Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Control of Visible Emissions, Recordkeeping and Monitoring, 41427-41437 [2014-16469]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation
from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: July 2, 2014.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014–16608 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2009–0469; A–1–FRL–
9910–12–Region 1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
Control of Visible Emissions,
Recordkeeping and Monitoring
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Connecticut
on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA
is approving revisions to Connecticut’s
visible and particulate matter (PM)
emissions, recordkeeping and
monitoring regulations. These revised
rules establish and require limitations
on visible and PM emissions for
stationary sources, and clarify reporting
requirements for operation of airpollution-control and monitoring
equipment. EPA is approving this SIP
revision because EPA has determined
that it will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) in
Connecticut or with any other
applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
This action is being taken in
accordance with the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on August
15, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–
2009–0469. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI
or other information whose disclosure is
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., 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 Bureau of
Air Management, Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection, State
Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford,
CT 06106–1630.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2),
Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone
number (617) 918–1684, fax number
(617) 918–0684, email simcox.alison@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
Connecticut first adopted regulations
to limit visible and PM emissions from
stationary sources, including, among
other sources, electric generating units
(EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s.
In 1972, EPA approved ‘‘Control of
particulate emissions,’’ into the
Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). That
regulation has since been recodified as
Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies (RCSA) Section 22a–174–18.
See Section II of EPA’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), dated
August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), for a
brief discussion of the relationships
among ‘‘visible emissions,’’ ‘‘opacity’’
and ‘‘particulate matter.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41427
In 2003, the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection (now the
Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection or CT DEEP)
proposed under state law revisions to
Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of
particulate matter and visible
emissions’’ (herein referred to as the
‘‘visible emissions regulation’’) to
address short-term excursions from
maximum allowed opacity levels that
may occur and be measured at some
stationary sources with continuous
opacity monitoring systems (COMS) 1
during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing,
fuel switching or sudden load changes.
Facilities covered under these new
exceptions in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)
include only those facilities that operate
COMS. CT DEEP’s revisions also
excluded sources subject to opacity
limits under a federal new source
performance standard (NSPS) from the
opacity limits contained in the state
regulations. See Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2).
In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed
revisions to several other RCSA
sections, including 22a–174–4, ‘‘Source
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting’’ (codified as RCSA Section
19–508–4 in the Connecticut SIP, and
herein referred to as the ‘‘recordkeeping
regulation’’), and 22a–174–7, ‘‘Air
pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment operation’’
(codified as RCSA Section 19–508–7 in
the Connecticut SIP, and herein referred
to as the ‘‘monitoring regulation’’).
CT DEEP held a public hearing on
revisions to these three (as well as
several other) regulations on April 29,
2003. Subsequently, CT DEEP amended
its visible emissions, recordkeeping, and
monitoring regulations based on
comments received from EPA and
others, with an effective date of April 1,
2004.
On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP
submitted the revised regulations to
EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut
SIP. This submittal included a provision
in the visible emissions regulation
providing alternate opacity limits for
periods of source operation consisting of
startup, shutdown or malfunctions;
stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel
switching or sudden load changes.
These alternate opacity limits only
apply to stationary sources that use
COMs (Section 22a–174–18(j)(1)).
However, on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent
1 CT regulations use the term ‘‘opacity continuous
emissions monitoring systems’’ or ‘‘Opacity CEMS.’’
However, EPA and others commonly refer to these
monitors as ‘‘continuous opacity monitoring
systems’’ or ‘‘COMS.’’ Throughout this notice, we
use the more common term ‘‘COMS.’’
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41428
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
a letter to EPA withdrawing Section
22a–174–18(j)(1) to the extent that it
applies to malfunctions; all other
aspects of Section 22a–174–18(j)(1) were
retained as originally submitted. Thus,
EPA is not acting on the submission
with respect to the revised opacity
limits applicable during malfunctions
and is not approving an alternative
emissions limit applicable during
malfunctions.
Connecticut’s December 1, 2004
submittal also included a provision that
excluded sources subject to opacity
limits under a federal NSPS from the
opacity limits contained in the state
regulations (Section 22a–174–18(j)(2)).
However, on March 27, 2014, CT DEEP
sent a letter to EPA withdrawing Section
22a–174–18(j)(2), which excluded
emissions units that are subject to a
visible emissions standard pursuant to a
new source performance standard set
forth in 40 CFR 60 from the visible
emissions standards in Sections 22a–
174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, EPA is
not acting on the submission with
respect to Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). In
correspondence between EPA and CT
DEEP it was discussed that if
Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2) from its SIP submission,
stationary sources subject to visible
emissions standards under a federal
NSPS will continue to be exempt from
the visible emissions standards in
Sections 22a–174–18(b)(1) and (b)(2) of
the state regulation, as a matter of state
law, but will remain subject to the
opacity limits contained in ‘‘Control of
particulate emissions’’ under the SIP
(See 37 FR 10842).2 Moreover, it should
be noted that the NSPS sources subject
to visible emissions standards are not
eligible for the alternate opacity limits
for non-steady-state modes of source
operation contained in Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1) of Connecticut’s regulations
and being approved into the
Connecticut SIP. The reason for this is
that Connecticut never intended for
those NSPS-subject sources to be able to
demonstrate compliance with the
alternate opacity limits in Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1). Thus, the opacity limits
contained ‘‘Control of particulate
emissions,’’ which had earlier been
approved by EPA into Connecticut’s SIP
prior to today’s SIP revision, will
continue to apply to stationary sources
subject to visible emissions standards
under a federal NSPS.
CT DEEP’s December 1, 2004 SIP
submittal included a total of six
regulations. EPA approved three of
2 See Section 19–508–18, ‘‘Control of Particulate
Emissions’’ posted at https://www.epa.gov/region1/
topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
these regulations into the Connecticut
SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761).
They are: RCSA Section 22a–174–3b
‘‘Exemptions from permitting for
construction and operation of external
combustion units, automotive
refinishing operations, emergency
engines, nonmetallic mineral processing
equipment and surface coating
operations;’’ RCSA Section 22a–174–30
‘‘Dispensing of gasoline/Stage I and
Stage II vapor recovery;’’ and RCSA
Section 22a–174–43 ‘‘Portable fuel
container spillage control.’’ Today’s
action addresses the remaining three
regulations contained in the December
1, 2004 SIP submittal, namely RCSA
Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and
22a–174–18 (except for the portions of
Section 22a–174–18, noted earlier,
which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its
SIP submittal). As stated in our August
15, 2013 NPR, these three regulations
amend earlier versions of certain
recordkeeping, monitoring, and visible
and PM emissions regulations.
On August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701),
EPA proposed approval of RCSA
Sections 22a–174–4, 22a–174–7, and
22a–174–18 (without the withdrawn
portion relating to malfunctions). After
our August 15, 2013 NPR, CT DEEP
withdrew Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) as
we noted above. Specific details of
Connecticut’s December 1, 2004 SIP
submittal and the rationale for EPA’s
proposed approval are explained in the
August 15, 2013 NPR and will not be
restated in this notice, except to the
extent relevant to our responses to
public comments we received on our
proposal.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on our
August 15, 2013 NPR from the following
entities: NRG Energy, Inc. and Montville
Power LLC (collectively referred to
herein as NRG); PSEG Services
Corporation; the Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF) Massachusetts; and
the Sierra Club. The public comments
received are contained in the docket for
today’s final action. We summarize and
respond to all of those comments below.
NRG Energy’s Comments
NRG noted that although Middletown
Station #3 employs ‘‘water injection’’ at
its facility, water injection is not used
for compliance purposes, an inference
that may have been drawn from the
information contained in Table 1 of our
August 15, 2013 NPR. EPA
acknowledges NRG’s factual assertion,
but also notes that NRG’s point does not
impact in one way or the other the
substance of EPA’s final action today.
NRG also noted a typographical error in
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Section IV.C.a(1) of our August 15, 2013
NPR. NRG noted that the reference in
that section to ‘‘Mountville Station #4’’
actually should be a reference to
‘‘Middletown Station #4.’’ EPA
acknowledges that typographical error,
but also notes that NRG’s point does not
impact in one way or the other the
substance of EPA’s final action today.
PSEG’s Comments
PSEG’s comments were supportive of
our proposed action, stating that as an
owner and operator of sources regulated
by the SIP revisions in question the
company is ideally situated to provide
comments. Among other things, PSEG
noted that EPA had determined that the
revised visible emission regulations
would not result in interference with
maintenance of the PM NAAQS in
Connecticut, and that certain aspects of
the revised regulations would actually
enhance protection of air quality
through improved control of visible
emissions due, in part, to the
requirement to use COMS. While EPA
believes that the revisions to
Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–18
(visible emissions regulation) may allow
slight emission increases, EPA agrees
with PSEG that the revisions will not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS and is
otherwise consistent with the CAA.
Sierra Club’s Comments
Comment 1: The Sierra Club
commented that the proposed revisions
to Connecticut’s SIP opacity regulations
violate the anti-backsliding requirement
of section 193 of the CAA because
portions of Connecticut were designated
nonattainment for particulate matter at
the time of EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR.
Response 1: EPA disagrees with Sierra
Club’s assertion that the revisions to
Connecticut’s opacity regulations
violate the anti-backsliding
requirements of CAA section 193. By its
own terms, CAA section 193 only
applies in areas designated
nonattainment for a NAAQS. Opacity
limits in SIPs are intended to assure
attainment and maintenance of
particulate matter standards, thus, the
only NAAQS relevant to our action
today are the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS.
All areas in Connecticut are now
designated as attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for the
PM10 NAAQS, thus, CAA section 193
does not apply to today’s final action.
On July 19, 2013, EPA proposed to
redesignate New Haven and Fairfield
counties in Connecticut to attainment
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 43096). All other
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
counties in Connecticut were at that
time already designated as attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not
receive any public comments on its July
19, 2013 proposal to redesignate New
Haven and Fairfield counties, and our
final approval of Connecticut’s
redesignation request for those counties
was published on September 24, 2013,
with an effective date of October 24,
2013 (78 FR 58467).3
In addition, as noted in EPA’s July 19,
2013 proposed approval of
Connecticut’s redesignation request, air
quality design values (DVs) for the years
2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 2009–2011
show that both New Haven and Fairfield
counties are well below the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3) and the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. DVs for
those counties also indicate that recent
monitoring data from 2009–2011 are
well below the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS of 12 mg/m3.4 Attainment of the
24-hour PM10 standard is based on the
expected number of annual exceedances
of the level of the standard (averaged
over a three-year period) being equal to
or less than one. EPA revoked the
annual PM10 NAAQS in 2006. The last
time there was an exceedance of the 24hour PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut was
in 1994.
Furthermore, modeling analyses
conducted by EPA in relation to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
associated with the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS 5 indicates that DVs in
southwestern Connecticut (where New
Haven and Fairfield counties are
located) are expected to continue to
decline through 2020. The RIA shows
that, for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, for
New Haven and Fairfield counties, the
highest annual DV projected for 2020 is
8.79 mg/m3 for Fairfield County and 8.62
mg/m3 for New Haven County. The RIA
also indicates that the highest 24-hour
DV projected for 2020 for New Haven
and Fairfield counties is 22.27 mg/m3 for
Fairfield County and 21.78 mg/m3 for
New Haven County.
In summary, as the entire State of
Connecticut is currently designated
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
for the applicable PM NAAQS (see 40
CFR 81.307), section 193 of the CAA is
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3 EPA
recognizes that this redesignation was not
final at the time of the proposal. However, EPA
noted in the proposal that it intended to take final
action on the proposed redesignation before taking
final action on Connecticut’s visible emissions SIP
revision.
4 EPA has not yet designated nonattainment areas
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
5 The RIA is included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
not applicable or relevant to our
analysis of the SIP revisions.
Comment 2: The Sierra Club
commented that even if EPA were
correct that the only applicable antibacksliding provision is the one found
in section 110(l) the proposed revisions
must still be rejected. The Sierra Club
asserted that because neither EPA nor
Connecticut attempted to quantify the
impact of the proposed SIP revisions on
air emissions, EPA’s section 110(l)
analysis ‘‘was fatally flawed.’’ The
Sierra Club asserted that EPA failed to
show that the proposed SIP revisions
would meet either of two tests EPA
assesses when conducting a section
110(l) analysis. These two tests are (1)
allowing a state to show that a SIP
revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS by demonstrating that the
revision will not allow for an increase
in emissions into the air over what is
allowed under the existing EPAapproved SIP, taking into consideration
SIP-approved measures that represent
new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the
change represented by the SIP revision;
or (2) allowing a state to show that a SIP
revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS by showing that, taking into
consideration the change in emissions
levels allowed under the SIP revision,
there is a substantial margin of safety
(i.e., ‘‘headroom’’ or ‘‘cushion of
compliance’’) between ambient
concentrations and the applicable
NAAQS (in this instance the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS). The Sierra Club also
asserted that Table 4 of EPA’s August
15, 2013 NPR shows that Fairfield
County’s maximum 24-hour PM10
concentration increased from 33 to 54
mg/m3 from 2011 to 2012, which Sierra
Club claims ‘‘contradicts EPA’s
assertion of a substantial margin of
safety’’ and ‘‘is also not consistent with
permanent and legally enforceable
emissions reductions.’’ The Sierra Club
also stated that EPA’s approach to the
section 110(l) analysis was not
appropriate because not all portions of
Connecticut were designated attainment
for the applicable PM NAAQS at the
time we proposed approval of the SIP
revisions.
Response 2: As stated in our response
to Comment 1 above, all portions of
Connecticut are currently designated
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
for the applicable PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS. Therefore, as also explained in
our August 15, 2013 NPR, EPA’s
analysis of the proposed SIP revision
under section 110(l) takes into account
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41429
that Connecticut is designated
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
for the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. We
noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that
CT DEEP submitted a clarifying letter to
its SIP submittal to demonstrate that the
SIP provisions we are approving today
are consistent with CAA section 110(l).
In order to better assess the State’s
demonstration, EPA determined it
would be helpful to conduct its own
section 110(l) analysis which drew
upon, but is not identical to, the
analysis presented in the CT DEEP’s
letter (78 FR 49704).
EPA requires an evaluation whether
changes to SIP-approved opacity limits
are likely to interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the PM NAAQS
pursuant to section 110(l). Generally, to
satisfy section 110(l), EPA does not
require a full attainment demonstration
showing that the change will not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. For
nonattainment areas, in the absence of
air quality modeling, EPA requires that
the revision at least maintain status quo
air quality, by offsetting any emissions
increases with additional
contemporaneous emissions reductions.
For attainment areas, EPA requires a
basis for concluding that any emissions
increases will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, e.g., by illustrating that any
change in the emission inventory is so
small relative to the margin between
ambient concentrations and the NAAQS
that it is unlikely that the change would
interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS. In the case of changes to
opacity limits, EPA applies these
requirements taking into consideration
that limits on opacity are a means of
assuring control of PM emissions.6
For these SIP revisions, EPA has
assessed the likelihood of interference
with the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in
Connecticut by attempting to quantify
the total emissions associated with the
sources that would be covered by the
changes to opacity requirements. EPA’s
approach assumes that relaxing the
opacity requirements will result in an
increase in PM emissions (we refer to
this as the ‘‘worst case scenario’’). The
110(l) analysis looks to the additional
6 Although opacity is not a criteria pollutant and
increases in opacity do not always correlate
precisely with increases in mass emissions, opacity
standards are established as an independent
requirement for effective PM emissions control,
opacity is used as an indicator of increased PM
emissions (due both to changes in process and in
the effectiveness of emission controls), and opacity
limits supplement the implementation and
enforcement of PM emission standards. See, e.g.,
Utility Air Regulatory Group v, EPA, No. 12–1166
(D.C. Cir., Mar. 11, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41430
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
increment of emissions associated with
the SIP revision, which would be a
portion of the emissions during the time
for which the opacity standard has been
loosened. In turn, the operating periods
when the opacity standard is loosened
is a portion of the total operating time
for these sources. Finally, we look at the
total emissions from these sources at all
operating times in relation to the total
emissions inventory and current
ambient concentrations. We estimate
that the total emissions of these sources
(at all times) represents about only 11
tons per year of PM2.5, out of a total
statewide inventory of 17,151 tons per
year of PM2.5 and about 17 tons per year
of PM10 out of a total statewide
inventory of 38,995 tons per year.
Furthermore, as noted in EPA’s
proposed approval of Connecticut’s
section 22a–174–18 (78 FR 49701;
August 15, 2013), emission projections
from the maintenance plan for
Connecticut’s PM2.5 redesignation
request indicate that there is a
substantial margin of safety that ensures
maintenance of the NAAQS even if
small increases in emissions were to
occur. As illustrated in Table 5 of that
notice, PM2.5 emissions in Fairfield and
New Haven counties are projected to
drop by 22% from 2007—when the area
was attaining the NAAQS—to 2025,
including over 1,000 tons per year of
reductions in the period from 2007 to
2017 (and over 300 tons per year of
reductions from 2017–2025). Thus, in
EPA’s technical judgment, although we
assume that these SIP changes will
result in some emissions increases, in
light of the size of these sources and the
nature of the changes, such increases
would be quite small in comparison
with the large margin of compliance
with the NAAQS and the ongoing
projected reductions in the emissions
inventory.
Taking into consideration the small
amount of total PM2.5 and PM10
emissions from these sources relative to
the statewide inventories, the nature of
the revisions (including the more
stringent PM limits for certain sources),
and the large ‘‘margin of compliance’’
between ambient concentrations and the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut,
EPA concludes that these changes will
not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS in Connecticut.
Our August 15, 2013 NPR (beginning
at 78 FR 49705) contains an analysis of
the section 110(l) demonstration and
data supporting CT DEEP’s and EPA’s
conclusion that the requirements of
section 110(l) have been met. A
summary of that analysis is provided
here, with additional information
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
quantifying the potential emissions
increases that might be associated with
the SIP revisions, added in response to
the Sierra Club’s comment.
First, in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we
considered and evaluated (although we
stated that we did not precisely
quantify) potential emissions increases
that could result from the SIP revisions
(78 FR 49705–49707). As noted, we
considered emissions increases that
potentially might occur as a result of the
relaxation of the SIP’s opacity limits
during periods of source operation
limited to startup or shutdown; stack
testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or
sudden load changes. We noted that, of
the 20 units (all of which utilized
COMS) for which the state originally
designed the alternative opacity limit in
Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), eight of those
units are now permanently removed
from service and three additional units
have since switched their primary fuel
from residual oil to natural gas
(resulting in significant reductions of
emissions of PM and PM precursors
during operation). Thus, our August 15,
2013 NPR noted that for purposes of
examining potential emission increases
that may arise from the alternative
opacity limit in Section 22a–174–
18(j)(1), our focus would be limited to
the potential impacts of increased
opacity at the remaining nine of the
original 20 units. We also noted in our
August 15, 2013 NPR that the
requirements of section 110(l) were
satisfied with respect to Connecticut’s
Section 22a–174–18(j)(2) affecting
stationary sources separately subject to
a federal NSPS; however, as noted
earlier in this notice, CT DEEP has since
withdrawn Section 22a–174–18(j)(2)
from its SIP submission and, thus, we
do not include in this notice a section
110(l) analysis of the effect of that
provision. In addition, another aspect of
our air quality impact analysis
considered and evaluated the reductions
in PM emissions that would arise due to
other aspects of the SIP revisions, i.e.,
the fact that more stringent PM limits
will apply at all times to sources that
burn natural gas and to ‘‘registration
sources’’ that burn distillate oil.
We concluded in our August 15, 2013
NPR that ‘‘taking into consideration the
universe of sources subject to the
revised opacity standard, the fuels and
emissions limits applicable to those
sources (including those that are more
stringent under the revision), and the
nature of the alternative opacity limit
(which only allows an increase from
40% to 60% opacity during certain
limited modes of source operation
during a maximum period of time just
under 11 hours per calendar quarter),
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that while there may be an increase in
PM emissions associated with this SIP
revision, any such increase would be
small, especially in relation to the
applicable attainment margin. It is also
critical to note that Connecticut’s
revised rule includes an important
check on any potential increase in
emissions that could occur, even under
the alternative opacity limit. The
revised regulation restricts the amount
of time that sources with COMS may
operate under the alternate opacity limit
to 0.5 percent of a facility’s total
operating hours during any calendar
quarter, or slightly less than 11 hours.
EPA believes that these changes to the
opacity limit may result in increased
PM emissions, and considered whether
those increased emissions would
interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5
and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut in
light of the nature and scope of those
changes and current air quality (i.e.,
margin of compliance with all existing
PM NAAQS). At the same time,
however, EPA believes that the limited
nature of the alternate opacity limit
(including that opacity may only
increase to 60%, as well as the limits on
periods of operation during which the
alternate limit applies) means that the
opacity standard will continue to assist
with SIP implementation of the NAAQS
by continuing to identify (as violations)
changes in process and in the
effectiveness of emission controls that
result in more significant increases in
PM emissions.
We believe that our discussion in the
August 15, 2013 NPR is sufficient to
address any concerns under section
110(l); however, in response to the
Sierra Club’s statement that we failed to
quantify those potential emissions
increases, we provide more detailed
information. With respect to the
alternate opacity limit available during
specific non-steady-state modes of
operation, the total amount of PM
emissions from the nine units that we
earlier identified as being relevant to the
emissions increase analysis (a subset of
the units identified in our Table 1 to our
August 15, 2013 NPR) is small. More
specifically, the total PM2.5 emissions
from these nine units is approximately
11 tons per year (as reported in the 2011
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 7),
as compared to statewide emissions of
PM2.5 from all sources of 17,151 tons per
year. The total PM10 emissions from
these nine units (which includes PM2.5
emissions) is about 17 tons per year
(estimated from the 2011 NEI),
compared to statewide emissions of
7 See www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/
2011inventory.html.
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
PM10 from all sources of 38,995 tons per
year. Moreover, because the worst case
scenario analysis (consistent with the
roughly 11 hours of operation per
quarter limitation contained in the
regulation for the applicability of the
alternate opacity limit) only includes a
small fraction of these sources’ total
annual hours of operation, the total
increase in emissions from these nine
units under the worst-case scenario
would most likely be only a fraction of
the approximately 11 tons per year of
PM2.5 and the 17 tons per year of PM10,
an even smaller amount of emissions
compared to the annual statewide
emissions noted above. In light of the
wide margin of compliance with all of
the PM NAAQS, any potential increase
in PM2.5 or PM10 emissions from the
nine units in question during the worstcase scenario under the alternate
opacity emissions limits in the SIP
revision should not interfere with the
maintenance of the applicable PM
NAAQS in Connecticut.
Our August 15, 2013 NPR also
contained a separate CAA section 110(l)
analysis in relation to Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2) of Connecticut’s regulation.
However, as noted earlier in this notice,
CT DEEP has since withdrawn Section
22a–174–18(j)(2) and, thus, we do not
include here a section 110(l) analysis of
that regulatory provision.
In addition to the analysis above of
specific potential emissions increases
associated with the SIP revisions, as
noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we
also considered recent data from
emissions inventories and ambient airquality monitoring to show that
Connecticut’s statewide emissions have
declined substantially in recent years,
and that the state’s current air quality is
well below the federal primary and
secondary PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. As
part of that discussion, we described
certain regulations that EPA has
approved into the Connecticut SIP that
have resulted in permanent, federally
enforceable emissions reductions. Our
purpose in discussing the effect of these
regulations was to lend additional
support to our section 110(l) analysis by
demonstrating that current statewide
emissions inventories and air quality in
Connecticut show that these other
pollution-control measures have
resulted in an adequate ‘‘compliance
cushion’’ below the PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS that can easily accommodate
any potential emissions increases of
PM2.5 and PM10 that might arise as a
result of the SIP revisions. Our analysis
demonstrated that the current, relatively
low, emissions levels in Connecticut are
not solely attributable to non-regulatory
factors (e.g., economic changes) but,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
41431
rather, are, in significant part,
attributable to the permanent,
enforceable reductions achieved by
Connecticut’s SIP and other federal
CAA programs. The combination of
three facts—that Connecticut’s PM2.5
and PM10 emissions (and emissions of
precursor pollutants) have been
reduced, that these reductions are
largely permanent reductions
attributable to federally enforceable
CAA measures (including SIP
requirements), and that the measured
ambient PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations
are well below the NAAQS—persuade
us that the weight of evidence shows
that Connecticut’s SIP has a sufficient
margin of safety with respect to the PM
NAAQS throughout the state. We
conclude based on this analysis that
even if overall emissions were to
increase somewhat as a result of this
revision, any such increase would not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS in Connecticut. For a more
detailed discussion of these measures
and air quality in Connecticut, see 78
FR 49707–49710.
As to the Sierra Club’s comment that
Table 4 of our August 15, 2013 NPR
shows that Fairfield County’s maximum
24-hour PM10 concentration increased
from 33 to 54 mg/m3 from 2011 to 2012,
there are several important things to
note. First, and most important, the
referenced increase in PM10 is, in EPA’s
judgment, more likely related to
emissions associated with roadways or
construction activities than to any
increases in stationary point-source
emissions. Emissions of PM2.5 tend to be
more prevalent than emissions of PM10
from stationary sources in Connecticut
and, as mentioned above, PM2.5 DVs
decreased during this same time period.
For example, 2011 NEI data for Fairfield
County show that approximately 76% of
the PM10 emissions inventory derives
from the following categories of sources:
(1) Dust associated with paved and
unpaved roads; (2) construction
activities; and (3) burning of residential
wood heaters and stoves. Moreover, the
PM10 increase referenced by the Sierra
Club is, in any event, well below the
level of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS,
which is 150 mg/m3; this lends further
support for EPA’s contention that there
is an adequate ‘‘cushion of compliance’’
for the PM10 NAAQS.8
The SIP revisions we are approving in
this action, which apply to emissions
from stationary sources, are unlikely to
add substantially to ambient PM10 levels
in Fairfield County because, as
explained in detail above, the total
amount of increased PM2.5 and PM10
emissions that might be expected to
arise from the sources subject to Section
22a–174–18(j)(1) is very small,
particularly in comparison to the 17,151
and 38,995 tons per year of PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions, respectively, from all
sources in Connecticut.
As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR,
our CAA section 110(l) analysis also
included a discussion of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A)’s requirement that SIPs
contain ‘‘enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques . . . as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of [the CAA].’’
We included in that same section of our
NPR a related discussion of CAA section
302(k)’s definition of the term ‘‘emission
limitation’’ as ‘‘a requirement that limits
the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a
continuous basis.’’ We discussed EPA’s
position, set forth in well-established
guidance, that the CAA precludes SIP
provisions that include exemptions for
emissions that occur during periods of
source operation such as startup,
shutdown, or malfunction. In the
context of EPA’s guidance, we then
analyzed the alternative opacity limits
in Section 22a–174–18(j)(1). (We also
analyzed separately the NSPS-subject
source exclusion in Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2) of Connecticut’s regulations,
which raises different issues than the
alternate opacity limits provision in
Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), but CT DEEP
subsequently withdrew that provision
from its SIP submission.) Given that the
Sierra Club commented on whether the
SIP revisions are consistent with EPA’s
startup, shutdown and malfunction
(SSM) guidance and related proposed
SIP Call 9 separately from its comments
on Connecticut’s and EPA’s section
110(l) demonstrations, EPA addresses
the former specific set of comments in
Responses #3 and #4, below.
Comment 3: The Sierra Club
commented extensively on our
application of EPA’s criteria relevant to
development of alternative emission
limits in SIPs, as those criteria relate to
the alternative opacity limits submitted
by Connecticut as SIP revisions in
Section 22a–174–18(j)(1). Specifically,
Sierra Club asserted that our evaluation
8 We also note here that we discussed in our
August 15, 2013 NPR a Regional Haze program
analysis that was a fourth component of our
section110(l) analysis. Sierra Club did not comment
on that aspect of our analysis, therefore our analysis
will not be repeated here.
9 See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed
Rule,’’ 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
41432
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
of these alternative emissions limits was
flawed in light of our 1999 SSM Policy
guidance for SIP provisions and our
February 2013 proposed SIP Call.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the
Sierra Club’s assertion that our
evaluation of Connecticut’s SIP
revisions is flawed in light of EPA’s
1999 SSM Policy guidance and
proposed SIP Call. We have
longstanding SIP guidance
recommending criteria for development
of alternative emission limits in SIP
provisions, including opacity limits (or
other control measures) that may be
appropriate during specific modes of
source operation such as startup and
shutdown.10 If sources cannot meet the
otherwise applicable SIP emissions
limit during certain modes of operation,
these criteria serve to assure that the
alternative emission limits that states
may elect to adopt for these periods of
operation meet CAA requirements for
SIP provisions. We recently reiterated
those criteria in our February 2013
proposed SIP Call. The basic thrust of
those criteria is to ensure that emission
limitations apply continuously,
including during certain modes of
source operation (i.e., startup,
shutdown, and malfunction), in such a
manner that emissions are properly
minimized in order to ensure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS and to
meet other CAA requirements (e.g.,
enforceability). EPA analyzed the higher
opacity limits established by CT DEEP
for certain sources in Section 22a–174–
18(j)(1) in relation to the seven criteria
for alternative emissions limits
recommended in our SSM guidance for
SIP provisions and reiterated in our
proposed SIP Call. That analysis was set
forth in our August 15, 2013 NPR. We
address below the Sierra Club’s specific
comments regarding EPA’s evaluation of
Connecticut’s SIP revision in relation to
EPA’s SSM Policy guidance and
proposed SIP Call. Please refer to our
August 15, 2013 NPR for EPA’s original
analysis and additional detailed
information (beginning at 78 FR 49710).
EPA’s Criterion #1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The Sierra Club’s comment: The
Sierra Club states that EPA did not fully
address criterion #1 because
Connecticut’s revision to its visible
emissions regulation must be ‘‘limited
10 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘State
Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A, Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional
Administrators, Regions I–X on September 20,
1999.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
to specific, narrowly defined source
categories using specific control
strategies’’ and asserted that
Connecticut’s SIP revision is not so
limited.
EPA’s response: As identified and
discussed in our August 15, 2013 NPR,
the sources to which the alternate
opacity emission limit will apply are
mostly electric generating units (EGUs);
and all of the sources are boilers with
a heat input capacity greater than 250
MMBtu/hr. We also noted in our August
15, 2013 NPR that most of these units
use some combination of electrostatic
precipitators, selective non-catalytic
reduction, and/or low NOX burners.
(Two of the affected units (Middletown
Station #4 and Montville Station #6) do
not have control measures comparable
to the other sources, but they are subject
to numerical PM emission limitations in
the Connecticut SIP and in their
permits.) Finally, as noted earlier in this
notice, the universe of existing units in
Connecticut from which potential
increases in emissions may arise
(realistically) is limited to nine. Since
Connecticut adopted the revised
regulation in question, eight of the 20
units potentially covered have been
permanently removed from service, and
three of the units have changed their
primary fuel from residual oil to natural
gas (resulting in a significant reduction
in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors during source operation). In
our judgment, based on the facts
described above, these remaining nine
boilers (i.e., those that will be subject to
Connecticut’s alternate opacity emission
limit) sufficiently meet what EPA’s
guidance and related rulemaking
intended to fall within the notion of
‘‘specific, narrowly defined source
categories.’’ Finally, it is also important
to note that any new stationary sources
in the future (beyond the existing nine
units) would separately be regulated by
any opacity limits contained in a new
source review permit required under
Connecticut’s SIP. The CT DEEP has
informed us that its new source review
permits require best available control
technology (BACT) for opacity and for
PM. Emission limits based on BACT
cannot be less stringent than NSPS
under the CAA and CT DEEP’s current
practice is to include a 10% opacity
limit in its new source review permits
applicable during all periods of
operation (including startup and
shutdown). Any such future new
sources also would be subject to any
opacity limits that might be applicable
under newly promulgated NSPS
regulations (not the NSPS discussed
herein) that would contain opacity
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
limits during startup, shutdown, and
other specific modes of source
operation.
EPA’s Criterion #2
The Sierra Club’s comment: The
Sierra Club asserts that EPA’s
conclusion that Connecticut’s SIP
revision satisfies criterion #2 is flawed,
because ‘‘nothing prevents a source
from starting up or shutting down with
a cleaner fuel or employing other
measures during periods of startup and
shutdown that would reduce particulate
emissions from the boiler’’ and because
‘‘[n]o determination has been made that
more stringent control is ‘technically
infeasible’ during specified periods for
any sources in Connecticut.’’
EPA’s response: First, EPA notes that
the Sierra Club has not addressed in its
comment exactly how it concluded that
it would be feasible for the specific
boilers in question to use ‘‘a cleaner fuel
or employ[ ] other measures during
periods of startup and shutdown’’ that
would reduce PM emissions. Sierra
Club, although critical of EPA’s
evaluation of this criterion in the
proposal, did not provide specific facts
concerning what other measures the
state could or should have required of
these sources.
Second, EPA is evaluating this
criterion based upon factual information
developed by the state to support the
higher alternative emission limits
applicable to the affected sources. Our
August 15, 2013 NPR explains the
difficulties that some sources may have
in meeting the otherwise applicable
opacity emissions limits during nonsteady-state modes of source operation,
such as startup and shutdown. Included
in EPA’s explanations of such technical
challenges was a reference to a CT DEEP
workgroup provided to EPA by letter
dated January 14, 2013 (included in the
docket for this action). As noted in our
August 15, 2013 NPR, the CT DEEP
workgroup considered technical issues
that make it difficult for some facilities
to consistently meet, during periods of
operation such as startup and
shutdown, opacity limits that apply
during normal steady-state operating
conditions. The CT DEEP workgroup
based its recommendations for an
alternate emissions limit on the
technology, normal operating
procedures, and type of fuels used, as
well as a review of historical opacity
data for the sources in question (see
Table 1 of EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR).
The units considered for an alternative
opacity limit were older and less
efficient than new units that would be
installed today. The workgroup took
into account the fact that older
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
combustion units may take longer than
modern units to reach optimum
temperatures for efficient operation of
control systems, such as Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems for
reducing NOX (a precursor of PM2.5), or
may have higher emissions than modern
units during cold startups. They also
assessed whether the older units
experienced more short-term load
swings than would be expected from
modern units. These swings make it
more difficult to optimize unit operation
and to continuously stay within the 20
percent and 40 percent averages that
apply during normal, steady-state
operations. These can be appropriate
considerations relevant to development
of alternative emission limits, so long as
other CAA requirements are met. For
further details of EPA’s explanation, see
our August 15, 2013 NPR. (78 FR
49710–49711).
EPA’s Criterion #3
The Sierra Club’s comment: The
Sierra Club states that EPA did not fully
address criterion #3 because ‘‘the
proposed SIP revision does not limit the
frequency or duration of operation in
startup, shutdown or other modes to the
maximum extent practicable’’ in that the
alternative opacity limit applies equally
to all units regardless of age or specific
unit characteristics.
EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with
the Sierra Club’s assertion that criterion
#3 has not been met. As discussed in
our August 15, 2013 NPR, the frequency
and duration of periods of startup,
shutdown or malfunction; stack testing;
soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden
load changes for the units in question
(see Table 1 in our August 15, 2013
NPR) were taken into account by CT
DEEP’s workgroup and were a part of
the analysis that resulted in the
alternate opacity limit. In any event,
however, the most important limitation
in the SIP revision on the frequency and
duration of opacity levels that may
exceed those allowed during normal,
steady-state operations is the
regulation’s strict limit on the amount of
time per calendar quarter (less than 11
hours) that a facility may operate under
an alternative opacity limit (i.e., 60%
opacity during any 6-minute block
average). We believe that this limitation
will help to ensure that the emissions
units in question will be required to
limit the frequency and duration of the
relevant modes of operation and to
restrict their emissions to an appropriate
level consistent with criterion #3.
Additionally, because fuel is a
significant operational cost at EGUs it is
also generally the case that EGUs have
an economic incentive to optimize their
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
41433
(less than 11 hours) that a facility may
lawfully operate up to the 60%
alternative opacity limit.
Furthermore, in response to the Sierra
Club’s assertion that EPA and
Connecticut failed to attempt to quantify
any potential worst-case scenario
increase in emissions, we do so here.
The total amount of annual PM2.5
emissions (11 tons per year, as reported
in the 2011 NEI) from the nine units
collectively (which we earlier noted
were part of our analysis of potential
increased emissions that may arise from
the alternate opacity limit) is an
extremely small percentage of the total
PM2.5 emissions statewide, both in
comparison to stationary point-source
emissions (436 tons per year) and to
PM2.5 emissions from all sources (17,151
tons per year). The total amount of
annual PM10 emissions from the nine
units collectively (17 tons, as reported
in the 2011 NEI) is an extremely small
percentage of the total PM10 emissions
EPA Criterion #4
statewide, both in comparison to
The Sierra Club’s comment: Regarding stationary point-source emissions (494
criterion #4, the Sierra Club asserts that
tpy) and to PM10 emissions from all
‘‘[c]riterion (4) requires that ‘‘[a]s part of sources (38,995 tpy). Consequently, any
its justification of the SIP revision, the
potential annual increase in PM2.5 and
state would analyze the potential worst- PM10 emissions from these nine units
case emissions that could occur during
during the highly unlikely worst-case
startup and shutdown.’’ The Sierra Club scenario would most likely be only a
asserts that EPA’s August 15, 2013 NPR
portion of that small percentage,
acknowledged that neither the state nor
because the relevant analysis concerns
EPA attempted to quantify the exact
an assessment of maximum potential
increase in PM emissions that could be
increases in emissions from these
allowed under this SIP revision. Sierra
sources during a maximum of just under
Club also objected to EPA’s rational for
11 hours per calendar quarter when
approval of the revision that, if elevated there is a potential increase from 40%
emissions levels were to cause future
opacity to 60% opacity. While it is
violations of the PM NAAQS, EPA has
difficult to quantify the precise amount
additional authority under the CAA to
of additional PM2.5 and PM10 emissions
address such potential problems.
that could occur during such periods of
EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with
elevated opacity, we think that the
the Sierra Club’s comments on this
additional PM2.5 and PM10 is likely to be
point. Our August 15, 2013 NPR
relatively small in light of the fact that
included an analysis under criterion #4
the total PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from
of the worst-case-emissions scenario. As the affected sources are currently such
we noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR,
a small amount relative to other sources.
that worst-case scenario would occur
As explained in detail earlier in this
(albeit extremely unlikely) if all nine
notice, our section 110(l) analysis shows
currently operating units (i.e., those that that any potential increases will easily
we earlier noted were relevant to the
be accommodated by the wide
analysis of potential emissions increases ‘‘compliance cushion’’ in Connecticut
and that are subject to the alternative
between the PM2.5, and PM10 NAAQS
opacity limit), simultaneously were to:
and air quality concentrations of PM2.5,
(1) Engage in startup, shutdown, or any
and PM10.
of the other listed modes of operation
Finally, our August 15, 2013 NPR
for which the alternative opacity limit is statement about the availability of
allowed; (2) for exactly the same nearly
additional CAA authorities that EPA
11-hour period; and (3) at the
could use to address any future
uppermost allowed level of 60%
problems in relation to the PM NAAQS
opacity. The most important limitation
was not intended to indicate that we
on any additional emissions resulting
anticipate there will be such a problem
from this SIP revision, even under this
and, as we have explained in this
unlikely worst-case scenario, is the
notice, we have no reason to expect that
strict limit set by CT DEEP on the
such a problem will arise. We only
amount of time per calendar quarter
intended to point out that the CAA
fuel-to-air ratio consistent with best
engineering practices so as to combust
their fuel source most efficiently.
Finally, the Connecticut SIP’s revised
recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements serve as an additional,
supplemental compliance tool that will
help to ensure that the units emit at the
alternative opacity limit only during the
allowed modes of operation and within
the allowed periods of time. As we
stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the
revisions to Connecticut’s
recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements clarify and improve
enforceability of SIP requirements. For
example, revised 22a–174–4 includes
specific data availability requirements
and revised 22a–174–7 includes
explicit, specific time frames for various
notifications (such as ‘‘no later than two
business days’’), as compared to prior
requirements to notify the state
‘‘promptly.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
41434
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
provides remedies to address any
unexpected problems that could arise as
a result of this SIP revision, even though
we anticipate that such problems are
highly theoretical in this instance. We
emphasize, however, that our section
110(l) analysis strongly demonstrates
that any such problems are not expected
to arise as a result of this SIP revision.
changes. That is, the source operator
must limit the time period during which
the alternative opacity limit applies to
less than 11 hours per calendar quarter,
and must limit opacity levels during
such periods to no more than 60%
opacity during any 6-minute block
average.
EPA Criterion #5
Sierra Club’s comment: For criterion
#5, the Sierra Club claims that the
proposed SIP revision includes nothing
that will minimize emissions impacts
on ambient air quality during periods of
startup and shutdown. The Sierra Club
also asserts that, although EPA
identified reporting requirements
contained in Connecticut’s SIP, prompt
reporting does not minimize air-quality
impacts and does not rise to the level of
taking ‘‘all possible steps’’ to minimize
the impact of the emissions.
EPA’s response: EPA disagrees with
the Sierra Club’s comments about
criterion #5 for the following reasons.
As we explained in our August 15, 2013
NPR, RCSA Section 22a–174–4, which
is being approved as part of EPA’s
action today, requires submission of all
COMS data on a quarterly basis, along
with a quarterly quality-assurance audit,
and the submitted data would be
required to include data during periods
of startup, shutdown or malfunction;
stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel
switching or sudden load changes. The
sources are not exempt from the opacity
standards during such periods and all
emissions that occur during such
periods will be counted in the context
of the SIP, such as for emissions
inventories, modeling demonstrations,
and other regulatory purposes.
Alternative emissions limits for nonsteady-state modes of operation are not
equivalent to exemptions. We also
emphasize that this regulation requires
a facility to submit a corrective action
plan for a failed audit. We believe that
prompt reporting and the requirement to
submit a corrective action plan (if
demonstrated to be necessary by an
audit) helps to minimize air-quality
impacts by alerting the CT DEEP to
possible operational issues so that the
CT DEEP may then work with the
facility to implement corrective actions.
In addition, we note that the quarterly
reporting requirement is aligned with
the regulation’s quarterly maximum
limit on use of the alternative opacity
limit (slightly less than 11 hours).
Moreover, the exception in Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1) itself is designed on its face
to minimize emissions during startup
and shutdown; stack testing; sootblowing, fuel switching or sudden load
EPA Criterion #7
The Sierra Club did not submit an
adverse comment on criterion #7, noting
that the criterion ‘‘is met by
Connecticut’s proposed opacity SIP
revisions.’’ Accordingly, no response
from EPA is necessary or provided here.
Comment 4: The Sierra Club claims
that EPA’s evaluation of the
‘‘exemption’’ in Connecticut’s revised
Section 22a–174–18 (visible emissions
regulation) for sources subject to federal
NSPS set forth in 40 CFR 60 is flawed
and that the ‘‘exemption’’ is unlawful.
The Sierra Club argued that EPA’s
approval of a SIP revision that
eliminates the currently applicable
opacity standard from certain categories
of sources has the ‘‘practical and legal
effect’’ of exempting those sources for
emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
Response 4: As noted earlier, by letter
dated March 27, 2014, CT DEEP
withdrew from its SIP submission
Section 22a–174–18(j)(2). Thus, without
conceding Sierra Club’s arguments
about the legality of Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2), EPA provides no response to
those arguments because the SIP is not
being revised to include that regulatory
provision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
EPA Criterion #6
The Sierra Club’s comment: The
Sierra Club’s comments on criterion #6
are related to those for criterion #5.
Specifically, the Sierra Club claims that
EPA does not point to anything that
requires continuous minimization of
emissions.
EPA’s response: We incorporate by
reference here the entirety of our
responses (above) to the Sierra Club’s
comments on EPA criterion #5 due to
the similarity of the Sierra Club’s
comments on criteria #5 and #6.
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)
Comment: CLF asserts that the
provision in Connecticut’s SIP revision
that allows deviations from otherwise
applicable visible emissions limits
during periods of startup, shutdown,
and other discrete periods of routine
operations, like those set forth in RCSA
Section 22a–174–18(j)(1), is illegal. CLF
further commented that if EPA
determines that this provision does not
violate the CAA and approves it, such
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
approval should clearly state that (1) the
SIP revision is effective prospectively,
beginning on the date that EPA officially
approves it; and (2) for that reason,
approval of the exemption for periods of
startup, shutdown, and other listed
modes of operation into the federallyenforceable SIP has no retroactive effect
on past violations. CLF’s September 16,
2013 comment letter included, as an
attachment, other comments that CLF
submitted to the CT DEEP on February
14, 2012 regarding Bridgeport Harbor
Station’s CAA Title V operating permit
renewal (2012) which, in relevant part,
addresses Connecticut’s visible
emissions rule and RCSA Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1), which CLF asserts is illegal
under the CAA. Also attached to CLF’s
September 16, 2013 letter were
comments submitted by CLF to EPA
regarding EPA’s proposed SIP Call.
Response: EPA disagrees with CLF’s
assertion that the alternative emission
limits for opacity during modes of
operation such as startup, shutdown,
and others contained in RCSA Section
22a–174–18(j)(1), which differ from
opacity limits that apply during normal
steady-state operating conditions, are
illegal under the CAA. In fact, as
discussed in our August 15, 2013 NPR,
EPA has longstanding SIP guidance that
recommends criteria relevant to
development of such alternative opacity
limits or other control measures that
may apply during specific modes of
source operation such as startup and
shutdown, if properly supported and
established.11 EPA has also recently
reiterated these criteria in a proposed
rulemaking relevant to its interpretation
of CAA requirements applicable to SIP
provisions.12 These criteria are intended
to ensure that opacity limits or other
control measures or techniques in SIPs
that apply during specific modes of
source operation, such as startup or
shutdown, are designed to minimize
emissions in order to provide for
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and meet other CAA
requirements (e.g., enforceability). As
discussed above, we believe that these
11 See Memorandum entitled ‘‘State
Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional
Administrators, Regions I–X on September 20,
1999.
12 See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed
Rule,’’ 78 FR 12459 (Feb. 22, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
criteria have been met with respect to
the revisions at issue in today’s action.
In response to CLF’s comments about
the effective date of our approval of
Connecticut’s SIP revision and the
relationship of these specific revisions
to factual circumstances that pre-date
the effective date of the SIP revisions,
the SIP revisions we are approving
today are effective on August 15, 2014.
EPA’s approval of these SIP revisions
does not change the legal requirements
that applied under the SIP, prior to this
action.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving and incorporating
into the Connecticut SIP three
regulations submitted by the State of
Connecticut on December 1, 2004.
Specifically, EPA is approving revised
RCSA Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of
particulate matter and visible
emissions,’’ except for the phrase ‘‘or
malfunction’’ in Section 22a–174–
18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2), which CT DEEP has withdrawn
from its SIP submission. EPA is also
approving revised RCSA Section 22a–
174–4 ‘‘Source monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting,’’ and
revised RCSA Section 22a–174–7 ‘‘Air
pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment operation.’’
These latter two regulations strengthen
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, which improve
the state’s ability to detect violations of
emissions limits. As noted earlier,
because Connecticut withdrew Section
22a–174–18(j)(2) from its SIP
submission, stationary sources subject
to a federal NSPS will remain subject to
the opacity limits contained in ‘‘Control
of particulate emissions’’ under the SIP
(See 37 FR 10842).
Revised Section 22a–174–18
establishes and requires limitations on
visible and PM emissions from certain
stationary sources, identifies a
standardized method for determining
compliance for sources without COMS,
and establishes an alternative opacity
limit of up to 60 percent opacity (during
any 6-minute block average) during
certain non-steady-state modes of
operation for sources with COMS. In
addition, the revised regulation sets a
strict limit on the amount of time (0.5
percent of a facility’s total operating
hours during any calendar quarter) that
sources with COMS can operate under
the alternative opacity limit. As
described earlier in this notice, we
believe that the revision of Section 22a–
174–18 will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS or other applicable CAA
requirements, and thus is approvable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
with respect to section 110(l) of the
CAA.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41435
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
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 September 15,
2014. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: April 8, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Editorial Note: This document was
received for publication by the Office of the
Federal Register on July 9, 2014.
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
41436
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart H—Connecticut
2. Section 52.370 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.370
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(104) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection on December
1, 2004.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
dated December 1, 2004 submitting a
revision to the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan.
(B) Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies, Section 22a–174, Abatement
of Air Pollution Regulations, amended
April 1, 2004:
(1) Section 22a–174–4 ‘‘Source
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting.’’
(2) Section 22a–174–7 ‘‘Air pollution
control equipment and monitoring
equipment operation.’’
(3) Section 22a–174–18 ‘‘Control of
particulate matter and visible
emissions,’’ with the exception of the
phrase ‘‘or malfunction’’ in Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2), which CT DEEP withdrew from
the SIP submittal.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from CT DEEP dated
January 14, 2013, entitled ‘‘Information
to Support EPA’s Approval of
Connecticut’s Requirements for
Opacity.’’
(B) Letter from CT DEEP dated July 8,
2013, withdrawing from CT DEEP’s
December 1, 2004 SIP revision the
phrase ‘‘and malfunction’’ from
Subsection (j)(1) of RCSA Section 22a–
174–18.
(C) Letter from CT DEEP dated March
27, 2014, withdrawing from CT DEEP’s
December 1, 2004 SIP revision Section
22a–174–18(j)(2).
■ 3. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is
amended by adding new entries to
existing state citations for 22a–174–4,
22a–174–7, and 22a–174–18 to read as
follows:
§ 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut
regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 52.385—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS
Dates
Connecticut
state
citation
*
22a–174–4 ....
*
22a–174–7 ....
*
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
22a–174–18 ..
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Title/subject
*
Date
adopted
by State
*
Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.
*
*
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register
Citation].
7/16/14
*
[Insert Federal Register
Citation].
*
4/1/04
*
Jkt 232001
7/16/14
*
*
4/1/04
Control of particulate
matter and visible
emissions.
Federal Register
citation
*
4/1/04
Air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment operation.
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Date
approved
by EPA
PO 00000
7/16/14
*
[Insert Federal Register
Citation].
*
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
Section
52.370
*
Comments/
description
*
(c)(104)
*
*
(c)(104)
*
(c)(104)
*
16JYR1
*
All of Section 22a–174–18 is
approved, with the exception of the phrase ‘‘or malfunction’’ in Section 22a–
174–18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a–174–18(j)(2),
which CT DEEP withdrew
from the SIP submittal. Because Connecticut withdrew Section 22a–174–
18(j)(2) from its SIP submission, stationary sources
subject to a federal NSPS
will remain subject to the
opacity limits contained in
‘‘Control of particulate
emissions’’ under the SIP
(See 37 FR 10842). See
Section 19–508–18, ‘‘Control of Particulate Emissions’’ posted at https://
www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
*
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2014–16469 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072; FRL–9913–62–
OAR]
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by
email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Section 110(9)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
On October 15, 2008, EPA
substantially strengthened the primary
and secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter
the 2008 Pb NAAQS), revising the level
of the primary (health-based) standard
from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(ug/m3) to 0.15 ug/m3, measured as total
Agency (EPA).
suspended particles (TSP) and not to be
exceeded with an averaging time of a
ACTION: Final rule.
rolling three month period. EPA also
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection revised the secondary (welfare-based)
Agency (EPA) is approving two State
standard to be identical to the primary
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
standard, as well as the associated
submitted by the State of Maryland
ambient air monitoring requirements.
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).
See 40 CFR 50.16.
Whenever new or revised National
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
Ambient Air Quality Standards
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA
implementation, maintenance, and
requires states to submit a plan for the
enforcement of a new or revised
implementation, maintenance, and
NAAQS within three years following
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan
the promulgation of such NAAQS or
is required to address basic program
within such shorter period as EPA may
elements, including, but not limited to
prescribe. The contents of that
regulatory structure, monitoring,
submission may vary depending upon
modeling, legal authority, and adequate the facts and circumstances. In
resources necessary to assure attainment particular, the data and analytical tools
and maintenance of the standards.
available at the time the state develops
These elements are referred to as
and submits the SIP for a new or revised
infrastructure requirements. The State of NAAQS affect the content of the
Maryland has made submittals
submission. The contents of such SIP
addressing the infrastructure
submissions may also vary depending
requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb)
upon what provisions the state’s
NAAQS.
existing SIP already contains.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
August 15, 2014.
CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
meeting the applicable requirements of
docket for this action under Docket ID
section 110(a)(2) within three years after
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072. All promulgation of a new or revised
documents in the docket are listed in
NAAQS or within such shorter period
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1)
Although listed in the electronic docket, provides the procedural and timing
some information is not publicly
requirements for SIPs and section
available, i.e., confidential business
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
information (CBI) or other information
SIP elements such as requirements for
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. monitoring, basic program requirements
Certain other material, such as
and legal authority that are designed to
copyrighted material, is not placed on
assure attainment and maintenance of
the Internet and will be publicly
the NAAQS. More specifically, section
available only in hard copy form.
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that
Publicly available docket materials are
states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP
available either electronically through
requirements related to a newly
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for established or revised NAAQS.
For the 2008 Pb NAAQS, states
public inspection during normal
typically have met many of the basic
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection program elements required in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA through earlier SIP
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
submissions in connection with
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:28 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41437
previous lead NAAQS. Nevertheless,
pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA, states have to review and revise,
as appropriate, their existing lead
NAAQS SIPs to ensure that the SIPs are
adequate to address the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. To assist states in meeting this
statutory requirement, EPA issued
guidance on October 14, 2011, entitled,
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
Required Under sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ which lists the basic
elements that states should include in
their SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25059), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Maryland proposing approval of
Maryland’s January 3, 2013 and August
14, 2013 submittals to satisfy several
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In the
NPR, EPA proposed approval of the
following infrastructure elements:
Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or
portions thereof. This action does not
include any action on section
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains
to the nonattainment requirements of
part D, Title I of the CAA, because this
element is not required to be submitted
by the 3-year submission deadline of
CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be
addressed in a separate process if
necessary. The rationale which supports
EPA’s proposed action, including the
scope of infrastructure SIPs in general,
is explained in the NPR and the
technical support document (TSD)
accompanying the NPR and will not be
restated here. The TSD is available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0072.
No comments were received on this
rulemaking action.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving two revisions to the
Maryland SIP, Maryland’s January 3,
2013 and August 14, 2013 submittals for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, that address the
following infrastructure elements:
Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This
rulemaking action does not include
section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which
pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, since this element is not required
to be submitted by the three year
submission deadline of section
110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process.
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41427-41437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16469]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0469; A-1-FRL-9910-12-Region 1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
Control of Visible Emissions, Recordkeeping and Monitoring
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Connecticut on December 1, 2004. Specifically, EPA is approving
revisions to Connecticut's visible and particulate matter (PM)
emissions, recordkeeping and monitoring regulations. These revised
rules establish and require limitations on visible and PM emissions for
stationary sources, and clarify reporting requirements for operation of
air-pollution-control and monitoring equipment. EPA is approving this
SIP revision because EPA has determined that it will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in Connecticut or with any other applicable requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
This action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 15, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0469. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 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 Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, email
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
Connecticut first adopted regulations to limit visible and PM
emissions from stationary sources, including, among other sources,
electric generating units (EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s. In
1972, EPA approved ``Control of particulate emissions,'' into the
Connecticut SIP (37 FR 10842). That regulation has since been
recodified as Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section
22a-174-18. See Section II of EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR), dated August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), for a brief discussion of
the relationships among ``visible emissions,'' ``opacity'' and
``particulate matter.''
In 2003, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(now the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
or CT DEEP) proposed under state law revisions to Section 22a-174-18
``Control of particulate matter and visible emissions'' (herein
referred to as the ``visible emissions regulation'') to address short-
term excursions from maximum allowed opacity levels that may occur and
be measured at some stationary sources with continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS) \1\ during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load
changes. Facilities covered under these new exceptions in Section 22a-
174-18(j)(1) include only those facilities that operate COMS. CT DEEP's
revisions also excluded sources subject to opacity limits under a
federal new source performance standard (NSPS) from the opacity limits
contained in the state regulations. See Section 22a-174-18(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CT regulations use the term ``opacity continuous emissions
monitoring systems'' or ``Opacity CEMS.'' However, EPA and others
commonly refer to these monitors as ``continuous opacity monitoring
systems'' or ``COMS.'' Throughout this notice, we use the more
common term ``COMS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, CT DEEP also proposed revisions to several other RCSA
sections, including 22a-174-4, ``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting'' (codified as RCSA Section 19-508-4 in the Connecticut SIP,
and herein referred to as the ``recordkeeping regulation''), and 22a-
174-7, ``Air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment
operation'' (codified as RCSA Section 19-508-7 in the Connecticut SIP,
and herein referred to as the ``monitoring regulation'').
CT DEEP held a public hearing on revisions to these three (as well
as several other) regulations on April 29, 2003. Subsequently, CT DEEP
amended its visible emissions, recordkeeping, and monitoring
regulations based on comments received from EPA and others, with an
effective date of April 1, 2004.
On December 1, 2004, CT DEEP submitted the revised regulations to
EPA for inclusion in the Connecticut SIP. This submittal included a
provision in the visible emissions regulation providing alternate
opacity limits for periods of source operation consisting of startup,
shutdown or malfunctions; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching
or sudden load changes. These alternate opacity limits only apply to
stationary sources that use COMs (Section 22a-174-18(j)(1)). However,
on July 8, 2013, CT DEEP sent
[[Page 41428]]
a letter to EPA withdrawing Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) to the extent that
it applies to malfunctions; all other aspects of Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1) were retained as originally submitted. Thus, EPA is not acting
on the submission with respect to the revised opacity limits applicable
during malfunctions and is not approving an alternative emissions limit
applicable during malfunctions.
Connecticut's December 1, 2004 submittal also included a provision
that excluded sources subject to opacity limits under a federal NSPS
from the opacity limits contained in the state regulations (Section
22a-174-18(j)(2)). However, on March 27, 2014, CT DEEP sent a letter to
EPA withdrawing Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which excluded emissions
units that are subject to a visible emissions standard pursuant to a
new source performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 60 from the visible
emissions standards in Sections 22a-174-18(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, EPA
is not acting on the submission with respect to Section 22a-174-
18(j)(2). In correspondence between EPA and CT DEEP it was discussed
that if Connecticut withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) from its SIP
submission, stationary sources subject to visible emissions standards
under a federal NSPS will continue to be exempt from the visible
emissions standards in Sections 22a-174-18(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the
state regulation, as a matter of state law, but will remain subject to
the opacity limits contained in ``Control of particulate emissions''
under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).\2\ Moreover, it should be noted that
the NSPS sources subject to visible emissions standards are not
eligible for the alternate opacity limits for non-steady-state modes of
source operation contained in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) of Connecticut's
regulations and being approved into the Connecticut SIP. The reason for
this is that Connecticut never intended for those NSPS-subject sources
to be able to demonstrate compliance with the alternate opacity limits
in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1). Thus, the opacity limits contained
``Control of particulate emissions,'' which had earlier been approved
by EPA into Connecticut's SIP prior to today's SIP revision, will
continue to apply to stationary sources subject to visible emissions
standards under a federal NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Section 19-508-18, ``Control of Particulate Emissions''
posted at https://www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal included a total of six
regulations. EPA approved three of these regulations into the
Connecticut SIP on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51761). They are: RCSA
Section 22a-174-3b ``Exemptions from permitting for construction and
operation of external combustion units, automotive refinishing
operations, emergency engines, nonmetallic mineral processing equipment
and surface coating operations;'' RCSA Section 22a-174-30 ``Dispensing
of gasoline/Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery;'' and RCSA Section
22a-174-43 ``Portable fuel container spillage control.'' Today's action
addresses the remaining three regulations contained in the December 1,
2004 SIP submittal, namely RCSA Sections 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-
174-18 (except for the portions of Section 22a-174-18, noted earlier,
which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP submittal). As stated in our
August 15, 2013 NPR, these three regulations amend earlier versions of
certain recordkeeping, monitoring, and visible and PM emissions
regulations.
On August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49701), EPA proposed approval of RCSA
Sections 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-174-18 (without the withdrawn
portion relating to malfunctions). After our August 15, 2013 NPR, CT
DEEP withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) as we noted above. Specific
details of Connecticut's December 1, 2004 SIP submittal and the
rationale for EPA's proposed approval are explained in the August 15,
2013 NPR and will not be restated in this notice, except to the extent
relevant to our responses to public comments we received on our
proposal.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on our August 15, 2013 NPR from the following
entities: NRG Energy, Inc. and Montville Power LLC (collectively
referred to herein as NRG); PSEG Services Corporation; the Conservation
Law Foundation (CLF) Massachusetts; and the Sierra Club. The public
comments received are contained in the docket for today's final action.
We summarize and respond to all of those comments below.
NRG Energy's Comments
NRG noted that although Middletown Station 3 employs
``water injection'' at its facility, water injection is not used for
compliance purposes, an inference that may have been drawn from the
information contained in Table 1 of our August 15, 2013 NPR. EPA
acknowledges NRG's factual assertion, but also notes that NRG's point
does not impact in one way or the other the substance of EPA's final
action today. NRG also noted a typographical error in Section IV.C.a(1)
of our August 15, 2013 NPR. NRG noted that the reference in that
section to ``Mountville Station 4'' actually should be a
reference to ``Middletown Station 4.'' EPA acknowledges that
typographical error, but also notes that NRG's point does not impact in
one way or the other the substance of EPA's final action today.
PSEG's Comments
PSEG's comments were supportive of our proposed action, stating
that as an owner and operator of sources regulated by the SIP revisions
in question the company is ideally situated to provide comments. Among
other things, PSEG noted that EPA had determined that the revised
visible emission regulations would not result in interference with
maintenance of the PM NAAQS in Connecticut, and that certain aspects of
the revised regulations would actually enhance protection of air
quality through improved control of visible emissions due, in part, to
the requirement to use COMS. While EPA believes that the revisions to
Connecticut's Section 22a-174-18 (visible emissions regulation) may
allow slight emission increases, EPA agrees with PSEG that the
revisions will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and is otherwise consistent with the CAA.
Sierra Club's Comments
Comment 1: The Sierra Club commented that the proposed revisions to
Connecticut's SIP opacity regulations violate the anti-backsliding
requirement of section 193 of the CAA because portions of Connecticut
were designated nonattainment for particulate matter at the time of
EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR.
Response 1: EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's assertion that the
revisions to Connecticut's opacity regulations violate the anti-
backsliding requirements of CAA section 193. By its own terms, CAA
section 193 only applies in areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS.
Opacity limits in SIPs are intended to assure attainment and
maintenance of particulate matter standards, thus, the only NAAQS
relevant to our action today are the PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS. All areas in Connecticut are now designated as
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and for the PM10 NAAQS, thus, CAA
section 193 does not apply to today's final action. On July 19, 2013,
EPA proposed to redesignate New Haven and Fairfield counties in
Connecticut to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 43096). All other
[[Page 41429]]
counties in Connecticut were at that time already designated as
attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not receive any public comments on its
July 19, 2013 proposal to redesignate New Haven and Fairfield counties,
and our final approval of Connecticut's redesignation request for those
counties was published on September 24, 2013, with an effective date of
October 24, 2013 (78 FR 58467).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA recognizes that this redesignation was not final at the
time of the proposal. However, EPA noted in the proposal that it
intended to take final action on the proposed redesignation before
taking final action on Connecticut's visible emissions SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted in EPA's July 19, 2013 proposed approval of
Connecticut's redesignation request, air quality design values (DVs)
for the years 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 show that both New
Haven and Fairfield counties are well below the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. DVs for
those counties also indicate that recent monitoring data from 2009-2011
are well below the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12 [mu]g/
m\3\.\4\ Attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard is based on
the expected number of annual exceedances of the level of the standard
(averaged over a three-year period) being equal to or less than one.
EPA revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS in 2006. The last time
there was an exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in
Connecticut was in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA has not yet designated nonattainment areas with respect
to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, modeling analyses conducted by EPA in relation to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) associated with the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS \5\ indicates that DVs in southwestern
Connecticut (where New Haven and Fairfield counties are located) are
expected to continue to decline through 2020. The RIA shows that, for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, for New Haven and Fairfield counties,
the highest annual DV projected for 2020 is 8.79 [mu]g/m\3\ for
Fairfield County and 8.62 [mu]g/m\3\ for New Haven County. The RIA also
indicates that the highest 24-hour DV projected for 2020 for New Haven
and Fairfield counties is 22.27 [mu]g/m\3\ for Fairfield County and
21.78 [mu]g/m\3\ for New Haven County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RIA is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, as the entire State of Connecticut is currently
designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment for the applicable
PM NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.307), section 193 of the CAA is not applicable
or relevant to our analysis of the SIP revisions.
Comment 2: The Sierra Club commented that even if EPA were correct
that the only applicable anti-backsliding provision is the one found in
section 110(l) the proposed revisions must still be rejected. The
Sierra Club asserted that because neither EPA nor Connecticut attempted
to quantify the impact of the proposed SIP revisions on air emissions,
EPA's section 110(l) analysis ``was fatally flawed.'' The Sierra Club
asserted that EPA failed to show that the proposed SIP revisions would
meet either of two tests EPA assesses when conducting a section 110(l)
analysis. These two tests are (1) allowing a state to show that a SIP
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS
by demonstrating that the revision will not allow for an increase in
emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPA-
approved SIP, taking into consideration SIP-approved measures that
represent new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time
frame to the change represented by the SIP revision; or (2) allowing a
state to show that a SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS by showing that, taking into consideration the
change in emissions levels allowed under the SIP revision, there is a
substantial margin of safety (i.e., ``headroom'' or ``cushion of
compliance'') between ambient concentrations and the applicable NAAQS
(in this instance the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS). The Sierra Club also asserted that Table 4
of EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR shows that Fairfield County's maximum 24-
hour PM10 concentration increased from 33 to 54 [mu]g/m\3\
from 2011 to 2012, which Sierra Club claims ``contradicts EPA's
assertion of a substantial margin of safety'' and ``is also not
consistent with permanent and legally enforceable emissions
reductions.'' The Sierra Club also stated that EPA's approach to the
section 110(l) analysis was not appropriate because not all portions of
Connecticut were designated attainment for the applicable PM NAAQS at
the time we proposed approval of the SIP revisions.
Response 2: As stated in our response to Comment 1 above, all
portions of Connecticut are currently designated attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment for the applicable PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, as also explained in our August 15,
2013 NPR, EPA's analysis of the proposed SIP revision under section
110(l) takes into account that Connecticut is designated attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment for the PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS. We noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that CT DEEP submitted a
clarifying letter to its SIP submittal to demonstrate that the SIP
provisions we are approving today are consistent with CAA section
110(l). In order to better assess the State's demonstration, EPA
determined it would be helpful to conduct its own section 110(l)
analysis which drew upon, but is not identical to, the analysis
presented in the CT DEEP's letter (78 FR 49704).
EPA requires an evaluation whether changes to SIP-approved opacity
limits are likely to interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM
NAAQS pursuant to section 110(l). Generally, to satisfy section 110(l),
EPA does not require a full attainment demonstration showing that the
change will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
For nonattainment areas, in the absence of air quality modeling, EPA
requires that the revision at least maintain status quo air quality, by
offsetting any emissions increases with additional contemporaneous
emissions reductions. For attainment areas, EPA requires a basis for
concluding that any emissions increases will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, e.g., by illustrating that any
change in the emission inventory is so small relative to the margin
between ambient concentrations and the NAAQS that it is unlikely that
the change would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. In the case
of changes to opacity limits, EPA applies these requirements taking
into consideration that limits on opacity are a means of assuring
control of PM emissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Although opacity is not a criteria pollutant and increases
in opacity do not always correlate precisely with increases in mass
emissions, opacity standards are established as an independent
requirement for effective PM emissions control, opacity is used as
an indicator of increased PM emissions (due both to changes in
process and in the effectiveness of emission controls), and opacity
limits supplement the implementation and enforcement of PM emission
standards. See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v, EPA, No. 12-
1166 (D.C. Cir., Mar. 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these SIP revisions, EPA has assessed the likelihood of
interference with the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in
Connecticut by attempting to quantify the total emissions associated
with the sources that would be covered by the changes to opacity
requirements. EPA's approach assumes that relaxing the opacity
requirements will result in an increase in PM emissions (we refer to
this as the ``worst case scenario''). The 110(l) analysis looks to the
additional
[[Page 41430]]
increment of emissions associated with the SIP revision, which would be
a portion of the emissions during the time for which the opacity
standard has been loosened. In turn, the operating periods when the
opacity standard is loosened is a portion of the total operating time
for these sources. Finally, we look at the total emissions from these
sources at all operating times in relation to the total emissions
inventory and current ambient concentrations. We estimate that the
total emissions of these sources (at all times) represents about only
11 tons per year of PM2.5, out of a total statewide
inventory of 17,151 tons per year of PM2.5 and about 17 tons
per year of PM10 out of a total statewide inventory of
38,995 tons per year. Furthermore, as noted in EPA's proposed approval
of Connecticut's section 22a-174-18 (78 FR 49701; August 15, 2013),
emission projections from the maintenance plan for Connecticut's
PM2.5 redesignation request indicate that there is a
substantial margin of safety that ensures maintenance of the NAAQS even
if small increases in emissions were to occur. As illustrated in Table
5 of that notice, PM2.5 emissions in Fairfield and New Haven
counties are projected to drop by 22% from 2007--when the area was
attaining the NAAQS--to 2025, including over 1,000 tons per year of
reductions in the period from 2007 to 2017 (and over 300 tons per year
of reductions from 2017-2025). Thus, in EPA's technical judgment,
although we assume that these SIP changes will result in some emissions
increases, in light of the size of these sources and the nature of the
changes, such increases would be quite small in comparison with the
large margin of compliance with the NAAQS and the ongoing projected
reductions in the emissions inventory.
Taking into consideration the small amount of total
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from these sources
relative to the statewide inventories, the nature of the revisions
(including the more stringent PM limits for certain sources), and the
large ``margin of compliance'' between ambient concentrations and the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut, EPA
concludes that these changes will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in
Connecticut.
Our August 15, 2013 NPR (beginning at 78 FR 49705) contains an
analysis of the section 110(l) demonstration and data supporting CT
DEEP's and EPA's conclusion that the requirements of section 110(l)
have been met. A summary of that analysis is provided here, with
additional information quantifying the potential emissions increases
that might be associated with the SIP revisions, added in response to
the Sierra Club's comment.
First, in our August 15, 2013 NPR, we considered and evaluated
(although we stated that we did not precisely quantify) potential
emissions increases that could result from the SIP revisions (78 FR
49705-49707). As noted, we considered emissions increases that
potentially might occur as a result of the relaxation of the SIP's
opacity limits during periods of source operation limited to startup or
shutdown; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load
changes. We noted that, of the 20 units (all of which utilized COMS)
for which the state originally designed the alternative opacity limit
in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), eight of those units are now permanently
removed from service and three additional units have since switched
their primary fuel from residual oil to natural gas (resulting in
significant reductions of emissions of PM and PM precursors during
operation). Thus, our August 15, 2013 NPR noted that for purposes of
examining potential emission increases that may arise from the
alternative opacity limit in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), our focus would
be limited to the potential impacts of increased opacity at the
remaining nine of the original 20 units. We also noted in our August
15, 2013 NPR that the requirements of section 110(l) were satisfied
with respect to Connecticut's Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) affecting
stationary sources separately subject to a federal NSPS; however, as
noted earlier in this notice, CT DEEP has since withdrawn Section 22a-
174-18(j)(2) from its SIP submission and, thus, we do not include in
this notice a section 110(l) analysis of the effect of that provision.
In addition, another aspect of our air quality impact analysis
considered and evaluated the reductions in PM emissions that would
arise due to other aspects of the SIP revisions, i.e., the fact that
more stringent PM limits will apply at all times to sources that burn
natural gas and to ``registration sources'' that burn distillate oil.
We concluded in our August 15, 2013 NPR that ``taking into
consideration the universe of sources subject to the revised opacity
standard, the fuels and emissions limits applicable to those sources
(including those that are more stringent under the revision), and the
nature of the alternative opacity limit (which only allows an increase
from 40% to 60% opacity during certain limited modes of source
operation during a maximum period of time just under 11 hours per
calendar quarter), that while there may be an increase in PM emissions
associated with this SIP revision, any such increase would be small,
especially in relation to the applicable attainment margin. It is also
critical to note that Connecticut's revised rule includes an important
check on any potential increase in emissions that could occur, even
under the alternative opacity limit. The revised regulation restricts
the amount of time that sources with COMS may operate under the
alternate opacity limit to 0.5 percent of a facility's total operating
hours during any calendar quarter, or slightly less than 11 hours. EPA
believes that these changes to the opacity limit may result in
increased PM emissions, and considered whether those increased
emissions would interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS in Connecticut in light of the nature and scope
of those changes and current air quality (i.e., margin of compliance
with all existing PM NAAQS). At the same time, however, EPA believes
that the limited nature of the alternate opacity limit (including that
opacity may only increase to 60%, as well as the limits on periods of
operation during which the alternate limit applies) means that the
opacity standard will continue to assist with SIP implementation of the
NAAQS by continuing to identify (as violations) changes in process and
in the effectiveness of emission controls that result in more
significant increases in PM emissions.
We believe that our discussion in the August 15, 2013 NPR is
sufficient to address any concerns under section 110(l); however, in
response to the Sierra Club's statement that we failed to quantify
those potential emissions increases, we provide more detailed
information. With respect to the alternate opacity limit available
during specific non-steady-state modes of operation, the total amount
of PM emissions from the nine units that we earlier identified as being
relevant to the emissions increase analysis (a subset of the units
identified in our Table 1 to our August 15, 2013 NPR) is small. More
specifically, the total PM2.5 emissions from these nine
units is approximately 11 tons per year (as reported in the 2011
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) \7\), as compared to statewide
emissions of PM2.5 from all sources of 17,151 tons per year.
The total PM10 emissions from these nine units (which
includes PM2.5 emissions) is about 17 tons per year
(estimated from the 2011 NEI), compared to statewide emissions of
[[Page 41431]]
PM10 from all sources of 38,995 tons per year. Moreover,
because the worst case scenario analysis (consistent with the roughly
11 hours of operation per quarter limitation contained in the
regulation for the applicability of the alternate opacity limit) only
includes a small fraction of these sources' total annual hours of
operation, the total increase in emissions from these nine units under
the worst-case scenario would most likely be only a fraction of the
approximately 11 tons per year of PM2.5 and the 17 tons per
year of PM10, an even smaller amount of emissions compared
to the annual statewide emissions noted above. In light of the wide
margin of compliance with all of the PM NAAQS, any potential increase
in PM2.5 or PM10 emissions from the nine units in
question during the worst-case scenario under the alternate opacity
emissions limits in the SIP revision should not interfere with the
maintenance of the applicable PM NAAQS in Connecticut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our August 15, 2013 NPR also contained a separate CAA section
110(l) analysis in relation to Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) of
Connecticut's regulation. However, as noted earlier in this notice, CT
DEEP has since withdrawn Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) and, thus, we do not
include here a section 110(l) analysis of that regulatory provision.
In addition to the analysis above of specific potential emissions
increases associated with the SIP revisions, as noted in our August 15,
2013 NPR, we also considered recent data from emissions inventories and
ambient air-quality monitoring to show that Connecticut's statewide
emissions have declined substantially in recent years, and that the
state's current air quality is well below the federal primary and
secondary PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. As part of that
discussion, we described certain regulations that EPA has approved into
the Connecticut SIP that have resulted in permanent, federally
enforceable emissions reductions. Our purpose in discussing the effect
of these regulations was to lend additional support to our section
110(l) analysis by demonstrating that current statewide emissions
inventories and air quality in Connecticut show that these other
pollution-control measures have resulted in an adequate ``compliance
cushion'' below the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS that can
easily accommodate any potential emissions increases of
PM2.5 and PM10 that might arise as a result of
the SIP revisions. Our analysis demonstrated that the current,
relatively low, emissions levels in Connecticut are not solely
attributable to non-regulatory factors (e.g., economic changes) but,
rather, are, in significant part, attributable to the permanent,
enforceable reductions achieved by Connecticut's SIP and other federal
CAA programs. The combination of three facts--that Connecticut's
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions (and emissions of
precursor pollutants) have been reduced, that these reductions are
largely permanent reductions attributable to federally enforceable CAA
measures (including SIP requirements), and that the measured ambient
PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations are well below the
NAAQS--persuade us that the weight of evidence shows that Connecticut's
SIP has a sufficient margin of safety with respect to the PM NAAQS
throughout the state. We conclude based on this analysis that even if
overall emissions were to increase somewhat as a result of this
revision, any such increase would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS in
Connecticut. For a more detailed discussion of these measures and air
quality in Connecticut, see 78 FR 49707-49710.
As to the Sierra Club's comment that Table 4 of our August 15, 2013
NPR shows that Fairfield County's maximum 24-hour PM10
concentration increased from 33 to 54 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2011 to 2012,
there are several important things to note. First, and most important,
the referenced increase in PM10 is, in EPA's judgment, more
likely related to emissions associated with roadways or construction
activities than to any increases in stationary point-source emissions.
Emissions of PM2.5 tend to be more prevalent than emissions
of PM10 from stationary sources in Connecticut and, as
mentioned above, PM2.5 DVs decreased during this same time
period. For example, 2011 NEI data for Fairfield County show that
approximately 76% of the PM10 emissions inventory derives
from the following categories of sources: (1) Dust associated with
paved and unpaved roads; (2) construction activities; and (3) burning
of residential wood heaters and stoves. Moreover, the PM10
increase referenced by the Sierra Club is, in any event, well below the
level of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, which is 150 [mu]g/m\3\;
this lends further support for EPA's contention that there is an
adequate ``cushion of compliance'' for the PM10 NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We also note here that we discussed in our August 15, 2013
NPR a Regional Haze program analysis that was a fourth component of
our section110(l) analysis. Sierra Club did not comment on that
aspect of our analysis, therefore our analysis will not be repeated
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revisions we are approving in this action, which apply to
emissions from stationary sources, are unlikely to add substantially to
ambient PM10 levels in Fairfield County because, as
explained in detail above, the total amount of increased
PM2.5 and PM10 emissions that might be expected
to arise from the sources subject to Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) is very
small, particularly in comparison to the 17,151 and 38,995 tons per
year of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, respectively,
from all sources in Connecticut.
As noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR, our CAA section 110(l)
analysis also included a discussion of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)'s
requirement that SIPs contain ``enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or techniques . . . as may be necessary
or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].'' We
included in that same section of our NPR a related discussion of CAA
section 302(k)'s definition of the term ``emission limitation'' as ``a
requirement that limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' We discussed EPA's
position, set forth in well-established guidance, that the CAA
precludes SIP provisions that include exemptions for emissions that
occur during periods of source operation such as startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. In the context of EPA's guidance, we then analyzed the
alternative opacity limits in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1). (We also
analyzed separately the NSPS-subject source exclusion in Section 22a-
174-18(j)(2) of Connecticut's regulations, which raises different
issues than the alternate opacity limits provision in Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1), but CT DEEP subsequently withdrew that provision from its SIP
submission.) Given that the Sierra Club commented on whether the SIP
revisions are consistent with EPA's startup, shutdown and malfunction
(SSM) guidance and related proposed SIP Call \9\ separately from its
comments on Connecticut's and EPA's section 110(l) demonstrations, EPA
addresses the former specific set of comments in Responses 3
and 4, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, ``State Implementation Plans; Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule,'' 78 FR 12459
(Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: The Sierra Club commented extensively on our application
of EPA's criteria relevant to development of alternative emission
limits in SIPs, as those criteria relate to the alternative opacity
limits submitted by Connecticut as SIP revisions in Section 22a-174-
18(j)(1). Specifically, Sierra Club asserted that our evaluation
[[Page 41432]]
of these alternative emissions limits was flawed in light of our 1999
SSM Policy guidance for SIP provisions and our February 2013 proposed
SIP Call.
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's assertion that our
evaluation of Connecticut's SIP revisions is flawed in light of EPA's
1999 SSM Policy guidance and proposed SIP Call. We have longstanding
SIP guidance recommending criteria for development of alternative
emission limits in SIP provisions, including opacity limits (or other
control measures) that may be appropriate during specific modes of
source operation such as startup and shutdown.\10\ If sources cannot
meet the otherwise applicable SIP emissions limit during certain modes
of operation, these criteria serve to assure that the alternative
emission limits that states may elect to adopt for these periods of
operation meet CAA requirements for SIP provisions. We recently
reiterated those criteria in our February 2013 proposed SIP Call. The
basic thrust of those criteria is to ensure that emission limitations
apply continuously, including during certain modes of source operation
(i.e., startup, shutdown, and malfunction), in such a manner that
emissions are properly minimized in order to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS and to meet other CAA requirements (e.g.,
enforceability). EPA analyzed the higher opacity limits established by
CT DEEP for certain sources in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) in relation to
the seven criteria for alternative emissions limits recommended in our
SSM guidance for SIP provisions and reiterated in our proposed SIP
Call. That analysis was set forth in our August 15, 2013 NPR. We
address below the Sierra Club's specific comments regarding EPA's
evaluation of Connecticut's SIP revision in relation to EPA's SSM
Policy guidance and proposed SIP Call. Please refer to our August 15,
2013 NPR for EPA's original analysis and additional detailed
information (beginning at 78 FR 49710).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum entitled ``State Implementation Plans
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A, Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on September 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Criterion 1
The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club states that EPA did not
fully address criterion 1 because Connecticut's revision to
its visible emissions regulation must be ``limited to specific,
narrowly defined source categories using specific control strategies''
and asserted that Connecticut's SIP revision is not so limited.
EPA's response: As identified and discussed in our August 15, 2013
NPR, the sources to which the alternate opacity emission limit will
apply are mostly electric generating units (EGUs); and all of the
sources are boilers with a heat input capacity greater than 250 MMBtu/
hr. We also noted in our August 15, 2013 NPR that most of these units
use some combination of electrostatic precipitators, selective non-
catalytic reduction, and/or low NOX burners. (Two of the
affected units (Middletown Station 4 and Montville Station
6) do not have control measures comparable to the other
sources, but they are subject to numerical PM emission limitations in
the Connecticut SIP and in their permits.) Finally, as noted earlier in
this notice, the universe of existing units in Connecticut from which
potential increases in emissions may arise (realistically) is limited
to nine. Since Connecticut adopted the revised regulation in question,
eight of the 20 units potentially covered have been permanently removed
from service, and three of the units have changed their primary fuel
from residual oil to natural gas (resulting in a significant reduction
in emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors during
source operation). In our judgment, based on the facts described above,
these remaining nine boilers (i.e., those that will be subject to
Connecticut's alternate opacity emission limit) sufficiently meet what
EPA's guidance and related rulemaking intended to fall within the
notion of ``specific, narrowly defined source categories.'' Finally, it
is also important to note that any new stationary sources in the future
(beyond the existing nine units) would separately be regulated by any
opacity limits contained in a new source review permit required under
Connecticut's SIP. The CT DEEP has informed us that its new source
review permits require best available control technology (BACT) for
opacity and for PM. Emission limits based on BACT cannot be less
stringent than NSPS under the CAA and CT DEEP's current practice is to
include a 10% opacity limit in its new source review permits applicable
during all periods of operation (including startup and shutdown). Any
such future new sources also would be subject to any opacity limits
that might be applicable under newly promulgated NSPS regulations (not
the NSPS discussed herein) that would contain opacity limits during
startup, shutdown, and other specific modes of source operation.
EPA's Criterion 2
The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club asserts that EPA's
conclusion that Connecticut's SIP revision satisfies criterion
2 is flawed, because ``nothing prevents a source from starting
up or shutting down with a cleaner fuel or employing other measures
during periods of startup and shutdown that would reduce particulate
emissions from the boiler'' and because ``[n]o determination has been
made that more stringent control is `technically infeasible' during
specified periods for any sources in Connecticut.''
EPA's response: First, EPA notes that the Sierra Club has not
addressed in its comment exactly how it concluded that it would be
feasible for the specific boilers in question to use ``a cleaner fuel
or employ[ ] other measures during periods of startup and shutdown''
that would reduce PM emissions. Sierra Club, although critical of EPA's
evaluation of this criterion in the proposal, did not provide specific
facts concerning what other measures the state could or should have
required of these sources.
Second, EPA is evaluating this criterion based upon factual
information developed by the state to support the higher alternative
emission limits applicable to the affected sources. Our August 15, 2013
NPR explains the difficulties that some sources may have in meeting the
otherwise applicable opacity emissions limits during non-steady-state
modes of source operation, such as startup and shutdown. Included in
EPA's explanations of such technical challenges was a reference to a CT
DEEP workgroup provided to EPA by letter dated January 14, 2013
(included in the docket for this action). As noted in our August 15,
2013 NPR, the CT DEEP workgroup considered technical issues that make
it difficult for some facilities to consistently meet, during periods
of operation such as startup and shutdown, opacity limits that apply
during normal steady-state operating conditions. The CT DEEP workgroup
based its recommendations for an alternate emissions limit on the
technology, normal operating procedures, and type of fuels used, as
well as a review of historical opacity data for the sources in question
(see Table 1 of EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR). The units considered for an
alternative opacity limit were older and less efficient than new units
that would be installed today. The workgroup took into account the fact
that older
[[Page 41433]]
combustion units may take longer than modern units to reach optimum
temperatures for efficient operation of control systems, such as
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems for reducing
NOX (a precursor of PM2.5), or may have higher
emissions than modern units during cold startups. They also assessed
whether the older units experienced more short-term load swings than
would be expected from modern units. These swings make it more
difficult to optimize unit operation and to continuously stay within
the 20 percent and 40 percent averages that apply during normal,
steady-state operations. These can be appropriate considerations
relevant to development of alternative emission limits, so long as
other CAA requirements are met. For further details of EPA's
explanation, see our August 15, 2013 NPR. (78 FR 49710-49711).
EPA's Criterion 3
The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club states that EPA did not
fully address criterion 3 because ``the proposed SIP revision
does not limit the frequency or duration of operation in startup,
shutdown or other modes to the maximum extent practicable'' in that the
alternative opacity limit applies equally to all units regardless of
age or specific unit characteristics.
EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's assertion that
criterion 3 has not been met. As discussed in our August 15,
2013 NPR, the frequency and duration of periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel switching or sudden load
changes for the units in question (see Table 1 in our August 15, 2013
NPR) were taken into account by CT DEEP's workgroup and were a part of
the analysis that resulted in the alternate opacity limit. In any
event, however, the most important limitation in the SIP revision on
the frequency and duration of opacity levels that may exceed those
allowed during normal, steady-state operations is the regulation's
strict limit on the amount of time per calendar quarter (less than 11
hours) that a facility may operate under an alternative opacity limit
(i.e., 60% opacity during any 6-minute block average). We believe that
this limitation will help to ensure that the emissions units in
question will be required to limit the frequency and duration of the
relevant modes of operation and to restrict their emissions to an
appropriate level consistent with criterion 3. Additionally,
because fuel is a significant operational cost at EGUs it is also
generally the case that EGUs have an economic incentive to optimize
their fuel-to-air ratio consistent with best engineering practices so
as to combust their fuel source most efficiently.
Finally, the Connecticut SIP's revised recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements serve as an additional, supplemental compliance tool that
will help to ensure that the units emit at the alternative opacity
limit only during the allowed modes of operation and within the allowed
periods of time. As we stated in our August 15, 2013 NPR, the revisions
to Connecticut's recordkeeping and monitoring requirements clarify and
improve enforceability of SIP requirements. For example, revised 22a-
174-4 includes specific data availability requirements and revised 22a-
174-7 includes explicit, specific time frames for various notifications
(such as ``no later than two business days''), as compared to prior
requirements to notify the state ``promptly.''
EPA Criterion 4
The Sierra Club's comment: Regarding criterion 4, the
Sierra Club asserts that ``[c]riterion (4) requires that ``[a]s part of
its justification of the SIP revision, the state would analyze the
potential worst-case emissions that could occur during startup and
shutdown.'' The Sierra Club asserts that EPA's August 15, 2013 NPR
acknowledged that neither the state nor EPA attempted to quantify the
exact increase in PM emissions that could be allowed under this SIP
revision. Sierra Club also objected to EPA's rational for approval of
the revision that, if elevated emissions levels were to cause future
violations of the PM NAAQS, EPA has additional authority under the CAA
to address such potential problems.
EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's comments on
this point. Our August 15, 2013 NPR included an analysis under
criterion 4 of the worst-case-emissions scenario. As we noted
in our August 15, 2013 NPR, that worst-case scenario would occur
(albeit extremely unlikely) if all nine currently operating units
(i.e., those that we earlier noted were relevant to the analysis of
potential emissions increases and that are subject to the alternative
opacity limit), simultaneously were to: (1) Engage in startup,
shutdown, or any of the other listed modes of operation for which the
alternative opacity limit is allowed; (2) for exactly the same nearly
11-hour period; and (3) at the uppermost allowed level of 60% opacity.
The most important limitation on any additional emissions resulting
from this SIP revision, even under this unlikely worst-case scenario,
is the strict limit set by CT DEEP on the amount of time per calendar
quarter (less than 11 hours) that a facility may lawfully operate up to
the 60% alternative opacity limit.
Furthermore, in response to the Sierra Club's assertion that EPA
and Connecticut failed to attempt to quantify any potential worst-case
scenario increase in emissions, we do so here. The total amount of
annual PM2.5 emissions (11 tons per year, as reported in the
2011 NEI) from the nine units collectively (which we earlier noted were
part of our analysis of potential increased emissions that may arise
from the alternate opacity limit) is an extremely small percentage of
the total PM2.5 emissions statewide, both in comparison to
stationary point-source emissions (436 tons per year) and to
PM2.5 emissions from all sources (17,151 tons per year). The
total amount of annual PM10 emissions from the nine units
collectively (17 tons, as reported in the 2011 NEI) is an extremely
small percentage of the total PM10 emissions statewide, both
in comparison to stationary point-source emissions (494 tpy) and to
PM10 emissions from all sources (38,995 tpy). Consequently,
any potential annual increase in PM2.5 and PM10
emissions from these nine units during the highly unlikely worst-case
scenario would most likely be only a portion of that small percentage,
because the relevant analysis concerns an assessment of maximum
potential increases in emissions from these sources during a maximum of
just under 11 hours per calendar quarter when there is a potential
increase from 40% opacity to 60% opacity. While it is difficult to
quantify the precise amount of additional PM2.5 and
PM10 emissions that could occur during such periods of
elevated opacity, we think that the additional PM2.5 and
PM10 is likely to be relatively small in light of the fact
that the total PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from the
affected sources are currently such a small amount relative to other
sources. As explained in detail earlier in this notice, our section
110(l) analysis shows that any potential increases will easily be
accommodated by the wide ``compliance cushion'' in Connecticut between
the PM2.5, and PM10 NAAQS and air quality
concentrations of PM2.5, and PM10.
Finally, our August 15, 2013 NPR statement about the availability
of additional CAA authorities that EPA could use to address any future
problems in relation to the PM NAAQS was not intended to indicate that
we anticipate there will be such a problem and, as we have explained in
this notice, we have no reason to expect that such a problem will
arise. We only intended to point out that the CAA
[[Page 41434]]
provides remedies to address any unexpected problems that could arise
as a result of this SIP revision, even though we anticipate that such
problems are highly theoretical in this instance. We emphasize,
however, that our section 110(l) analysis strongly demonstrates that
any such problems are not expected to arise as a result of this SIP
revision.
EPA Criterion 5
Sierra Club's comment: For criterion 5, the Sierra Club
claims that the proposed SIP revision includes nothing that will
minimize emissions impacts on ambient air quality during periods of
startup and shutdown. The Sierra Club also asserts that, although EPA
identified reporting requirements contained in Connecticut's SIP,
prompt reporting does not minimize air-quality impacts and does not
rise to the level of taking ``all possible steps'' to minimize the
impact of the emissions.
EPA's response: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's comments about
criterion 5 for the following reasons. As we explained in our
August 15, 2013 NPR, RCSA Section 22a-174-4, which is being approved as
part of EPA's action today, requires submission of all COMS data on a
quarterly basis, along with a quarterly quality-assurance audit, and
the submitted data would be required to include data during periods of
startup, shutdown or malfunction; stack testing; soot-blowing, fuel
switching or sudden load changes. The sources are not exempt from the
opacity standards during such periods and all emissions that occur
during such periods will be counted in the context of the SIP, such as
for emissions inventories, modeling demonstrations, and other
regulatory purposes. Alternative emissions limits for non-steady-state
modes of operation are not equivalent to exemptions. We also emphasize
that this regulation requires a facility to submit a corrective action
plan for a failed audit. We believe that prompt reporting and the
requirement to submit a corrective action plan (if demonstrated to be
necessary by an audit) helps to minimize air-quality impacts by
alerting the CT DEEP to possible operational issues so that the CT DEEP
may then work with the facility to implement corrective actions.
In addition, we note that the quarterly reporting requirement is
aligned with the regulation's quarterly maximum limit on use of the
alternative opacity limit (slightly less than 11 hours). Moreover, the
exception in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) itself is designed on its face to
minimize emissions during startup and shutdown; stack testing; soot-
blowing, fuel switching or sudden load changes. That is, the source
operator must limit the time period during which the alternative
opacity limit applies to less than 11 hours per calendar quarter, and
must limit opacity levels during such periods to no more than 60%
opacity during any 6-minute block average.
EPA Criterion 6
The Sierra Club's comment: The Sierra Club's comments on criterion
6 are related to those for criterion 5. Specifically,
the Sierra Club claims that EPA does not point to anything that
requires continuous minimization of emissions.
EPA's response: We incorporate by reference here the entirety of
our responses (above) to the Sierra Club's comments on EPA criterion
5 due to the similarity of the Sierra Club's comments on
criteria 5 and 6.
EPA Criterion 7
The Sierra Club did not submit an adverse comment on criterion
7, noting that the criterion ``is met by Connecticut's
proposed opacity SIP revisions.'' Accordingly, no response from EPA is
necessary or provided here.
Comment 4: The Sierra Club claims that EPA's evaluation of the
``exemption'' in Connecticut's revised Section 22a-174-18 (visible
emissions regulation) for sources subject to federal NSPS set forth in
40 CFR 60 is flawed and that the ``exemption'' is unlawful. The Sierra
Club argued that EPA's approval of a SIP revision that eliminates the
currently applicable opacity standard from certain categories of
sources has the ``practical and legal effect'' of exempting those
sources for emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
Response 4: As noted earlier, by letter dated March 27, 2014, CT
DEEP withdrew from its SIP submission Section 22a-174-18(j)(2). Thus,
without conceding Sierra Club's arguments about the legality of Section
22a-174-18(j)(2), EPA provides no response to those arguments because
the SIP is not being revised to include that regulatory provision.
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)
Comment: CLF asserts that the provision in Connecticut's SIP
revision that allows deviations from otherwise applicable visible
emissions limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and other
discrete periods of routine operations, like those set forth in RCSA
Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), is illegal. CLF further commented that if EPA
determines that this provision does not violate the CAA and approves
it, such approval should clearly state that (1) the SIP revision is
effective prospectively, beginning on the date that EPA officially
approves it; and (2) for that reason, approval of the exemption for
periods of startup, shutdown, and other listed modes of operation into
the federally-enforceable SIP has no retroactive effect on past
violations. CLF's September 16, 2013 comment letter included, as an
attachment, other comments that CLF submitted to the CT DEEP on
February 14, 2012 regarding Bridgeport Harbor Station's CAA Title V
operating permit renewal (2012) which, in relevant part, addresses
Connecticut's visible emissions rule and RCSA Section 22a-174-18(j)(1),
which CLF asserts is illegal under the CAA. Also attached to CLF's
September 16, 2013 letter were comments submitted by CLF to EPA
regarding EPA's proposed SIP Call.
Response: EPA disagrees with CLF's assertion that the alternative
emission limits for opacity during modes of operation such as startup,
shutdown, and others contained in RCSA Section 22a-174-18(j)(1), which
differ from opacity limits that apply during normal steady-state
operating conditions, are illegal under the CAA. In fact, as discussed
in our August 15, 2013 NPR, EPA has longstanding SIP guidance that
recommends criteria relevant to development of such alternative opacity
limits or other control measures that may apply during specific modes
of source operation such as startup and shutdown, if properly supported
and established.\11\ EPA has also recently reiterated these criteria in
a proposed rulemaking relevant to its interpretation of CAA
requirements applicable to SIP provisions.\12\ These criteria are
intended to ensure that opacity limits or other control measures or
techniques in SIPs that apply during specific modes of source
operation, such as startup or shutdown, are designed to minimize
emissions in order to provide for attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements (e.g., enforceability). As
discussed above, we believe that these
[[Page 41435]]
criteria have been met with respect to the revisions at issue in
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum entitled ``State Implementation Plans
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on September 20, 1999.
\12\ See, ``State Implementation Plans; Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule,'' 78 FR 12459
(Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to CLF's comments about the effective date of our
approval of Connecticut's SIP revision and the relationship of these
specific revisions to factual circumstances that pre-date the effective
date of the SIP revisions, the SIP revisions we are approving today are
effective on August 15, 2014. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions
does not change the legal requirements that applied under the SIP,
prior to this action.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP three
regulations submitted by the State of Connecticut on December 1, 2004.
Specifically, EPA is approving revised RCSA Section 22a-174-18
``Control of particulate matter and visible emissions,'' except for the
phrase ``or malfunction'' in Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) and all of
Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which CT DEEP has withdrawn from its SIP
submission. EPA is also approving revised RCSA Section 22a-174-4
``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting,'' and revised RCSA
Section 22a-174-7 ``Air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment operation.'' These latter two regulations strengthen
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which improve
the state's ability to detect violations of emissions limits. As noted
earlier, because Connecticut withdrew Section 22a-174-18(j)(2) from its
SIP submission, stationary sources subject to a federal NSPS will
remain subject to the opacity limits contained in ``Control of
particulate emissions'' under the SIP (See 37 FR 10842).
Revised Section 22a-174-18 establishes and requires limitations on
visible and PM emissions from certain stationary sources, identifies a
standardized method for determining compliance for sources without
COMS, and establishes an alternative opacity limit of up to 60 percent
opacity (during any 6-minute block average) during certain non-steady-
state modes of operation for sources with COMS. In addition, the
revised regulation sets a strict limit on the amount of time (0.5
percent of a facility's total operating hours during any calendar
quarter) that sources with COMS can operate under the alternative
opacity limit. As described earlier in this notice, we believe that the
revision of Section 22a-174-18 will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or other applicable CAA requirements, and thus
is approvable with respect to section 110(l) of the CAA.
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 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 September 15, 2014. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 8, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by
the Office of the Federal Register on July 9, 2014.
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.
[[Page 41436]]
Subpart H--Connecticut
0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(104) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on December 1, 2004.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated December 1, 2004 submitting a revision to the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, Section 22a-174,
Abatement of Air Pollution Regulations, amended April 1, 2004:
(1) Section 22a-174-4 ``Source monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting.''
(2) Section 22a-174-7 ``Air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment operation.''
(3) Section 22a-174-18 ``Control of particulate matter and visible
emissions,'' with the exception of the phrase ``or malfunction'' in
Section 22a-174-18(j)(1) and all of Section 22a-174-18(j)(2), which CT
DEEP withdrew from the SIP submittal.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Letter from CT DEEP dated January 14, 2013, entitled
``Information to Support EPA's Approval of Connecticut's Requirements
for Opacity.''
(B) Letter from CT DEEP dated July 8, 2013, withdrawing from CT
DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision the phrase ``and malfunction''
from Subsection (j)(1) of RCSA Section 22a-174-18.
(C) Letter from CT DEEP dated March 27, 2014, withdrawing from CT
DEEP's December 1, 2004 SIP revision Section 22a-174-18(j)(2).
0
3. In Sec. 52.385, Table 52.385 is amended by adding new entries to
existing state citations for 22a-174-4, 22a-174-7, and 22a-174-18 to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.385 EPA-approved Connecticut regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.385--EPA-Approved Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates
--------------------------
Connecticut state Title/subject Date Date Federal Register Section Comments/
citation adopted by approved citation 52.370 description
State by EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
22a-174-4......... Source 4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal (c)(104) ................
monitoring, Register
recordkeeping Citation].
and reporting.
* * * * * * *
22a-174-7......... Air pollution 4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal (c)(104) ................
control Register
equipment and Citation].
monitoring
equipment
operation.
* * * * * * *
22a-174-18........ Control of 4/1/04 7/16/14 [Insert Federal (c)(104) All of Section
particulate Register 22a-174-18 is
matter and Citation]. approved, with
visible the exception
emissions. of the phrase
``or
malfunction''
in Section 22a-
174-18(j)(1)
and all of
Section 22a-174-
18(j)(2), which
CT DEEP
withdrew from
the SIP
submittal.
Because
Connecticut
withdrew
Section 22a-174-
18(j)(2) from
its SIP
submission,
stationary
sources subject
to a federal
NSPS will
remain subject
to the opacity
limits
contained in
``Control of
particulate
emissions''
under the SIP
(See 37 FR
10842). See
Section 19-508-
18, ``Control
of Particulate
Emissions''
posted at https://www.epa.gov/region1/topics/air/sips/sips_ct.html.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41437]]
[FR Doc. 2014-16469 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
