulating Systems
Feura Bush
• Ravenswood Generating Station [TC]
• Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con
Edison]
• Roseton Generating Station—Dynegy
(NOX and PM limits only)
• Samuel A Carlson Generating Station
[Jamestown Board of Public Utilities
(BPU)]
• Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF
Suez]
EPA is disapproving the following
BART determinations:
• New York’s Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
BART determinations and emissions
limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy’s
Roseton Generating Station.
• New York’s SO2, Nitrogen Oxide
(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM)
BART determinations and emissions
limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy’s
Danskammer Generating Station.
EPA is promulgating a FIP to address
the BART determinations identified
above in our partial disapproval of New
York’s Regional Haze SIP.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA). For additional details on EPA’s
analysis and findings, the reader is
referred to the April 25, 2012 proposal
(77 FR 24794) and the May 9, 2012
Notice of Data Availability (77 FR
27162). New York’s entire Regional
Haze SIP revisions and the full text of
the public comments are included in the
Docket (EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0296)
and available at www.regulations.gov.
II. What additional SIP revisions did
New York submit consistent with EPA’s
proposal?
On April 25, 2012, EPA proposed to
take action on a revision to the SIP
addressing regional haze submitted by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
New York. In that proposal, EPA
proposed to address through a FIP
certain requirements not addressed in
New York’s regional haze SIP
submission or, alternatively, to approve
a substantively identical SIP revision by
New York, should the state timely
submit such a revision. In two letters,
both dated April 16, 2012, New York
submitted the additional materials
relevant to our proposed action on its
regional haze SIP submission, including
proposed SIP revisions addressing the
requirements for BART for a number of
sources and addressing the New York
State Law that regulates the sulfur
content of fuel oil. Subsequently, on
May 9, 2012 (77 FR 27162), EPA
published a notice of data availability to
notify the public that New York
submitted additional information to
supplement New York’s Regional Haze
SIP.
As discussed in the May 9, 2012
notice, EPA was aware that New York
intended to submit additional
information relevant to the action EPA
was proposing on New York’s Regional
Haze SIP. EPA, therefore, discussed in
its proposal the possible actions EPA
would take should this information be
timely submitted. EPA included in the
record the draft information that New
York was in the process of finalizing
and submitting as part of its SIP
revision. EPA evaluated this draft
information as part of the Agency’s
proposed action on New York’s
Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s May 9, 2012
notice indicated that EPA’s final action
will be based on the proposed
rulemaking, the additional information
identified in the notice of data
availability, and an assessment of any
public comments that may be received.
On July 2, 2012, New York submitted
the remaining adopted permits
implementing BART which were not
included in the April 16, 2012
submission.
A. SIP Revisions for BART
Determinations
New York’s April 16, 2012 SIP
revisions requested that EPA take action
on proposed SIP revisions from New
York in parallel with the state’s
processing of the following draft Title V
permits that the state intended to submit
as SIP revisions to meet the BART
requirement: Bowline Generating
Station, Danskammer Generating
Station, Kodak Operations at Eastman
Business Park, Oswego Harbor Power,
Owens-Corning Insulating Systems, and
Syracuse Energy Corporation.
New York’s April 16, 2012 SIP
revisions also requested processing of
the following adopted Title V permits
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
implementing BART for the following
facilities: ALCOA Massena Operations
(West Plant), Arthur Kill Generating
Station, Con Edison 59th Street Station,
EF Barrett Power Station, Holcim (US)
Inc—Catskill Plant, International Paper
Ticonderoga Mill, Lafarge Building
Materials, Lehigh Northeast Cement,
Northport Power Station, Ravenswood
Generating Station, Ravenswood Steam
Plant, Roseton Generating Station 1, and
Samuel A Carlson Generating Station.
Lastly, New York submitted a letter
dated July 2, 2012 containing SIP
revisions for the remaining adopted
Title V permits implementing BART for
five of the following facilities previously
discussed in New York’s April 16, 2012
letter: Bowline Generating Station,
Kodak Operations at Eastman Business
Park, Oswego Harbor Power, OwensCorning Insulating Systems, and
Syracuse Energy Corporation. As further
discussed in the Response to Comments
below, New York also submitted an
updated permit for Lehigh Northeast
Cement.
New York did not make any
substantive changes to the source
specific Title V permits to incorporate
BART other than those discussed in
EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal and May
9, 2012 notice or as discussed in the
Response to Comments below. Since the
SIP revisions match the terms of our
proposed FIP, and the SIP revisions
have been adopted by New York and
submitted formally to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP, EPA is
approving the following facility BART
determinations and emissions limits:
ALCOA Massena Operations (West
Plant), Arthur Kill Generating Station,
Bowline Generating Station, Con Edison
59th Street Station, EF Barrett Power
Station, Holcim (US) Inc—Catskill
Plant, International Paper Ticonderoga
Mill, Kodak Operations at Eastman
Business Park, Lafarge Building
Materials, Lehigh Northeast Cement,
Northport Power Station, Oswego
Harbor Power, Owens-Corning
Insulating Systems, Ravenswood
Generating Station, Ravenswood Steam
Plant, Roseton Generating Station (NOX
and PM limits only as contained in the
adopted Title V permit), Samuel A
Carlson Generating Station, and
Syracuse Energy Corporation.
B. SIP Revision for 6 NYCRR, Part 249,
‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)’’
New York promulgated Part 249 to
require BART eligible facilities to
1 Notwithstanding the submission of the permit,
EPA is promulgating a FIP for SO2 BART for
Roseton as explained in this action.
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
perform an analysis of potential controls
for each visibility-impairing pollutant.
EPA evaluated New York’s general
BART rule submittal for consistency
with the CAA and EPA’s regulations,
including public notice and hearing
requirements, and determined that the
rule met these requirements. EPA is
approving New York’s Part 249 as part
of the SIP.
C. SIP Revision for New York’s Low
Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
New York’s April 16, 2012 SIP
revisions request that EPA include in
New York’s Regional Haze SIP the New
York State legislation regulating the
sulfur content of fuel oil, Bill Number
S1145C, which amends the New York
Environmental Conservation Law to
include a new section 19–0325, effective
July 15, 2010. EPA’s May 9, 2012 notice
discussed New York’s SIP revision
request and EPA’s proposed approval of
this request.
Major SO2 emission reductions are
obtained as a result of the legislation
being implemented. These reductions
are occurring in 2012, well before the
2016 ‘‘ask’’ by MANE–VU 2. EPA
proposed to determine that New York’s
low sulfur fuel oil strategy in
combination with the other planned
reductions will provide the necessary
reductions from New York for other
Class I areas to meet their respective
Reasonable Progress Goals. Please refer
to the April 25, 2012 proposal for
additional information regarding New
York’s Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy. In
addition, existing provisions of 6
NYCRR, Subpart 225–1, ‘‘Fuel
Composition and Use—Sulfur
Limitations,’’ are incorporated in the
current federally approved New York
SIP, and Subpart 225–1 contains
provisions regarding enforcement and
compliance, emissions and fuel
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping,
sampling and analysis. EPA is
approving New York’s request to
incorporate section 19–0325 of New
York’s Environmental Conservation Law
as part of the SIP. As we noted in our
proposal, New York’s section 19–0325,
sulfur in fuel rule, does not completely
fulfill the sulfur in fuel requirements
MANE–VU modeled to show progress
toward reducing haze. EPA is approving
New York’s submittal of its sulfur in
fuel law as it helps meet its progress
requirements. We describe later how
2 MANE–VU is the Mid-Atlantic/North East
Visibility Union, a regional planning organization,
comprising Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the
District of Columbia, the Penobscot Nation, and the
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
New York meets its share toward
making the regional haze progress goal
without the full program.
III. What is contained in EPA’s federal
implementation plan for New York’s
regional haze program?
As discussed in EPA’s April 25, 2012
proposal, in the event New York did not
submit a SIP revision with final permit
modifications for all BART sources,
which match the terms of our proposed
FIP, EPA proposed to publish a final
rulemaking with a FIP for those BART
sources. While New York’s revised SIP
covered most of the units addressed in
EPA’s proposal, it did not include final
BART permit modifications consistent
with our proposed FIP for certain of the
units at Dynegy’s Roseton and
Danskammer Generating Stations.
Therefore EPA is disapproving those
portions of the SIP and promulgating a
FIP addressing the SO2 BART
requirements and setting emissions
limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy’s
Roseton Generating Station, and
addressing the SO2, NOX and PM BART
requirements and setting emissions
limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy’s
Danskammer Generating Station. New
York did submit a SIP revision with
final BART permit modifications
consistent with EPA’s proposed FIP
with respect to NOX and PM for Units
1 and 2 at Dynegy’s Roseton Generating
Station. EPA therefore is not adopting a
FIP for the NOX and PM BART
determinations for Roseton Units 1 and
2.
The final FIP includes the following
elements:
• NOX BART determination and an
emission limit for Danskammer
Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.12
pounds per million British thermal
units (lb/MMBtu), to be met on a 24hour average during the ozone season
(May through September) 3 and a 30-day
rolling average the rest of the year, and
a requirement that the owners/operators
comply with this NOX BART limit by
July 1, 2014.
• SO2 BART determination and an
emission limit for Danskammer
Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.09 lb/
MMBtu, to be met on a 24-hour average,
and a requirement that the owners/
operators comply with this SO2 BART
limit by July 1, 2014.
• PM BART determination and an
emission limit for Danskammer
Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu, to be met on a one-hour
average, and a requirement that the
3 Note the averaging times for the FIP are modeled
on New York’s applicable SIP in order to coordinate
the FIP with other existing New York limitations.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51917
owners/operators comply with this PM
BART limit by July 1, 2014.
• SO2 BART determination and an
emission limit for Roseton Generating
Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 0.55 lb/
MMBtu, to be met on a 24-hour average,
and a requirement that the owners/
operators comply with this SO2 BART
limit by January 1, 2014.
• Monitoring, record-keeping, and
reporting requirements for the above
three units to ensure compliance with
these emission limitations.
EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal
contained proposed regulatory language
for § 52.1686 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) for the
purpose of adding new provisions
containing EPA’s FIP for Regional Haze.
EPA notes that since New York
submitted SIP revisions to address most
of EPA’s proposed FIP, EPA is finalizing
only the regulatory language in section
51.1686 that covers EPA’s FIP for the
Roseton and Danskammer Generating
Stations.
We encourage New York at any time
to submit a SIP revision to incorporate
provisions that match the terms of our
FIP, or relevant portion thereof. If EPA
were to approve such a SIP revision,
after public notice and comment, the
SIP approved provisions could replace
the FIP provisions.
IV. What comments did EPA receive on
its proposal and what were EPA’s
responses?
EPA received several comments from
the following parties in response to our
April 25, 2012 proposal and May 9,
2012 notice of data availability: ALCOA
Massena Operations (ALCOA), Dynegy
Northeast Generation, Inc. (Dynegy),
Earthjustice on behalf of the National
Parks Conservation Association and
Sierra Club (Earthjustice), GenOn
Bowline, LLC (Bowline), Lehigh
Northeast Cement Group (Lehigh), New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (New
York), and the United States Forest
Service (US Forest Service). A summary
of the comments and EPA’s responses
are provided below.
BART Comments—BART Permit
Modifications
Comment: New York commented that
EPA should update the number of BART
permits that have been issued in final
form by New York.
Response: We agree and we have
taken the permits into account. In
section II. of this action—‘‘What
Additional SIP revisions did New York
Submit Consistent with EPA’s
Proposal?’’ EPA discusses those final
BART permits issued by New York.
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
51918
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: New York commented it
will not be finalizing revisions to
permits for the Roseton and
Danskammer Generating Stations to
address EPA’s proposed emission limits
prior to EPA’s deadline for a final FIP.
Response: EPA’s April 25, 2012
proposal contained BART emission
limits for Roseton and Danskammer
Generating Stations which differed from
the BART limits identified by New York
for Roseton and proposed for
Danskammer. In section III. of this
action—‘‘What is Contained in EPA’s
Federal Implementation Plan for New
York’s Regional Haze Program?’’ EPA
discusses the final FIP for the Roseton
and Danskammer Generating Stations.
Comment: New York provided several
comments regarding EPA’s proposed
regulatory language for section 52.1686
of title 40 of the CFR and how the
monitoring requirements and other
provisions should be revised to better
reflect the monitoring requirements that
are characteristic for the different types
of emissions sources. These include
electric generating units, large industrial
boilers and other types of source
categories.
Response: As noted above, since New
York submitted SIP revisions to address
EPA’s proposed FIP, EPA is finalizing
the regulatory language in section
51.1686 accordingly. Therefore, the
regulatory language in section 51.1686
contains provisions to only cover EPA’s
FIP for the Roseton and Danskammer
Generating Stations. These changes to
section 51.1686 address New York’s
comments.
Comment: ALCOA commented that
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements which EPA
proposed in section 52.1686 for the
proposed FIP were inappropriate for a
primary aluminum production facility.
ALCOA stated EPA should either
approve the New York BART SIP
requirements for the facility, or adopt
the monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in New York’s
BART permit verbatim into the final
FIP.
Response: Following our proposed
rule, New York adopted the final Title
V permit for the ALCOA Massena
Operations (West Plant) facility
implementing BART. New York’s
permit included the appropriate
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements and the state
formally submitted the BART permit as
a SIP revision to EPA. EPA is approving
the New York BART SIP requirements
for the ALCOA Massena Operations
(West Plant) facility.
Comment: Dynegy objected to any
permit condition which would require
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Danskammer or Roseton Units to
burn a particular fuel or switch fuel
forms.
Response: EPA agrees and is not
adopting any such conditions. As
indicated in the April 25, 2012
proposal, EPA has determined that these
emission limits can be reasonably met
with any of the fuels and/or
combination of fuels evaluated for this
BART determination and available to
the plant.
Comment: Bowline commented that
as a result of a clerical error unrelated
to EPA’s rulemaking, the draft Title V
permit referred to by EPA in the April
25, 2012 proposal for New York’s
Regional Haze SIP was not the same
version of the draft Title V permit that
New York provided to Bowline and did
not accurately reflect the BART
requirements proposed to be imposed
on the Bowline Units. More specifically,
Bowline presented the correct NOX
BART emission limits and permit
conditions in the comment letter to
EPA. Bowline requested EPA to revise
the SIP approval or, if necessary, the
FIP, to reflect the correct Title V permit
requirements for the Bowline Units
which were arrived at in New York’s
BART Determination.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the
draft Title V permit for Bowline
included with the April 25, 2012
proposal was not the correct version of
the draft Title V permit developed by
New York for Bowline. After further
inspection of the files contained in the
Docket, and the additional information
presented to EPA by Bowline and New
York, EPA confirmed that the other
documents used as the basis for EPA’s
April 25, 2012 proposal, with the
exception of the draft Title V permit,
were correct and acceptable for the
purpose of proposing a BART
determination. The clerical error made
at the state-level of the BART permit
modification, did not change the
underlying technical BART
determination analysis, and New York’s
February 15, 2012 Environmental News
Bulletin contained the correct BART
determination and permit conditions
that were noticed for public review by
the state. Upon further review, EPA
agrees with Bowline and New York that
our April 25, 2012 proposal presented
NOX BART emission limits that were
different from the limits and permit
conditions which were available for
public review at the state-level, and
which New York ultimately adopted for
the Bowline Units.
EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal
indicated NOX emissions from Bowline
Units 1 and 2 would be limited to 0.15
lb/MMBtu on a 24-hour average during
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the ozone season and a 30-day rolling
average during the non-ozone season,
with compliance by January 1, 2014.
Bowline and New York provided further
documentation to EPA that the correct
BART determination and permit
conditions that were noticed for public
review by the state in the February 15,
2012 Environmental News Bulletin,
were as follows:
• By July 1, 2014, NOX emission from
Units 1 and 2 are limited to 0.15 lb/
MMBtu when burning natural gas,
measured on a 24-hour average during
the ozone season and a 30-day rolling
average during the non-ozone season.
• By July 1, 2014, NOX emission from
Units 1 and 2 are limited to 0.25 lb/
MMBtu when burning oil, measured on
a 24-hour average during the ozone
season and a 30-day rolling average
during the non-ozone season
• By July 1, 2014, oil-firing is limited
to 3.1 million barrels during the ozone
season and 4.6 million barrels during
the non-ozone season.
• The limit for oil and gas dual fuel
firing periods will be heat input
weighted between 0.15 lb/MMBtu and
0.25 lb/MMBtu.
The correct NOX BART determination
requires an emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu when burning natural gas and
0.25 lb/MMBtu when burning oil. These
are the limits that reflect Bowline’s
implementation of BART. In response to
the clerical error, EPA has determined
that these emission limits are acceptable
for BART, and are based on New York’s
BART determination for Bowline and
merely are reflective of the limits that
Bowline can achieve when
implementing BART for different types
of fuels. EPA notes these limits are also
similar to other NOX BART emission
limits EPA is approving in this action
for other similar peaking units that are
used only a small period of time each
year. These limits are based on a
detailed technical analysis which
considers circumstances specific to
Bowline, consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines.
With respect to the BART compliance
date, EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal
indicated a compliance date of January
1, 2014, consistent with the compliance
date contained in New York’s BART
regulation Part 249. New York issued
final BART permit modifications for the
Bowline Units requiring compliance by
July 1, 2014. While the July 1, 2014
compliance date is six months later than
the January 1, 2014 compliance date in
New York’s Part 249, EPA has
determined that the July 1, 2014
compliance date is still consistent with
EPA’s BART Guidance for compliance
as expeditiously as possible but no later
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
than five years from EPA’s approval of
the state’s Regional Haze SIP.
EPA notes that the previous versions
of the BART Permit modifications
indicated these emission limits do not
apply during start-up and shut-down
periods. However, EPA informed New
York that the BART emission limits
must apply at all times. Therefore, the
final BART determinations and final
BART Title V permit modification
submitted to EPA as part of the July 2,
2012 SIP revisions do not contain any
exclusions for start-up and shut-down
periods. Lastly, EPA did not receive any
other comments related to Bowline’s
BART determinations or permit limits,
except from Bowline itself. In response
to Bowline’s comments and additional
supporting analyses and documentation
provided by Bowline and New York,
EPA is therefore approving Bowline’s
BART determinations and BART
emission limit permit conditions
presented above.
Comment: New York and Lehigh both
commented that the Title V permit
referred to by EPA in the April 25, 2012
proposal for New York’s Regional Haze
SIP was being modified. New York and
Lehigh requested that the requirement
to install a baghouse on the rotary kiln
be removed from the permit since the
requirement to install a baghouse was
not intended to meet BART, but to meet
the federal Portland Cement Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
which EPA is currently reevaluating to
determine the deadlines for compliance.
Lehigh and New York also requested the
permit include a new SO2 limit of 1.50
lb/MMBtu to supplement the fuel sulfur
limits EPA proposed as BART.
Response: EPA has determined that
the amendments to Lehigh’s Title V
permit are acceptable. The permit
amendments do not change the PM
BART emission limit of 0.30 lb/ton feed
proposed by EPA in the April 25, 2012
proposal for the rotary kiln. The permit
amendments also provide a new SO2
BART emission limit of 1.50 lb/MMBtu
that will supplement the existing limits.
Compliance with the new SO2 limit will
be determined by annual stack tests.
These revisions to the permit are
consistent with the underlying technical
BART determination analysis. New
York issued a new public notice of the
permit revisions for public review, and
then adopted the permit modifications.
EPA did not receive any other
comments related to Lehigh’s BART
determinations or permit limits, except
from Lehigh and New York. In response
to these comments on EPA’s April 25,
2012 proposal, and additional
supporting analyses and documentation
provided by Lehigh and New York, EPA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
is therefore approving Lehigh’s BART
determinations and BART emission
limit permit conditions presented above
since the revised Title V permit is
consistent with the terms of our
proposed FIP, has been adopted by New
York, and submitted formally to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP.
BART Comments—Emission Limits
Comment: U.S. Forest Service
supported EPA’s proposals to require a
0.55 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit for
Roseton Units 1 and 2, 0.09 lb/MMBtu
SO2 emission limit for Danskammer
Unit 4, and 0.20 lb/MMBtu NOX
emission limit for Kodak Boiler 42 if the
Boiler is repowered with natural gas.
Response: EPA acknowledges the
support for the proposed BART
emission limits. EPA is adopting these
limits.
Comment: Dynegy pointed out that
the operators of the Danskammer and
Roseton Generating Stations are
currently the subject of Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore
not in a position to select any of the SO2
BART FIP emission limits proposed by
EPA.
Response: EPA has an obligation to
either approve New York’s Regional
Haze SIP or promulgate a FIP that
establishes BART for the Danskammer
and Roseton Generating Stations,
regardless of other legal proceedings
that may involve the Danskammer and
Roseton Generating Stations. EPA is
adopting SO2 BART FIP emission limits
for the Danskammer and Roseton
Generating Stations.
BART Comments—Specific to Dynegy
BART Determinations
Comment: Earthjustice urged EPA to
finalize the proposed disapproval of the
SO2 BART determination for
Danskammer Unit 4 and endorsed EPA’s
reasons for proposing to disapprove
New York’s BART analysis.
Response: EPA is finalizing our
proposed disapproval of the SO2 BART
determination for Danskammer and is
adopting SO2 BART FIP emission limits
for the facility.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that New York improperly allowed
Dynegy to conduct the BART analysis
and select its emission limitation.
Response: It is common practice for
the facility to do the technical analysis
in order to determine BART for eligible
sources, submit that information to the
state and then for the state to review and
adopt or modify the BART
determination. In fact, with respect to
the Regional Haze program, New York
adopted the regulation 6 NYCRR, Part
249, ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51919
Technology (BART)’’ to require BART
eligible facilities to perform an analysis
of potential controls for each visibilityimpairing pollutant. Congress crafted
the Clean Air Act to provide for states
to take the lead in developing
implementation plans but balanced that
decision by requiring EPA to review the
plans to determine whether a SIP meets
the requirements of the Act. In
undertaking such a review, EPA does
not usurp a state’s authority but ensures
that such authority is reasonably
exercised. BART determinations are the
responsibility of the states, which have
the freedom to determine the weight
and significance of the statutorily
required five-factors in a BART
determination. EPA then reviews a
state’s determination as included in its
regional haze plan. With respect to New
York’s Regional Haze plan, EPA
determined that New York addressed
the five factors for the BART
determinations sufficiently to allow
EPA to conclude that the state’s BART
determinations were reasonable, for all
BART-eligible facilities except for
Roseton and Danskammer facilities. In
the case of the Roseton and
Danskammer facilities, where EPA’s
review of New York’s determination
resulted in a different conclusion, EPA
developed a FIP.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
New York’s failure to select a specific
technology as BART for either its NOX
or SO2 determination for Danskammer
results in an arbitrary emission limit
that cannot be considered BART.
Earthjustice argued that New York and
EPA do not have the statutory authority
under Section 169A(b)(2) of the Act to
set an emission limitation for NOX and
SO2 without first designating a
particular control technology as BART.
Response: EPA’s BART Guidelines
make clear that processes and practices,
or a combination thereof, may be
designated as BART. See 40 CFR part 51
App. Y, section IV.D. The applicable
regional haze regulations and EPA’s
BART Guidelines define BART as ‘‘an
emission limitation based on the degree
of reduction achievable through the
application of the best system of
continuous emission reduction.’’ 4 The
application of practices and processes to
the operation of a facility can be
considered the ‘‘best system.’’
New York’s proposed BART
determination for the Danskammer
facility listed a combination of policies
and practices as a control option for
both SO2 and NOX. To accomplish a
side-by-side comparison with other
4 See 40 CFR 51.301 (defining ‘‘BART’’); 40 CFR
part 51 App. Y.
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
51920
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
control options, it calculated an
emission limitation that could be
achieved by employing those processes
and practices. All control options were
reviewed using the procedure set forth
in EPA’s BART Guidelines, and New
York reached a determination that the
combination of processes and practices
was BART. It was not necessary for New
York to set its emission limitations with
reference to a specific technology. The
chosen emission limitations for both
NOX and SO2 were set with reference to
the application of a combination of
practices and processes. This was done
in accordance with the top-down BART
determination analysis contained in
EPA’s BART Guidelines.5 Although EPA
objected to the emission limitation set
for SO2, it did not object to New York’s
proposed determination that a
combination of practices and processes
was BART for the Danskammer facility.
Earthjustice’s comments do not
accurately reflect the BART analysis
conducted by New York or by EPA.
Comment: Earthjustice said EPA must
impose a more stringent SO2 BART FIP
emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu instead
of EPA’s proposed 0.09 lb/MMBtu
because EPA failed to consider all
available control technologies,
including a wet scrubber or circulating
dry scrubber. Earthjustice also
commented that the proposed emission
limit is not associated with any specific
control technology.
Response: EPA disagrees that the
BART analysis failed to consider all
available control technologies and EPA
disagrees that the limit is not associated
with a control technology. In Dynegy’s
submission to New York, it determined
that BART was lowering Unit 4’s
current SO2 permit limit from 1.10 lbs/
MMBtu to 0.50 lbs/MMBtu. This limit
was based on the facility putting in
place a combination of processes/
practices, including: (1) Use of
alternative coal, (2) co-firing with
natural gas, and (3) installation of post
combustion controls. Dynegy identified
this particular limit as a control option
based on an engineering study that
identified and evaluated the available
SO2 control options. This was done in
accordance with Step One of the BART
Guidelines, which requires the state to
identify all possible control options that
could be used as BART. 40 CFR part 51
App. Y. Dynegy’s consultants used a
fuel cost table and calculations
contained in an attached excel
worksheet titled ‘‘Fuel Costs’’ to
determine the emission limitation that
could be achieved by applying the
above practices/processes as BART.
5 40
CFR part 51 App. Y.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Those calculations make clear that the
estimated emission limitation for SO2
was set using factors based on the use
of alternative fuels, co-firing with
natural gas, and installing post
combustion controls.
The engineering study identified
other control options, including Flue
Gas Desulfurization (‘‘FGD’’) options
with Lime Based Spray Dryer;
Circulating Dry Scrubber and Wet
Limestone; options for Dry Sorbent
Injection of minerals such as Trona;
combustion of alternative coals; 100%
combustion of natural gas; and co-firing
natural gas. In accordance with Step
Two of the BART Guidelines, the
facility evaluated the technical
feasibility of each control option,
concluding that all options were
technically feasible for the Danskammer
facility. It then evaluated each control
option’s cost effectiveness, conducted
impact analyses on cost of compliance,
energy impacts, and nonair quality
environmental impacts, and modeled
selected control option’s visibility
impact using the CALPUFF modeling
program; all in accordance with Steps
Two through Four of the BART
Guidelines. 40 CFR part 51 App. Y.
As required by New York’s BART
regulation, Part 249, the facility
conducted a side-by-side comparison
and the facility showed that the use of
an emission limitation based on the
application of the above practices/
processes was BART for the
Danskammer facility.6 Dynegy’s analysis
showed that an emission limit of 0.50
lbs/MMBtu, accomplished through the
use of a combination of processes/
practices, would achieve a greater
impact on regional visibility than the
remaining control options. Dynegy then
selected the 0.50 lbs/MMBtu as the
facility’s SO2 emission limitation. New
York reviewed Dynegy’s analysis and
determined that BART was lowering the
SO2 emission limit from 1.1 lb/MMBtu
to 0.50 lb/MMBtu by implementing the
combination of processes/practices
discussed above.
However, EPA’s own analysis of the
combination of processes/practices
identified by Dynegy and the proposed
determination by New York as BART
showed that a lower emission limitation
than that contained in the state’s plan is
achievable with this technology. EPA
conducted its own evaluation and set a
lower estimated emission limitation,
0.09 lb/MMBtu, as a control option. It
concluded that ‘‘these same control
6 See Regulations.gov for EPA–R02–OAR–2012–
0296, file marked ‘‘final permits,’’ attachment
identified as ‘‘2012–12–02 Dynegy Final BART
Analysis—Redacted Copy.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
option strategies can achieve a more
stringent SO2 emission limit than the
0.5 lb/MMBtu limit, on a more costeffective basis, and therefore result in
more visibility improvement.’’ 77 FR
24792, 24813. The 0.09 lb/MMBtu limit
was calculated using the fuel costs
contained in Dynegy’s own fuel costs
worksheets. EPA then used Dynegy’s
own side-by-side comparisons to
demonstrate that its proposed 0.09 lb/
MMBtu limit was BART for the
Danskammer facility.
Since EPA’s proposed BART emission
limitation was set with reference to
processes/practices evaluated using the
BART Guidelines, and since processes/
practices can be considered as the ‘‘best
system of emission reduction’’ pursuant
to those same guidelines, EPA’s
proposed emission limitation is not
arbitrary. 40 CFR part 51 App. Y.
Therefore EPA is finalizing the SO2
BART FIP emission limit of 0.09 lb/
MMBtu for Danskammer.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
there is no way to justify EPA’s
proposed option to approve New York’s
0.50 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit for
Danskammer given the ready
availability of cost-effective controls.
Response: EPA’s proposed option that
allowed New York to submit additional
information to support its higher
estimated emission limitation was not
improper. New York conducted its
BART analysis in accordance with
BART Guidelines, but failed to properly
support its emission limitation for SO2
based on the analysis of Dynegy’s own
fuel cost worksheet. At the time of
EPA’s April 25, 2012 proposal, New
York had not yet issued a final BART
permit, so there remained the possibility
that additional information could be
provided to further support New York’s
proposed BART determination. If New
York had demonstrated that its 0.50 lb/
MMBtu limit was accurate by
submitting additional material to EPA, it
may have been appropriate for EPA to
approve New York’s proposed BART
determination. Regardless, neither New
York nor Dynegy submitted additional
information specific to the 0.50 lb/
MMBtu SO2 limit. Consequently, EPA is
finalizing the SO2 BART FIP emission
limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu for
Danskammer.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that other nonair quality environmental
impacts and additional power
requirements are an improper basis for
rejecting wet scrubber or circulating dry
scrubber control or Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) as BART.
Response: Although Dynegy appears
to reject certain pollution controls on
the basis of nonair quality
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
environmental impacts and additional
energy requirements, EPA went back
and reanalyzed Dynegy’s analysis.
Dynegy did a full five factor analysis
and considered the cost effectiveness of
controls and the visibility improvement
of possible controls. EPA concluded that
the controls resulting from Dynegy’s
analysis were not BART, and adopted
much more stringent SO2 emissions
limits and determined the NOX
emissions limits based on visibility. In
EPA’s determination of BART, we did
not disqualify any SO2 or NOX control
strategies because of any energy or
nonair quality environmental impacts.
Comment: Earthjustice provided
extensive comments to support its
position that EPA must disapprove New
York’s NOX BART determination for
Dynegy’s Danskammer Unit 4.
Earthjustice contends that New York’s
and EPA’s proposed NOX emission limit
of 0.12 lb/MMBtu is unattached to any
selected BART technology and therefore
must be rejected. Earthjustice comments
that BART for this facility should be the
installation of SCR with a NOX emission
limit not higher than 0.05 lb/MMBtu (on
a 30-day rolling average). Earthjustice
states SCR is cost-effective, feasible, and
will result in significant visibility
benefits.
Response: EPA disagrees with
Earthjustice’s conclusion that the
proposed NOX emission limit of 0.12 lb/
MMBtu and associated controls cannot
be considered BART. First, Dynegy and
New York evaluated nineteen different
controls for BART (including SCR) at
Danskammer and, after conducting the
5-factor analysis as required by section
169A(g)(2) of the Act, New York’s
proposed determination that BART
consists of optimization of existing
Level II Low NOX Burners emission
controls, co-firing with natural gas,
installation of post-combustion controls,
use of alternative coals, or any
combination thereof to achieve a NOX
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
Dynegy’s proposal committed to
meeting a specific emission limit with a
combination of specific controls and
therefore Earthjustice’s contention that
this selection of BART technology is
arbitrary is without merit. BART is an
emission limit (See 40 CFR 51.301) and
Dynegy’s BART analysis commits to
lowering the NOX emission limit from
0.42 lb/MMBtu to 0.12 lb/MMBtu (24hour average during the ozone season,
30-day average during the non-ozone
season) based upon the use of a
combination of specific possible
controls.
Secondly, Earthjustice comments and
provides detailed technical reasons as to
why SCR should be considered BART
for this facility with a NOX emission
limit not higher than 0.05 lb/MMBtu on
a 30-day rolling average. EPA agrees
with Earthjustice that SCR technology is
cost effective for the Danskammer
facility and it has been demonstrated at
numerous coal fired utilities that
achieved an emission limit of this
magnitude. However, as explained in
the following paragraphs, EPA has
concluded that the implementation of
Earthjustice’s recommendation of SCR
technology with an emission limit of
0.05 lb/MMBtu provides only minimal
visibility improvement (8th high
cumulative at the seven Class I areas)
when compared to EPA’s proposed FIP
that BART is an emission limit of 0.12
lb/MMBtu when implementing the
combination of controls described
above.
Dynegy evaluated SCR plus flue gas
recirculation (FGR) using a control
efficiency of 91.0% that is equivalent to
a NOX emission limit of 0.038 lb/
MMBtu (note that in EPA’s April 25,
2012 proposal, there was a calculation
error for this control option and the
correct emission limit for NOX
associated with SCR + FGR is 0.038 lb/
MMBtu, not 0.38 lb/MMBtu). As
required by section 169A(g)(2) of the
Act, one of the five factors to be
evaluated for BART is the visibility
impact of the emissions from a
particular control technology being
considered for BART. Dynegy evaluated
the visibility benefits at the seven Class
I areas impacted by the facility and as
noted in Table 6 of EPA’s April 25, 2012
proposed rule for New York (77 FR at
51921
24814), the total visibility improvement
across the seven Class I areas from SCR
+ FGR is only better by 0.08 deciviews
as compared to Dynegy’s proposed
combination of controls associated with
a BART emission limit of 0.12 lb/
MMBtu.7 As pointed out by
Earthjustice, the maximum cumulative
visibility improvement is significantly
better by 0.534 dv (2.477 dv versus
1.943 dv) for SCR + FGR compared to
Dynegy’s proposed BART emission limit
of 0.12 lb/MMBtu. However, EPA’s
Guidelines document calls for the use of
the 98th percentile (essentially the 8th
highest day) rather than the maximum
modeled daily impact. These Guidelines
further state that while ‘‘the use of the
98th percentile of modeled visibility
values would appear to exclude roughly
7 days per year from consideration, in
our judgment, this approach will
effectively capture the sources that
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area, while minimizing the
likelihood that the highest modeled
visibility impacts might be caused by
unusual meteorology or conservative
assumptions in the model.’’ See 70 FR
39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005).
Accordingly, EPA used the 98th
percentile (8th high) visibility to
compare the visibility impacts of
different control technologies for the
Danskammer facility.
Furthermore, Dynegy’s visibility
analysis included a summary of the
number of days that exceed 1.0 dv, 0.5
dv and 0.1 dv for each NOX control
strategy at each of the seven impacted
Class I areas. This visibility analysis
shows only a small improvement in
days exceeding the three respective dv
thresholds for the SCR + FGR case
compared to Dynegy’s proposed
combination of BART controls with an
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu. The
cumulative number of days exceeding
each of the dv thresholds for the SCR +
FGR (with NOX emissions of 0.038 lb/
mm BTU) and Dynegy’s proposed
combination of controls (with NOX
emissions of 0.12 lb/MMBtu) is
summarized in the following table:
Difference in the number of days when the visibility impact exceeds 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 deciviews for each Class I
area for two different control strategies
1.0 deciview
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Class I area
SCR
+
FGR
Lye Brook, VT .......................
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
6
0.5 deciview
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
6
SCR
+
FGR
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
15
0.1 deciview
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
16
0
SCR
+
FGR
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
59
62
1
7 Difference between 0.651 deciviews and 0.569
deciviews is 0.08 deciviews, 8th high.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
3
51922
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Difference in the number of days when the visibility impact exceeds 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 deciviews for each Class I
area for two different control strategies
1.0 deciview
Class I area
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
Brigantine, NJ .......................
Acadia Nat’l Park, ME ...........
Presidential Range, NH ........
Great Gulf, NH ......................
Otter Creek, WV ...................
Dolly Sods, WV .....................
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
1
0
1
0
0
0
Total days .............................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SCR
+
FGR
0.5 deciview
8
Based upon the two visibility analyses
described above, EPA concludes that
Earthjustice’s recommended BART
technology, i.e., SCR, with an emission
limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, would not be
expected to provide any significant
improvement in visibility at the seven
Class I areas over Dynegy’s proposed
BART implementation of a combination
of specific possible controls with an
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
Therefore, EPA concludes that NOX
BART for Danskammer Unit 4 is
unchanged from our April 25, 2012
proposal, i.e., an emission limit of 0.12
lb/MMBtu by the optimization of
existing Level II Low NOX Burners
emission controls, co-firing with natural
gas, installation of post-combustion
controls, use of alternative coals, or any
combination thereof.
Comment: Earthjustice took issue
with EPA’s inclusion in the Docket of
the redacted version of Dynegy’s BART
analysis and suggested that EPA relies
on, but fails to review or provide critical
costs and energy impacts and failed to
obtain or withheld critical projected
capacity factor information.
Response: In establishing the
Agency’s determination of BART for
Danskammer Unit 4, EPA relied on the
same information from Dynegy’s BART
analysis that was available to the public.
EPA disagrees that we failed to review,
provide, or obtain information relevant
to our review of the Dynegy BART
analysis. EPA’s review and analysis
focused on Danskammer’s potential to
emit and did not involve the need for
information regarding Dynegy’s future,
projected utilization rates for the
Danskammer facility. EPA determined
this information was not relevant to this
rulemaking.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA failed to establish a historical
emissions baseline and that EPA should
have corrected Dynegy’s use of a ten
year useful life of pollution control.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
SCR
+
FGR
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
3
4
4
0
0
33
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.12 lb/
MMBtu NOX
56
50
38
31
8
10
59
52
43
37
8
11
3
2
5
6
0
1
2
35
Response: EPA agrees that Dynegy did
not establish a historical emissions
baseline or use a reasonable lifetime for
pollution control equipment, but the
Agency does not agree that these errors
affected EPA’s analysis and
determination as to appropriate BART
limits for the Dynegy facilities. EPA
used Dynegy’s potential to emit rather
than its historical emissions, which
resulted in a more conservative
approach that increased the estimated
cost-effectiveness of controls. As for
Earthjustice’s comment regarding the
ten year useful life of control
equipment, Dynegy used a 10-year
useful life for the Danskammer emission
unit itself. While we agree that a 10-year
remaining useful life is not an
appropriate assumption unless there is
an enforceable commitment to shut
down, our review of this alleged
discrepancy between a 10-year or a 30year useful life of the facility did not
change our conclusions, since the
controls are cost effective either way.
EPA did not discuss the remaining
useful life in the April 25, 2012
proposal because the controls are costeffective.
Comment: Dynegy supported EPA’s
proposed compliance date of July 1,
2014 for the Danskammer Unit 4 BART
emission limits, EPA’s proposed NOX
and PM BART determinations for the
Danskammer and Roseton Units and the
form (lbs/MMBtu) of the proposed
emission limits for the Danskammer and
Roseton units.
Response: EPA acknowledges the
support for the proposed compliance
date, the proposed BART
determinations and the proposed form
of the BART emission limits. In this
action, EPA is finalizing these limits.
Comment: New York indicated
revisions are being developed to New
York’s fuel sulfur limitations under Part
225–1 which will likely supersede
EPA’s SO2 BART limit for the Roseton
Difference
in days
between
control
strategies
SCR
+
FGR
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
4
4
4
0
0
1
0.1 deciview
252
272
20
Generating Station, soon after EPA’s
January 1, 2014 compliance date.
Response: EPA fully supports New
York’s development and adoption of
these regulations.
Comment: New York disagreed with
EPA’s determination in the April 25,
2012 proposal that Dynegy incorrectly
analyzed visibility impacts at only the
maximally-impacted federal Class I area,
rather than at all impacted Class I areas.
Earthjustice agreed with EPA’s
determination to consider the
cumulative visibility impacts at all
impacted Class I areas.
Response: In reviewing New York’s
BART determinations for Dynegy’s
Roseton and Danskammer Generating
Stations, EPA took into account the
visibility benefits of requiring controls
by considering the improvements at
both the most impacted Class I area as
well as the improvements at all
impacted Class I areas and Dynegy’s
own conclusions regarding the impacts
on visibility from the controls under
consideration. With regard to New
York’s comment that consideration of
the BART Guidelines do not require the
consideration of visibility benefits at all
Class I areas, the state cited to text
indicating that consideration of
visibility impacts at all impacted Class
I areas ‘‘might be unwarranted.’’ This
language in the BART Guidelines is
clearly meant to provide a common
sense approach to streamlining a
complex and difficult modeling exercise
where ‘‘an analysis may add a
significant resource burden to a State.’’
See 70 FR 39126. While the BART
Guidelines indicate that a detailed
analysis of the visibility impacts at each
area in a cluster of Class I areas may not
be necessary, this is not because the
visibility impacts at Class I areas other
than the most impacted are irrelevant
but rather because the visibility benefits
at the most impacted Class I area alone
may be sufficient to justify the selection
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
of the most stringent control technology
as BART. Where, as here, the benefits of
controls have been modeled for a
number of surrounding areas and
consideration of these benefits is useful
in determining the appropriate level of
controls, EPA does not agree that these
benefits should be ignored.
EPA concludes that it appropriately
took into account the visibility impacts
across all seven of the impacted Class I
areas in deciding to adopt more
stringent BART limits. There are many
large sources of pollutants that reduce
visibility and impact several Class I
areas in the northeastern United States.
EPA has included, in our review of the
multi-factor analysis, the impact these
major sources have on more than one
Class I area. The smaller impacts from
these major sources combine with
impacts from other major sources in the
northeast to have important impacts on
visibility in these protected areas. While
EPA is primarily concerned with
impacts at the Class I area nearest each
major source, EPA encourages costeffective control strategies that improve
visibility across many Class I areas.
Reductions in visibility-impairing
pollutants from a major facility, with
reduced impacts from similarly large
sources in other areas and other states,
will go a long way toward improving
visibility in these areas.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA offers no explanation for ruling
out a hybrid SCR/SNCR control option
and a FGR+SCR control option as BART
even though the maximum cumulative
visibility improvement across seven
affected Class I areas is shown to be
2.244 dv and 2.477 dv, respectively.
Earthjustice questions how EPA arrived
at this decision for NOX when it arrived
at a different decision for SO2.
Response: The visibility improvement
cited to by Earthjustice is based on the
maximum anticipated visibility
improvements at the seven Class I areas
impacted by the Danskammer facility.
EPA did not base its decision to approve
New York’s BART determinations on
these maximum cumulative visibility
improvement values; rather EPA
focused on the 8th high (98th
percentile) visibility impacts predicted
by the visibility modeling in evaluating
a particular control option. In this case,
the visibility benefits based on
consideration of the 8th high visibility
impacts for the hybrid SCR/SNCR and
FGR+SCR options are far less than 2.0
deciviews. The visibility impacts
measured cumulatively across the seven
impacted Class I areas based on the 8th
high number are 0.689 dv for SCR/SNCR
and 0.651 dv for FGR+SCR. EPA
concluded that these control options
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
provide minimal visibility improvement
when compared to the BART level of
control of 0.12 lbs of NOX/MMBtu, with
a 8th high cumulative visibility
improvement of 0.569 dv. As for SO2, in
contrast, the visibility improvement
associated with the BART limit set by
EPA based on the 8th high impacts is
2.174 dv of improvement, as measured
across the seven Class I areas.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA did not establish any
significance thresholds for costs or for
visibility improvement in making BART
determinations.
Response: EPA’s BART guidelines in
the BART Rule do not require EPA to
develop a specific threshold, but rather
to evaluate each BART determination on
a case-by-case basis for each source. All
five factors must be compared to
determine the level of control that is
BART on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA failed to conduct a BART
analysis for particulate matter and that
BART Guidelines (40 CFR part 51,
Appendix Y, section IV.C) require BART
limits to be at least as stringent as
maximum available control technology
(MACT), such as EPA’s Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards.
Response: The comments received do
not convince us that our PM BART
determination for Danskammer is
unreasonable. EPA reviewed Dynegy’s
BART analysis and New York’s
proposed BART determination and we
agreed that it represents BART. The
existing electrostatic precipitator control
is 99.98% effective in reducing PM
emissions. We consider this level of
control to be BART for the Danskammer
facility. Neither EPA nor a state is
required to set BART based on the limits
in a MACT standard. MACT standards
are established by EPA for reasons that
are much different than the reasons for
the limits established in Regional Haze
SIPs. Further, that section of the BART
Guidelines the comment refers to was
not meant to require states to take into
account MACT requirements in
determining BART, but rather to
provide states with the option to
streamline the BART analysis for
sources subject to the MACT standards
by relying on the MACT standards for
purposes of BART. In addition, EPA
notes that compliance with the
particulate matter emission limit in the
FIP is based on a one-hour averaging
time period, while the MACT is based
on a 30 day rolling average. It is
accordingly difficult to compare the two
limits.
In summary, EPA determined the
existing electrostatic precipitator control
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51923
represents the BART level of control for
PM for this particular facility.
Comment: Earthjustice stated that
BART determinations must consider
filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable
PM. Earthjustice stated that EPA should
have considered more stringent PM
emission limits accepted as BART or as
best available control technology known
as BACT or even the maximum
achievable control technology known as
MACT. Earthjustice requested EPA to
disapprove New York’s PM BART
determination and adopt a FIP that
establishes BART limits for filterable
PM10, PM2.5 and condensable PM.
Response: EPA disagrees that the PM
BART limits should be disapproved.
The existing electrostatic precipitator
control on the facility and the emission
limit from the BART determination are
effective in reducing filterable
particulates. Condensable particulates
will be reduced as a result of the
reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions at
the facility. Separate emission limits for
each form of particulates are not
required for BART. EPA also disagrees
that the FIP’s BART limits should be
consistent with BACT or MACT. BART,
BACT and MACT are all specific
statutorily defined approaches to
establishing emissions limitations for
sources under different CAA programs.
Reasonable Progress Goals Comments
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA’s conclusion that New York
will achieve its reasonable progress
goals is based on an unidentified
analysis performed by MANE–VU,
resulting in the public’s inability to
assess the accuracy or reasonableness of
MANE–VU’s calculations and EPA’s
statements related to MANE–VU’s
analysis. Earthjustice recommended that
EPA reject its conclusion that New York
would achieve its reasonable progress
goals since the analysis was not
available for public review.
Response: EPA disagrees that the
MANE–VU analysis was not available
for public review and EPA disagrees we
should reject our conclusion that New
York would achieve its reasonable
progress goals. MANE–VU’s analysis
titled Documentation of 2018 Emissions
from Electric Generating Units in the
Eastern United States for MANE–VU’s
Regional Haze Modeling, Revised Final
Draft, April 2008 8 was originally
8 The report was finalized as Documentation of
2018 Emissions from Electric Generating Units in
the Eastern United States for MANE–VU’s Regional
Haze Modeling Final Report, 16 August 2009, with
no changes that affect this analysis. It is available
at https://www.marama.org/technical-center/
emissions-inventory/ei-improvement-projects/
electricy-generating-units.
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
51924
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
available for public review during the
New York rulemaking process for its
Regional Haze SIP revision, as well as
during many of the other MANE–VU
states’ rulemaking processes. As EPA
included all of the documents
associated with New York’s Regional
Haze SIP revision in the Docket, this
MANE–VU document was also available
for public review as part of EPA’s April
25, 2012 proposal and included in the
Docket for this rulemaking as Appendix
W in New York’s Regional Haze SIP
Submittal documents.
Table 9 of Appendix W is the final
MANE–VU emission inventory which
was modeled to show that
implementing the MANE–VU measures
would improve visibility at MANE–
VU’s Class I areas sufficiently to meet
the progress goals for 2018 for these
areas. For the final emission inventory
described in Appendix W, MANE–VU
increased the emissions of SO2 from
power plants to account for the effects
of EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) program.9 Applying the CAIR
program to the New York emission
inventory increases emissions by 23,142
tons per year of SO2 from the previous
MANE–VU inventory that represented
New York’s application of the controls
agreed to by the MANE–VU states. Since
New York is not using EPA’s CAIR or
subsequent transport rules for BART
emission controls on sources in New
York, the final MANE–VU emission
inventory overestimates the projected
emissions for New York by 23,142 tons
per year of SO2.
New York’s existing sulfur in fuel rule
does not cover all of the types of fuel oil
included in the program agreed to by
the MANE–VU states. New York
estimates that there is a difference of
17,669 tons per year of SO2 between the
program New York has in place now
and full adoption of the sulfur in fuel
measure agreed to by the MANE–VU
states. The 17,669 tons per year of SO2
reductions that New York would have if
it adopted the entire MANE–VU sulfur
in fuel rule is less than the excess
23,142 tons per year of SO2 projected in
the MANE–VU final modeling
9 The MANE–VU document referenced in the
previous footnote explains in Section 5.5 on page
29: ‘‘ * * * MANE–VU planners recognized that
CAIR allows emissions trading, and that reductions
at one unit could offset increases at another unit
within the CAIR region. Because most states do not
restrict trading, MANE–VU decided that emissions
should be increased to represent the
implementation of the strategy for the 167 stacks
within the limits of the CAIR program. Therefore,
NESCAUM increased the emissions from states
subject to the CAIR cap and trade program. For
MANE–VU, 75,809 tons were added back, leaving
total regional emissions from the MANE–VU region
greater than the original Inter-RPO IPM-based
estimate but consistent with state projections.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
inventory. These 23,142 tons will not be
emitted since New York is not using
CAIR for its Regional Haze Plan.
Therefore, EPA can approve this portion
of New York’s Regional Haze Plan
because New York’s adopted emission
reductions meet New York’s portion of
the emission reductions needed to reach
the progress goals set for MANE–VU’s
Class I areas.
Comment: New York disagreed with
EPA’s discussion of the sulfur
reductions achieved by New York’s low
sulfur fuel strategy and the timing of
those reductions. New York commented
that sulfur reductions are not required
to be implemented by the time EPA
takes final action on New York’s
Regional Haze SIP, but rather by the
2018 Reasonable Progress Goal
deadline. New York stated it is in the
process of developing regulations to
expand the low sulfur fuel oil program
to achieve reductions before 2018.
Response: EPA agrees sulfur
reductions are not required to be
implemented by the time EPA takes
final action on New York’s Regional
Haze SIP, but rather as soon as
reasonable and, at the latest, by the 2018
Reasonable Progress Goal deadline.
However, EPA can only act on the
measures that New York has adopted
when it submitted its Regional Haze
Plan, and cannot act on measures that
may be adopted or enacted later. New
York needs to adopt all of the measures
to be used in its Regional Haze SIP.
New York indicates it is in the
process of developing regulations to
expand the low sulfur fuel oil program
to achieve reductions before 2018. EPA
fully supports New York’s timely
development and adoption of these
regulations.
General Comments
Comment: US Forest Service
complimented EPA and New York on
the work to date on the Regional Haze
program and the BART determinations
and supported EPA’s BART proposals.
Response: EPA agrees New York has
successfully addressed the consultation
process of the Regional Haze Program
with the Federal Land Managers.
Comment: New York commented that,
at the time of its letter, the fact that forty
states do not have approved Regional
Haze SIPs highlights the difficulties for
states to complete their SIPs under the
schedules set by EPA.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the
deadlines established by Congress in the
CAA for the regional haze program have
been challenging, but notes that EPA
has now either proposed or taken final
action on full regional haze programs for
all but seven states.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that EPA must affirm New York’s
decision to apply BART and not rely on
the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.
Response: EPA can affirm that New
York conducted case-by-case BART
reviews and did not rely on the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule based on the
fact that New York adopted 6 NYCRR
Part 249, a regulation requiring all
facilities to conduct and submit a BART
analysis to the state, and because New
York submitted to EPA source-specific
SIP revisions for 18 facilities to
implement BART.
Comment: Earthjustice commented
that with respect to New York, the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will
not achieve greater progress toward
national visibility goals.
Response: Since New York is not
relying on CSAPR, this comment is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
V. What are EPA’s conclusions?
EPA has evaluated the proposed
revisions to the SIP submitted by the
State of New York that address regional
haze for the first planning period from
2008 through 2018. EPA is partially
approving and partially disapproving
the revisions to the SIP, which address
the Regional Haze requirements of the
Clean Air Act for the first
implementation period. This approval
includes the Reasonable Progress
portion of the plan, New York’s sourcespecific SIP revisions for
implementation of BART for 17 BARTsubject sources, 6 NYCRR Part 249,
‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART),’’ effective May 6, 2010, and
section 19–0325 of the New York
Environmental Conservation Law,
effective July 15, 2010, which regulates
the sulfur content of fuel oil.
EPA is finalizing amendments to 40
CFR 52.1670(d) ‘‘EPA-Approved New
York Source-Specific Provisions’’ to
incorporate those sources with new
emission limitations or requirements
that resulted from the BART
determinations that are not part of the
applicable SIP.
EPA is promulgating a partial FIP to
address the deficiencies in the plan
resulting from our partial disapproval of
New York’s Regional Haze SIP.
Specifically, EPA’s FIP contains BART
determinations and emission limits for
the Roseton and Danskammer
Generating Stations.
We have fully considered all
significant comments on our proposal,
and, except as noted in sections II, III
and IV above, have concluded that no
other changes from our proposal are
warranted. Our action is based on an
evaluation of New York’s SIP submittals
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and our FIP relative to the regional haze
requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–51.309
and Clean Air Act sections 169A and
169B. All general SIP requirements
contained in section 110 of the Act,
other provisions of the Act, and our
regulations applicable to this action
were also evaluated. The purpose of this
action is to ensure compliance with
these requirements. Our authority for
action on New York’s SIP submittals is
based on section 110(k) of the Act. Our
authority to promulgate our partial FIP
is based on section 110(c) of the Act.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action will promulgate emission
requirements for two facilities and is
therefore not a rule of general
applicability. This type of action is
exempt from review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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 FIP applies to just two
facilities, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 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 action on small entities,
I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is
finalizing for purposes of the regional
haze program consists of imposing
Federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX, SO2 and PM2.5
from one facility and emissions of SO2
from another facility in New York. The
net result of these two FIP actions is that
EPA is promulgating emission controls
on selected units at only two sources.
The sources in question are each large
electric generating plants that are not
owned by small entities, and therefore
are not small entities. The partial
approval of the SIP merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(D.C. Cir. 1985).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year. It
is a rule of particular applicability that
affects only two facilities in the State of
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51925
New York. 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. This
rule only applies to two facilities in the
State of New York.
E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It 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. This action
addresses the State not fully meeting its
obligation to adopt a SIP that meets the
regional haze requirements under the
CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action, EPA did
consult with the state government in
developing this action. A summary of
the concerns raised during the comment
period and EPA’s response to those
concerns is provided in section IV of
this preamble.
F. Executive Order 13175
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the action EPA is taking
neither imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments,
nor preempts tribal law. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
government. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) 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 rule will limit emissions, the
rule will have a beneficial effect on
children’s health by reducing air
pollution.
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
51926
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Today’s action does not
require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of voluntary
consensus standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
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 rule
will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
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. This rule limits
emissions of NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 from
one facility and emissions SO2 from
another facility in New York. The
partial approval of the SIP merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules (1) rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. 5 U.S 804(3). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 29, 2012. Pursuant to
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
New York; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan and Federal
Implementation Plan [EPA–R02–OAR–
2012–0296] CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
this action is subject to the requirements
of CAA section 307(d) as it promulgates
a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing
a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA
section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 16, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart HH—New York
2. Section 52.1670 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (c), revising the table
heading and adding a new entry for
Title 6, Part 249, in numeric order and
adding new subheading ‘‘Environmental
Conservation Law’’ and table entry at
end of table (c); and
■ b. In paragraph (d) by adding new
entries to the end of table
■ c. In paragraph (e) by adding new
entries to the end of table.
The additions and revisions reads as
follows:
■
■
§ 52.1670
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK STATE REGULATIONS AND LAWS
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
New York State
regulation
State
effective date
Latest EPA approval date
*
*
Part 249, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).
*
*
*
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the
document begins].
Comments
Title 6:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
5/6/10
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
*
28AUR1
*
51927
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK STATE REGULATIONS AND LAWS—Continued
New York State
regulation
State
effective date
*
*
Environmental Conservation Law
Section 19–0325 ......................................
*
Latest EPA approval date
*
7/15/10
Comments
*
*
*
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the
document begins].
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Name of source
*
ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant).
Identifier/emission point
State effective/approval
date
*
*
Potline S-00001, Baking
furnace S-00002, Package Boilers B-00001.
Boiler 30 ............................
*
Permit ID 6-4058-00003,
effective 3/20/12.
Bowline Generating Station, GenOn.
Boilers 1 and 2 .................
Permit Id 3-3922-00003,
effective 6/28/12.
Con Edison 59th Street
Station.
Steam Boilers 114 and
115.
Permit Id 2-6202-00032,
Effective 3/20/12.
EF Barrett Power Station,
NG.
Boiler 2 ..............................
Permit Id 1-2820-00553,
effective 3/27/12.
International Paper Ticonderoga Mill.
Power Boiler and Recovery Furnace.
Permit Id 5-1548-00008,
effective 3/19/12.
Kodak Operations at Eastman Business Park,
Kodak.
Lafarge Building Materials
Boilers 41, 42 and 43 .......
Permit Id 8-2614-00205,
effective 5/25/12.
Kilns 1 and 2 .....................
Permit Id 4-0124-00001 effective 7/19/11.
Lehigh Northeast Cement,
Lehigh Cement.
Kiln and Clinker cooler .....
Permit Id 5-5205-00013,
effective 7/5/12.
Northport Power Station,
NG.
Boilers 1, 2, 3, and 4 ........
Permit Id 1-4726-00130,
effective 3/27/12.
Oswego Harbor Power,
NRG.
Boilers 5 and 6 .................
Permit Id 7-3512-00030,
effective 5/16/12.
Owens-Corning Insulating
Systems Feura Bush,
Owens Corning.
Ravenswood Generating
Station, TC.
EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13,
and EU14.
Permit Id 4-0122-00004 effective 5/18/12.
Boilers 10, 20, 30 .............
Permit Id 2-6304-00024,
effective 4/6/12.
Ravenswood Steam Plant,
Con Edison.
Boiler 2 ..............................
Permit Id 2-6304-01378 effective 3/20/12.
Roseton Generating Station—Dynegy.
Boilers 1 and 2 .................
Permit Id 3-3346-00075 effective 11/02/11.
Samuel A Carlson Generating Station, James
town Board of Public Utilities.
Boiler 12 ............................
Permit Id 9-0608-00053 effective 2/8/12.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Arthur Kill Generating Station, NRG.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Permit ID 2-6403-00014,
effective 3/20/12.
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
*
*
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
Explanation
*
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Condition 12–14.
Part 220 and Part 249
BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Part 249 BART.
Excluding the SO2 BART
emissions limits for Boilers 1 and 2 and corresponding monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
which EPA disapproved.
Part 249 BART.
51928
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS—Continued
Name of source
Identifier/emission point
State effective/approval
date
EPA approval date
Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez].
Boiler 1 ..............................
Permit Id 7-3132-00052 effective 5/24/12.
8/28/12 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
Explanation
Part 249 BART.
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Action/SIP
element
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
New York
submittal date
*
*
*
Implementation Plan for ReStatewide ...............................
gional Haze.
*
3/15/00
*
8/28/12 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
Regional Haze plan—Fuel Oil
Sulfur Content.
Statewide ...............................
4/16/12
Regional Haze Plan—BART
Permit modifications.
Statewide ...............................
4/16/12
Regional Haze Plan—BART
Permit modifications.
Statewide ...............................
7/2/12
8/28/12 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
8/28/12 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
■
EPA approval date
following midnight during which any
fuel is combusted at any time in the
EGU, boiler or emission unit. It is not
necessary for fuel to be combusted for
the entire 24-hour period.
Continuous emission monitoring
system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample,
analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once
every 15 minutes (using an automated
data acquisition and handling system
(DAHS)), a permanent record of SO2,
NOX, and PM emissions, other pollutant
emissions, diluent, or stack gas
volumetric flow rate.
SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
NOX means nitrogen oxides.
3. Section 52.1686 is added as follows:
§ 52.1686 Federal Implementation Plan for
Regional Haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to each owner and operator of the
following electric generating units
(EGUs) in the State of New York:
Danskammer Generating Station, Unit 4;
and Roseton Generating Station, Units 1
and 2;
(b) 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:
Boiler operating day means a 24-hour
period between 12 midnight and the
Explanation
*
*
The plan is approved except
for the BART determinations for Danskammer Generating Station Unit 4 and
Roseton Generating Station
Units 1 and 2. See 40 CFR
52.1686.
PM means particulate matter
Owner/operator means any person
who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises an EGU or boiler identified
in paragraph (a) of this section.
Ozone Season means the time period
from May 1 through September 30 of
each year.
Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers
identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) Emissions limitations—(1) The
owners/operators subject to this section
shall not emit or cause to be emitted
SO2, NOX, and PM in excess of the
following limitations, averaged over a
rolling 30-day period unless otherwise
indicated below:
BART controls/limits
Facilities
BART unit
NOX
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Danskammer Generating Station—Dynegy.
4
Roseton Generating Station—
Dynegy.
1&2
(2) These emission limitations shall
apply at all times, including startups,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
SO2
0.12 lb/MMBtu 24 hr avg
ozone season, 30 day avg
rest of yr Compliance 7/1/
2014.
................................................
0.09 lb/MMBtu 24 hr avg
Compliance 7/1/2014.
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.06 lb/MMBtu 1 hr avg Compliance 7/1/2014.
0.55 lb/MMBtu 24 hr avg .......
shutdowns, emergencies, and
malfunctions.
PO 00000
PM
(d) Compliance date. The owners and
operators subject to this section shall
comply with the emissions limitations
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and other requirements of this section
by January 1, 2014 unless otherwise
indicated in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(e) Compliance determination using
CEMS—(1) CEMS. At all times after the
compliance date specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner/operator of
each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and
operate a CEMS, in full compliance with
the requirements found at 40 CFR part
75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, and
PM, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from each unit. The CEMS
shall be used to determine compliance
with the emission limitations in
paragraph (c) of this section for each
unit.
(2) Method. (i) For any hour in which
fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the
hourly average SO2, NOX, and PM
concentration in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS
in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR part 75. At the end of each
boiler operating day, the owner/operator
shall calculate and record a new average
emission rate, consistent with paragraph
(c) averaging period, in lb/MMBtu from
the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS
for the current boiler operating day.
(ii) An hourly average SO2, NOX, or
PM emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid
only if the minimum number of data
points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75,
is acquired by the SO2, NOX, or PM
pollutant concentration monitor and the
diluent monitor (O2 or CO2).
(iii) Data reported to meet the
requirements of this section shall not
include data substituted using the
missing data substitution procedures of
subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall
the data have been bias adjusted
according to the procedures of 40 CFR
part 75.
(f) Compliance determination using
fuel certification—The owner or
operator of each affected facility subject
to a federally enforceable requirement
limiting the fuel sulfur content may use
fuel supplier certification to
demonstrate compliance. Records of
fuel supplier certification, as described
under paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), and (4)
of this section, as applicable, shall be
maintained and reports submitted as
required under paragraph (h). In
addition to records of fuel supplier
certifications, the report shall include a
certified statement signed by the owner
or operator of the affected facility that
the records of fuel supplier
certifications submitted represent all of
the fuel combusted during the reporting
period.
Fuel supplier certification shall
include the following information:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
(1) For distillate oil:
(i) The name of the oil supplier;
(ii) A statement from the oil supplier
that the oil complies with the
specifications under the definition of
distillate oil in § 60.41c; and
(iii) The sulfur content or maximum
sulfur content of the oil.
(2) For residual oil:
(i) The name of the oil supplier;
(ii) The location of the oil when the
sample was drawn for analysis to
determine the sulfur content of the oil,
specifically including whether the oil
was sampled as delivered to the affected
facility, or whether the sample was
drawn from oil in storage at the oil
supplier’s or oil refiner’s facility, or
other location;
(iii) The sulfur content of the oil from
which the shipment came (or of the
shipment itself); and
(iv) The method used to determine the
sulfur content of the oil.
(3) For coal:
(i) The name of the coal supplier;
(ii) The location of the coal when the
sample was collected for analysis to
determine the properties of the coal,
specifically including whether the coal
was sampled as delivered to the affected
facility or whether the sample was
collected from coal in storage at the
mine, at a coal preparation plant, at a
coal supplier’s facility, or at another
location. The certification shall include
the name of the coal mine (and coal
seam), coal storage facility, or coal
preparation plant (where the sample
was collected);
(iii) The results of the analysis of the
coal from which the shipment came (or
of the shipment itself) including the
sulfur content, moisture content, ash
content, and heat content; and
(iv) The methods used to determine
the properties of the coal.
(4) For other fuels:
(i) The name of the supplier of the
fuel;
(ii) The potential sulfur emissions rate
or maximum potential sulfur emissions
rate of the fuel in nanograms per joule
(ng/J) heat input; and
(iii) The method used to determine
the potential sulfur emissions rate of the
fuel.
(g) Compliance determination with an
annual emission limit—The owner or
operator of each affected facility subject
to a federally enforceable requirement
limiting the annual emissions shall
calculate the annual emissions
individually for each fuel combusted, as
applicable. The annual emission
limitation is determined on a 12-month
rolling average basis with a new annual
emission limitation calculated at the
end of the calendar month, unless a
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51929
different reporting period is identified
in paragraph (c).
(h) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator
shall maintain the following records for
at least five years:
(1) All CEMS data, including the date,
place, and time of sampling or
measurement; parameters sampled or
measured; and results.
(2) All fuel supplier certifications and
information identified in paragraph
(f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as
applicable.
(3) Records of quality assurance and
quality control activities for emissions
measuring systems including, but not
limited to, any records required by 40
CFR Part 75.
(4) Records of all major maintenance
activities conducted on emission units,
air pollution control equipment, and
CEMS.
(5) Any other records required by 40
CFR part 75.
(i) Reporting. All reports under this
section shall be submitted to the
Director, Division of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York,
New York 10007–1866.
(1) Owner/operator shall submit
quarterly excess emissions reports no
later than the 30th day following the
end of each calendar quarter. Excess
emissions means emissions that exceed
the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The reports
shall include the magnitude, date(s),
and duration of each period of excess
emissions, specific identification of
each period of excess emissions that
occurs during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the unit, the nature and
cause of any malfunction (if known),
and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted.
(2) Owner/operator shall submit
quarterly CEMS performance reports, to
include dates and duration of each
period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks),
reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent
recurrence, any CEMS repairs or
adjustments, and results of any CEMS
performance tests required by 40 CFR
part 75 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits,
Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder
Gas Audits).
(3) When no excess emissions have
occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during
the reporting period, such information
shall be stated in the report.
(4) Owner/operator shall submit semiannual fuel certification reports no later
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
51930
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
than the 30th day following the end of
each six month period.
(5) Owner/operator shall submit an
annual emissions limitation calculation
report no later than the 30th day
following the end of the calendar year
or quarter if a rolling average is required
in paragraph (c).
(j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator
shall submit notification of
commencement of construction of any
equipment which is being constructed
to comply with the emission limits in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on construction
of any such equipment.
(3) Owner/operator shall submit
notification of initial startup of any such
equipment.
(k) Equipment operation. At all times,
owner/operator shall maintain each
unit, including associated air pollution
control equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing
emissions.
(l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this
section shall preclude the use, including
the exclusive use, of any credible
evidence or information, relevant to
whether a source would have been in
compliance with requirements of this
section if the appropriate performance
or compliance test procedures or
method had been performed.
[FR Doc. 2012–21056 Filed 8–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391; FRL–9719–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the
Philadelphia-Wilmington,
Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware
1997 Fine Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on April 12, 2010, as
amended on August 3, 2012. The SIP
revision demonstrates attainment of the
1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for the PhiladelphiaWilmington, Pennsylvania-New JerseyDelaware (PA-NJ-DE) nonattainment
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Aug 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
area (Philadelphia Area). This
Pennsylvania SIP revision (herein called
the ‘‘attainment plan’’) includes the
Philadelphia Area’s attainment
demonstration and the motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) used for
transportation conformity purposes in
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery
and Philadelphia Counties in
Pennsylvania. The attainment plan also
includes a base year emissions
inventory and contingency measures.
On August 3, 2012, Pennsylvania
withdrew the analysis of reasonably
available control measures and
reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT) from the attainment plan
because the requirement was suspended
by a clean data determination for the
Philadelphia Area. Furthermore, EPA
has determined that a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan is not required
because Pennsylvania projected that
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
occurred in the Philadelphia Area by
the attainment date of April 2010. This
action is being taken in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean
Air Fine Particulate Implementation
Rule (PM2.5 Implementation Rule)
published on April 25, 2007.
I. Background
On November 2, 2011 (76 FR 67640),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
NPR proposed approval of the
Pennsylvania 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS attainment plan for the
Philadelphia Area.
On November 27, 2009 (74 FR 62251),
EPA published findings of failure to
submit a SIP revision that demonstrates
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for
the Philadelphia Area. On April 12,
2010, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania through the Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP)
submitted a formal SIP revision and on
June 19, 2010, EPA determined that this
SIP revision met the requirements for
completeness found in section 110(k)(1)
of the CAA. On May 16, 2012 (77 FR
28782), EPA published a clean data
determination and determination of
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS by the attainment date of April
5, 2010.
On May 12, 2005 (76 FR 70093), EPA
published the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) that addresses the interstate
transport requirements of the CAA with
DATES: This final rule is effective on
respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997
September 27, 2012.
PM2.5 NAAQS. As originally
promulgated, CAIR required significant
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
reductions in emissions of sulfur
docket for this action under Docket ID
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0391. All
to limit the interstate transport of these
documents in the docket are listed in
pollutants. In 2008, however, the DC
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Circuit Court of Appeals (‘‘the Court’’)
Although listed in the electronic docket, remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North
some information is not publicly
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The
available, i.e., confidential business
Court found CAIR to be inconsistent
information (CBI) or other information
with the requirements of the CAA,
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
Certain other material, such as
(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
copyrighted material, is not placed on
remanded the rule to EPA without
the Internet and will be publicly
vacatur because it found that ‘‘allowing
available only in hard copy form.
CAIR to remain in effect until it is
Publicly available docket materials are
replaced by a rule consistent with [the
available either electronically through
Court’s] opinion would at least
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for temporarily preserve the environmental
public inspection during normal
values covered by CAIR.’’ See North
business hours at the Air Protection
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. CAIR
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection thus remained in place following the
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
remand, and was in place and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
enforceable through the April 5, 2010
Copies of the State submittal are
attainment date. In response to the
available at the Pennsylvania
Court’s decision, EPA has issued a new
Department of Environmental
rule to address interstate transport of
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality
NOX and SO2 in the Eastern United
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
States (i.e., the Transport Rule, also
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
known as the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule). See 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
In the Transport Rule, EPA finalized
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at
regulatory changes to sunset (i.e.,
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) for control
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28AUR1.SGM
28AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51915-51930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21056]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296; FRL-9720-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of New York. EPA is approving seventeen source-specific
SIP revisions containing permits for Best Available Retrofit
Technology, revisions for Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations, Part 249, ``Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)''
and section 19-0325 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law
which regulates the sulfur content of fuel oil. These revisions to the
SIP addressing regional haze were submitted by the State of New York on
March 15, 2010, and supplemented on August 2, 2010, April 16, 2012 and
July 2, 2012. These SIP revisions were submitted to address Clean Air
Act requirements and EPA's rules for states to prevent and remedy
future and existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas through a regional haze program. Although New York State
addressed most of the issues identified in EPA's proposal, EPA is
promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan to address two sources where
EPA is disapproving New York's BART determinations.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-637-4249.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What additional SIP revisions did New York submit consistent
with EPA's proposal?
A. SIP Revisions for BART Determinations
B. SIP Revision for 6 NYCRR, Part 249, ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART)''
C. SIP Revision for New York's Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
III. What is contained in EPA's federal implementation plan for New
York's regional haze program?
IV. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal and what were
EPA's responses?
V. What are EPA's conclusions?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Throughout this document, wherever ``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions addressing regional haze submitted on March 15, 2010, and
supplemented on August 2, 2010, April 16, 2012, and July 2, 2012. EPA
is supplementing New York's SIP with a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) for three units at two BART sources where EPA is disapproving
these BART determinations. The following paragraphs summarize each of
EPA's actions.
EPA is approving aspects of New York's Regional Haze SIP revision
as follows:
The measures enacted by New York are shown to produce
emission reductions that are sufficient to meet New York's share of the
emission reductions needed to meet reasonable progress goals (found at
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)) at Class I areas affected by New York's emissions.
New York's Long Term Strategy, since New York submitted
final approvable permit modifications for all facilities on April 16,
2012 and July 2, 2012 (except for the Roseton and Danskammer Generating
Stations), in a timely manner with the level of control in EPA's April
25, 2012 proposal. EPA's FIP contains BART determinations and emission
limits for the Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations.
New York's SIP revision consisting of Title 6 of the New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR), Part 249, ``Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART).''
New York's SIP revision consisting of section 19-0325 of
the New York Environmental Conservation Law which regulates the sulfur
content of fuel oil.
EPA is approving the following facility BART determinations and
[[Page 51916]]
emissions limits since New York submitted final permit modifications to
EPA as SIP revisions on April 16, 2012 and July 2, 2012, and the
revisions match the terms of our April 25, 2012 proposal published in
the Federal Register (77 FR 24794):
ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)
Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
Bowline Generating Station [GenOn]
Con Edison 59th Street Station
EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)]
Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant
International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
Kodak Operations at Eastman Business Park
Lafarge Building Materials
Lehigh Northeast Cement
Northport Power Station [NG]
Oswego Harbor Power [NRG]
Owens-Corning Insulating Systems Feura Bush
Ravenswood Generating Station [TC]
Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison]
Roseton Generating Station--Dynegy (NOX and PM
limits only)
Samuel A Carlson Generating Station [Jamestown Board of Public
Utilities (BPU)]
Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]
EPA is disapproving the following BART determinations:
New York's Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) BART
determinations and emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy's
Roseton Generating Station.
New York's SO2, Nitrogen Oxide (NOX)
and Particulate Matter (PM) BART determinations and emissions limits
for Unit 4 of Dynegy's Danskammer Generating Station.
EPA is promulgating a FIP to address the BART determinations
identified above in our partial disapproval of New York's Regional Haze
SIP.
EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (the Act or CAA). For additional details on EPA's analysis and
findings, the reader is referred to the April 25, 2012 proposal (77 FR
24794) and the May 9, 2012 Notice of Data Availability (77 FR 27162).
New York's entire Regional Haze SIP revisions and the full text of the
public comments are included in the Docket (EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296) and
available at www.regulations.gov.
II. What additional SIP revisions did New York submit consistent with
EPA's proposal?
On April 25, 2012, EPA proposed to take action on a revision to the
SIP addressing regional haze submitted by New York. In that proposal,
EPA proposed to address through a FIP certain requirements not
addressed in New York's regional haze SIP submission or, alternatively,
to approve a substantively identical SIP revision by New York, should
the state timely submit such a revision. In two letters, both dated
April 16, 2012, New York submitted the additional materials relevant to
our proposed action on its regional haze SIP submission, including
proposed SIP revisions addressing the requirements for BART for a
number of sources and addressing the New York State Law that regulates
the sulfur content of fuel oil. Subsequently, on May 9, 2012 (77 FR
27162), EPA published a notice of data availability to notify the
public that New York submitted additional information to supplement New
York's Regional Haze SIP.
As discussed in the May 9, 2012 notice, EPA was aware that New York
intended to submit additional information relevant to the action EPA
was proposing on New York's Regional Haze SIP. EPA, therefore,
discussed in its proposal the possible actions EPA would take should
this information be timely submitted. EPA included in the record the
draft information that New York was in the process of finalizing and
submitting as part of its SIP revision. EPA evaluated this draft
information as part of the Agency's proposed action on New York's
Regional Haze SIP. EPA's May 9, 2012 notice indicated that EPA's final
action will be based on the proposed rulemaking, the additional
information identified in the notice of data availability, and an
assessment of any public comments that may be received. On July 2,
2012, New York submitted the remaining adopted permits implementing
BART which were not included in the April 16, 2012 submission.
A. SIP Revisions for BART Determinations
New York's April 16, 2012 SIP revisions requested that EPA take
action on proposed SIP revisions from New York in parallel with the
state's processing of the following draft Title V permits that the
state intended to submit as SIP revisions to meet the BART requirement:
Bowline Generating Station, Danskammer Generating Station, Kodak
Operations at Eastman Business Park, Oswego Harbor Power, Owens-Corning
Insulating Systems, and Syracuse Energy Corporation.
New York's April 16, 2012 SIP revisions also requested processing
of the following adopted Title V permits implementing BART for the
following facilities: ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant), Arthur
Kill Generating Station, Con Edison 59th Street Station, EF Barrett
Power Station, Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant, International Paper
Ticonderoga Mill, Lafarge Building Materials, Lehigh Northeast Cement,
Northport Power Station, Ravenswood Generating Station, Ravenswood
Steam Plant, Roseton Generating Station \1\, and Samuel A Carlson
Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the submission of the permit, EPA is
promulgating a FIP for SO2 BART for Roseton as explained
in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, New York submitted a letter dated July 2, 2012 containing
SIP revisions for the remaining adopted Title V permits implementing
BART for five of the following facilities previously discussed in New
York's April 16, 2012 letter: Bowline Generating Station, Kodak
Operations at Eastman Business Park, Oswego Harbor Power, Owens-Corning
Insulating Systems, and Syracuse Energy Corporation. As further
discussed in the Response to Comments below, New York also submitted an
updated permit for Lehigh Northeast Cement.
New York did not make any substantive changes to the source
specific Title V permits to incorporate BART other than those discussed
in EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal and May 9, 2012 notice or as discussed
in the Response to Comments below. Since the SIP revisions match the
terms of our proposed FIP, and the SIP revisions have been adopted by
New York and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP,
EPA is approving the following facility BART determinations and
emissions limits: ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant), Arthur Kill
Generating Station, Bowline Generating Station, Con Edison 59th Street
Station, EF Barrett Power Station, Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant,
International Paper Ticonderoga Mill, Kodak Operations at Eastman
Business Park, Lafarge Building Materials, Lehigh Northeast Cement,
Northport Power Station, Oswego Harbor Power, Owens-Corning Insulating
Systems, Ravenswood Generating Station, Ravenswood Steam Plant, Roseton
Generating Station (NOX and PM limits only as contained in
the adopted Title V permit), Samuel A Carlson Generating Station, and
Syracuse Energy Corporation.
B. SIP Revision for 6 NYCRR, Part 249, ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART)''
New York promulgated Part 249 to require BART eligible facilities
to
[[Page 51917]]
perform an analysis of potential controls for each visibility-impairing
pollutant. EPA evaluated New York's general BART rule submittal for
consistency with the CAA and EPA's regulations, including public notice
and hearing requirements, and determined that the rule met these
requirements. EPA is approving New York's Part 249 as part of the SIP.
C. SIP Revision for New York's Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
New York's April 16, 2012 SIP revisions request that EPA include in
New York's Regional Haze SIP the New York State legislation regulating
the sulfur content of fuel oil, Bill Number S1145C, which amends the
New York Environmental Conservation Law to include a new section 19-
0325, effective July 15, 2010. EPA's May 9, 2012 notice discussed New
York's SIP revision request and EPA's proposed approval of this
request.
Major SO2 emission reductions are obtained as a result
of the legislation being implemented. These reductions are occurring in
2012, well before the 2016 ``ask'' by MANE-VU \2\. EPA proposed to
determine that New York's low sulfur fuel oil strategy in combination
with the other planned reductions will provide the necessary reductions
from New York for other Class I areas to meet their respective
Reasonable Progress Goals. Please refer to the April 25, 2012 proposal
for additional information regarding New York's Low Sulfur Fuel Oil
Strategy. In addition, existing provisions of 6 NYCRR, Subpart 225-1,
``Fuel Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations,'' are incorporated in
the current federally approved New York SIP, and Subpart 225-1 contains
provisions regarding enforcement and compliance, emissions and fuel
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, sampling and analysis. EPA is
approving New York's request to incorporate section 19-0325 of New
York's Environmental Conservation Law as part of the SIP. As we noted
in our proposal, New York's section 19-0325, sulfur in fuel rule, does
not completely fulfill the sulfur in fuel requirements MANE-VU modeled
to show progress toward reducing haze. EPA is approving New York's
submittal of its sulfur in fuel law as it helps meet its progress
requirements. We describe later how New York meets its share toward
making the regional haze progress goal without the full program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MANE-VU is the Mid-Atlantic/North East Visibility Union, a
regional planning organization, comprising Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, the
Penobscot Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is contained in EPA's federal implementation plan for New
York's regional haze program?
As discussed in EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal, in the event New
York did not submit a SIP revision with final permit modifications for
all BART sources, which match the terms of our proposed FIP, EPA
proposed to publish a final rulemaking with a FIP for those BART
sources. While New York's revised SIP covered most of the units
addressed in EPA's proposal, it did not include final BART permit
modifications consistent with our proposed FIP for certain of the units
at Dynegy's Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations. Therefore EPA
is disapproving those portions of the SIP and promulgating a FIP
addressing the SO2 BART requirements and setting emissions
limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station, and
addressing the SO2, NOX and PM BART requirements
and setting emissions limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy's Danskammer
Generating Station. New York did submit a SIP revision with final BART
permit modifications consistent with EPA's proposed FIP with respect to
NOX and PM for Units 1 and 2 at Dynegy's Roseton Generating
Station. EPA therefore is not adopting a FIP for the NOX and
PM BART determinations for Roseton Units 1 and 2.
The final FIP includes the following elements:
NOX BART determination and an emission limit
for Danskammer Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.12 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu), to be met on a 24-hour average during
the ozone season (May through September) \3\ and a 30-day rolling
average the rest of the year, and a requirement that the owners/
operators comply with this NOX BART limit by July 1, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Note the averaging times for the FIP are modeled on New
York's applicable SIP in order to coordinate the FIP with other
existing New York limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 BART determination and an emission limit
for Danskammer Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.09 lb/MMBtu, to be met on
a 24-hour average, and a requirement that the owners/operators comply
with this SO2 BART limit by July 1, 2014.
PM BART determination and an emission limit for
Danskammer Generating Station Unit 4 of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, to be met on a
one-hour average, and a requirement that the owners/operators comply
with this PM BART limit by July 1, 2014.
SO2 BART determination and an emission limit
for Roseton Generating Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 0.55 lb/MMBtu, to
be met on a 24-hour average, and a requirement that the owners/
operators comply with this SO2 BART limit by January 1,
2014.
Monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements for
the above three units to ensure compliance with these emission
limitations.
EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal contained proposed regulatory
language for Sec. 52.1686 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) for the purpose of adding new provisions containing
EPA's FIP for Regional Haze. EPA notes that since New York submitted
SIP revisions to address most of EPA's proposed FIP, EPA is finalizing
only the regulatory language in section 51.1686 that covers EPA's FIP
for the Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations.
We encourage New York at any time to submit a SIP revision to
incorporate provisions that match the terms of our FIP, or relevant
portion thereof. If EPA were to approve such a SIP revision, after
public notice and comment, the SIP approved provisions could replace
the FIP provisions.
IV. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal and what were EPA's
responses?
EPA received several comments from the following parties in
response to our April 25, 2012 proposal and May 9, 2012 notice of data
availability: ALCOA Massena Operations (ALCOA), Dynegy Northeast
Generation, Inc. (Dynegy), Earthjustice on behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association and Sierra Club (Earthjustice), GenOn Bowline,
LLC (Bowline), Lehigh Northeast Cement Group (Lehigh), New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (New York), and the United
States Forest Service (US Forest Service). A summary of the comments
and EPA's responses are provided below.
BART Comments--BART Permit Modifications
Comment: New York commented that EPA should update the number of
BART permits that have been issued in final form by New York.
Response: We agree and we have taken the permits into account. In
section II. of this action--``What Additional SIP revisions did New
York Submit Consistent with EPA's Proposal?'' EPA discusses those final
BART permits issued by New York.
[[Page 51918]]
Comment: New York commented it will not be finalizing revisions to
permits for the Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations to address
EPA's proposed emission limits prior to EPA's deadline for a final FIP.
Response: EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal contained BART emission
limits for Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations which differed
from the BART limits identified by New York for Roseton and proposed
for Danskammer. In section III. of this action--``What is Contained in
EPA's Federal Implementation Plan for New York's Regional Haze
Program?'' EPA discusses the final FIP for the Roseton and Danskammer
Generating Stations.
Comment: New York provided several comments regarding EPA's
proposed regulatory language for section 52.1686 of title 40 of the CFR
and how the monitoring requirements and other provisions should be
revised to better reflect the monitoring requirements that are
characteristic for the different types of emissions sources. These
include electric generating units, large industrial boilers and other
types of source categories.
Response: As noted above, since New York submitted SIP revisions to
address EPA's proposed FIP, EPA is finalizing the regulatory language
in section 51.1686 accordingly. Therefore, the regulatory language in
section 51.1686 contains provisions to only cover EPA's FIP for the
Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations. These changes to section
51.1686 address New York's comments.
Comment: ALCOA commented that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements which EPA proposed in section 52.1686 for the
proposed FIP were inappropriate for a primary aluminum production
facility. ALCOA stated EPA should either approve the New York BART SIP
requirements for the facility, or adopt the monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in New York's BART permit verbatim into the
final FIP.
Response: Following our proposed rule, New York adopted the final
Title V permit for the ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant) facility
implementing BART. New York's permit included the appropriate
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the state
formally submitted the BART permit as a SIP revision to EPA. EPA is
approving the New York BART SIP requirements for the ALCOA Massena
Operations (West Plant) facility.
Comment: Dynegy objected to any permit condition which would
require the Danskammer or Roseton Units to burn a particular fuel or
switch fuel forms.
Response: EPA agrees and is not adopting any such conditions. As
indicated in the April 25, 2012 proposal, EPA has determined that these
emission limits can be reasonably met with any of the fuels and/or
combination of fuels evaluated for this BART determination and
available to the plant.
Comment: Bowline commented that as a result of a clerical error
unrelated to EPA's rulemaking, the draft Title V permit referred to by
EPA in the April 25, 2012 proposal for New York's Regional Haze SIP was
not the same version of the draft Title V permit that New York provided
to Bowline and did not accurately reflect the BART requirements
proposed to be imposed on the Bowline Units. More specifically, Bowline
presented the correct NOX BART emission limits and permit
conditions in the comment letter to EPA. Bowline requested EPA to
revise the SIP approval or, if necessary, the FIP, to reflect the
correct Title V permit requirements for the Bowline Units which were
arrived at in New York's BART Determination.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the draft Title V permit for
Bowline included with the April 25, 2012 proposal was not the correct
version of the draft Title V permit developed by New York for Bowline.
After further inspection of the files contained in the Docket, and the
additional information presented to EPA by Bowline and New York, EPA
confirmed that the other documents used as the basis for EPA's April
25, 2012 proposal, with the exception of the draft Title V permit, were
correct and acceptable for the purpose of proposing a BART
determination. The clerical error made at the state-level of the BART
permit modification, did not change the underlying technical BART
determination analysis, and New York's February 15, 2012 Environmental
News Bulletin contained the correct BART determination and permit
conditions that were noticed for public review by the state. Upon
further review, EPA agrees with Bowline and New York that our April 25,
2012 proposal presented NOX BART emission limits that were
different from the limits and permit conditions which were available
for public review at the state-level, and which New York ultimately
adopted for the Bowline Units.
EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal indicated NOX emissions
from Bowline Units 1 and 2 would be limited to 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 24-
hour average during the ozone season and a 30-day rolling average
during the non-ozone season, with compliance by January 1, 2014.
Bowline and New York provided further documentation to EPA that the
correct BART determination and permit conditions that were noticed for
public review by the state in the February 15, 2012 Environmental News
Bulletin, were as follows:
By July 1, 2014, NOX emission from Units 1 and
2 are limited to 0.15 lb/MMBtu when burning natural gas, measured on a
24-hour average during the ozone season and a 30-day rolling average
during the non-ozone season.
By July 1, 2014, NOX emission from Units 1 and
2 are limited to 0.25 lb/MMBtu when burning oil, measured on a 24-hour
average during the ozone season and a 30-day rolling average during the
non-ozone season
By July 1, 2014, oil-firing is limited to 3.1 million
barrels during the ozone season and 4.6 million barrels during the non-
ozone season.
The limit for oil and gas dual fuel firing periods will be
heat input weighted between 0.15 lb/MMBtu and 0.25 lb/MMBtu.
The correct NOX BART determination requires an emission
limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu when burning natural gas and 0.25 lb/MMBtu when
burning oil. These are the limits that reflect Bowline's implementation
of BART. In response to the clerical error, EPA has determined that
these emission limits are acceptable for BART, and are based on New
York's BART determination for Bowline and merely are reflective of the
limits that Bowline can achieve when implementing BART for different
types of fuels. EPA notes these limits are also similar to other
NOX BART emission limits EPA is approving in this action for
other similar peaking units that are used only a small period of time
each year. These limits are based on a detailed technical analysis
which considers circumstances specific to Bowline, consistent with
EPA's BART Guidelines.
With respect to the BART compliance date, EPA's April 25, 2012
proposal indicated a compliance date of January 1, 2014, consistent
with the compliance date contained in New York's BART regulation Part
249. New York issued final BART permit modifications for the Bowline
Units requiring compliance by July 1, 2014. While the July 1, 2014
compliance date is six months later than the January 1, 2014 compliance
date in New York's Part 249, EPA has determined that the July 1, 2014
compliance date is still consistent with EPA's BART Guidance for
compliance as expeditiously as possible but no later
[[Page 51919]]
than five years from EPA's approval of the state's Regional Haze SIP.
EPA notes that the previous versions of the BART Permit
modifications indicated these emission limits do not apply during
start-up and shut-down periods. However, EPA informed New York that the
BART emission limits must apply at all times. Therefore, the final BART
determinations and final BART Title V permit modification submitted to
EPA as part of the July 2, 2012 SIP revisions do not contain any
exclusions for start-up and shut-down periods. Lastly, EPA did not
receive any other comments related to Bowline's BART determinations or
permit limits, except from Bowline itself. In response to Bowline's
comments and additional supporting analyses and documentation provided
by Bowline and New York, EPA is therefore approving Bowline's BART
determinations and BART emission limit permit conditions presented
above.
Comment: New York and Lehigh both commented that the Title V permit
referred to by EPA in the April 25, 2012 proposal for New York's
Regional Haze SIP was being modified. New York and Lehigh requested
that the requirement to install a baghouse on the rotary kiln be
removed from the permit since the requirement to install a baghouse was
not intended to meet BART, but to meet the federal Portland Cement
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) which EPA is currently
reevaluating to determine the deadlines for compliance. Lehigh and New
York also requested the permit include a new SO2 limit of
1.50 lb/MMBtu to supplement the fuel sulfur limits EPA proposed as
BART.
Response: EPA has determined that the amendments to Lehigh's Title
V permit are acceptable. The permit amendments do not change the PM
BART emission limit of 0.30 lb/ton feed proposed by EPA in the April
25, 2012 proposal for the rotary kiln. The permit amendments also
provide a new SO2 BART emission limit of 1.50 lb/MMBtu that
will supplement the existing limits. Compliance with the new
SO2 limit will be determined by annual stack tests. These
revisions to the permit are consistent with the underlying technical
BART determination analysis. New York issued a new public notice of the
permit revisions for public review, and then adopted the permit
modifications.
EPA did not receive any other comments related to Lehigh's BART
determinations or permit limits, except from Lehigh and New York. In
response to these comments on EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal, and
additional supporting analyses and documentation provided by Lehigh and
New York, EPA is therefore approving Lehigh's BART determinations and
BART emission limit permit conditions presented above since the revised
Title V permit is consistent with the terms of our proposed FIP, has
been adopted by New York, and submitted formally to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP.
BART Comments--Emission Limits
Comment: U.S. Forest Service supported EPA's proposals to require a
0.55 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit for Roseton Units 1 and 2,
0.09 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit for Danskammer Unit 4, and
0.20 lb/MMBtu NOX emission limit for Kodak Boiler 42 if the
Boiler is repowered with natural gas.
Response: EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed BART
emission limits. EPA is adopting these limits.
Comment: Dynegy pointed out that the operators of the Danskammer
and Roseton Generating Stations are currently the subject of Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings, and therefore not in a position to select any
of the SO2 BART FIP emission limits proposed by EPA.
Response: EPA has an obligation to either approve New York's
Regional Haze SIP or promulgate a FIP that establishes BART for the
Danskammer and Roseton Generating Stations, regardless of other legal
proceedings that may involve the Danskammer and Roseton Generating
Stations. EPA is adopting SO2 BART FIP emission limits for
the Danskammer and Roseton Generating Stations.
BART Comments--Specific to Dynegy BART Determinations
Comment: Earthjustice urged EPA to finalize the proposed
disapproval of the SO2 BART determination for Danskammer
Unit 4 and endorsed EPA's reasons for proposing to disapprove New
York's BART analysis.
Response: EPA is finalizing our proposed disapproval of the
SO2 BART determination for Danskammer and is adopting
SO2 BART FIP emission limits for the facility.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that New York improperly allowed
Dynegy to conduct the BART analysis and select its emission limitation.
Response: It is common practice for the facility to do the
technical analysis in order to determine BART for eligible sources,
submit that information to the state and then for the state to review
and adopt or modify the BART determination. In fact, with respect to
the Regional Haze program, New York adopted the regulation 6 NYCRR,
Part 249, ``Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'' to require BART
eligible facilities to perform an analysis of potential controls for
each visibility-impairing pollutant. Congress crafted the Clean Air Act
to provide for states to take the lead in developing implementation
plans but balanced that decision by requiring EPA to review the plans
to determine whether a SIP meets the requirements of the Act. In
undertaking such a review, EPA does not usurp a state's authority but
ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised. BART
determinations are the responsibility of the states, which have the
freedom to determine the weight and significance of the statutorily
required five-factors in a BART determination. EPA then reviews a
state's determination as included in its regional haze plan. With
respect to New York's Regional Haze plan, EPA determined that New York
addressed the five factors for the BART determinations sufficiently to
allow EPA to conclude that the state's BART determinations were
reasonable, for all BART-eligible facilities except for Roseton and
Danskammer facilities. In the case of the Roseton and Danskammer
facilities, where EPA's review of New York's determination resulted in
a different conclusion, EPA developed a FIP.
Comment: Earthjustice commented New York's failure to select a
specific technology as BART for either its NOX or
SO2 determination for Danskammer results in an arbitrary
emission limit that cannot be considered BART. Earthjustice argued that
New York and EPA do not have the statutory authority under Section
169A(b)(2) of the Act to set an emission limitation for NOX
and SO2 without first designating a particular control
technology as BART.
Response: EPA's BART Guidelines make clear that processes and
practices, or a combination thereof, may be designated as BART. See 40
CFR part 51 App. Y, section IV.D. The applicable regional haze
regulations and EPA's BART Guidelines define BART as ``an emission
limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction.'' \4\
The application of practices and processes to the operation of a
facility can be considered the ``best system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 40 CFR 51.301 (defining ``BART''); 40 CFR part 51 App.
Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York's proposed BART determination for the Danskammer facility
listed a combination of policies and practices as a control option for
both SO2 and NOX. To accomplish a side-by-side
comparison with other
[[Page 51920]]
control options, it calculated an emission limitation that could be
achieved by employing those processes and practices. All control
options were reviewed using the procedure set forth in EPA's BART
Guidelines, and New York reached a determination that the combination
of processes and practices was BART. It was not necessary for New York
to set its emission limitations with reference to a specific
technology. The chosen emission limitations for both NOX and
SO2 were set with reference to the application of a
combination of practices and processes. This was done in accordance
with the top-down BART determination analysis contained in EPA's BART
Guidelines.\5\ Although EPA objected to the emission limitation set for
SO2, it did not object to New York's proposed determination
that a combination of practices and processes was BART for the
Danskammer facility. Earthjustice's comments do not accurately reflect
the BART analysis conducted by New York or by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 CFR part 51 App. Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Earthjustice said EPA must impose a more stringent
SO2 BART FIP emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu instead of
EPA's proposed 0.09 lb/MMBtu because EPA failed to consider all
available control technologies, including a wet scrubber or circulating
dry scrubber. Earthjustice also commented that the proposed emission
limit is not associated with any specific control technology.
Response: EPA disagrees that the BART analysis failed to consider
all available control technologies and EPA disagrees that the limit is
not associated with a control technology. In Dynegy's submission to New
York, it determined that BART was lowering Unit 4's current
SO2 permit limit from 1.10 lbs/MMBtu to 0.50 lbs/MMBtu. This
limit was based on the facility putting in place a combination of
processes/practices, including: (1) Use of alternative coal, (2) co-
firing with natural gas, and (3) installation of post combustion
controls. Dynegy identified this particular limit as a control option
based on an engineering study that identified and evaluated the
available SO2 control options. This was done in accordance
with Step One of the BART Guidelines, which requires the state to
identify all possible control options that could be used as BART. 40
CFR part 51 App. Y. Dynegy's consultants used a fuel cost table and
calculations contained in an attached excel worksheet titled ``Fuel
Costs'' to determine the emission limitation that could be achieved by
applying the above practices/processes as BART. Those calculations make
clear that the estimated emission limitation for SO2 was set
using factors based on the use of alternative fuels, co-firing with
natural gas, and installing post combustion controls.
The engineering study identified other control options, including
Flue Gas Desulfurization (``FGD'') options with Lime Based Spray Dryer;
Circulating Dry Scrubber and Wet Limestone; options for Dry Sorbent
Injection of minerals such as Trona; combustion of alternative coals;
100% combustion of natural gas; and co-firing natural gas. In
accordance with Step Two of the BART Guidelines, the facility evaluated
the technical feasibility of each control option, concluding that all
options were technically feasible for the Danskammer facility. It then
evaluated each control option's cost effectiveness, conducted impact
analyses on cost of compliance, energy impacts, and nonair quality
environmental impacts, and modeled selected control option's visibility
impact using the CALPUFF modeling program; all in accordance with Steps
Two through Four of the BART Guidelines. 40 CFR part 51 App. Y.
As required by New York's BART regulation, Part 249, the facility
conducted a side-by-side comparison and the facility showed that the
use of an emission limitation based on the application of the above
practices/processes was BART for the Danskammer facility.\6\ Dynegy's
analysis showed that an emission limit of 0.50 lbs/MMBtu, accomplished
through the use of a combination of processes/practices, would achieve
a greater impact on regional visibility than the remaining control
options. Dynegy then selected the 0.50 lbs/MMBtu as the facility's
SO2 emission limitation. New York reviewed Dynegy's analysis
and determined that BART was lowering the SO2 emission limit
from 1.1 lb/MMBtu to 0.50 lb/MMBtu by implementing the combination of
processes/practices discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Regulations.gov for EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296, file marked
``final permits,'' attachment identified as ``2012-12-02 Dynegy
Final BART Analysis--Redacted Copy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, EPA's own analysis of the combination of processes/
practices identified by Dynegy and the proposed determination by New
York as BART showed that a lower emission limitation than that
contained in the state's plan is achievable with this technology. EPA
conducted its own evaluation and set a lower estimated emission
limitation, 0.09 lb/MMBtu, as a control option. It concluded that
``these same control option strategies can achieve a more stringent
SO2 emission limit than the 0.5 lb/MMBtu limit, on a more
cost-effective basis, and therefore result in more visibility
improvement.'' 77 FR 24792, 24813. The 0.09 lb/MMBtu limit was
calculated using the fuel costs contained in Dynegy's own fuel costs
worksheets. EPA then used Dynegy's own side-by-side comparisons to
demonstrate that its proposed 0.09 lb/MMBtu limit was BART for the
Danskammer facility.
Since EPA's proposed BART emission limitation was set with
reference to processes/practices evaluated using the BART Guidelines,
and since processes/practices can be considered as the ``best system of
emission reduction'' pursuant to those same guidelines, EPA's proposed
emission limitation is not arbitrary. 40 CFR part 51 App. Y. Therefore
EPA is finalizing the SO2 BART FIP emission limit of 0.09
lb/MMBtu for Danskammer.
Comment: Earthjustice commented there is no way to justify EPA's
proposed option to approve New York's 0.50 lb/MMBtu SO2
limit for Danskammer given the ready availability of cost-effective
controls.
Response: EPA's proposed option that allowed New York to submit
additional information to support its higher estimated emission
limitation was not improper. New York conducted its BART analysis in
accordance with BART Guidelines, but failed to properly support its
emission limitation for SO2 based on the analysis of
Dynegy's own fuel cost worksheet. At the time of EPA's April 25, 2012
proposal, New York had not yet issued a final BART permit, so there
remained the possibility that additional information could be provided
to further support New York's proposed BART determination. If New York
had demonstrated that its 0.50 lb/MMBtu limit was accurate by
submitting additional material to EPA, it may have been appropriate for
EPA to approve New York's proposed BART determination. Regardless,
neither New York nor Dynegy submitted additional information specific
to the 0.50 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit. Consequently, EPA is
finalizing the SO2 BART FIP emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu
for Danskammer.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that other nonair quality
environmental impacts and additional power requirements are an improper
basis for rejecting wet scrubber or circulating dry scrubber control or
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as BART.
Response: Although Dynegy appears to reject certain pollution
controls on the basis of nonair quality
[[Page 51921]]
environmental impacts and additional energy requirements, EPA went back
and reanalyzed Dynegy's analysis. Dynegy did a full five factor
analysis and considered the cost effectiveness of controls and the
visibility improvement of possible controls. EPA concluded that the
controls resulting from Dynegy's analysis were not BART, and adopted
much more stringent SO2 emissions limits and determined the
NOX emissions limits based on visibility. In EPA's
determination of BART, we did not disqualify any SO2 or
NOX control strategies because of any energy or nonair
quality environmental impacts.
Comment: Earthjustice provided extensive comments to support its
position that EPA must disapprove New York's NOX BART
determination for Dynegy's Danskammer Unit 4. Earthjustice contends
that New York's and EPA's proposed NOX emission limit of
0.12 lb/MMBtu is unattached to any selected BART technology and
therefore must be rejected. Earthjustice comments that BART for this
facility should be the installation of SCR with a NOX
emission limit not higher than 0.05 lb/MMBtu (on a 30-day rolling
average). Earthjustice states SCR is cost-effective, feasible, and will
result in significant visibility benefits.
Response: EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's conclusion that the
proposed NOX emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu and associated
controls cannot be considered BART. First, Dynegy and New York
evaluated nineteen different controls for BART (including SCR) at
Danskammer and, after conducting the 5-factor analysis as required by
section 169A(g)(2) of the Act, New York's proposed determination that
BART consists of optimization of existing Level II Low NOX
Burners emission controls, co-firing with natural gas, installation of
post-combustion controls, use of alternative coals, or any combination
thereof to achieve a NOX emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
Dynegy's proposal committed to meeting a specific emission limit with a
combination of specific controls and therefore Earthjustice's
contention that this selection of BART technology is arbitrary is
without merit. BART is an emission limit (See 40 CFR 51.301) and
Dynegy's BART analysis commits to lowering the NOX emission
limit from 0.42 lb/MMBtu to 0.12 lb/MMBtu (24-hour average during the
ozone season, 30-day average during the non-ozone season) based upon
the use of a combination of specific possible controls.
Secondly, Earthjustice comments and provides detailed technical
reasons as to why SCR should be considered BART for this facility with
a NOX emission limit not higher than 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-
day rolling average. EPA agrees with Earthjustice that SCR technology
is cost effective for the Danskammer facility and it has been
demonstrated at numerous coal fired utilities that achieved an emission
limit of this magnitude. However, as explained in the following
paragraphs, EPA has concluded that the implementation of Earthjustice's
recommendation of SCR technology with an emission limit of 0.05 lb/
MMBtu provides only minimal visibility improvement (8th high cumulative
at the seven Class I areas) when compared to EPA's proposed FIP that
BART is an emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu when implementing the
combination of controls described above.
Dynegy evaluated SCR plus flue gas recirculation (FGR) using a
control efficiency of 91.0% that is equivalent to a NOX
emission limit of 0.038 lb/MMBtu (note that in EPA's April 25, 2012
proposal, there was a calculation error for this control option and the
correct emission limit for NOX associated with SCR + FGR is
0.038 lb/MMBtu, not 0.38 lb/MMBtu). As required by section 169A(g)(2)
of the Act, one of the five factors to be evaluated for BART is the
visibility impact of the emissions from a particular control technology
being considered for BART. Dynegy evaluated the visibility benefits at
the seven Class I areas impacted by the facility and as noted in Table
6 of EPA's April 25, 2012 proposed rule for New York (77 FR at 24814),
the total visibility improvement across the seven Class I areas from
SCR + FGR is only better by 0.08 deciviews as compared to Dynegy's
proposed combination of controls associated with a BART emission limit
of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.\7\ As pointed out by Earthjustice, the maximum
cumulative visibility improvement is significantly better by 0.534 dv
(2.477 dv versus 1.943 dv) for SCR + FGR compared to Dynegy's proposed
BART emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu. However, EPA's Guidelines
document calls for the use of the 98th percentile (essentially the 8th
highest day) rather than the maximum modeled daily impact. These
Guidelines further state that while ``the use of the 98th percentile of
modeled visibility values would appear to exclude roughly 7 days per
year from consideration, in our judgment, this approach will
effectively capture the sources that contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area, while minimizing the likelihood that the
highest modeled visibility impacts might be caused by unusual
meteorology or conservative assumptions in the model.'' See 70 FR
39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005). Accordingly, EPA used the 98th percentile
(8th high) visibility to compare the visibility impacts of different
control technologies for the Danskammer facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Difference between 0.651 deciviews and 0.569 deciviews is
0.08 deciviews, 8th high.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Dynegy's visibility analysis included a summary of the
number of days that exceed 1.0 dv, 0.5 dv and 0.1 dv for each
NOX control strategy at each of the seven impacted Class I
areas. This visibility analysis shows only a small improvement in days
exceeding the three respective dv thresholds for the SCR + FGR case
compared to Dynegy's proposed combination of BART controls with an
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu. The cumulative number of days
exceeding each of the dv thresholds for the SCR + FGR (with
NOX emissions of 0.038 lb/mm BTU) and Dynegy's proposed
combination of controls (with NOX emissions of 0.12 lb/
MMBtu) is summarized in the following table:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference in the number of days when the visibility impact exceeds 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 deciviews for
each Class I area for two different control strategies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 deciview 0.5 deciview 0.1 deciview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area Difference Difference Difference
in days in days in days
SCR + 0.12 lb/ between SCR + 0.12 lb/ between SCR + 0.12 lb/ between
FGR MMBtu NOX control FGR MMBtu NOX control FGR MMBtu NOX control
strategies strategies strategies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lye Brook, VT.................................. 6 6 0 15 16 1 59 62 3
[[Page 51922]]
Brigantine, NJ................................. 1 1 0 7 7 0 56 59 3
Acadia Nat'l Park, ME.......................... 0 0 0 3 4 1 50 52 2
Presidential Range, NH......................... 0 1 1 4 4 0 38 43 5
Great Gulf, NH................................. 0 0 0 4 4 0 31 37 6
Otter Creek, WV................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0
Dolly Sods, WV................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total days..................................... 7 8 1 33 35 2 252 272 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the two visibility analyses described above, EPA
concludes that Earthjustice's recommended BART technology, i.e., SCR,
with an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, would not be expected to
provide any significant improvement in visibility at the seven Class I
areas over Dynegy's proposed BART implementation of a combination of
specific possible controls with an emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu.
Therefore, EPA concludes that NOX BART for Danskammer Unit 4
is unchanged from our April 25, 2012 proposal, i.e., an emission limit
of 0.12 lb/MMBtu by the optimization of existing Level II Low
NOX Burners emission controls, co-firing with natural gas,
installation of post-combustion controls, use of alternative coals, or
any combination thereof.
Comment: Earthjustice took issue with EPA's inclusion in the Docket
of the redacted version of Dynegy's BART analysis and suggested that
EPA relies on, but fails to review or provide critical costs and energy
impacts and failed to obtain or withheld critical projected capacity
factor information.
Response: In establishing the Agency's determination of BART for
Danskammer Unit 4, EPA relied on the same information from Dynegy's
BART analysis that was available to the public. EPA disagrees that we
failed to review, provide, or obtain information relevant to our review
of the Dynegy BART analysis. EPA's review and analysis focused on
Danskammer's potential to emit and did not involve the need for
information regarding Dynegy's future, projected utilization rates for
the Danskammer facility. EPA determined this information was not
relevant to this rulemaking.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA failed to establish a
historical emissions baseline and that EPA should have corrected
Dynegy's use of a ten year useful life of pollution control.
Response: EPA agrees that Dynegy did not establish a historical
emissions baseline or use a reasonable lifetime for pollution control
equipment, but the Agency does not agree that these errors affected
EPA's analysis and determination as to appropriate BART limits for the
Dynegy facilities. EPA used Dynegy's potential to emit rather than its
historical emissions, which resulted in a more conservative approach
that increased the estimated cost-effectiveness of controls. As for
Earthjustice's comment regarding the ten year useful life of control
equipment, Dynegy used a 10-year useful life for the Danskammer
emission unit itself. While we agree that a 10-year remaining useful
life is not an appropriate assumption unless there is an enforceable
commitment to shut down, our review of this alleged discrepancy between
a 10-year or a 30-year useful life of the facility did not change our
conclusions, since the controls are cost effective either way. EPA did
not discuss the remaining useful life in the April 25, 2012 proposal
because the controls are cost-effective.
Comment: Dynegy supported EPA's proposed compliance date of July 1,
2014 for the Danskammer Unit 4 BART emission limits, EPA's proposed
NOX and PM BART determinations for the Danskammer and
Roseton Units and the form (lbs/MMBtu) of the proposed emission limits
for the Danskammer and Roseton units.
Response: EPA acknowledges the support for the proposed compliance
date, the proposed BART determinations and the proposed form of the
BART emission limits. In this action, EPA is finalizing these limits.
Comment: New York indicated revisions are being developed to New
York's fuel sulfur limitations under Part 225-1 which will likely
supersede EPA's SO2 BART limit for the Roseton Generating
Station, soon after EPA's January 1, 2014 compliance date.
Response: EPA fully supports New York's development and adoption of
these regulations.
Comment: New York disagreed with EPA's determination in the April
25, 2012 proposal that Dynegy incorrectly analyzed visibility impacts
at only the maximally-impacted federal Class I area, rather than at all
impacted Class I areas. Earthjustice agreed with EPA's determination to
consider the cumulative visibility impacts at all impacted Class I
areas.
Response: In reviewing New York's BART determinations for Dynegy's
Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations, EPA took into account the
visibility benefits of requiring controls by considering the
improvements at both the most impacted Class I area as well as the
improvements at all impacted Class I areas and Dynegy's own conclusions
regarding the impacts on visibility from the controls under
consideration. With regard to New York's comment that consideration of
the BART Guidelines do not require the consideration of visibility
benefits at all Class I areas, the state cited to text indicating that
consideration of visibility impacts at all impacted Class I areas
``might be unwarranted.'' This language in the BART Guidelines is
clearly meant to provide a common sense approach to streamlining a
complex and difficult modeling exercise where ``an analysis may add a
significant resource burden to a State.'' See 70 FR 39126. While the
BART Guidelines indicate that a detailed analysis of the visibility
impacts at each area in a cluster of Class I areas may not be
necessary, this is not because the visibility impacts at Class I areas
other than the most impacted are irrelevant but rather because the
visibility benefits at the most impacted Class I area alone may be
sufficient to justify the selection
[[Page 51923]]
of the most stringent control technology as BART. Where, as here, the
benefits of controls have been modeled for a number of surrounding
areas and consideration of these benefits is useful in determining the
appropriate level of controls, EPA does not agree that these benefits
should be ignored.
EPA concludes that it appropriately took into account the
visibility impacts across all seven of the impacted Class I areas in
deciding to adopt more stringent BART limits. There are many large
sources of pollutants that reduce visibility and impact several Class I
areas in the northeastern United States. EPA has included, in our
review of the multi-factor analysis, the impact these major sources
have on more than one Class I area. The smaller impacts from these
major sources combine with impacts from other major sources in the
northeast to have important impacts on visibility in these protected
areas. While EPA is primarily concerned with impacts at the Class I
area nearest each major source, EPA encourages cost-effective control
strategies that improve visibility across many Class I areas.
Reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants from a major facility,
with reduced impacts from similarly large sources in other areas and
other states, will go a long way toward improving visibility in these
areas.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA offers no explanation for
ruling out a hybrid SCR/SNCR control option and a FGR+SCR control
option as BART even though the maximum cumulative visibility
improvement across seven affected Class I areas is shown to be 2.244 dv
and 2.477 dv, respectively. Earthjustice questions how EPA arrived at
this decision for NOX when it arrived at a different
decision for SO2.
Response: The visibility improvement cited to by Earthjustice is
based on the maximum anticipated visibility improvements at the seven
Class I areas impacted by the Danskammer facility. EPA did not base its
decision to approve New York's BART determinations on these maximum
cumulative visibility improvement values; rather EPA focused on the 8th
high (98th percentile) visibility impacts predicted by the visibility
modeling in evaluating a particular control option. In this case, the
visibility benefits based on consideration of the 8th high visibility
impacts for the hybrid SCR/SNCR and FGR+SCR options are far less than
2.0 deciviews. The visibility impacts measured cumulatively across the
seven impacted Class I areas based on the 8th high number are 0.689 dv
for SCR/SNCR and 0.651 dv for FGR+SCR. EPA concluded that these control
options provide minimal visibility improvement when compared to the
BART level of control of 0.12 lbs of NOX/MMBtu, with a 8th
high cumulative visibility improvement of 0.569 dv. As for
SO2, in contrast, the visibility improvement associated with
the BART limit set by EPA based on the 8th high impacts is 2.174 dv of
improvement, as measured across the seven Class I areas.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA did not establish any
significance thresholds for costs or for visibility improvement in
making BART determinations.
Response: EPA's BART guidelines in the BART Rule do not require EPA
to develop a specific threshold, but rather to evaluate each BART
determination on a case-by-case basis for each source. All five factors
must be compared to determine the level of control that is BART on a
case-by-case basis.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA failed to conduct a BART
analysis for particulate matter and that BART Guidelines (40 CFR part
51, Appendix Y, section IV.C) require BART limits to be at least as
stringent as maximum available control technology (MACT), such as EPA's
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
Response: The comments received do not convince us that our PM BART
determination for Danskammer is unreasonable. EPA reviewed Dynegy's
BART analysis and New York's proposed BART determination and we agreed
that it represents BART. The existing electrostatic precipitator
control is 99.98% effective in reducing PM emissions. We consider this
level of control to be BART for the Danskammer facility. Neither EPA
nor a state is required to set BART based on the limits in a MACT
standard. MACT standards are established by EPA for reasons that are
much different than the reasons for the limits established in Regional
Haze SIPs. Further, that section of the BART Guidelines the comment
refers to was not meant to require states to take into account MACT
requirements in determining BART, but rather to provide states with the
option to streamline the BART analysis for sources subject to the MACT
standards by relying on the MACT standards for purposes of BART. In
addition, EPA notes that compliance with the particulate matter
emission limit in the FIP is based on a one-hour averaging time period,
while the MACT is based on a 30 day rolling average. It is accordingly
difficult to compare the two limits.
In summary, EPA determined the existing electrostatic precipitator
control represents the BART level of control for PM for this particular
facility.
Comment: Earthjustice stated that BART determinations must consider
filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable PM.
Earthjustice stated that EPA should have considered more stringent PM
emission limits accepted as BART or as best available control
technology known as BACT or even the maximum achievable control
technology known as MACT. Earthjustice requested EPA to disapprove New
York's PM BART determination and adopt a FIP that establishes BART
limits for filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable
PM.
Response: EPA disagrees that the PM BART limits should be
disapproved. The existing electrostatic precipitator control on the
facility and the emission limit from the BART determination are
effective in reducing filterable particulates. Condensable particulates
will be reduced as a result of the reductions in SO2 and
NOX emissions at the facility. Separate emission limits for
each form of particulates are not required for BART. EPA also disagrees
that the FIP's BART limits should be consistent with BACT or MACT.
BART, BACT and MACT are all specific statutorily defined approaches to
establishing emissions limitations for sources under different CAA
programs.
Reasonable Progress Goals Comments
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA's conclusion that New York
will achieve its reasonable progress goals is based on an unidentified
analysis performed by MANE-VU, resulting in the public's inability to
assess the accuracy or reasonableness of MANE-VU's calculations and
EPA's statements related to MANE-VU's analysis. Earthjustice
recommended that EPA reject its conclusion that New York would achieve
its reasonable progress goals since the analysis was not available for
public review.
Response: EPA disagrees that the MANE-VU analysis was not available
for public review and EPA disagrees we should reject our conclusion
that New York would achieve its reasonable progress goals. MANE-VU's
analysis titled Documentation of 2018 Emissions from Electric
Generating Units in the Eastern United States for MANE-VU's Regional
Haze Modeling, Revised Final Draft, April 2008 \8\ was originally
[[Page 51924]]
available for public review during the New York rulemaking process for
its Regional Haze SIP revision, as well as during many of the other
MANE-VU states' rulemaking processes. As EPA included all of the
documents associated with New York's Regional Haze SIP revision in the
Docket, this MANE-VU document was also available for public review as
part of EPA's April 25, 2012 proposal and included in the Docket for
this rulemaking as Appendix W in New York's Regional Haze SIP Submittal
documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The report was finalized as Documentation of 2018 Emissions
from Electric Generating Units in the Eastern United States for
MANE-VU's Regional Haze Modeling Final Report, 16 August 2009, with
no changes that affect this analysis. It is available at https://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/ei-improvement-projects/electricy-generating-units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 of Appendix W is the final MANE-VU emission inventory which
was modeled to show that implementing the MANE-VU measures would
improve visibility at MANE-VU's Class I areas sufficiently to meet the
progress goals for 2018 for these areas. For the final emission
inventory described in Appendix W, MANE-VU increased the emissions of
SO2 from power plants to account for the effects of EPA's
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) program.\9\ Applying the CAIR program
to the New York emission inventory increases emissions by 23,142 tons
per year of SO2 from the previous MANE-VU inventory that
represented New York's application of the controls agreed to by the
MANE-VU states. Since New York is not using EPA's CAIR or subsequent
transport rules for BART emission controls on sources in New York, the
final MANE-VU emission inventory overestimates the projected emissions
for New York by 23,142 tons per year of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The MANE-VU document referenced in the previous footnote
explains in Section 5.5 on page 29: `` * * * MANE-VU planners
recognized that CAIR allows emissions trading, and that reductions
at one unit could offset increases at another unit within the CAIR
region. Because most states do not restrict trading, MANE-VU decided
that emissions should be increased to represent the implementation
of the strategy for the 167 stacks within the limits of the CAIR
program. Therefore, NESCAUM increased the emissions from states
subject to the CAIR cap and trade program. For MANE-VU, 75,809 tons
were added back, leaving total regional emissions from the MANE-VU
region greater than the original Inter-RPO IPM-based estimate but
consistent with state projections.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York's existing sulfur in fuel rule does not cover all of the
types of fuel oil included in the program agreed to by the MANE-VU
states. New York estimates that there is a difference of 17,669 tons
per year of SO2 between the program New York has in place
now and full adoption of the sulfur in fuel measure agreed to by the
MANE-VU states. The 17,669 tons per year of SO2 reductions
that New York would have if it adopted the entire MANE-VU sulfur in
fuel rule is less than the excess 23,142 tons per year of
SO2 projected in the MANE-VU final modeling inventory. These
23,142 tons will not be emitted since New York is not using CAIR for
its Regional Haze Plan. Therefore, EPA can approve this portion of New
York's Regional Haze Plan because New York's adopted emission
reductions meet New York's portion of the emission reductions needed to
reach the progress goals set for MANE-VU's Class I areas.
Comment: New York disagreed with EPA's discussion of the sulfur
reductions achieved by New York's low sulfur fuel strategy and the
timing of those reductions. New York commented that sulfur reductions
are not required to be implemented by the time EPA takes final action
on New York's Regional Haze SIP, but rather by the 2018 Reasonable
Progress Goal deadline. New York stated it is in the process of
developing regulations to expand the low sulfur fuel oil program to
achieve reductions before 2018.
Response: EPA agrees sulfur reductions are not required to be
implemented by the time EPA takes final action on New York's Regional
Haze SIP, but rather as soon as reasonable and, at the latest, by the
2018 Reasonable Progress Goal deadline. However, EPA can only act on
the measures that New York has adopted when it submitted its Regional
Haze Plan, and cannot act on measures that may be adopted or enacted
later. New York needs to adopt all of the measures to be used in its
Regional Haze SIP.
New York indicates it is in the process of developing regulations
to expand the low sulfur fuel oil program to achieve reductions before
2018. EPA fully supports New York's timely development and adoption of
these regulations.
General Comments
Comment: US Forest Service complimented EPA and New York on the
work to date on the Regional Haze program and the BART determinations
and supported EPA's BART proposals.
Response: EPA agrees New York has successfully addressed the
consultation process of the Regional Haze Program with the Federal Land
Managers.
Comment: New York commented that, at the time of its letter, the
fact that forty states do not have approved Regional Haze SIPs
highlights the difficulties for states to complete their SIPs under the
schedules set by EPA.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the deadlines established by
Congress in the CAA for the regional haze program have been
challenging, but notes that EPA has now either proposed or taken final
action on full regional haze programs for all but seven states.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that EPA must affirm New York's
decision to apply BART and not rely on the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule.
Response: EPA can affirm that New York conducted case-by-case BART
reviews and did not rely on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule based on
the fact that New York adopted 6 NYCRR Part 249, a regulation requiring
all facilities to conduct and submit a BART analysis to the state, and
because New York submitted to EPA source-specific SIP revisions for 18
facilities to implement BART.
Comment: Earthjustice commented that with respect to New York, the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will not achieve greater
progress toward national visibility goals.
Response: Since New York is not relying on CSAPR, this comment is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
V. What are EPA's conclusions?
EPA has evaluated the proposed revisions to the SIP submitted by
the State of New York that address regional haze for the first planning
period from 2008 through 2018. EPA is partially approving and partially
disapproving the revisions to the SIP, which address the Regional Haze
requirements of the Clean Air Act for the first implementation period.
This approval includes the Reasonable Progress portion of the plan, New
York's source-specific SIP revisions for implementation of BART for 17
BART-subject sources, 6 NYCRR Part 249, ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART),'' effective May 6, 2010, and section 19-0325 of the
New York Environmental Conservation Law, effective July 15, 2010, which
regulates the sulfur content of fuel oil.
EPA is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 52.1670(d) ``EPA-Approved
New York Source-Specific Provisions'' to incorporate those sources with
new emission limitations or requirements that resulted from the BART
determinations that are not part of the applicable SIP.
EPA is promulgating a partial FIP to address the deficiencies in
the plan resulting from our partial disapproval of New York's Regional
Haze SIP. Specifically, EPA's FIP contains BART determinations and
emission limits for the Roseton and Danskammer Generating Stations.
We have fully considered all significant comments on our proposal,
and, except as noted in sections II, III and IV above, have concluded
that no other changes from our proposal are warranted. Our action is
based on an evaluation of New York's SIP submittals
[[Page 51925]]
and our FIP relative to the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR
51.300-51.309 and Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP
requirements contained in section 110 of the Act, other provisions of
the Act, and our regulations applicable to this action were also
evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance with
these requirements. Our authority for action on New York's SIP
submittals is based on section 110(k) of the Act. Our authority to
promulgate our partial FIP is based on section 110(c) of the Act.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action will promulgate emission requirements for two
facilities and is therefore not a rule of general applicability. This
type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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 FIP applies to just two facilities, 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 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 action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is finalizing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing Federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX, SO2 and PM2.5
from one facility and emissions of SO2 from another facility
in New York. The net result of these two FIP actions is that EPA is
promulgating emission controls on selected units at only two sources.
The sources in question are each large electric generating plants that
are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not small entities.
The partial approval of the SIP merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
It is a rule of particular applicability that affects only two
facilities in the State of New York. 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. This rule only
applies to two facilities in the State of New York.
E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action addresses the State not
fully meeting its obligation to adopt a SIP that meets the regional
haze requirements under the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action, EPA did consult with the state government in
developing this action. A summary of the concerns raised during the
comment period and EPA's response to those concerns is provided in
section IV of this preamble.
F. Executive Order 13175
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
action EPA is taking neither imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal government. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 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 rule will limit emissions, the
rule will have a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air
pollution.
[[Page 51926]]
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(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Today's action
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use
of voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the
use of any voluntary consensus standards.
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 rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it 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. This rule limits emissions of NOX,
SO2 and PM2.5 from one facility and emissions
SO2 from another facility in New York. The partial approval
of the SIP merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S 804(3). EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because
this is a rule of particular applicability.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 29, 2012. Pursuant to Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan
[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296] CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is
subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d) as it promulgates a
FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of
this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 16, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart HH--New York
0
2. Section 52.1670 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), revising the table heading and adding a new entry
for Title 6, Part 249, in numeric order and adding new subheading
``Environmental Conservation Law'' and table entry at end of table (c);
and
0
b. In paragraph (d) by adding new entries to the end of table
0
c. In paragraph (e) by adding new entries to the end of table.
The additions and revisions reads as follows:
Sec. 52.1670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved New York State Regulations and Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
New York State regulation effective date Latest EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 6:
* * * * * * *
Part 249, Best Available Retrofit 5/6/10 8/28/12 [Insert page
Technology (BART). number where the document
begins].
[[Page 51927]]
* * * * * * *
Environmental Conservation Law
Section 19-0325......................... 7/15/10 8/28/12 [Insert page
number where the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved New York Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifier/ State effective/
Name of source emission point approval date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
ALCOA Massena Operations (West Potline Permit ID 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Plant). S[hyphen]00001, 6[hyphen]4058[hyp page number where
Baking furnace hen]00003, the document
S[hyphen]00002, effective 3/20/12. begins].
Package Boilers
B[hyphen]00001.
Arthur Kill Generating Station, Boiler 30......... Permit ID 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
NRG. 2[hyphen]6403[hyp page number where
hen]00014, the document
effective 3/20/12. begins].
Bowline Generating Station, Boilers 1 and 2... Permit Id 3-3922- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
GenOn. 00003, effective page number where
6/28/12. the document
begins].
Con Edison 59th Street Station.. Steam Boilers 114 Permit Id 2-6202- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
and 115. 00032, Effective page number where
3/20/12. the document
begins].
EF Barrett Power Station, NG.... Boiler 2.......... Permit Id 1-2820- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
00553, effective page number where
3/27/12. the document
begins].
International Paper Ticonderoga Power Boiler and Permit Id 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Mill. Recovery Furnace. 5[hyphen]1548[hyp page number where
hen]00008, the document
effective 3/19/12. begins].
Kodak Operations at Eastman Boilers 41, 42 and Permit Id 8-2614- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Business Park, Kodak. 43. 00205, effective page number where
5/25/12. the document
begins].
Lafarge Building Materials...... Kilns 1 and 2..... Permit Id 4-0124- 8/28/12 [Insert Condition 12-14.
00001 effective 7/ page number where
19/11. the document
begins].
Lehigh Northeast Cement, Lehigh Kiln and Clinker Permit Id 5-5205- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 220 and Part
Cement. cooler. 00013, effective page number where 249 BART.
7/5/12. the document
begins].
Northport Power Station, NG..... Boilers 1, 2, 3, Permit Id 1-4726- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
and 4. 00130, effective page number where
3/27/12. the document
begins].
Oswego Harbor Power, NRG........ Boilers 5 and 6... Permit Id 7-3512- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
00030, effective page number where
5/16/12. the document
begins].
Owens-Corning Insulating Systems EU2, EU3, EU12, Permit Id 4-0122- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Feura Bush, Owens Corning. EU13, and EU14. 00004 effective 5/ page number where
18/12. the document
begins].
Ravenswood Generating Station, Boilers 10, 20, 30 Permit Id 2-6304- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
TC. 00024, effective page number where
4/6/12. the document
begins].
Ravenswood Steam Plant, Con Boiler 2.......... Permit Id 2-6304- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Edison. 01378 effective 3/ page number where
20/12. the document
begins].
Roseton Generating Station-- Boilers 1 and 2... Permit Id 3-3346- 8/28/12 [Insert Excluding the SO2
Dynegy. 00075 effective page number where BART emissions
11/02/11. the document limits for
begins]. Boilers 1 and 2
and corresponding
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and reporting
requirements,
which EPA
disapproved.
Samuel A Carlson Generating Boiler 12......... Permit Id 9-0608- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Station, James town Board of 00053 effective 2/ page number where
Public Utilities. 8/12. the document
begins].
[[Page 51928]]
Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Boiler 1.......... Permit Id 7-3132- 8/28/12 [Insert Part 249 BART.
Suez]. 00052 effective 5/ page number where
24/12. the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Action/SIP element geographic or New York EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Implementation Plan for Regional Statewide.......... 3/15/00 8/28/12 [Insert The plan is
Haze. page number where approved except
the document for the BART
begins]. determinations for
Danskammer
Generating Station
Unit 4 and Roseton
Generating Station
Units 1 and 2. See
40 CFR 52.1686.
Regional Haze plan--Fuel Oil Statewide.......... 4/16/12 8/28/12 [Insert
Sulfur Content. page number where
the document
begins].
Regional Haze Plan--BART Permit Statewide.......... 4/16/12 8/28/12 [Insert
modifications. page number where
the document
begins].
Regional Haze Plan--BART Permit Statewide.......... 7/2/12 8/28/12 [Insert
modifications. page number where
the document
begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.1686 is added as follows:
Sec. 52.1686 Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following electric generating units (EGUs) in the State of New
York: Danskammer Generating Station, Unit 4; and Roseton Generating
Station, Units 1 and 2;
(b) 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:
Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the EGU, boiler or emission unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be
combusted for the entire 24-hour period.
Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of SO2, NOX, and PM emissions, other
pollutant emissions, diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
NOX means nitrogen oxides.
PM means particulate matter
Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises an EGU or boiler identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
Ozone Season means the time period from May 1 through September 30
of each year.
Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) Emissions limitations--(1) The owners/operators subject to this
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted SO2,
NOX, and PM in excess of the following limitations, averaged
over a rolling 30-day period unless otherwise indicated below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART controls/limits
Facilities BART unit --------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SO2 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danskammer Generating Station-- 4 0.12 lb/MMBtu 24 hr 0.09 lb/MMBtu 24 hr 0.06 lb/MMBtu 1 hr
Dynegy. avg ozone season, avg Compliance 7/1/ avg Compliance 7/1/
30 day avg rest of 2014. 2014.
yr Compliance 7/1/
2014.
Roseton Generating Station-- 1 & 2 ................... 0.55 lb/MMBtu 24 hr ...................
Dynegy. avg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
(d) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emissions limitations
[[Page 51929]]
and other requirements of this section by January 1, 2014 unless
otherwise indicated in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Compliance determination using CEMS--(1) CEMS. At all times
after the compliance date specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
the owner/operator of each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate
a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part
75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, and PM,
diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit. The CEMS
shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitations in
paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
(2) Method. (i) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit,
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average
SO2, NOX, and PM concentration in lb/MMBtu at the
CEMS in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end
of each boiler operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and
record a new average emission rate, consistent with paragraph (c)
averaging period, in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current boiler operating
day.
(ii) An hourly average SO2, NOX, or PM
emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid only if the minimum number of data
points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by the
SO2, NOX, or PM pollutant concentration monitor
and the diluent monitor (O2 or CO2).
(iii) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
(f) Compliance determination using fuel certification--The owner or
operator of each affected facility subject to a federally enforceable
requirement limiting the fuel sulfur content may use fuel supplier
certification to demonstrate compliance. Records of fuel supplier
certification, as described under paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), and (4)
of this section, as applicable, shall be maintained and reports
submitted as required under paragraph (h). In addition to records of
fuel supplier certifications, the report shall include a certified
statement signed by the owner or operator of the affected facility that
the records of fuel supplier certifications submitted represent all of
the fuel combusted during the reporting period.
Fuel supplier certification shall include the following
information:
(1) For distillate oil:
(i) The name of the oil supplier;
(ii) A statement from the oil supplier that the oil complies with
the specifications under the definition of distillate oil in Sec.
60.41c; and
(iii) The sulfur content or maximum sulfur content of the oil.
(2) For residual oil:
(i) The name of the oil supplier;
(ii) The location of the oil when the sample was drawn for analysis
to determine the sulfur content of the oil, specifically including
whether the oil was sampled as delivered to the affected facility, or
whether the sample was drawn from oil in storage at the oil supplier's
or oil refiner's facility, or other location;
(iii) The sulfur content of the oil from which the shipment came
(or of the shipment itself); and
(iv) The method used to determine the sulfur content of the oil.
(3) For coal:
(i) The name of the coal supplier;
(ii) The location of the coal when the sample was collected for
analysis to determine the properties of the coal, specifically
including whether the coal was sampled as delivered to the affected
facility or whether the sample was collected from coal in storage at
the mine, at a coal preparation plant, at a coal supplier's facility,
or at another location. The certification shall include the name of the
coal mine (and coal seam), coal storage facility, or coal preparation
plant (where the sample was collected);
(iii) The results of the analysis of the coal from which the
shipment came (or of the shipment itself) including the sulfur content,
moisture content, ash content, and heat content; and
(iv) The methods used to determine the properties of the coal.
(4) For other fuels:
(i) The name of the supplier of the fuel;
(ii) The potential sulfur emissions rate or maximum potential
sulfur emissions rate of the fuel in nanograms per joule (ng/J) heat
input; and
(iii) The method used to determine the potential sulfur emissions
rate of the fuel.
(g) Compliance determination with an annual emission limit--The
owner or operator of each affected facility subject to a federally
enforceable requirement limiting the annual emissions shall calculate
the annual emissions individually for each fuel combusted, as
applicable. The annual emission limitation is determined on a 12-month
rolling average basis with a new annual emission limitation calculated
at the end of the calendar month, unless a different reporting period
is identified in paragraph (c).
(h) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
(1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
(2) All fuel supplier certifications and information identified in
paragraph (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable.
(3) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR Part 75.
(4) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
(5) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 75.
(i) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866.
(1) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports
no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include
the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess
emissions, specific identification of each period of excess emissions
that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit,
the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective
action taken or preventative measures adopted.
(2) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly CEMS performance reports,
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to
prevent recurrence, any CEMS repairs or adjustments, and results of any
CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75 (Relative Accuracy
Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).
(3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the report.
(4) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual fuel certification
reports no later
[[Page 51930]]
than the 30th day following the end of each six month period.
(5) Owner/operator shall submit an annual emissions limitation
calculation report no later than the 30th day following the end of the
calendar year or quarter if a rolling average is required in paragraph
(c).
(j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator shall submit notification of
commencement of construction of any equipment which is being
constructed to comply with the emission limits in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(2) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
(3) Owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup of
any such equipment.
(k) Equipment operation. At all times, owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
(l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.
[FR Doc. 2012-21056 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
