Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits for American Electric Power, Rockport, 67186-67190 [2016-23296]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67186
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074; FRL–9953–14–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary
Alternate Opacity Limits for American
Electric Power, Rockport
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP), authorizing temporary alternate
opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American
Electric Power, Rockport (AEP
Rockport) facility during periods of
boiler startup and shutdown. This
action is consistent with the Clean Air
Act (CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA
policy regarding emissions during
periods of startup and shutdown.
Indiana has provided an air quality
analysis demonstrating that this revision
will continue to protect the applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) in Spencer County, Indiana.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(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 through
www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886–6524 before visiting the Region 5
office.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Matt
Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control
Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA’s response to comment?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this
action?
EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP
TAOLs for AEP Rockport Units #1 and
Unit #2, which apply only during
narrowly-drawn periods of boiler
startup and shutdown. These two
identical 1,300-megawatt coal-fired
boilers are each equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to
control PM2.5 emissions.
More specifically, 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 5–1–8
authorizes AEP Rockport to exceed the
applicable SIP opacity limit only under
the following circumstances: (1) During
startup, for a period not to exceed two
hours (twenty six-minute averaging
periods), or until the flue gas
temperature reaches 250 degrees
Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet, whichever
occurs first; and (2) during shutdown,
once the flue gas temperatures has
dropped below 250 degrees Fahrenheit
at the ESP inlet, for a period not to
exceed one and one-half hours (fifteen
six-minute averaging periods).
EPA proposed to approve these
alternate limits as revisions to Indiana
SIP on December 28, 2015 (80 FR
80719). In this action, EPA is
responding to comments submitted in
response to its proposal and approving
the AEP Rockport TAOLs. This is
because they meet the criteria contained
in Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 5–1–3(d) as
an appropriate method in determining
alternative limits for facilities during
startup and shutdown periods. These
limits are also consistent with the CAA
and applicable EPA policy. As
discussed in EPA’s proposal, AEP
Rockport has met all of these criteria.
EPA has also previously approved
TAOLs for 22 other Indiana power
plants, all of which are controlled with
ESPs (67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002).
These TAOLs contained similar limits,
and EPA’s basis for approval was
analogous. The approach taken by
Indiana in establishing all of these
TAOLs is also consistent with section
110 of the CAA and the criteria
contained in EPA’s September 20, 1999
guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown.’’
As discussed in the proposal, EPA has
evaluated Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System (COMS) data from
the AEP Rockport facility and
conducted air dispersion modeling in
the surrounding area. The COMS data
showed that, between 2009 and 2013,
AEP’s emissions were in compliance
with the SIP opacity rule 99.81 percent
of the time. Conversely, AEP’s
emissions exceeded the opacity
standards just 0.19 percent of the time,
which includes the startup and
shutdown periods covered by the
TAOL.
After EPA received public comments
in response to the proposal, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) performed an
additional air quality analysis in
response to specific comments. AEP
provided a revised emission profile for
PM describing hourly emissions during
a 24-hour period, including a startup
event, in which the ESP would be
entirely shut down during hours 9 and
10. IDEM made the conservative
assumption that all of the boilers’ PM10
emissions were 100 percent PM2.5. The
new analysis also considered two
scenarios, in which one boiler is starting
up while the other boiler is either not
operating, or operating at its full, steady
rate. Both boilers at Rockport exhaust
through a common stack. The two
scenarios represent the stack exhaust
and dispersion rates for a boiler startup/
shutdown event. IDEM modeled one
scenario which assumed that the ESP is
completely offline for the two hours of
highest oil and coal combustion.
IDEM’s modeling followed EPA’s
guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
W, using the current version of the
AERMOD modeling system, over a full
receptor grid, with five years of recent
surface meteorological data from
Evansville, Indiana (2010–2014). IDEM
also included background from the nearby Dale monitor, in response to Sierra
Club comments. The modeling with the
background results yielded a 24-hour
PM2.5 value of 26.06 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3), which is well
below the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 mg/m3.
II. What is EPA’s response to comment?
EPA received comment letters from
AEP and the Sierra Club, both on
January 27, 2016.
The AEP comment letter supports the
approval of 326 IAC 5–1–8 into the
Indiana SIP. Sierra Club’s comments are
provided and addressed below.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the fact that AEP Rockport often does
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
not meet applicable opacity limitations
is not sufficient to demonstrate that it
cannot meet these limits. The
commenter asserts that there are
numerous options that might be
effective in reducing emissions during
startup and shutdown periods,
including revamping plant maintenance
practices, installing baghouses after the
ESPs to collect uncontrolled PM, and
using a startup fuel other than fuel oil.
Response: The TAOLs at AEP
Rockport are needed during startup and
shutdown because of temperature
limitations of the ESP, which has
lowered efficiency at times when
temperatures are below 250 degrees.
(See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). In
addition, AEP Rockport has provided
data showing that during periods of low
temperature when the control
technology cannot efficiently control
particulates, there may be violations of
the SIP opacity limits. During normal
operations, however, emission limits are
met. The COMs data submitted by AEP
Rockport demonstrate that it has
operated in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control and
maintenance practices. The data show
that, between 2009 and 2013, the facility
was in compliance 99.81 percent of the
time, and exceeded the opacity
standards just 0.19 percent of the time.
This includes the startup and shutdown
periods covered by the TAOL.
The commenter suggests that other
control devices should be added to the
facility, or that there should be a fuel
switch. EPA disagrees for several
reasons. First, considering additional
controls or changes in fuel is not a
criterion in the Indiana SIP for
evaluating the approvability of a TAOL.
In addition, even if AEP Rockport were
to add or modify its control such as by
adding a fabric filter (baghouse), similar
technical issues could also occur during
the low-temperature, low-flow scenario
of startups and shutdowns.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the fact that AEP Rockport often meets
applicable opacity limitations during
startup and shutdown proves that it can
meet these limits. To support this claim,
the commenter cites opacity records
from the facility on two specific dates in
August 1999 in which the opacity did
not exceed 40 percent during one
startup event and one shutdown event.
While conceding that these records also
show violating emissions during
startups and shutdowns on other
occasions, the commenter further notes
that the same records show that the
facility was also able to comply with the
opacity limits during startups and
shutdowns as recently as last year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: Because AEP Rockport
often meets its limits speaks to the fact
that it currently operates the controls in
a fashion that is consistent with the
TAOL approval criterion of maintaining
and operating controls in a way to
minimize emissions. AEP Rockport’s
control system also operates effectively
during normal operations, enabling it to
meet its opacity limitations. As
explained in EPA’s proposal, the need
for a TAOL occurs only during startup
and shutdown periods—when ESP
effectiveness is hampered by
temperature (See 67 FR 46589, July 16,
2002).
AEP Rockport’s COM data from 2001
to 2004, and 2007 to 2013, indicate
opacity exceedances during startup and
shutdown periods, which shows this
has been a long-running technical issue.
EPA has also reviewed the opacity
exceedance report summary for 2007 to
2013. It shows that AEP Rockport
averaged 2 startups per year and 4.7
shutdowns per year that exceeded the
opacity limitations.
There are aspects of ESP operation
that cannot be predicted or controlled
during unit startups. Therefore, it is
impractical to set an opacity limitation
during startup and shutdown periods,
particularly given the noted history of
limited exceedances and the potential
for more irregular opacity episodes.
Given that EPA expects SIP compliance
100 percent of the time, the fact that a
source may ‘‘often’’ meet applicable
emission limits is not sufficient.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the air quality demonstration made in
2001 or 2004 is obsolete due to changing
conditions that impact opacity
compliance at the AEP Rockport. The
commenter further asserted that the
documents AEP submitted in support of
its TAOL petition are outdated and fail
to satisfy the requirements in 326 IAC
5–1–3–(d)(2)(B).
Response: The requirements of 326
IAC 5–1–3(d)(2)(B) were fulfilled for the
AEP Rockport facility with the
information provided by Indiana in
2015. This is current information, as
Indiana evaluated the AEP Rockport
TAOLs in 2014. The current data for
AEP Rockport show it operates in
manner that minimizes opacity
emissions during both normal operation
and during startup and shutdown
periods.
AEP’s updated COMs data, which
reflects maintenance changes, upgrades,
retrofits, or alterations at the facility,
still records exceedances during some
start-up and shutdown events during
2009 through 2013. This data which
accounts for recent changes in
conditions shows that there is an
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67187
ongoing technical issue with the ESP
temperature limitations during start-up
and shutdowns that necessitates the
TAOLs.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the 2004 modeling does not address the
current NAAQS. The Indiana SIP
requires the owner or operator to
demonstrate the TAOL will not impact
the maintenance of the NAAQS. The
commenter asserted that AEP Rockport’s
2004 demonstration is clearly
inadequate in that it does not address
subsequently-adopted PM NAAQS,
because the demonstration did not
address the 2012 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Response: The submission by Indiana
contained both 2004 and updated 2013
modeling. The modeling provided to
EPA for SIP approval included an
analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. The
analysis used a conservative assumption
that 100 percent of PM10 equals the
PM2.5 concentrations emitted. EPA
concurred with this analysis, which
further showed that the TAOL would
not interfere with the NAAQS for fine
particulate matter.
In addition, in response to the
comment, Indiana performed and
provided EPA with an updated
AERMOD modeling analysis. The
modeling shows that the PM2.5 NAAQS
should remain protected in Spencer
County, Indiana with the TAOLs in
place. More specifically, the results
yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 value of 26.06
mg/m3, which is well below the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. Indiana did
not address the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
as the TAOL is only intended to address
short-term situations. The 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS protects public health in this
scenario. EPA also considered the 2012
NAAQS, and evaluated modeled
concentrations from the TAOLs, using
an hourly value of 1.59 mg/m3 from the
modeled scenario that would best
represent a contribution to an annual
average. EPA a determined that the
modeled annual average combined with
background concentrations (for current
monitored data of 10.1 mg/m3 for 2013–
2015 period, and 9.3 for the current
annual period) would be less than the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the 2004 modeling assumes PM
emission will be controlled in ways the
TAOL does not require. More
specifically, AEP Rockport assumed that
its ESPs would be partially energized
and reducing particulate matter
emissions, albeit at only 60 percent
efficiency. Rockport’s operating permit
excuses it from running the ESPs during
startup and shutdown. The emissions
rate both Indiana and AEP Rockport
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67188
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
used is based on the assumption that
AEP Rockport will take steps to
minimize opacity that are not required
by law.
Response: EPA believes that the
modeling done in support of the TAOL
is an appropriate representation of the
impact of the TAOL on the NAAQS. The
parameters used in the modeling are
consistent with EPA SSM guidance and
rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840), and reflect
the operations at the facility, because
Indiana has found through review of the
reported data that AEP Rockport’s ESP
typically provides 75 percent control
efficiency or more during startup.
It should also be noted that AEP
Rockport is subject to other rules that
limit its emissions, such as the Mercury
and Air Toxics (MATS) rule (40 CFR
part 63, subpart UUUUU). Controlling
PM emissions under the MATS rule will
further limit the opacity from the AEP
Rockport units. Indiana’s analysis
without ESP control still shows the air
quality will be protected. Therefore,
EPA believes that the assumption of 60
percent efficiency in the modeling is
conservative, and shows that the
NAAQS would be protected at a level
well below the standard.
Comment: The commenter stated that
the 2013 modeling is unrealistic and
retains flaws from the 2004 modeling.
Some of the key modeling assumptions
that Indiana used are unrealistic. These
assumptions cut in both directions:
Some overestimate air quality impact
and some underestimate air quality
impact. Indiana assumed that there was
no background PM2.5 concentration.
Indiana’s justifications for using a zero
background PM concentration do not
withstand scrutiny. Assuming zero
background concentration for PM2.5
produces an air quality modeling result
that cannot be relied upon to show
NAAQS compliance. The 2013 annual
mean for PM2.5 at the Dale, Spencer
County, Indiana monitor was 10.20 mg/
m3. Indiana’s modeling yielded an
eighth high 24-hour PM2.5 value of 22
mg/m3. Even though the methodology for
calculating these values is very
different, adding them yields a total of
32.2 mg/m3.
Response: The commenter notes in its
own analysis that the modeling, with
background concentration, still yield
results that are below the standard of 35
mg/m3.
The revised modeling analysis by
Indiana addressed the concerns raised
by the commenter. Background data was
taken from the Dale monitor in Spencer
County, Indiana. AEP Rockport is also
in Spencer County, Indiana, about 20
miles from the Dale monitor. The latest
three years of monitoring data from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
2013–2015 were used. The background
value of 23 mg/m3 does include the
expected impact from AEP Rockport’s
startup and shutdown periods, as no
adjustment to the data was made. Thus,
both Indiana and EPA considered a
conservative background concentration
in their evaluations of the AEP Rockport
TAOLs.
Indiana’s 2013 modeling is
conservative in several additional ways.
The dispersion modeling used averaged
stack temperatures and flow rates in the
startup process (which were not from
the same hour the emissions value came
from). Using the good engineering
practice stack height of 220.7 m, instead
of the actual 272.5 m stack height, also
leads to a conservative estimate of
dispersion and, therefore,
conservatively high concentration
results. The analysis used a cold-unit
startup, which is expected to produce
more opacity than a warm-unit startup.
(A warm-unit startup is when the boiler
is still warm, a scenario that could come
from frequent startups and shutdowns.)
Indiana used coarse particulate matter
(PM10) emission rates in its modeling
analysis, making the conservative
assumption that those emissions were
100 percent PM2.5. Indiana compared
the model result to the 24-hour PM2.5
standard and determined that the
NAAQS were protected.
A scenario considering two hours of
uncontrolled emissions during startup
gave a maximum concentration of 3.06
mg/m3. Adding in the background
concentration yields a total value of
26.06 mg/m3. A second scenario was
considered with one unit starting up
while the other unit is in normal
operation. This scenario yields a total
concentration of 24.59 mg/m3. The
higher stack temperature and greater
flow rate increase the dispersion
characteristics leading to the lower
concentration. Thus, the first scenario
provides a worst-case analysis with a
background concentration and no ESP
operation during startup, and it still
demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter stated that
Indiana has not demonstrated that this
TAOL is needed and justifiable, as
required by 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The
commenter noted that the Indiana SIP
requires the owner to demonstrate that
a particular TAOL is needed and
justifiable during periods of startup and
shutdown. The TAOL should be
narrowly tailored and all steps must be
taken to minimize emissions during
startup and shutdown.
Response: The criteria for
demonstrating that a TAOL is needed
and justifiable are provided in SIP rule
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). As discussed
above, the need in this case is supported
by both the COMs data showing
exceedances and the limitations of the
technology due to low temperatures
specific to startup and shutdown.
The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet
the criteria contained in EPA’s SSM
guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR
33840). The TAOLs are narrowly
tailored, as they apply only to Rockport
Unit 1 and Unit 2. They also align the
previously approved Indiana TAOLs as
it is a coal-fired utility boiler controlled
with an ESP. The data provided on
previous startups and shutdowns for
both units indicated the TAOLs were set
properly to minimize emissions during
startup and shutdown. AEP Rockport
has satisfied the criteria for approval.
Further, the AEP Rockport startup and
shutdown TAOLs are consistent with
the previously approved TAOLs at other
similar Indiana facilities (See 67 FR
46589, July, 16, 2002). The TAOLs for
AEP Rockport were also tailored
specifically to the facility using
monitored COM data to determine
opacity limits that were appropriate
given the operational limitations of the
specific parameters on the ESP for AEP
Rockport. AEP Rockport has
demonstrated that the PM2.5 NAAQS
and thus the area’s air quality will
remain protected. The reports on the
startups and shutdown do show the
periods when the current opacity
limitations are exceeded occurred
during 14 startups and 33 shutdowns
from 2007 to 2013, which is an average
of 2.0 startup and 4.7 shutdown
exceedances per year. Just one startup
(2.1 hours) and two shutdowns (1.7 and
2.0 hours) during 2007 to 2013 exceeded
the proposed TAOLs.
The air quality analysis of the TAOLs
shows that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
protected, and EPA’s analysis of the
annual standard based on the modeling
provided supports that the annual PM2.5
standard is protected. Compliance with
this standard protects the public health
from short-term events such as startups
and shutdowns.
Comment: The proposed TAOLs
include no upper limits on opacity
during the specified timeframe. As such,
they could potentially allow extremely
high opacity scenarios. There is no
concrete restriction on how many times
AEP Rockport may startup or shutdown
each unit in a year, or even in a week.
The combination of these two events
raises the potential for serious impacts
on ambient air quality.
AEP Rockport has not demonstrated it
requires a wholesale exemption from
numerical opacity limits when the
TAOL would apply. None of the opacity
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
records show opacity reaching levels
near 100 percent for two hours during
a startup. AEP assumed the ESPs would
run at 60 percent efficiency before the
flue gas temperature reaches 250 °F.
Furthermore, AEP Rockport claimed
that 60 percent control efficiency was a
low estimate. If true, that means AEP
Rockport could partially control its
opacity during the startup and
shutdown periods. The TAOLs simply
grants AEP Rockport an unneeded,
unjustified free pass during the
specified time period.
Response: EPA agrees that the data
indicates opacity does not approach 100
percent opacity. The opacity readings
vary in time and opacity level, which
makes setting numerical opacity
limitations impractical. While there is
not a percent opacity limit, the TAOL
does provide meaningful constraints of
time and temperature that the facility
must follow that limits the emissions
during startup and shutdowns. The
TAOL for unit startup is only allowed
until the exhaust temperature reaches
250 °F at the ESP inlet, up to a
maximum of 20 six-minute averaging
periods (2 hours). The TAOL for unit
shutdown begins when the exhaust
temperature declines below 250 °F at
the ESP inlet and goes for up to 15 sixminute averaging periods (1.5 hours).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the addition of the
AEP Rockport TAOL to 326 IAC 5–1–8
to the Indiana SIP. The rule provides
AEP Rockport Units #1 and Unit #2
with TAOLs under certain
circumstances during unit startup and
shutdown periods. All available data
support that the AEP Rockport TAOLs
are set at an appropriate level. The AEP
Rockport TAOLs meet the requirements
of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The AEP
Rockport TAOLs also meet the other
requirements of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d), as
approved into the Indiana SIP.
This action is consistent with the
CAA, the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy
regarding emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown. Indiana has
provided an air quality analysis
demonstrating that the PM2.5 NAAQS in
Spencer County should continue to be
protected with the revision.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Indiana Regulations
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.1
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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);
1 62
PO 00000
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67189
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 29, 2016. 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
67190
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: September 19, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by adding an entry under
‘‘Article 5. Opacity Regulations’’ ‘‘Rule
1. Opacity Limitations’’ for 5–1–8 in
numerical order to read as follows:
■
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.770
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS
Indiana citation
Indiana
effective
date
Subject
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
Notes
*
*
*
*
9/30/2016, [insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
*
*
*
Article 5. Opacity Regulations
Rule 1. Opacity Limitations
*
5–1–8 ........................
*
*
Site-specific temporary alternate
opacity limitations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–23296 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 97
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9953–30–
OAR]
Availability of Data on Allocations of
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Allowances to Existing Electricity
Generating Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of data
availability (NODA).
AGENCY:
Under the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading program
regulations, the EPA allocates emission
allowances to existing electricity
generating units (EGUs) as provided in
a notice of data availability (NODA). In
the CSAPR Update promulgated earlier
this year, the EPA finalized default
allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 allowances for the
control periods in 2017 and subsequent
years to existing EGUs in 22 eastern
states for which the EPA finalized
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)—
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:28 Sep 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
12/6/2014
*
Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Through this NODA, the
EPA is providing notice of the
availability of data on these allowance
allocations to existing units, as well as
the data upon which the allocations are
based.
DATES: September 30, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this notice should
be addressed to Michael Cohen, at (202)
343–9497 or cohen.michael@epa.gov; or
Robert Miller, at (202) 343–9077 or
miller.robertl@epa.gov. The mailing
address for each of these individuals is
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204M,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CSAPR allowance trading programs
require affected EGUs to hold emission
allowances sufficient to cover their
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/
or sulfur dioxide in each control period.
In the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), the EPA established new
emissions budgets for ozone season NOX
emissions in 2017 and subsequent years
for 22 eastern states and promulgated
FIP provisions requiring affected EGUs
in those states to participate in the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program.1 Beginning with the
2018 control period, each covered state
1 See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (September 7, 2016),
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/finalcross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
generally has the option to determine
how the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 2 allowances in its state
emissions budget should be allocated
among the state’s EGUs through a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.2
However, for the 2017 control period,
and by default for subsequent control
periods in situations where a state has
not provided the EPA with the state’s
own allocations pursuant to an
approved SIP revision, the allocations
are made by the EPA.
In the case of units that commenced
commercial operations before January 1,
2015, termed ‘‘existing’’ units for
purposes of this trading program, the
EPA determined default allocations for
all control periods in the CSAPR Update
rulemaking, according to a methodology
finalized in the rulemaking but not
included in the regulatory text.3
Through this NODA, the EPA is
providing notice of the availability of
unit-level default allocations of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances
for EGUs that commenced commercial
operation before January 1, 2015, as
required by the CSAPR regulations.4
The data are contained in an Excel
spreadsheet titled ‘‘Unit-Level
Allocations and Underlying Data for the
2 See
40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.
CSAPR Allowance Allocations Final Rule
TSD, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
4 See 40 CFR 97.811(a)(1). The approach of
allocating emission allowances to existing EGUs as
provided in a NODA was established in the original
CSAPR and was unchanged in the CSAPR Update.
See, e.g., 40 CFR 97.511(a)(1).
3 See
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67186-67190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23296]
[[Page 67186]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0074; FRL-9953-14-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits
for American Electric Power, Rockport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), authorizing
temporary alternate opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American Electric
Power, Rockport (AEP Rockport) facility during periods of boiler
startup and shutdown. This action is consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy regarding emissions during
periods of startup and shutdown. Indiana has provided an air quality
analysis demonstrating that this revision will continue to protect the
applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) in Spencer County, Indiana.
DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0074. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524
before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's response to comment?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP TAOLs for AEP Rockport Units
#1 and Unit #2, which apply only during narrowly-drawn periods of
boiler startup and shutdown. These two identical 1,300-megawatt coal-
fired boilers are each equipped with an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) to control PM2.5 emissions.
More specifically, 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 5-1-8
authorizes AEP Rockport to exceed the applicable SIP opacity limit only
under the following circumstances: (1) During startup, for a period not
to exceed two hours (twenty six-minute averaging periods), or until the
flue gas temperature reaches 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet,
whichever occurs first; and (2) during shutdown, once the flue gas
temperatures has dropped below 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet,
for a period not to exceed one and one-half hours (fifteen six-minute
averaging periods).
EPA proposed to approve these alternate limits as revisions to
Indiana SIP on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 80719). In this action, EPA is
responding to comments submitted in response to its proposal and
approving the AEP Rockport TAOLs. This is because they meet the
criteria contained in Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) as an
appropriate method in determining alternative limits for facilities
during startup and shutdown periods. These limits are also consistent
with the CAA and applicable EPA policy. As discussed in EPA's proposal,
AEP Rockport has met all of these criteria.
EPA has also previously approved TAOLs for 22 other Indiana power
plants, all of which are controlled with ESPs (67 FR 46589, July 16,
2002). These TAOLs contained similar limits, and EPA's basis for
approval was analogous. The approach taken by Indiana in establishing
all of these TAOLs is also consistent with section 110 of the CAA and
the criteria contained in EPA's September 20, 1999 guidance, ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.''
As discussed in the proposal, EPA has evaluated Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System (COMS) data from the AEP Rockport facility and
conducted air dispersion modeling in the surrounding area. The COMS
data showed that, between 2009 and 2013, AEP's emissions were in
compliance with the SIP opacity rule 99.81 percent of the time.
Conversely, AEP's emissions exceeded the opacity standards just 0.19
percent of the time, which includes the startup and shutdown periods
covered by the TAOL.
After EPA received public comments in response to the proposal, the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) performed an
additional air quality analysis in response to specific comments. AEP
provided a revised emission profile for PM describing hourly emissions
during a 24-hour period, including a startup event, in which the ESP
would be entirely shut down during hours 9 and 10. IDEM made the
conservative assumption that all of the boilers' PM10
emissions were 100 percent PM2.5. The new analysis also
considered two scenarios, in which one boiler is starting up while the
other boiler is either not operating, or operating at its full, steady
rate. Both boilers at Rockport exhaust through a common stack. The two
scenarios represent the stack exhaust and dispersion rates for a boiler
startup/shutdown event. IDEM modeled one scenario which assumed that
the ESP is completely offline for the two hours of highest oil and coal
combustion.
IDEM's modeling followed EPA's guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
W, using the current version of the AERMOD modeling system, over a full
receptor grid, with five years of recent surface meteorological data
from Evansville, Indiana (2010-2014). IDEM also included background
from the near-by Dale monitor, in response to Sierra Club comments. The
modeling with the background results yielded a 24-hour PM2.5
value of 26.06 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), which is well
below the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
II. What is EPA's response to comment?
EPA received comment letters from AEP and the Sierra Club, both on
January 27, 2016.
The AEP comment letter supports the approval of 326 IAC 5-1-8 into
the Indiana SIP. Sierra Club's comments are provided and addressed
below.
Comment: The commenter stated that the fact that AEP Rockport often
does
[[Page 67187]]
not meet applicable opacity limitations is not sufficient to
demonstrate that it cannot meet these limits. The commenter asserts
that there are numerous options that might be effective in reducing
emissions during startup and shutdown periods, including revamping
plant maintenance practices, installing baghouses after the ESPs to
collect uncontrolled PM, and using a startup fuel other than fuel oil.
Response: The TAOLs at AEP Rockport are needed during startup and
shutdown because of temperature limitations of the ESP, which has
lowered efficiency at times when temperatures are below 250 degrees.
(See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). In addition, AEP Rockport has
provided data showing that during periods of low temperature when the
control technology cannot efficiently control particulates, there may
be violations of the SIP opacity limits. During normal operations,
however, emission limits are met. The COMs data submitted by AEP
Rockport demonstrate that it has operated in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control and maintenance practices. The data show
that, between 2009 and 2013, the facility was in compliance 99.81
percent of the time, and exceeded the opacity standards just 0.19
percent of the time. This includes the startup and shutdown periods
covered by the TAOL.
The commenter suggests that other control devices should be added
to the facility, or that there should be a fuel switch. EPA disagrees
for several reasons. First, considering additional controls or changes
in fuel is not a criterion in the Indiana SIP for evaluating the
approvability of a TAOL. In addition, even if AEP Rockport were to add
or modify its control such as by adding a fabric filter (baghouse),
similar technical issues could also occur during the low-temperature,
low-flow scenario of startups and shutdowns.
Comment: The commenter stated that the fact that AEP Rockport often
meets applicable opacity limitations during startup and shutdown proves
that it can meet these limits. To support this claim, the commenter
cites opacity records from the facility on two specific dates in August
1999 in which the opacity did not exceed 40 percent during one startup
event and one shutdown event. While conceding that these records also
show violating emissions during startups and shutdowns on other
occasions, the commenter further notes that the same records show that
the facility was also able to comply with the opacity limits during
startups and shutdowns as recently as last year.
Response: Because AEP Rockport often meets its limits speaks to the
fact that it currently operates the controls in a fashion that is
consistent with the TAOL approval criterion of maintaining and
operating controls in a way to minimize emissions. AEP Rockport's
control system also operates effectively during normal operations,
enabling it to meet its opacity limitations. As explained in EPA's
proposal, the need for a TAOL occurs only during startup and shutdown
periods--when ESP effectiveness is hampered by temperature (See 67 FR
46589, July 16, 2002).
AEP Rockport's COM data from 2001 to 2004, and 2007 to 2013,
indicate opacity exceedances during startup and shutdown periods, which
shows this has been a long-running technical issue. EPA has also
reviewed the opacity exceedance report summary for 2007 to 2013. It
shows that AEP Rockport averaged 2 startups per year and 4.7 shutdowns
per year that exceeded the opacity limitations.
There are aspects of ESP operation that cannot be predicted or
controlled during unit startups. Therefore, it is impractical to set an
opacity limitation during startup and shutdown periods, particularly
given the noted history of limited exceedances and the potential for
more irregular opacity episodes. Given that EPA expects SIP compliance
100 percent of the time, the fact that a source may ``often'' meet
applicable emission limits is not sufficient.
Comment: The commenter stated that the air quality demonstration
made in 2001 or 2004 is obsolete due to changing conditions that impact
opacity compliance at the AEP Rockport. The commenter further asserted
that the documents AEP submitted in support of its TAOL petition are
outdated and fail to satisfy the requirements in 326 IAC 5-1-3-
(d)(2)(B).
Response: The requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2)(B) were fulfilled
for the AEP Rockport facility with the information provided by Indiana
in 2015. This is current information, as Indiana evaluated the AEP
Rockport TAOLs in 2014. The current data for AEP Rockport show it
operates in manner that minimizes opacity emissions during both normal
operation and during startup and shutdown periods.
AEP's updated COMs data, which reflects maintenance changes,
upgrades, retrofits, or alterations at the facility, still records
exceedances during some start-up and shutdown events during 2009
through 2013. This data which accounts for recent changes in conditions
shows that there is an ongoing technical issue with the ESP temperature
limitations during start-up and shutdowns that necessitates the TAOLs.
Comment: The commenter stated that the 2004 modeling does not
address the current NAAQS. The Indiana SIP requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate the TAOL will not impact the maintenance of the
NAAQS. The commenter asserted that AEP Rockport's 2004 demonstration is
clearly inadequate in that it does not address subsequently-adopted PM
NAAQS, because the demonstration did not address the 2012 24-hour and
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Response: The submission by Indiana contained both 2004 and updated
2013 modeling. The modeling provided to EPA for SIP approval included
an analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. The analysis
used a conservative assumption that 100 percent of PM10
equals the PM2.5 concentrations emitted. EPA concurred with
this analysis, which further showed that the TAOL would not interfere
with the NAAQS for fine particulate matter.
In addition, in response to the comment, Indiana performed and
provided EPA with an updated AERMOD modeling analysis. The modeling
shows that the PM2.5 NAAQS should remain protected in
Spencer County, Indiana with the TAOLs in place. More specifically, the
results yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 value of 26.06 [mu]g/m\3\,
which is well below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. Indiana did not address the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as the
TAOL is only intended to address short-term situations. The 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS protects public health in this scenario. EPA
also considered the 2012 NAAQS, and evaluated modeled concentrations
from the TAOLs, using an hourly value of 1.59 [mu]g/m\3\ from the
modeled scenario that would best represent a contribution to an annual
average. EPA a determined that the modeled annual average combined with
background concentrations (for current monitored data of 10.1 [mu]g/
m\3\ for 2013-2015 period, and 9.3 for the current annual period) would
be less than the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
Comment: The commenter stated that the 2004 modeling assumes PM
emission will be controlled in ways the TAOL does not require. More
specifically, AEP Rockport assumed that its ESPs would be partially
energized and reducing particulate matter emissions, albeit at only 60
percent efficiency. Rockport's operating permit excuses it from running
the ESPs during startup and shutdown. The emissions rate both Indiana
and AEP Rockport
[[Page 67188]]
used is based on the assumption that AEP Rockport will take steps to
minimize opacity that are not required by law.
Response: EPA believes that the modeling done in support of the
TAOL is an appropriate representation of the impact of the TAOL on the
NAAQS. The parameters used in the modeling are consistent with EPA SSM
guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840), and reflect the operations
at the facility, because Indiana has found through review of the
reported data that AEP Rockport's ESP typically provides 75 percent
control efficiency or more during startup.
It should also be noted that AEP Rockport is subject to other rules
that limit its emissions, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS)
rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU). Controlling PM emissions under
the MATS rule will further limit the opacity from the AEP Rockport
units. Indiana's analysis without ESP control still shows the air
quality will be protected. Therefore, EPA believes that the assumption
of 60 percent efficiency in the modeling is conservative, and shows
that the NAAQS would be protected at a level well below the standard.
Comment: The commenter stated that the 2013 modeling is unrealistic
and retains flaws from the 2004 modeling. Some of the key modeling
assumptions that Indiana used are unrealistic. These assumptions cut in
both directions: Some overestimate air quality impact and some
underestimate air quality impact. Indiana assumed that there was no
background PM2.5 concentration. Indiana's justifications for
using a zero background PM concentration do not withstand scrutiny.
Assuming zero background concentration for PM2.5 produces an
air quality modeling result that cannot be relied upon to show NAAQS
compliance. The 2013 annual mean for PM2.5 at the Dale,
Spencer County, Indiana monitor was 10.20 [mu]g/m\3\. Indiana's
modeling yielded an eighth high 24-hour PM2.5 value of 22
[mu]g/m\3\. Even though the methodology for calculating these values is
very different, adding them yields a total of 32.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
Response: The commenter notes in its own analysis that the
modeling, with background concentration, still yield results that are
below the standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
The revised modeling analysis by Indiana addressed the concerns
raised by the commenter. Background data was taken from the Dale
monitor in Spencer County, Indiana. AEP Rockport is also in Spencer
County, Indiana, about 20 miles from the Dale monitor. The latest three
years of monitoring data from 2013-2015 were used. The background value
of 23 [mu]g/m\3\ does include the expected impact from AEP Rockport's
startup and shutdown periods, as no adjustment to the data was made.
Thus, both Indiana and EPA considered a conservative background
concentration in their evaluations of the AEP Rockport TAOLs.
Indiana's 2013 modeling is conservative in several additional ways.
The dispersion modeling used averaged stack temperatures and flow rates
in the startup process (which were not from the same hour the emissions
value came from). Using the good engineering practice stack height of
220.7 m, instead of the actual 272.5 m stack height, also leads to a
conservative estimate of dispersion and, therefore, conservatively high
concentration results. The analysis used a cold-unit startup, which is
expected to produce more opacity than a warm-unit startup. (A warm-unit
startup is when the boiler is still warm, a scenario that could come
from frequent startups and shutdowns.) Indiana used coarse particulate
matter (PM10) emission rates in its modeling analysis,
making the conservative assumption that those emissions were 100
percent PM2.5. Indiana compared the model result to the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard and determined that the NAAQS were
protected.
A scenario considering two hours of uncontrolled emissions during
startup gave a maximum concentration of 3.06 [mu]g/m\3\. Adding in the
background concentration yields a total value of 26.06 [mu]g/m\3\. A
second scenario was considered with one unit starting up while the
other unit is in normal operation. This scenario yields a total
concentration of 24.59 [mu]g/m\3\. The higher stack temperature and
greater flow rate increase the dispersion characteristics leading to
the lower concentration. Thus, the first scenario provides a worst-case
analysis with a background concentration and no ESP operation during
startup, and it still demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter stated that Indiana has not demonstrated
that this TAOL is needed and justifiable, as required by 326 IAC 5-1-
3(d)(2). The commenter noted that the Indiana SIP requires the owner to
demonstrate that a particular TAOL is needed and justifiable during
periods of startup and shutdown. The TAOL should be narrowly tailored
and all steps must be taken to minimize emissions during startup and
shutdown.
Response: The criteria for demonstrating that a TAOL is needed and
justifiable are provided in SIP rule 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2). As discussed
above, the need in this case is supported by both the COMs data showing
exceedances and the limitations of the technology due to low
temperatures specific to startup and shutdown.
The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet the criteria contained in EPA's
SSM guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840). The TAOLs are narrowly
tailored, as they apply only to Rockport Unit 1 and Unit 2. They also
align the previously approved Indiana TAOLs as it is a coal-fired
utility boiler controlled with an ESP. The data provided on previous
startups and shutdowns for both units indicated the TAOLs were set
properly to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown. AEP
Rockport has satisfied the criteria for approval. Further, the AEP
Rockport startup and shutdown TAOLs are consistent with the previously
approved TAOLs at other similar Indiana facilities (See 67 FR 46589,
July, 16, 2002). The TAOLs for AEP Rockport were also tailored
specifically to the facility using monitored COM data to determine
opacity limits that were appropriate given the operational limitations
of the specific parameters on the ESP for AEP Rockport. AEP Rockport
has demonstrated that the PM2.5 NAAQS and thus the area's
air quality will remain protected. The reports on the startups and
shutdown do show the periods when the current opacity limitations are
exceeded occurred during 14 startups and 33 shutdowns from 2007 to
2013, which is an average of 2.0 startup and 4.7 shutdown exceedances
per year. Just one startup (2.1 hours) and two shutdowns (1.7 and 2.0
hours) during 2007 to 2013 exceeded the proposed TAOLs.
The air quality analysis of the TAOLs shows that the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is protected, and EPA's analysis of the annual
standard based on the modeling provided supports that the annual
PM2.5 standard is protected. Compliance with this standard
protects the public health from short-term events such as startups and
shutdowns.
Comment: The proposed TAOLs include no upper limits on opacity
during the specified timeframe. As such, they could potentially allow
extremely high opacity scenarios. There is no concrete restriction on
how many times AEP Rockport may startup or shutdown each unit in a
year, or even in a week. The combination of these two events raises the
potential for serious impacts on ambient air quality.
AEP Rockport has not demonstrated it requires a wholesale exemption
from numerical opacity limits when the TAOL would apply. None of the
opacity
[[Page 67189]]
records show opacity reaching levels near 100 percent for two hours
during a startup. AEP assumed the ESPs would run at 60 percent
efficiency before the flue gas temperature reaches 250 [deg]F.
Furthermore, AEP Rockport claimed that 60 percent control efficiency
was a low estimate. If true, that means AEP Rockport could partially
control its opacity during the startup and shutdown periods. The TAOLs
simply grants AEP Rockport an unneeded, unjustified free pass during
the specified time period.
Response: EPA agrees that the data indicates opacity does not
approach 100 percent opacity. The opacity readings vary in time and
opacity level, which makes setting numerical opacity limitations
impractical. While there is not a percent opacity limit, the TAOL does
provide meaningful constraints of time and temperature that the
facility must follow that limits the emissions during startup and
shutdowns. The TAOL for unit startup is only allowed until the exhaust
temperature reaches 250 [deg]F at the ESP inlet, up to a maximum of 20
six-minute averaging periods (2 hours). The TAOL for unit shutdown
begins when the exhaust temperature declines below 250 [deg]F at the
ESP inlet and goes for up to 15 six-minute averaging periods (1.5
hours).
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the addition of the AEP Rockport TAOL to 326 IAC
5-1-8 to the Indiana SIP. The rule provides AEP Rockport Units #1 and
Unit #2 with TAOLs under certain circumstances during unit startup and
shutdown periods. All available data support that the AEP Rockport
TAOLs are set at an appropriate level. The AEP Rockport TAOLs meet the
requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2). The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet
the other requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d), as approved into the
Indiana SIP.
This action is consistent with the CAA, the Indiana SIP, and EPA
policy regarding emissions during periods of startup and shutdown.
Indiana has provided an air quality analysis demonstrating that the
PM2.5 NAAQS in Spencer County should continue to be
protected with the revision.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
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 CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2016. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 67190]]
Dated: September 19, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 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.
0
2. In Sec. 52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry under ``Article 5. Opacity Regulations'' ``Rule 1. Opacity
Limitations'' for 5-1-8 in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana
Indiana citation Subject effective EPA approval date Notes
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 5. Opacity Regulations
Rule 1. Opacity Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
5-1-8.......................... Site-specific 12/6/2014 9/30/2016, [insert
temporary alternate Federal Register
opacity limitations. citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-23296 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
