Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Regional Haze, 57487-57496 [2013-22692]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
examined, and it has been determined
not to be a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. VA’s
impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://
www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is
published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are
available on VA’s Web site at https://
www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the
link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published.’’
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year. This final rule will have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program numbers and titles
for this rule are 64.013, Veterans
Prosthetic Appliances; 64.100,
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment
for Certain Disabled Veterans and
Members of the Armed Forces; and
64.109, Veterans Compensation for
Service-Connected Disability.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose
D. Riojas, Interim Chief of Staff,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on July 23,
2013, for publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. The authority citation for part 3,
subpart A continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 3.808 as follows:
a. Revise the section heading.
b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as
(b)(5).
■ c. Add a new paragraph (b)(4).
■ d. Revise the authority citation at the
end of paragraph (b).
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 3.808 Automobiles or other conveyances
and adaptive equipment; certification.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Severe burn injury: Deep partial
thickness or full thickness burns
resulting in scar formation that cause
contractures and limit motion of one or
more extremities or the trunk and
preclude effective operation of an
automobile.
*
*
*
*
*
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3901, 3902)
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–22764 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
Dated: September 16, 2013.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as
follows:
Jkt 229001
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0025; A–1–FRL–
9732–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a revision to
the Massachusetts State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze
for the first planning period from 2008
through 2018. The revision was
submitted by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) on December 30, 2011, with
supplemental final submittals on
August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012.
These submittals address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and EPA’s rules that require States to
prevent any future, and remedy any
existing, manmade impairment of
SUMMARY:
Administrative practice and
procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Radioactive
materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,
and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Signing Authority
VerDate Mar<15>2010
PART 3—ADJUDICATION
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57487
visibility in mandatory Class I Areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.
This rule is effective on October
21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2012–0025. 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, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, Office of
Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests
that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding legal holidays.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are also available for public
inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the Division of
Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail
Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this
preamble.
DATES:
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57488
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
I. Background and Purpose
On May 24, 2012, EPA published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
for the State of Massachusetts. See 77
FR 30932. The NPR proposed approval
of the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through
2018. In that rulemaking, EPA proposed
to approve the MassDEP Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan dated
December 30, 2011, and also proposed
to approve under parallel processing,
proposed revisions to the Massachusetts
Haze SIP dated February 17, 2012.1
Specifically, EPA proposed to approve
the following adopted elements of
Massachusetts’ Haze Plan: (1) 310 Code
of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR)
7.29 ‘‘Emission Standards for Power
Plants;’’ (2) 310 CMR 7.26(50)–(54)
‘‘Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;’’ (3)
Amended Emission Control Plan for Mt.
Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (4)
Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power,
LLC dated June 22, 2011; (5) Modified
Emission Control Plan for General
Electric Aviation—Lynn dated March
24, 2011; and (6) Modified Emission
Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus,
Inc. dated March 14, 2012. Furthermore,
pursuant to MassDEP’s May 2, 2012
request for parallel processing, EPA
proposed approval of the following SIP
elements that were still in the proposed
stage: (1) Massachusetts’ proposed
revisions to 310 CMR 7.00
‘‘Definitions;’’ (2) Massachusetts’
proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05
‘‘Fuels All Districts;’’ (3) proposed
Amended Emission Control Plan
Approval for Salem Harbor Station
dated February 17, 2012; and (4)
proposed Amended Emission Control
Plan Approval for Brayton Point Station
dated February 16, 2012.
On August 9, 2012 and August 28,
2012, MassDEP submitted additional
elements and a revised SIP narrative as
a supplement to the Massachusetts
Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed
the August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012
submittals and has determined that the
State’s formal SIP submittal does not
contain significant changes which
occurred after EPA’s May 24, 2012
notice of proposed rulemaking.
A detailed explanation of the
requirements for regional haze SIPs, as
well as EPA’s analysis of Massachusetts’
Regional Haze SIP submittal, was
provided in the NPR and is not restated
here.
1 MassDEP submitted ‘‘Proposed Revisions to
Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP)’’ dated February 17, 2012, for parallel
processing on May 2, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments from
Dominion Energy New England, Inc.
(Dominion) and a joint letter from the
Sierra Club and Conservation Law
Foundation. The Dominion comments
were generally supportive of the
Massachusetts Alternative to Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
demonstration and long term strategy
and therefore require no response. The
following discussion summarizes and
responds to the relevant adverse
comments submitted by the Sierra Club
and Conservation Law Foundation (for
brevity, ‘‘Sierra Club’’) on EPA’s
proposed approval of Massachusetts’
Regional Haze SIP.
Comment A: The Sierra Club
contends that Section 169A of the CAA
does not allow EPA to exempt BARTeligible sources 2 from BART, and that
EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2),
which allows states to develop
alternative programs in lieu of BART, is
contrary to the CAA. The Sierra Club
acknowledges that its position has been
rejected by two federal court decisions.
Response A: As the Sierra Club notes,
EPA’s interpretation of the CAA was
upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group
v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
See 77 FR 33642, 33645–46 (June 7,
2012) for a more detailed explanation.
Comment B.1: The Sierra Club
contends that Massachusetts’ proposed
Alternative to BART analysis is flawed
due to the lack of source-by-source
BART determinations. The commenter
cited recent source-by-source BART
determinations which were more
stringent than the benchmark BART
limits used in the Massachusetts
alternative to BART analysis. The
commenter suggested that MassDEP
must undertake the five step source-bysource BART determination for each of
the subject BART sources to
demonstrate that the alternative to
BART provides greater reasonable
progress than the source-by-source
BART. The commenter contends that
comparing emissions, based on the
category-wide benchmark limits that
Massachusetts used, to the emissions
from the alternative to BART measures
underestimates the reductions
achievable through a five factor
determination and therefore does not
conclusively show that the
Massachusetts alternative to BART
measures provide greater reasonable
2 40 CFR 51.301 defines a BART-eligible source
as an existing facility which was not in operation
prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on
August 7, 1977, has the potential to emit 250 tons
per year or more of any air pollutant, and meets one
of the 26 listed stationary source categories.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
progress than source-by-source BART
determinations.
Response B.1: The primary
requirement, as specified in CAA
section 169A, is for major stationary
sources to procure, install, and operate
BART. In some cases this requirement is
met with an analysis of potential
controls considering five factors given
in EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR). See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA has
interpreted this requirement to be met if
an alternative set of emission limits are
established which mandate greater
reasonable progress toward visibility
improvement than direct application of
BART on a source-by-source basis. In
promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that
to demonstrate that emission reductions
of an alternative program would result
in greater emission reductions, ‘‘the
State must estimate the emission
reductions that would result from the
use of BART-level controls. To do this,
the State could undertake a sourcespecific review of the sources in the
State subject to BART, or it could use a
modified approach that simplifies the
analysis.’’ 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
In final rulemaking published October
13, 2006, EPA offered further
clarification for States for assessing
alternative strategies, in particular
regarding the benchmark definition of
BART to use in judging whether the
alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612,
60615–20. In this rulemaking, EPA
stated in the preamble that the
presumptive BART levels given in the
BART guidelines would be a suitable
baseline against which to compare
alternative strategies where the
alternative has been designed to meet a
requirement other than BART. See 71
FR at 60618; see also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). MassDEP’s analysis is
fully consistent with EPA’s conclusions
in this rulemaking.
While EPA recognizes that a case-bycase BART analysis may result in
emission limits more stringent than the
presumptive limits, the presumptive
limits are reasonable and appropriate for
use in assessing an alternative emissions
reductions scenario such as the
Massachusetts plan when comparing it
to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619
(stating ‘‘the presumptions represent a
reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART . . . because . . . they would be
applied across the board to a wide
variety of units with varying impacts on
visibility, at power plants of varying
size and distance from Class I areas’’).
In other words, while in some instances
case-by-case BART could result in limits
more stringent than the presumptive
limits, in other instances consideration
of all five statutory BART factors could
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
result in limits less stringent than the
presumptive limits, and EPA’s
considered conclusion is that the
presumptive BART is, overall, ‘‘a
reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART.’’ 3 Furthermore, Massachusetts
went beyond EPA’s presumptive level of
control and used the more stringent
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE–VU) recommended level of
control to develop its benchmark.4
The components of Massachusetts’
plan were developed to reduce mercury
emissions, bring Massachusetts into
attainment with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone by CAA deadlines, and to meet
long term strategy requirements. The
Massachusetts plan imposes limitations
on sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), and mercury emissions
from coal-fired electrical generating
units (EGUs), sulfur in fuel oil limits
and NOX limits for oil fired EGUs, and
enforceable EGU shutdowns.
Massachusetts is also now using these
controls as an alternative to BART for its
EGU BART-eligible sources as permitted
pursuant to EPA’s RHR (40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)). Therefore, the use of the
benchmark limits for the alternative to
BART analysis is appropriate. EPA
agrees with Massachusetts’ analysis that
emission reductions from the units
subject to MassDEP’s alternative plan
will result in emission reductions that
will provide greater reasonable progress
than would BART alone as described
more fully in the NPR.
Comment B.2.a: The Sierra Club
contends that, even based on the
framework Massachusetts used, its
BART alternative results in fewer
emission reductions for SO2 and NOX
than would BART. The Sierra Club
argues that Massachusetts’ analysis
compares emission reductions at the full
set of sources subject to its BART
alternative to the much smaller set of
subject-to-BART sources, and this is
impermissible under the regulations.
Response B.2.a: EPA does not agree
with the commenter’s interpretation of
the regional haze rule. If a State opts to
implement or require participation in an
emission trading program or other
alternative measure rather than to
require sources subject to BART to
install, operate, and maintain BART, the
State must ‘‘demonstrat[e] that the
emissions trading program or other
3 For this reason, the fact that facilities in other
states (with different facts for each of the BART
factors) have received BART determinations more
stringent than the presumptive BART is not directly
relevant here.
4 The MANE–VU recommended level of BART
control can be found in Appendix R of the
Massachusetts December 30, 2011 submittal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have
resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject
to BART in the State and covered by the
alternative program.’’ 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must
include a list of all BART-eligible
sources and all BART source categories
covered by the alternative program and
an analysis of the best system of
continuous emission control technology
available. ‘‘This analysis must be
conducted by making a determination of
BART for each source within the State
subject to BART and covered by the
alternative program as provided for in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless
the emission trading program or other
alternative measure has been designed
to meet a requirement other than BART
(such as the core requirement to have a
long term strategy to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by
the States). In this case, the State may
determine the best system of continuous
emission control technology and
associated emission reductions for
similar types of sources within a source
category based on both source-specific
and category wide information as
appropriate.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
This language indicates that BART
determinations are to be made for each
source that is both subject to BART and
included in the alternative measure as
provided for in paragraph (e)(1).
Paragraph (e)(1) calls for a BART
determination for BART-eligible
sources. EPA does not agree that the
language implies that source-by-source
BART determinations are required for
units which do not meet the definition
of BART-eligible.5 Non-BART sources
which are included as members of the
alternative measure need not be subject
to a BART analysis. Put simply, EPA’s
regulations allow a state to develop an
alternative that encompasses (and
obtains emissions reductions from) nonBART sources, and to compare that
alternative to a BART benchmark
consisting only of subject-to-BART
sources. Therefore, Massachusetts was
correct in only including benchmark
emissions from the BART sources in the
baseline for comparison to the
alternative program.
Comment B.2.b: The Sierra Club
argues that Brayton Point Station’s
baseline SO2 emissions are lower than
Massachusetts assumed.
Response B.2.b: Massachusetts
conducted its analysis under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) by developing two tables
for SO2. The first table, Table 16 of
MassDEP’s August 9, 2012 submittal,
5 See
PO 00000
definition stated in footnote #2.
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57489
subtracted each BART-eligible facility’s
projected SO2 emissions if the MANE–
VU SO2 BART emissions rate were
achieved from that facility’s baseline
SO2 emissions in 2002. The sum of
those differences constitutes the
expected reductions from installation of
benchmark BART. The second table,
Table 17 of MassDEP’s August 9, 2012
submittal, subtracted each facility’s
alternative BART expected SO2
emissions from its emissions for the
same baseline year (2002). The sum of
those differences constitutes the
expected reductions from installation of
Massachusetts’ BART alternative. The
comment essentially argues that Brayton
Point’s baseline SO2 emissions are
overstated because, as of 2010, Brayton
Point achieved greater control than in
2002. However, Massachusetts’ use of
the 2002 emissions inventory as a
baseline is consistent with MANE–VU’s
regional approach and EPA’s national
approach. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii);
see also 64 FR 35742 (explaining that
the ‘‘baseline date of the SIP’’ in this
context means ‘‘the date of the
emissions inventories on which the SIP
relies’’), 70 FR 39104, 39143 (‘‘The
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is
2002. . . .’’) & id. n.84. Furthermore,
EPA notes that Massachusetts used the
same baseline SO2 emissions for Tables
16 and 17, so even if the baseline
emissions were overstated, they would
be overstated by the same amount in
both cases, and the overstatement would
neither benefit nor prejudice the BART
alternative for comparison.
Comment B.2.c: The Sierra Club
contends that Brayton Point Station’s
SO2 and NOX emissions under BART
would be lower than Massachusetts
assumed.
Response B.2.c: As noted above in
Response B.1, while in some instances
case-by-case BART could result in limits
more stringent than the presumptive
limits, in other instances consideration
of all five statutory BART factors could
result in limits less stringent than the
presumptive limits, and EPA’s
considered conclusion is that the
presumptive BART is, overall, a
reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART. EPA has concluded that ‘‘there is
no need to develop a precise estimate of
the emissions reductions that could be
achieved by BART in order simply to
compare two programs’’ and that ‘‘the
State may establish a BART benchmark
based on an analysis that includes
simplifying assumptions about BART
control levels for sources within a
source category.’’ See 70 FR 60618.
Massachusetts used the MANE–VU
recommended level of control to
develop its benchmark.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57490
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Comment B.2.d: The Sierra Club
commented that Massachusetts
improperly takes credit in its BART
alternative for the Salem Harbor Station
shutdown by (1) assuming for purposes
of the BART benchmark that Salem
Harbor Unit 4 would continue to
operate past 2014 when in fact it will
not (due to a consent decree), and then
(2) crediting the emission reductions
from the pending shutdown of Units 1
through 4 to Massachusetts’s BART
alternative, when these reductions will
happen regardless of what
Massachusetts does, due to the same
consent decree.
Response B.2.d: The consent decree
requires that Salem Harbor ‘‘remove
from service’’ Units 1 and 2 by
December 31, 2011, and Units 3 and 4
by June 1, 2014.6 However, the consent
decree defines ‘‘remove from service’’ as
ceasing to generate electricity to supply
the power grid. The consent decree does
not prohibit these units from operating
for purposes other than generating
electricity to supply the power grid.
Consequently, the consent decree is not
a federally enforceable limit on
emissions from these units. The facility
requested, and MassDEP granted, a
modified emission control plan under
Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29
which caps NOX and SO2 emissions
from the various units. This emission
control plan, along with the
Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29,
will become federally enforceable with
this action. MassDEP’s permit
restrictions apply regardless of the use
to which the station owner might wish
to put the units.
Furthermore, the consent decree is, by
its terms, enforceable by the parties
thereto (Conservation Law Foundation,
HealthLink, Dominion Energy New
England, Inc., and Dominion Energy
Salem Harbor, LLC), whereas a state
permit restriction incorporated into a
federally enforceable SIP is enforceable
by Massachusetts, EPA, and citizens,
under state law and under the federal
Clean Air Act.
The Sierra Club suggests that the
absence of specific public plans for an
alternative use of Salem Harbor’s units
(i.e., a use that would be allowed under
the consent decree but prohibited under
Massachusetts’ SIP revision) means that
it is unlikely that Salem Harbor will
operate regardless of what
Massachusetts does in its SIP and
therefore the reductions that
Massachusetts attributes by its permit
restrictions are only hypothetical.
6 The consent decree is available at https://
www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SignedConsent-Decree-12_11.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
EPA believes Massachusetts’
approach was reasonable, for several
reasons. First, in Tables 16 and 18,
Massachusetts used a reasonable (and
consistent) method to derive the BART
benchmark emissions, namely,
multiplying each BART-eligible unit’s
2002 heat input 7 by the MANE–VU
recommended BART emission rates. See
also Response B.2.b. This streamlined
calculation was conducted at all BARTeligible facilities without examining
whether the facilities’ more recent
operating scenarios involve a higher or
lower heat input. Thus, it was
reasonable and consistent for
Massachusetts to include Salem Harbor
Unit 4 in Tables 16 and 18 as operating
at 2002 heat input levels. The comment
essentially argues that, even if
Massachusetts had not imposed any
permit restrictions, Salem Harbor’s
likely future actual emissions would be
much lower than its full potential to
emit, and therefore the BART
benchmark calculation should use
Salem Harbor Unit 4’s likely future
actual emissions under anticipated
business scenarios (i.e., zero), rather
than simply apply the benchmark BART
emission rate to its 2002 heat input rate.
However, the Sierra Club points to no
provision of the Regional Haze Rule
requiring states to project likely future
actual emissions under anticipated
business scenarios, rather than use the
approach that Massachusetts used.8
Second, in Massachusetts’ analysis of
its alternative program in Tables 17 and
19, the Commonwealth conservatively
assumed that all units covered by the
alternative program would operate at
their 2002 heat input rate, and took
credit only for legally enforceable
restrictions on potential to emit. The
Sierra Club focuses on the reductions at
Salem Harbor Units 1–4 in Tables 17
and 19, arguing that Massachusetts is
taking credit for reductions that would
have happened anyway and therefore
that Tables 17 and 19 overstate the
additional reductions achieved through
the alternative program. However,
Massachusetts’ underlying assumption
that any facility without an operational
restriction would operate at 2002 levels
is in fact conservative and likely
substantially overstates emissions (i.e.,
7 The heat input is a proxy for the quantity of fuel
used.
8 If anything, the Regional Haze Rule focuses on
facilities’ potential to emit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.301
(definition of ‘‘existing stationary facility’’); accord
40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, § II.A Step 3
(explaining that potential to emit is developed
‘‘considering all federally enforceable and State
enforceable permit limits’’). Using potential to emit,
rather than 2002 heat input rate, would result in
higher BART benchmark emissions in Tables 16
and 18.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
understates reductions) for several
facilities in Tables 17 and 19. Many of
the still active units listed in Tables 17
and 19 are in fact now operating well
below 2002 heat input levels. For
example, according to 2011 data,9 the
annual heat input was 18,244,945
MMBtu for Brayton Point Unit 3 and
500,264 MMBtu for Canal Station Unit
1. The 2002 benchmark annual heat
inputs for these units were 36,339,809
MMBtu and 27,295,648 MMBtu,
respectively.10 In other words, the logic
under which Massachusetts did count
Salem Harbor’s reductions in Tables 17
and 19 (because Massachusetts
attributes the reductions to a legally
enforceable emission control plan) is the
same logic under which Massachusetts
did not count likely actual reductions at
other facilities in those tables. This
methodology is reasonable and
internally consistent.
Finally, the Sierra Club argues that, if
the facility owner planned to use the
Salem Harbor units for a purpose not
prohibited by the consent decree, it
would be required to apply for new
permits ‘‘because the permits issued to
the units to operate as electric
generating units would no longer be
valid.’’ While there are certainly
scenarios in which re-use of the units
(as coal generating units but not for
supplying electricity to the grid) could
require new permit applications, the
comment identifies no provisions of the
pre-existing permits (or of
Massachusetts or federal law) indicating
that this would be necessary in all cases.
Therefore, it was reasonable for
Massachusetts to assume that its permit
restriction would achieve reductions
that would not be legally required to
occur otherwise.
Comment B.3: The Sierra Club
commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX
emissions reductions relied on it its
BART alternative are properly surplus
for purposes of BART. The Sierra Club
stated that in order to claim credit under
the BART requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule for emission reductions
attributable to a BART alternative,
Massachusetts must demonstrate that
‘‘the emission reductions resulting from
the . . . alternative measures will be
surplus to those reductions resulting
from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the [Clean Air Act] as
of the baseline date of the SIP.’’ The
Sierra Club claims that Massachusetts
9 For 2011 EGU emission data, see EPA’s Air
Markets Program Web page at https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/.
10 See Tables 16 and 18 of the Massachusetts
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan dated
August 9, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
has not identified what portion, if any,
of the emission reductions exceeded
those necessary to comply with the
purposes for which the regulations were
designed.
Response B.3: As part of the
alternative to BART demonstration, 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) requires a
‘‘demonstration that the emission
reductions resulting from the emission
trading program or other alternative
measures will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.’’
In promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA
explained that the ‘‘baseline date of the
SIP’’ in this context means ‘‘the date of
the emissions inventories on which the
SIP relies.’’ 64 FR 35742; see also 70 FR
39104, 39143 (‘‘The baseline date for
regional haze SIPs is 2002. . . .’’) & id.
n.84.
Any measure, including a measure to
meet a requirement of the CAA, adopted
after 2002 is accordingly ‘‘surplus’’
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
Massachusetts is using regulation 310
CMR 7.29 in conjunction with the sulfur
in fuel oil standard and emission
control plans as an alternative to BART
for its EGU BART-eligible sources as
permitted by the RHR and as discussed
in the NPR. EPA agrees with
Massachusetts’ analysis that emission
reductions from the alternative program
will result in emission reductions that
are surplus to the baseline date of the
SIP. As discussed in the NPR,
Massachusetts’ use of the 310 CMR 7.29
(with a compliance year of 2008) as an
alternative to BART for EGUs, in
addition to the newly adopted revised
sulfur in fuel oil requirements and
revised emission control plans, are in
accordance with and satisfies the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for
BART alternatives, including the
requirement that the emission
reductions be surplus to the baseline
date of the SIP. The NPR also discusses
how Massachusetts estimated the
emission reductions required by the
alternative plan. EPA is not restating
that analysis here. Finally, the Sierra
Club has not identified any specific
elements of Massachusetts’ alternative
program that it believes are not surplus
to reductions from measures adopted to
meet CAA requirements.
Comment B.4: The Sierra Club
commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the distribution of the
emissions under its BART alternative is
substantially similar to that under BART
or conducted dispersion modeling to
show the BART alternative results in
greater reasonable progress toward
achieving natural baseline visibility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
conditions in affected Class I areas.
Under EPA’s RHR, it is insufficient to
simply compare the total emissions
reductions from source-specific BART
and a State’s BART alternative; the State
must take into consideration the
location of these emission reductions.
Where the distribution of emissions
under BART and the alternative are
substantially different, the State
proposing to rely on a BART-alternative
must conduct dispersion modeling to
show the difference in visibility under
each program for each impacted Class I
area on the worst and best 20 percent
days. The Sierra Club commented that
the mere fact that all the subject-toBART units are a subset of the
alternative BART units, does not
demonstrate that similar geographic
distribution. The Sierra Club contends
that to assess the emission distribution,
‘‘the State would have to compare the
magnitude of emission reductions at
units common to both schemes and
evaluate whether the additional units
covered by the BART alternative are
proximate to subject to BART sources.’’
The Sierra Club further states that
Massachusetts would also need to
consider, for example, whether
differences in stack heights among the
sources would result in different
geographic distribution. The Sierra Club
states that neither Massachusetts nor
EPA has presented any further analysis,
and therefore neither has demonstrated
that the BART alternative produces a
similar distribution of emission
reductions to BART.
Response B.4: The RHR states that
‘‘[i]f the distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions,
then the alternative measure may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). EPA
discussed in the NPR how
Massachusetts’ alternative to BART was
acceptable and met the requirements for
a BART alternative program in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). EPA finds that the
distribution of emission reductions in
Massachusetts sources included in the
alternative program are comparable to,
and not substantially different from,
emission reductions under BART at
subject units. See 77 FR 30943. The
emission reductions from the alternative
to BART are discussed in detail in the
NPR. Massachusetts’ alternative
program covers all of the BART-subject
EGU sources and also includes
additional EGUs which are too old to be
BART-subject sources.
All of the emission reductions, with
the exception of Mount Tom, are from
EGUs located in eastern Massachusetts
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57491
and, in many cases, at the same physical
location as the BART-eligible EGUs. For
example, as compared to the BART
benchmark, the BART alternative
achieves fewer reductions from Brayton
Point Station, but greater reductions
from Somerset Power, which is located
in the same municipality as Brayton
Point. Similarly, as compared to the
BART benchmark, the BART alternative
achieves fewer reductions from Canal
Station (on the south shore of
Massachusetts, about 60 miles south of
Boston) and Mystic Station (just a few
miles north of Boston), but much greater
reductions from Salem Harbor (on the
north shore of Massachusetts, about 20
miles north of Boston). As for Mount
Tom Unit 1, it is located in Holyoke,
Massachusetts, approximately 80 miles
west of Boston. The contribution of the
Mount Tom emission reductions to the
Massachusetts alternative to BART is
6% of the SO2 reduction and 9% of the
NOX reduction. While this does create a
minor variation in the geographic
distribution of emission reductions, this
does not lead to a substantial difference
in geographic distribution of the
emission reduction, particularly since
the distances between the units
involved are generally much less than
the distances from any of the units to
the relevant Class I areas.
Moreover, to the extent that there are
any differences in geographic
distribution, they may be beneficial for
regional haze purposes. As noted above,
the principal difference in distribution
is that the BART benchmark relies more
heavily on reductions at Brayton Point
and Canal Station (both in
Massachusetts’s southeast corner),
whereas the alternative to BART relies
more heavily on reductions at Salem
Harbor (slightly closer to Maine and
New Hampshire, with their five Class I
areas) and Mount Tom (slightly closer to
the Lye Brook Wilderness in Vermont
and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in
New Jersey). While neither
Massachusetts nor EPA has modeled the
impact of these slight geographic
differences, the fact that the reductions
occur slightly closer to the Class I areas
makes it unlikely that the alternative
would result in less visibility benefits to
those areas.
Therefore, EPA finds that
Massachusetts was reasonable in the
determination that the geographic
distribution of the emission reductions
from the alternative plan is not
substantially different from the emission
reduction distribution projected under
BART.
Comment C: The Sierra Club
commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the State will achieve
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57492
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
the reasonable progress goals
established by MANE–VU for 2018.
Specifically, the Sierra Club noted that
Massachusetts is not projected to
achieve the 90% SO2 reduction target by
2018 at major EGUs and instead projects
emission reductions of between 67 and
87% from the affected units. The Sierra
Club contends that even though Brayton
Point Units 1 and 2 are achieving 90%
control, Massachusetts must require as
an enforceable operating condition the
continuous operation of the spray dry
absorbers. In addition, Massachusetts
should require at least 96% control for
the dry scrubber to be installed on
Brayton Point Unit 3. Finally, Sierra
Club states that Massachusetts should
require Mount Tom to continuously
operate its installed dry scrubber.
Response C: Through the consultation
process, Massachusetts agreed to pursue
the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ (Ask) as part of
the long term strategy to ensure
reasonable progress toward the goal of
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas impacted by emissions from
Massachusetts. The Ask consists of the
implementation of BART, the adoption
of the low sulfur in fuel oil strategy, and
a 90% percent reduction in SO2
emissions from the greatest impacting
EGUs or comparable SO2 reductions.
Emission reductions resulting from
these strategies were incorporated into
the projected 2018 emissions inventory.
The 2018 emission inventory was used
to model the expected visibility
improvement at the end of the first
planning period. Based on the
inventories developed for the MANE–
VU states and the resulting modeling,
the MANE–VU Class I States
determined that the control strategies
for the first planning period were
sufficient to meet the reasonable
progress goals for the Class I areas. As
stated in the NPR, the 2018 modeling
inventory for Massachusetts EGUs,
based on the implementation of the Ask,
is 45,941 tons SO2. Massachusetts
targeted EGUs’ 2011 SO2 emissions were
only 22,165 tons SO2 in 2011, and under
the most conservative (worst case) long
term strategy projected emission
inventory, Massachusetts EGUs are
limited to 26,811 tons SO2 in 2018 (and
more likely 10,505 tons, which is below
the level that would be achieved by the
90% target). The long term strategy limit
is 19,130 tons SO2 less than the
inventory used to model visibility
improvement in 2018. Since the long
term strategy program is outcome-based,
rather than technology-based,
Massachusetts may develop a program
that will achieve emissions reductions
that are adequate for Class I states’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
reasonable progress goals even if it does
not rely on the particular reductions
that were used to develop the
assumptions upon which those
reasonable progress goals were based. It
is worth noting that the MANE–VU Ask
does not itself establish federal
regulatory requirements. States’
obligations are defined by the Regional
Haze Rule, not the Ask.
Finally, since future emission
projections are somewhat uncertain, the
RHR requires States to submit a 5-year
progress report. At the time of this
progress report, MassDEP will
determine if the controls approved into
the Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to
achieve reasonable progress at the
impacted Class I areas for the first
planning period.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Massachusetts
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan, submitted on December 30, 2011
with supplemental submittals on
August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, as
meeting the applicable implementing
regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308.
Included as part of the Regional Haze
Plan are the following Appendices,
which EPA is approving and
incorporating by reference into the SIP:
(1) Appendix BB. Modified Emission
Control Plan for General Electric
Aviation—Lynn dated March 24, 2011;
(2) Appendix CC. Massachusetts 310
CMR 7.26(50)-(54) ‘‘Outdoor Hydronic
Heaters;’’ (3) Appendix DD.
Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.29 ‘‘Emission
Standards for Power Plants,’’ the
sections relating to NOX and SO2; (4)
Appendix EE. Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated
May 15, 2009; (5) Appendix FF.
Amended Emission Control Plan
Approval for Salem Harbor Station
dated March 27, 2012; (6) Appendix GG.
Amended Emission Control Plan
Approval for Brayton Point Station
dated April 12, 2012; (7) Appendix HH.
Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power,
LLC dated June 22, 2011; (8) Appendix
II. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00
‘‘Definitions;’’ and 310 CMR 7.05 ‘‘Fuels
All Districts;’’and (9) Appendix JJ.
Modified Emission Control Plan for
Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March
14, 2012.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
addition, this rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
State, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
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
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by November 18,
2013. 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 Section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: September 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
September 13, 2013.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as
follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
§ 52.1120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(139) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan regarding Regional
Haze submitted by the Massachusetts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
Department of Environmental Protection
on December 30, 2011, August 9, 2012,
and August 28, 2012.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310
CMR 7.00, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended
definition of SULFUR IN FUEL,
effective August 3, 2012.
(B) Massachusetts Regulation 310
CMR 7.05, ‘‘U Fuels All Districts,’’
effective August 3, 2012, with the
following exceptions which are not
applicable to the Massachusetts
Alternative to BART:
(1) 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)(3);
(2) 310 CMR 7.05(2) through (4); and
(3) 310 CMR 7.05(7) through (9).
(C) Massachusetts Regulation 310
CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emissions Standards for
Power Plants,’’ effective on January 25,
2008 (which includes previous sections
effective on June 29, 2007), with the
following exceptions which are not
applicable to the Massachusetts
Alternative to BART:
(1) In 310 CMR 7.29(1), the reference
to mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) in the first
sentence and the phrase ‘‘. . . and CO2
and establishing a cap on CO2 and Hg
emissions from affected facilities. CO2
emissions standards set forth in 310
CMR 7.29(5)(a)5.a. and b. shall not
apply to emissions that occur after
December 31, 2008’’ in the second
sentence;
(2) In 310 CMR 7.29(2), the definitions
of Alternate Hg Designated
Representative, Automated Acquisition
and Handling System or DAHS,
Mercury (Hg) Designated
Representative, Mercury Continuous
Emission Monitoring System or Mercury
CEMS, Mercury Monitoring System,
Sorbent Trap Monitoring System, and
Total Mercury;
(3) 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)(3) through
(5)(a)(6);
(4) In 310 CMR 7.29(5)(b)(1), reference
to compliance with the mercury
emissions standard in the second
sentence;
(5) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(a)(3) through
(6)(a)(4);
(6) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(b)(10);
(7) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(h)(2);
(8) The third and fourth sentences in
310 CMR 7.29(7)(a);
(9) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1), the
reference to CO2 and mercury;
(10) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(a), the
reference to CO2 and mercury;
(11) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(b) through
7.29(7)(b)(1)(d);
(12) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(3), the
reference to CO2 and mercury;
(13) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(4)(b), the
reference to CO2 and mercury; and
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57493
(14) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(e) through
7.29(7)(i).
(D) Massachusetts Regulation 310
CMR 7.26, ‘‘Industry Performance
Standards, Outdoor Hydronic Heaters’’
paragraphs (50) through (54) and related
footnotes effective December 26, 2008.
(1) 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor
Hydronic Heaters—Applicability;
(2) 310 CMR 7.26(51) Definitions;
(3) 310 CMR 7.26(52) Requirements
for Operators;
(4) 310 CMR 7.26(53) Requirements
for Sellers; and
(5) 310 CMR 7.26(54) Requirements
for Manufacturers.
(E) The sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), and PM2.5 provisions of
the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ‘‘Saugus—Metropolitan,
Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR
7.08(2)—Municipal Waste Combustors,
Application No. MBR–98–ECP–006,
Transmittal No. W003302, Emission
Control Plan Modified Final Approval’’
dated March 14, 2012 to Mr. Jairaj
Gosine, Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. and
signed by Cosmo Buttaro and James E.
Belsky, with the following exceptions
which are not applicable to the
Massachusetts Alternative to BART.
(1) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Unit
Load Restriction/Operating Practices;
(2) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2
Emission Limit/Standard for Opacity,
HCl, Dioxin/Furon, Cd, Pb, CO, Hg,
NH3, and associated footnotes;
(3) In Table 2, EU3 Fugitive Ash
requirement and associated footnote.
(4) In Table 2, Footnote 1 which is a
State Only Requirement.
(F) The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ‘‘Lynn—Metropolitan,
Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR
7.19, Application No. MBR–94–COM–
008, Transmittal No. X235617, Modified
Emission Control Plan Final Approval’’
dated March 24, 2011 to Ms. Jolanta
Wojas, General Electric Aviation and
signed by Marc Altobelli and James E.
Belsky. Note, this document contains
two section V; V. RECORD KEEPING
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
and V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS/
PROVISIONS.
(G) The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan, ‘‘Holyoke Western Region
310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission
Standards, Application No. 1–E–01–
072, Transmittal No. W025214,
Amended Emission Control Plan’’ dated
May 15, 2009 to Mr. John S. Murry, Mt.
Tom Generating Company, LLC and
signed by Marc Simpson, with the
following exceptions which are not
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
57494
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
applicable to the Massachusetts
Alternative to BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1 Emission
Limit/Standard for Hg, CO, CO2, and
PM2.5 and related footnotes;
(2) In Table 3, the EU1 Monitoring/
Testing Requirements for CO2, CO,
PM2.5, and Hg;
(3) In Table 4, the EU 1 Record
Keeping Requirements for CO2, CO,
PM2.5, and Hg;
(4) In Table 5, the EU1 Reporting
Requirements for Hg;
(5) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting
requirements
(6) In Table 6, the Compliance Paths
for Hg and CO2 and related footnote;
(7) In Section 4, Special Conditions
for ECP, Item 4, applicable to CO2;
(8) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
(9) Section 7, Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act; and
(10) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(H) The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ‘‘Salem—Metropolitan
Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 7.29
Power Plant Emission Standards,
Application No. NE–12–003,
Transmittal No. X241756, Final
Amended Emission Control Plan
Approval’’ dated March 27, 2012 to Mr.
Lamont W. Beaudette, Dominion Energy
Salem Harbor, LLC and signed by
Edward J. Braczyk, Cosmo Buttaro, and
James E. Belsky with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to
the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg and
related footnotes;
(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard for
CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes;
(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for
Hg;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Record Keeping Requirements
for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Record Keeping Requirements for Hg;
(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Reporting Requirements for
CO2;
(8) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Reporting Requirements for Hg;
(9) In Section 3, Compliance
Schedule, the 3rd paragraph text which
reads ‘‘In order to meet the regulatory
Hg limits which are effective on October
1, 2012, the facility owner/operator has
proposed using a combination strategy
involving fuel mix optimization (for SO2
compliance but this action will benefit
Hg compliance as well) and installation
of a Calcium Bromide injection system.
In order to meet the 310 CMR 7.29 CO2
emission targets, the Dominion Energy
Salem Harbor, LLC facility owner/
operator procured offset credits from
both its Dominion Energy Brayton Point
facility and third party contacts and
paid into the Greenhouse Gas
Expendable Trust;’’
(10) Section 6, Modification to the
ECP;
(11) Section 7, Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act; and
(12) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(I) Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ‘‘Amended Emission
Control Plan Final Approval
Application for: BWP AQ 25, 310 CMR
7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards,
Transmittal Number X241755,
Application Number SE–12–003, Source
Number: 1200061’’ dated April 12, 2012
to Peter Balkus, Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, LLC and signed by John
K. Winkler, with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to
the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg;
(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard for CO,
CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes;
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and
PM2.5;
(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for
Hg;
(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3,
and EU 4 Record Keeping Requirements
for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Record Keeping Requirements for Hg;
(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU
3 Reporting Requirements for Hg and
CEMS monitoring and certification;
(8) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting
Requirements;
(9) In Table 6, the Compliance Path
for CO2, and Hg;
(10) In Section 4, Special Conditions
for ECP, the CO2 requirement in Item 2;
(11) Section 6, Modification to the
ECP;
(12) Section 7, Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act; and
(13) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(J) Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection letter
‘‘Facility Shutdown, FMF Facility No.
316744’’ dated June 22, 2011 to Jeff
Araujo, Somerset Power LLC and signed
by John K. Winkler.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) ‘‘Massachusetts Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan’’ dated
August 9, 2012.
■ 3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is
amended by adding new entries to
existing state citations for 310 CMR
7.00, 310 CMR 7.05, 310 CMR 7.08, and
310 CMR 7.19 in order of ‘‘Date
approved by EPA’’; and by adding new
state citations for 310 CMR 7.26 and 310
CMR 7.29 in order of ‘‘State citation’’ to
read as follows:
§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts
State regulations.
*
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
*
*
19SER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
57495
TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS
[See notes at end of table]
Date
submitted by
State
Date
approved by
EPA
*
Definitions ...........
*
8/9/12
9/19/13
*
310 CMR 7.05 ..
*
U Fuels All Districts.
*
8/9/12
9/19/13
*
310 CMR
7.08(2).
*
MWC NOX requirements.
*
8/9/12
9/19/13
*
310 CMR 7.19 ..
*
NOX RACT ..........
*
12/30/11
9/19/13
*
310 CMR 7.26 ..
*
Industry Performance Standards.
*
12/30/11
9/19/13
*
310 CMR 7.29 ..
*
Emissions Standards for Power
Plants.
*
8/9/2012
9/19/13
310 CMR 7.29 ..
Emission Standards for Power
Plants.
8/9/2012
9/19/13
310 CMR 7.29 ..
Emission Standards for Power
Plants.
8/9/2012
9/19/13
Title/Subject
*
310 CMR 7.00 ..
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
State citation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Federal Register
citation
52.1120(c)
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
Comments/unapproved sections
*
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
137
137
137
137
*
*
Approving the definition of ‘‘Sulfur in
Fuel.’’
*
*
Approves the sulfur content of fuel
oil. The following sections were
not submitted as part of the SIP:
(1)(a)(3), (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9).
*
*
Facility specific MWC Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus
revises the NOX limits to 185 ppm
by volume at 7% O2 dry basis
(30-day rolling average).
*
*
Facility specific NOX RACT for General Electric Aviation Boiler No. 3
to cap annual SO2 and NOX emissions at 249.0 tons each.
137
*
*
Only
approving
the
Outdoor
Hydronic Heaters (50)–(54).
137
*
*
Only approving the SO2 and NOX
requirements.
137
137
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
Facility specific Emission Control
Plan requirement for Brayton
Point Station Unit 1, 2, 3, and 4
which disallows the use of 310
CMR 7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
Credits or Federal Acid Rain allowances for compliance with 310
CMR 7.29 after June 1, 2014.
Facility specific Emission Control
Plan requirement for Mt. Tom Station which disallows the use of
310 CMR 7.29 SO2 Early Reduction Credits or Federal Acid Rain
allowances for compliance with
310 CMR 7.29 after October 1,
2009.
19SER1
57496
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS—Continued
[See notes at end of table]
State citation
Title/Subject
310 CMR 7.29 ..
Date
submitted by
State
Date
approved by
EPA
8/9/2012
9/19/13
Emission Standards for Power
Plants.
*
*
*
Federal Register
citation
52.1120(c)
[Insert Federal
Register page
number where
the document
begins].
*
Comments/unapproved sections
137
Facility specific Emission Control
Plan for Salem Harbor Station
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 which limits
NOX emissions from Unit 1 to 276
tons per rolling 12 month period
starting 1/1/2012, limits NOX
emissions for Unit 2 to 50 tons
per rolling 12 month period starting 1/1/2012, limits SO2 emissions
form Unit 2 to 300 tons per rolling
12 month period starting 1/1/2012,
shuts down units 3 and 4 effective
6/1/2014.
*
*
*
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
[FR Doc. 2013–22692 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0475; FRL–9901–06–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado Second Ten-Year PM10
Maintenance Plan for Aspen
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action
approving State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Colorado. On May 25, 2011, the
Governor of Colorado’s designee
submitted to EPA a revised maintenance
plan for the Aspen area for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 10 microns (PM10), which was
adopted by the State on December 16,
2010. As required by Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 175A(b), this revised
maintenance plan addresses
maintenance of the PM10 standard for a
second 10-year period beyond the area’s
original redesignation to attainment for
the PM10 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is
approving the revised maintenance
plan’s 2023 transportation conformity
motor vehicle emissions budget for
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
PM10. This action is being taken under
sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 18, 2013 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by October 21, 2013. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2012–0475, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director,
Air Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–
0475. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57487-57496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22692]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025; A-1-FRL-9732-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on
December 30, 2011, with supplemental final submittals on August 9, 2012
and August 28, 2012. These submittals address the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to prevent any
future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I Areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 21, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025. 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, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697,
email mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 57488]]
I. Background and Purpose
On May 24, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Massachusetts. See 77 FR 30932. The NPR proposed
approval of the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through
2018. In that rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve the MassDEP Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan dated December 30, 2011, and also
proposed to approve under parallel processing, proposed revisions to
the Massachusetts Haze SIP dated February 17, 2012.\1\ Specifically,
EPA proposed to approve the following adopted elements of
Massachusetts' Haze Plan: (1) 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations
(CMR) 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants;'' (2) 310 CMR
7.26(50)-(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (4) Facility
Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (5) Modified
Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn dated March
24, 2011; and (6) Modified Emission Control Plan for Wheelabrator
Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012. Furthermore, pursuant to MassDEP's
May 2, 2012 request for parallel processing, EPA proposed approval of
the following SIP elements that were still in the proposed stage: (1)
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' (2)
Massachusetts' proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.05 ``Fuels All
Districts;'' (3) proposed Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for
Salem Harbor Station dated February 17, 2012; and (4) proposed Amended
Emission Control Plan Approval for Brayton Point Station dated February
16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MassDEP submitted ``Proposed Revisions to Massachusetts
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' dated February 17,
2012, for parallel processing on May 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, MassDEP submitted additional
elements and a revised SIP narrative as a supplement to the
Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP. EPA has reviewed the August 9, 2012
and August 28, 2012 submittals and has determined that the State's
formal SIP submittal does not contain significant changes which
occurred after EPA's May 24, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking.
A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP
submittal, was provided in the NPR and is not restated here.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments from Dominion Energy New England, Inc.
(Dominion) and a joint letter from the Sierra Club and Conservation Law
Foundation. The Dominion comments were generally supportive of the
Massachusetts Alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
demonstration and long term strategy and therefore require no response.
The following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant
adverse comments submitted by the Sierra Club and Conservation Law
Foundation (for brevity, ``Sierra Club'') on EPA's proposed approval of
Massachusetts' Regional Haze SIP.
Comment A: The Sierra Club contends that Section 169A of the CAA
does not allow EPA to exempt BART-eligible sources \2\ from BART, and
that EPA's regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), which allows states to
develop alternative programs in lieu of BART, is contrary to the CAA.
The Sierra Club acknowledges that its position has been rejected by two
federal court decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 40 CFR 51.301 defines a BART-eligible source as an existing
facility which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was
in existence on August 7, 1977, has the potential to emit 250 tons
per year or more of any air pollutant, and meets one of the 26
listed stationary source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response A: As the Sierra Club notes, EPA's interpretation of the
CAA was upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333
(D.C. Cir. 2006). See 77 FR 33642, 33645-46 (June 7, 2012) for a more
detailed explanation.
Comment B.1: The Sierra Club contends that Massachusetts' proposed
Alternative to BART analysis is flawed due to the lack of source-by-
source BART determinations. The commenter cited recent source-by-source
BART determinations which were more stringent than the benchmark BART
limits used in the Massachusetts alternative to BART analysis. The
commenter suggested that MassDEP must undertake the five step source-
by-source BART determination for each of the subject BART sources to
demonstrate that the alternative to BART provides greater reasonable
progress than the source-by-source BART. The commenter contends that
comparing emissions, based on the category-wide benchmark limits that
Massachusetts used, to the emissions from the alternative to BART
measures underestimates the reductions achievable through a five factor
determination and therefore does not conclusively show that the
Massachusetts alternative to BART measures provide greater reasonable
progress than source-by-source BART determinations.
Response B.1: The primary requirement, as specified in CAA section
169A, is for major stationary sources to procure, install, and operate
BART. In some cases this requirement is met with an analysis of
potential controls considering five factors given in EPA's Regional
Haze Rule (RHR). See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). EPA has interpreted this
requirement to be met if an alternative set of emission limits are
established which mandate greater reasonable progress toward visibility
improvement than direct application of BART on a source-by-source
basis. In promulgating the RHR, EPA stated that to demonstrate that
emission reductions of an alternative program would result in greater
emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission reductions
that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do this, the
State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources in the
State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
In final rulemaking published October 13, 2006, EPA offered further
clarification for States for assessing alternative strategies, in
particular regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging
whether the alternative is better. See 71 FR 60612, 60615-20. In this
rulemaking, EPA stated in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels
given in the BART guidelines would be a suitable baseline against which
to compare alternative strategies where the alternative has been
designed to meet a requirement other than BART. See 71 FR at 60618; see
also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). MassDEP's analysis is fully consistent
with EPA's conclusions in this rulemaking.
While EPA recognizes that a case-by-case BART analysis may result
in emission limits more stringent than the presumptive limits, the
presumptive limits are reasonable and appropriate for use in assessing
an alternative emissions reductions scenario such as the Massachusetts
plan when comparing it to the BART scenario. See 71 FR 60619 (stating
``the presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART . . . because . . . they would be applied across the board to a
wide variety of units with varying impacts on visibility, at power
plants of varying size and distance from Class I areas''). In other
words, while in some instances case-by-case BART could result in limits
more stringent than the presumptive limits, in other instances
consideration of all five statutory BART factors could
[[Page 57489]]
result in limits less stringent than the presumptive limits, and EPA's
considered conclusion is that the presumptive BART is, overall, ``a
reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART.'' \3\ Furthermore,
Massachusetts went beyond EPA's presumptive level of control and used
the more stringent Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For this reason, the fact that facilities in other states
(with different facts for each of the BART factors) have received
BART determinations more stringent than the presumptive BART is not
directly relevant here.
\4\ The MANE-VU recommended level of BART control can be found
in Appendix R of the Massachusetts December 30, 2011 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The components of Massachusetts' plan were developed to reduce
mercury emissions, bring Massachusetts into attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by CAA
deadlines, and to meet long term strategy requirements. The
Massachusetts plan imposes limitations on sulfur dioxide
(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and mercury
emissions from coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), sulfur in
fuel oil limits and NOX limits for oil fired EGUs, and
enforceable EGU shutdowns. Massachusetts is also now using these
controls as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as
permitted pursuant to EPA's RHR (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). Therefore, the
use of the benchmark limits for the alternative to BART analysis is
appropriate. EPA agrees with Massachusetts' analysis that emission
reductions from the units subject to MassDEP's alternative plan will
result in emission reductions that will provide greater reasonable
progress than would BART alone as described more fully in the NPR.
Comment B.2.a: The Sierra Club contends that, even based on the
framework Massachusetts used, its BART alternative results in fewer
emission reductions for SO2 and NOX than would
BART. The Sierra Club argues that Massachusetts' analysis compares
emission reductions at the full set of sources subject to its BART
alternative to the much smaller set of subject-to-BART sources, and
this is impermissible under the regulations.
Response B.2.a: EPA does not agree with the commenter's
interpretation of the regional haze rule. If a State opts to implement
or require participation in an emission trading program or other
alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to
install, operate, and maintain BART, the State must ``demonstrat[e]
that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will
achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the
installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in
the State and covered by the alternative program.'' 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i). This demonstration must include a list of all BART-
eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the
alternative program and an analysis of the best system of continuous
emission control technology available. ``This analysis must be
conducted by making a determination of BART for each source within the
State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program as
provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless the emission
trading program or other alternative measure has been designed to meet
a requirement other than BART (such as the core requirement to have a
long term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals established
by the States). In this case, the State may determine the best system
of continuous emission control technology and associated emission
reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based
on both source-specific and category wide information as appropriate.''
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). This language indicates that BART
determinations are to be made for each source that is both subject to
BART and included in the alternative measure as provided for in
paragraph (e)(1). Paragraph (e)(1) calls for a BART determination for
BART-eligible sources. EPA does not agree that the language implies
that source-by-source BART determinations are required for units which
do not meet the definition of BART-eligible.\5\ Non-BART sources which
are included as members of the alternative measure need not be subject
to a BART analysis. Put simply, EPA's regulations allow a state to
develop an alternative that encompasses (and obtains emissions
reductions from) non-BART sources, and to compare that alternative to a
BART benchmark consisting only of subject-to-BART sources. Therefore,
Massachusetts was correct in only including benchmark emissions from
the BART sources in the baseline for comparison to the alternative
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See definition stated in footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment B.2.b: The Sierra Club argues that Brayton Point Station's
baseline SO2 emissions are lower than Massachusetts assumed.
Response B.2.b: Massachusetts conducted its analysis under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) by developing two tables for SO2. The first
table, Table 16 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012 submittal, subtracted each
BART-eligible facility's projected SO2 emissions if the
MANE-VU SO2 BART emissions rate were achieved from that
facility's baseline SO2 emissions in 2002. The sum of those
differences constitutes the expected reductions from installation of
benchmark BART. The second table, Table 17 of MassDEP's August 9, 2012
submittal, subtracted each facility's alternative BART expected
SO2 emissions from its emissions for the same baseline year
(2002). The sum of those differences constitutes the expected
reductions from installation of Massachusetts' BART alternative. The
comment essentially argues that Brayton Point's baseline SO2
emissions are overstated because, as of 2010, Brayton Point achieved
greater control than in 2002. However, Massachusetts' use of the 2002
emissions inventory as a baseline is consistent with MANE-VU's regional
approach and EPA's national approach. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii); see
also 64 FR 35742 (explaining that the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in
this context means ``the date of the emissions inventories on which the
SIP relies''), 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional
haze SIPs is 2002. . . .'') & id. n.84. Furthermore, EPA notes that
Massachusetts used the same baseline SO2 emissions for
Tables 16 and 17, so even if the baseline emissions were overstated,
they would be overstated by the same amount in both cases, and the
overstatement would neither benefit nor prejudice the BART alternative
for comparison.
Comment B.2.c: The Sierra Club contends that Brayton Point
Station's SO2 and NOX emissions under BART would
be lower than Massachusetts assumed.
Response B.2.c: As noted above in Response B.1, while in some
instances case-by-case BART could result in limits more stringent than
the presumptive limits, in other instances consideration of all five
statutory BART factors could result in limits less stringent than the
presumptive limits, and EPA's considered conclusion is that the
presumptive BART is, overall, a reasonable estimate of a stringent case
BART. EPA has concluded that ``there is no need to develop a precise
estimate of the emissions reductions that could be achieved by BART in
order simply to compare two programs'' and that ``the State may
establish a BART benchmark based on an analysis that includes
simplifying assumptions about BART control levels for sources within a
source category.'' See 70 FR 60618. Massachusetts used the MANE-VU
recommended level of control to develop its benchmark.
[[Page 57490]]
Comment B.2.d: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts
improperly takes credit in its BART alternative for the Salem Harbor
Station shutdown by (1) assuming for purposes of the BART benchmark
that Salem Harbor Unit 4 would continue to operate past 2014 when in
fact it will not (due to a consent decree), and then (2) crediting the
emission reductions from the pending shutdown of Units 1 through 4 to
Massachusetts's BART alternative, when these reductions will happen
regardless of what Massachusetts does, due to the same consent decree.
Response B.2.d: The consent decree requires that Salem Harbor
``remove from service'' Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2011, and Units 3
and 4 by June 1, 2014.\6\ However, the consent decree defines ``remove
from service'' as ceasing to generate electricity to supply the power
grid. The consent decree does not prohibit these units from operating
for purposes other than generating electricity to supply the power
grid. Consequently, the consent decree is not a federally enforceable
limit on emissions from these units. The facility requested, and
MassDEP granted, a modified emission control plan under Massachusetts
regulation 310 CMR 7.29 which caps NOX and SO2
emissions from the various units. This emission control plan, along
with the Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.29, will become federally
enforceable with this action. MassDEP's permit restrictions apply
regardless of the use to which the station owner might wish to put the
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The consent decree is available at https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Signed-Consent-Decree-12_11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the consent decree is, by its terms, enforceable by
the parties thereto (Conservation Law Foundation, HealthLink, Dominion
Energy New England, Inc., and Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC),
whereas a state permit restriction incorporated into a federally
enforceable SIP is enforceable by Massachusetts, EPA, and citizens,
under state law and under the federal Clean Air Act.
The Sierra Club suggests that the absence of specific public plans
for an alternative use of Salem Harbor's units (i.e., a use that would
be allowed under the consent decree but prohibited under Massachusetts'
SIP revision) means that it is unlikely that Salem Harbor will operate
regardless of what Massachusetts does in its SIP and therefore the
reductions that Massachusetts attributes by its permit restrictions are
only hypothetical.
EPA believes Massachusetts' approach was reasonable, for several
reasons. First, in Tables 16 and 18, Massachusetts used a reasonable
(and consistent) method to derive the BART benchmark emissions, namely,
multiplying each BART-eligible unit's 2002 heat input \7\ by the MANE-
VU recommended BART emission rates. See also Response B.2.b. This
streamlined calculation was conducted at all BART-eligible facilities
without examining whether the facilities' more recent operating
scenarios involve a higher or lower heat input. Thus, it was reasonable
and consistent for Massachusetts to include Salem Harbor Unit 4 in
Tables 16 and 18 as operating at 2002 heat input levels. The comment
essentially argues that, even if Massachusetts had not imposed any
permit restrictions, Salem Harbor's likely future actual emissions
would be much lower than its full potential to emit, and therefore the
BART benchmark calculation should use Salem Harbor Unit 4's likely
future actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios (i.e.,
zero), rather than simply apply the benchmark BART emission rate to its
2002 heat input rate. However, the Sierra Club points to no provision
of the Regional Haze Rule requiring states to project likely future
actual emissions under anticipated business scenarios, rather than use
the approach that Massachusetts used.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The heat input is a proxy for the quantity of fuel used.
\8\ If anything, the Regional Haze Rule focuses on facilities'
potential to emit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.301 (definition of
``existing stationary facility''); accord 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y,
Sec. II.A Step 3 (explaining that potential to emit is developed
``considering all federally enforceable and State enforceable permit
limits''). Using potential to emit, rather than 2002 heat input
rate, would result in higher BART benchmark emissions in Tables 16
and 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in Massachusetts' analysis of its alternative program in
Tables 17 and 19, the Commonwealth conservatively assumed that all
units covered by the alternative program would operate at their 2002
heat input rate, and took credit only for legally enforceable
restrictions on potential to emit. The Sierra Club focuses on the
reductions at Salem Harbor Units 1-4 in Tables 17 and 19, arguing that
Massachusetts is taking credit for reductions that would have happened
anyway and therefore that Tables 17 and 19 overstate the additional
reductions achieved through the alternative program. However,
Massachusetts' underlying assumption that any facility without an
operational restriction would operate at 2002 levels is in fact
conservative and likely substantially overstates emissions (i.e.,
understates reductions) for several facilities in Tables 17 and 19.
Many of the still active units listed in Tables 17 and 19 are in fact
now operating well below 2002 heat input levels. For example, according
to 2011 data,\9\ the annual heat input was 18,244,945 MMBtu for Brayton
Point Unit 3 and 500,264 MMBtu for Canal Station Unit 1. The 2002
benchmark annual heat inputs for these units were 36,339,809 MMBtu and
27,295,648 MMBtu, respectively.\10\ In other words, the logic under
which Massachusetts did count Salem Harbor's reductions in Tables 17
and 19 (because Massachusetts attributes the reductions to a legally
enforceable emission control plan) is the same logic under which
Massachusetts did not count likely actual reductions at other
facilities in those tables. This methodology is reasonable and
internally consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For 2011 EGU emission data, see EPA's Air Markets Program
Web page at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
\10\ See Tables 16 and 18 of the Massachusetts Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan dated August 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Sierra Club argues that, if the facility owner planned
to use the Salem Harbor units for a purpose not prohibited by the
consent decree, it would be required to apply for new permits ``because
the permits issued to the units to operate as electric generating units
would no longer be valid.'' While there are certainly scenarios in
which re-use of the units (as coal generating units but not for
supplying electricity to the grid) could require new permit
applications, the comment identifies no provisions of the pre-existing
permits (or of Massachusetts or federal law) indicating that this would
be necessary in all cases. Therefore, it was reasonable for
Massachusetts to assume that its permit restriction would achieve
reductions that would not be legally required to occur otherwise.
Comment B.3: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions relied on it its BART alternative are properly surplus for
purposes of BART. The Sierra Club stated that in order to claim credit
under the BART requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for emission
reductions attributable to a BART alternative, Massachusetts must
demonstrate that ``the emission reductions resulting from the . . .
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the [Clean Air Act] as of the
baseline date of the SIP.'' The Sierra Club claims that Massachusetts
[[Page 57491]]
has not identified what portion, if any, of the emission reductions
exceeded those necessary to comply with the purposes for which the
regulations were designed.
Response B.3: As part of the alternative to BART demonstration, 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) requires a ``demonstration that the emission
reductions resulting from the emission trading program or other
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline
date of the SIP.'' In promulgating the RHR in 1999, EPA explained that
the ``baseline date of the SIP'' in this context means ``the date of
the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies.'' 64 FR 35742; see
also 70 FR 39104, 39143 (``The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is
2002. . . .'') & id. n.84.
Any measure, including a measure to meet a requirement of the CAA,
adopted after 2002 is accordingly ``surplus'' under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). Massachusetts is using regulation 310 CMR 7.29 in
conjunction with the sulfur in fuel oil standard and emission control
plans as an alternative to BART for its EGU BART-eligible sources as
permitted by the RHR and as discussed in the NPR. EPA agrees with
Massachusetts' analysis that emission reductions from the alternative
program will result in emission reductions that are surplus to the
baseline date of the SIP. As discussed in the NPR, Massachusetts' use
of the 310 CMR 7.29 (with a compliance year of 2008) as an alternative
to BART for EGUs, in addition to the newly adopted revised sulfur in
fuel oil requirements and revised emission control plans, are in
accordance with and satisfies the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)
for BART alternatives, including the requirement that the emission
reductions be surplus to the baseline date of the SIP. The NPR also
discusses how Massachusetts estimated the emission reductions required
by the alternative plan. EPA is not restating that analysis here.
Finally, the Sierra Club has not identified any specific elements of
Massachusetts' alternative program that it believes are not surplus to
reductions from measures adopted to meet CAA requirements.
Comment B.4: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the distribution of the emissions under its BART
alternative is substantially similar to that under BART or conducted
dispersion modeling to show the BART alternative results in greater
reasonable progress toward achieving natural baseline visibility
conditions in affected Class I areas. Under EPA's RHR, it is
insufficient to simply compare the total emissions reductions from
source-specific BART and a State's BART alternative; the State must
take into consideration the location of these emission reductions.
Where the distribution of emissions under BART and the alternative are
substantially different, the State proposing to rely on a BART-
alternative must conduct dispersion modeling to show the difference in
visibility under each program for each impacted Class I area on the
worst and best 20 percent days. The Sierra Club commented that the mere
fact that all the subject-to-BART units are a subset of the alternative
BART units, does not demonstrate that similar geographic distribution.
The Sierra Club contends that to assess the emission distribution,
``the State would have to compare the magnitude of emission reductions
at units common to both schemes and evaluate whether the additional
units covered by the BART alternative are proximate to subject to BART
sources.'' The Sierra Club further states that Massachusetts would also
need to consider, for example, whether differences in stack heights
among the sources would result in different geographic distribution.
The Sierra Club states that neither Massachusetts nor EPA has presented
any further analysis, and therefore neither has demonstrated that the
BART alternative produces a similar distribution of emission reductions
to BART.
Response B.4: The RHR states that ``[i]f the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the
alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the
alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). EPA discussed in the NPR how
Massachusetts' alternative to BART was acceptable and met the
requirements for a BART alternative program in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA
finds that the distribution of emission reductions in Massachusetts
sources included in the alternative program are comparable to, and not
substantially different from, emission reductions under BART at subject
units. See 77 FR 30943. The emission reductions from the alternative to
BART are discussed in detail in the NPR. Massachusetts' alternative
program covers all of the BART-subject EGU sources and also includes
additional EGUs which are too old to be BART-subject sources.
All of the emission reductions, with the exception of Mount Tom,
are from EGUs located in eastern Massachusetts and, in many cases, at
the same physical location as the BART-eligible EGUs. For example, as
compared to the BART benchmark, the BART alternative achieves fewer
reductions from Brayton Point Station, but greater reductions from
Somerset Power, which is located in the same municipality as Brayton
Point. Similarly, as compared to the BART benchmark, the BART
alternative achieves fewer reductions from Canal Station (on the south
shore of Massachusetts, about 60 miles south of Boston) and Mystic
Station (just a few miles north of Boston), but much greater reductions
from Salem Harbor (on the north shore of Massachusetts, about 20 miles
north of Boston). As for Mount Tom Unit 1, it is located in Holyoke,
Massachusetts, approximately 80 miles west of Boston. The contribution
of the Mount Tom emission reductions to the Massachusetts alternative
to BART is 6% of the SO2 reduction and 9% of the
NOX reduction. While this does create a minor variation in
the geographic distribution of emission reductions, this does not lead
to a substantial difference in geographic distribution of the emission
reduction, particularly since the distances between the units involved
are generally much less than the distances from any of the units to the
relevant Class I areas.
Moreover, to the extent that there are any differences in
geographic distribution, they may be beneficial for regional haze
purposes. As noted above, the principal difference in distribution is
that the BART benchmark relies more heavily on reductions at Brayton
Point and Canal Station (both in Massachusetts's southeast corner),
whereas the alternative to BART relies more heavily on reductions at
Salem Harbor (slightly closer to Maine and New Hampshire, with their
five Class I areas) and Mount Tom (slightly closer to the Lye Brook
Wilderness in Vermont and the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New
Jersey). While neither Massachusetts nor EPA has modeled the impact of
these slight geographic differences, the fact that the reductions occur
slightly closer to the Class I areas makes it unlikely that the
alternative would result in less visibility benefits to those areas.
Therefore, EPA finds that Massachusetts was reasonable in the
determination that the geographic distribution of the emission
reductions from the alternative plan is not substantially different
from the emission reduction distribution projected under BART.
Comment C: The Sierra Club commented that Massachusetts has not
demonstrated that the State will achieve
[[Page 57492]]
the reasonable progress goals established by MANE-VU for 2018.
Specifically, the Sierra Club noted that Massachusetts is not projected
to achieve the 90% SO2 reduction target by 2018 at major
EGUs and instead projects emission reductions of between 67 and 87%
from the affected units. The Sierra Club contends that even though
Brayton Point Units 1 and 2 are achieving 90% control, Massachusetts
must require as an enforceable operating condition the continuous
operation of the spray dry absorbers. In addition, Massachusetts should
require at least 96% control for the dry scrubber to be installed on
Brayton Point Unit 3. Finally, Sierra Club states that Massachusetts
should require Mount Tom to continuously operate its installed dry
scrubber.
Response C: Through the consultation process, Massachusetts agreed
to pursue the MANE-VU ``Ask'' (Ask) as part of the long term strategy
to ensure reasonable progress toward the goal of natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas impacted by emissions from Massachusetts.
The Ask consists of the implementation of BART, the adoption of the low
sulfur in fuel oil strategy, and a 90% percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from the greatest impacting EGUs or comparable
SO2 reductions. Emission reductions resulting from these
strategies were incorporated into the projected 2018 emissions
inventory. The 2018 emission inventory was used to model the expected
visibility improvement at the end of the first planning period. Based
on the inventories developed for the MANE-VU states and the resulting
modeling, the MANE-VU Class I States determined that the control
strategies for the first planning period were sufficient to meet the
reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas. As stated in the NPR,
the 2018 modeling inventory for Massachusetts EGUs, based on the
implementation of the Ask, is 45,941 tons SO2. Massachusetts
targeted EGUs' 2011 SO2 emissions were only 22,165 tons
SO2 in 2011, and under the most conservative (worst case)
long term strategy projected emission inventory, Massachusetts EGUs are
limited to 26,811 tons SO2 in 2018 (and more likely 10,505
tons, which is below the level that would be achieved by the 90%
target). The long term strategy limit is 19,130 tons SO2
less than the inventory used to model visibility improvement in 2018.
Since the long term strategy program is outcome-based, rather than
technology-based, Massachusetts may develop a program that will achieve
emissions reductions that are adequate for Class I states' reasonable
progress goals even if it does not rely on the particular reductions
that were used to develop the assumptions upon which those reasonable
progress goals were based. It is worth noting that the MANE-VU Ask does
not itself establish federal regulatory requirements. States'
obligations are defined by the Regional Haze Rule, not the Ask.
Finally, since future emission projections are somewhat uncertain,
the RHR requires States to submit a 5-year progress report. At the time
of this progress report, MassDEP will determine if the controls
approved into the Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to achieve
reasonable progress at the impacted Class I areas for the first
planning period.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Massachusetts Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan, submitted on December 30, 2011 with supplemental
submittals on August 9, 2012 and August 28, 2012, as meeting the
applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. Included as
part of the Regional Haze Plan are the following Appendices, which EPA
is approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP: (1) Appendix
BB. Modified Emission Control Plan for General Electric Aviation--Lynn
dated March 24, 2011; (2) Appendix CC. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.26(50)-
(54) ``Outdoor Hydronic Heaters;'' (3) Appendix DD. Massachusetts 310
CMR 7.29 ``Emission Standards for Power Plants,'' the sections relating
to NOX and SO2; (4) Appendix EE. Amended Emission
Control Plan for Mt. Tom Station dated May 15, 2009; (5) Appendix FF.
Amended Emission Control Plan Approval for Salem Harbor Station dated
March 27, 2012; (6) Appendix GG. Amended Emission Control Plan Approval
for Brayton Point Station dated April 12, 2012; (7) Appendix HH.
Facility Shutdown of Somerset Power, LLC dated June 22, 2011; (8)
Appendix II. Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions;'' and 310 CMR
7.05 ``Fuels All Districts;''and (9) Appendix JJ. Modified Emission
Control Plan for Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. dated March 14, 2012.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
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
[[Page 57493]]
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2013. 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 Section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 12, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register September 13, 2013.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(139) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan regarding Regional
Haze submitted by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection on December 30, 2011, August 9, 2012, and August 28, 2012.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.00, ``Definitions,'' amended
definition of SULFUR IN FUEL, effective August 3, 2012.
(B) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.05, ``U Fuels All
Districts,'' effective August 3, 2012, with the following exceptions
which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
(1) 310 CMR 7.05(1)(a)(3);
(2) 310 CMR 7.05(2) through (4); and
(3) 310 CMR 7.05(7) through (9).
(C) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emissions Standards
for Power Plants,'' effective on January 25, 2008 (which includes
previous sections effective on June 29, 2007), with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to
BART:
(1) In 310 CMR 7.29(1), the reference to mercury (Hg), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) in the first sentence and the phrase ``. . .
and CO2 and establishing a cap on CO2 and Hg
emissions from affected facilities. CO2 emissions standards
set forth in 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)5.a. and b. shall not apply to emissions
that occur after December 31, 2008'' in the second sentence;
(2) In 310 CMR 7.29(2), the definitions of Alternate Hg Designated
Representative, Automated Acquisition and Handling System or DAHS,
Mercury (Hg) Designated Representative, Mercury Continuous Emission
Monitoring System or Mercury CEMS, Mercury Monitoring System, Sorbent
Trap Monitoring System, and Total Mercury;
(3) 310 CMR 7.29(5)(a)(3) through (5)(a)(6);
(4) In 310 CMR 7.29(5)(b)(1), reference to compliance with the
mercury emissions standard in the second sentence;
(5) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(a)(3) through (6)(a)(4);
(6) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(b)(10);
(7) 310 CMR 7.29(6)(h)(2);
(8) The third and fourth sentences in 310 CMR 7.29(7)(a);
(9) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1), the reference to CO2 and
mercury;
(10) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(a), the reference to CO2
and mercury;
(11) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(1)(b) through 7.29(7)(b)(1)(d);
(12) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(3), the reference to CO2 and
mercury;
(13) In 310 CMR 7.29(7)(b)(4)(b), the reference to CO2
and mercury; and
(14) 310 CMR 7.29(7)(e) through 7.29(7)(i).
(D) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.26, ``Industry Performance
Standards, Outdoor Hydronic Heaters'' paragraphs (50) through (54) and
related footnotes effective December 26, 2008.
(1) 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor Hydronic Heaters--Applicability;
(2) 310 CMR 7.26(51) Definitions;
(3) 310 CMR 7.26(52) Requirements for Operators;
(4) 310 CMR 7.26(53) Requirements for Sellers; and
(5) 310 CMR 7.26(54) Requirements for Manufacturers.
(E) The sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), and PM2.5 provisions of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Emission Control Plan ``Saugus--
Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region, 310 CMR 7.08(2)--Municipal Waste
Combustors, Application No. MBR-98-ECP-006, Transmittal No. W003302,
Emission Control Plan Modified Final Approval'' dated March 14, 2012 to
Mr. Jairaj Gosine, Wheelabrator Saugus, Inc. and signed by Cosmo
Buttaro and James E. Belsky, with the following exceptions which are
not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART.
(1) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Unit Load Restriction/Operating
Practices;
(2) In Table 2, the EU1 and EU2 Emission Limit/Standard for
Opacity, HCl, Dioxin/Furon, Cd, Pb, CO, Hg, NH3, and associated
footnotes;
(3) In Table 2, EU3 Fugitive Ash requirement and associated
footnote.
(4) In Table 2, Footnote 1 which is a State Only Requirement.
(F) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan ``Lynn--Metropolitan, Boston/Northeast Region,
310 CMR 7.19, Application No. MBR-94-COM-008, Transmittal No. X235617,
Modified Emission Control Plan Final Approval'' dated March 24, 2011 to
Ms. Jolanta Wojas, General Electric Aviation and signed by Marc
Altobelli and James E. Belsky. Note, this document contains two section
V; V. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS and V. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS/PROVISIONS.
(G) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan, ``Holyoke Western Region 310 CMR 7.29 Power
Plant Emission Standards, Application No. 1-E-01-072, Transmittal No.
W025214, Amended Emission Control Plan'' dated May 15, 2009 to Mr. John
S. Murry, Mt. Tom Generating Company, LLC and signed by Marc Simpson,
with the following exceptions which are not
[[Page 57494]]
applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1 Emission Limit/Standard for Hg, CO,
CO2, and PM2.5 and related footnotes;
(2) In Table 3, the EU1 Monitoring/Testing Requirements for
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
(3) In Table 4, the EU 1 Record Keeping Requirements for
CO2, CO, PM2.5, and Hg;
(4) In Table 5, the EU1 Reporting Requirements for Hg;
(5) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting requirements
(6) In Table 6, the Compliance Paths for Hg and CO2 and
related footnote;
(7) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, Item 4, applicable to
CO2;
(8) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
(9) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
(10) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(H) The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Emission Control Plan ``Salem--Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Region,
310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards, Application No. NE-12-003,
Transmittal No. X241756, Final Amended Emission Control Plan Approval''
dated March 27, 2012 to Mr. Lamont W. Beaudette, Dominion Energy Salem
Harbor, LLC and signed by Edward J. Braczyk, Cosmo Buttaro, and James
E. Belsky with the following exceptions which are not applicable to the
Massachusetts Alternative to BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard
for Hg and related footnotes;
(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Emission Limit/
Standard for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related
footnotes;
(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for Hg;
(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping
Requirements for CO2, CO, and PM2.5;
(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping
Requirements for Hg;
(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Reporting
Requirements for CO2;
(8) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for
Hg;
(9) In Section 3, Compliance Schedule, the 3rd paragraph text which
reads ``In order to meet the regulatory Hg limits which are effective
on October 1, 2012, the facility owner/operator has proposed using a
combination strategy involving fuel mix optimization (for
SO2 compliance but this action will benefit Hg compliance as
well) and installation of a Calcium Bromide injection system. In order
to meet the 310 CMR 7.29 CO2 emission targets, the Dominion
Energy Salem Harbor, LLC facility owner/operator procured offset
credits from both its Dominion Energy Brayton Point facility and third
party contacts and paid into the Greenhouse Gas Expendable Trust;''
(10) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
(11) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
(12) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(I) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Emission
Control Plan ``Amended Emission Control Plan Final Approval Application
for: BWP AQ 25, 310 CMR 7.29 Power Plant Emission Standards,
Transmittal Number X241755, Application Number SE-12-003, Source
Number: 1200061'' dated April 12, 2012 to Peter Balkus, Dominion Energy
Brayton Point, LLC and signed by John K. Winkler, with the following
exceptions which are not applicable to the Massachusetts Alternative to
BART:
(1) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Emission Limit/Standard
for Hg;
(2) In Table 2, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, EU 4 Emission Limit/Standard
for CO, CO2, PM2.5 and related footnotes;
(3) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
(4) In Table 3, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Monitoring/Testing
Requirements for Hg;
(5) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, EU 3, and EU 4 Record Keeping
Requirements for CO2, Hg, CO, and PM2.5;
(6) In Table 4, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Record Keeping
Requirements for Hg;
(7) In Table 5, the EU 1, EU 2, and EU 3 Reporting Requirements for
Hg and CEMS monitoring and certification;
(8) In Table 5, the Facility Reporting Requirements;
(9) In Table 6, the Compliance Path for CO2, and Hg;
(10) In Section 4, Special Conditions for ECP, the CO2
requirement in Item 2;
(11) Section 6, Modification to the ECP;
(12) Section 7, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act; and
(13) Section 8, Appeal of Approval.
(J) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection letter
``Facility Shutdown, FMF Facility No. 316744'' dated June 22, 2011 to
Jeff Araujo, Somerset Power LLC and signed by John K. Winkler.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) ``Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan'' dated
August 9, 2012.
0
3. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries to
existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00, 310 CMR 7.05, 310 CMR 7.08,
and 310 CMR 7.19 in order of ``Date approved by EPA''; and by adding
new state citations for 310 CMR 7.26 and 310 CMR 7.29 in order of
``State citation'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.
* * * * *
[[Page 57495]]
Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
[See notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date
State citation Title/Subject submitted by approved by Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections
State EPA citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.00............... Definitions............. 8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Approving the definition of
page number where the ``Sulfur in Fuel.''
document begins].
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.05............... U Fuels All Districts... 8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Approves the sulfur content
page number where the of fuel oil. The following
document begins]. sections were not submitted
as part of the SIP:
(1)(a)(3), (2), (3), (4),
(7), (8), (9).
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.08(2)............ MWC NOX requirements.... 8/9/12 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Facility specific MWC
page number where the Emission Control Plan for
document begins]. Wheelabrator Saugus revises
the NOX limits to 185 ppm by
volume at 7% O2 dry basis
(30-day rolling average).
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.19............... NOX RACT................ 12/30/11 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Facility specific NOX RACT
page number where the for General Electric
document begins]. Aviation Boiler No. 3 to cap
annual SO2 and NOX emissions
at 249.0 tons each.
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.26............... Industry Performance 12/30/11 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Only approving the Outdoor
Standards. page number where the Hydronic Heaters (50)-(54).
document begins].
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.29............... Emissions Standards for 8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Only approving the SO2 and
Power Plants. page number where the NOX requirements.
document begins].
310 CMR 7.29............... Emission Standards for 8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Facility specific Emission
Power Plants. page number where the Control Plan requirement for
document begins]. Brayton Point Station Unit
1, 2, 3, and 4 which
disallows the use of 310 CMR
7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
Credits or Federal Acid Rain
allowances for compliance
with 310 CMR 7.29 after June
1, 2014.
310 CMR 7.29............... Emission Standards for 8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Facility specific Emission
Power Plants. page number where the Control Plan requirement for
document begins]. Mt. Tom Station which
disallows the use of 310 CMR
7.29 SO2 Early Reduction
Credits or Federal Acid Rain
allowances for compliance
with 310 CMR 7.29 after
October 1, 2009.
[[Page 57496]]
310 CMR 7.29............... Emission Standards for 8/9/2012 9/19/13 [Insert Federal Register 137 Facility specific Emission
Power Plants. page number where the Control Plan for Salem
document begins]. Harbor Station Units 1, 2,
3, and 4 which limits NOX
emissions from Unit 1 to 276
tons per rolling 12 month
period starting 1/1/2012,
limits NOX emissions for
Unit 2 to 50 tons per
rolling 12 month period
starting 1/1/2012, limits
SO2 emissions form Unit 2 to
300 tons per rolling 12
month period starting 1/1/
2012, shuts down units 3 and
4 effective 6/1/2014.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have been part of the Federal SIP before this
date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless otherwise stated in comments or title section.
[FR Doc. 2013-22692 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
