Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans; Determination of Attainment for the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Jefferson County Nonattainment Area, 28605-28611 [2017-13190]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace
Designated as an Extension to a Class D or
Class E Surface Area.
*
*
*
*
*
ANM OR E4 Redmond, OR [Amended]
Roberts Field, OR
(Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface within 1 mile each side of the 122°
bearing of Roberts Field extending from the
5.1-mile radius to 8.5 miles southeast of the
airport.
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
ANM OR E5 Redmond, OR [Modified]
Roberts Field, OR
(Lat. 44°15′15″ N., long. 121°09′00″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 7.6 mile
radius of Roberts Field from a 270° bearing
from the airport clockwise to a 195° bearing
from the airport, and within a 10.5-mile
radius of Roberts Field from a 195° bearing
from the airport clockwise to a 270° bearing
from the airport, and within 2.6 miles each
side of a 085° bearing from Roberts Field
extending to 9.6 miles east of the airport, and
within 4 miles northeast and 3 miles
southwest of a 122° bearing from Roberts
Field extending to 13.1 miles southeast of the
airport.
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 15,
2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support
Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017–13049 Filed 6–22–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0251; FRL–9963–75–
Region 7]
Approval of Missouri Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Determination
of Attainment for the 2010 1-Hour
Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard;
Jefferson County Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine
that the Jefferson County nonattainment
area, in Missouri, has attained the 2010
1-hour primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) per the EPA’s Clean Data
Policy. This proposed determination of
attainment is based upon complete,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
quality assured, and certified ambient
air monitoring data from the 2014–2016
monitoring period, associated
dispersion modeling, and supplemental
emissions inventory information, which
demonstrate that the Jefferson County
area attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2017–0251, to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
(913) 551–7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of this action?
a. Nonattainment Designation
b. Clean Data Policy
c. How does a Nonattainment Area achieve
‘‘Clean Data’’ for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS?
d. What information did the state provide
to the EPA to demonstrate that the area
has attained the NAAQS?
e. What is the EPA’s rationale for
proposing this action?
III. What is the EPA’s analysis of the state’s
Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling
Data, and the state’s Supplemental
Emissions Inventory Information?
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28605
a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
Evaluation
b. Modeling Data and Supplemental 2016
Emissions Information Evaluation
IV. What would be the effects of this action,
if promulgated?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to determine
that the Jefferson County 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby
referred to as ‘‘the nonattainment area’’),
in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1hour primary SO2 NAAQS.1 This
proposed determination of attainment is
based on a February 2016 request from
the state (as later supplemented) that the
EPA consider information—including
complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data from the
2013–2015 monitoring period, with
additional certified monitoring data
from 2016, associated dispersion
modeling for the 2013–2015 emission
years, as well as supplemental 2016
emissions inventory information—
which show that the nonattainment area
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS.2 3
The EPA has made the monitoring
data, the modeling data, the
supplemental emissions inventory
information and additional information
submitted by the state to support this
proposed action available in the docket
to this rulemaking through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 7 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
II. What is the background of this
action?
a. Nonattainment Designation
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the
EPA established a health-based 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb. Upon
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, section 107(d) of the Clean Air
1 In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part
50, the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the valid
1-hour primary standard design value is less than
or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
2 In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part
50, a 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS design value is
valid if it encompasses three consecutive calendar
years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are
complete. A quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each quarter have
complete data. A sampling day has complete data
if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by exceptional
events which have been approved for exclusion by
the Administrator, are reported.
3 Monitoring data must be reported, quality
assured, and certified in accordance with the
requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 58.
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
28606
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Act (CAA) requires the EPA to designate
any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet) the
NAAQS as nonattainment. On August 5,
2013, the EPA designated a portion of
Jefferson County, Missouri, as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS, effective October
4, 2013.4 The designation was based on
2008–2010 monitoring data in
Herculaneum, Missouri, which
monitored violations of the standard
(see section III of this document for
additional monitoring information). The
effective date of the nonattainment
designation was October 4, 2013. This
action established an attainment date
five years after the effective date for the
areas designated as nonattainment for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (i.e., by October
4, 2018). The state was also required to
submit a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the nonattainment area to the
EPA that meets the requirements of
CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191–192
within 18 months following the October
4, 2013, effective date of designation
(i.e., by April 4, 2015). The State of
Missouri submitted the ‘‘Nonattainment
Area Plan for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Jefferson County Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area’’ on June 5,
2015.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Clean Data Policy
Where states request a clean data
determination of a designated SO2
NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA
will determine whether or not an area
has attained the NAAQS based on air
quality monitoring data (when
available) and air quality dispersion
modeling information for the affected
area as necessary. The EPA issued
‘‘Clean Data’’ policy memoranda for SO2
and other NAAQS describing reduced
attainment planning requirements for
nonattainment areas that attain the
NAAQS, but have not yet been
redesignated as attainment.5 6
4 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40
CFR 81.326.
5 Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards to the EPA Air Division Directors,
‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ This document is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/
guidance.htm.
6 The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards to the EPA Air Division Directors
‘‘Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions’’ provides guidance for the application
of the clean data policy to the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. This document is available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/
documents/
20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
Additionally, the EPA has issued
national rulemakings that have codified
this policy for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.7
Under the Clean Data policy, the EPA
interprets the requirements of the CAA
that are specifically designed to help an
area achieve attainment, such as
attainment demonstrations and
implementation of reasonably available
control measures (including reasonably
available control technology),
reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations, and contingency
measures, to be suspended as long as air
quality continues to meet the standard.
In the memorandum of April 23,
2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ‘‘Guidance for 1-hr SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions’’
(2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance), the EPA explained its
intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to 1-hour SO2 nonattainment
areas that attained the standard. As
noted therein, the legal bases set forth
in the various guidance documents and
regulations establishing the Clean Data
Policy for other pollutants are equally
pertinent to all NAAQS.8 This proposed
rule is also consistent with prior actions
of the EPA applying the Clean Data
Policy to two other nonattainment areas
under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.9
Clean data determinations are not
redesignations to attainment. For the
EPA to redesignate an area to
attainment, a state must submit and
receive full approval of a redesignation
request that satisfies all of the statutory
criteria for redesignation to attainment,
including a demonstration that the
improvement in the area’s air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable
reductions; have a fully approved SIP
that meets all of the applicable
requirements under CAA section 110
and CAA part D; and have a fully
approved maintenance plan.
7 See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127–58129
(August 24, 2016) (promulgating 40 CFR 51.1015);
80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296 (promulgating 51.1118).
See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664–46 (November
29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR 20603–20605 (April
25, 2007).
8 See court cases upholding legal basis for the
EPA’s Clean Data Determination Policy, NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258–61 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra
Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Latino
Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th
Cir. 2009).
9 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718
(May 10, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
c. How does a nonattainment area
achieve ‘‘clean data’’ for the 2010 1hour primary SO2 NAAQS?
Generally, the EPA relies on ambient
air quality monitoring data alone in
order to make determinations of
attainment for areas designated
nonattainment for a particular NAAQS.
However, given the Agency’s historical
approach toward SO2, the sourcespecific nature of SO2 emissions, and
the localized effect of those emissions,
in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS rulemaking, the
EPA stated that it did not expect to rely
solely on monitored air quality data in
all areas when determining if an area
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551). As the EPA
noted in the preamble, in order for the
EPA to determine that an area is
attaining the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS, dispersion modeling may be
needed to show no violating receptors
even if a monitoring site showed no
violations.10 This was because, as the
EPA explained in the preamble, the
Agency did not expect that most
existing SO2 monitors were well sited to
record maximum 1-hour ambient SO2
concentrations under the new NAAQS.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance states that, in order for a
nonattainment area that was designated
based on air quality monitoring data to
be determined as attaining the NAAQS,
the state would need to meet a series of
criteria. First, the state would need to
demonstrate that the area is meeting the
standard based on three consecutive
calendar years of air quality monitoring
that is complete and quality-assured
(consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would
need to either (1) provide modeling of
the most recent three years of actual
10 As noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551), this has been
the EPA’s general position throughout the history
of implementation of the SO2 NAAQS program. See,
e.g., ‘‘Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and
Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,’’ 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415–43 FR
40416 (September 11, 1978); ‘‘Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control Techniques,’’ 43 FR
45993, 43 FR 46000–43 FR 46002 (October 5, 1978);
‘‘Air Quality Implementation Plans: State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble,’’ 57 FR
13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547–57 FR 13557, 57
FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ‘‘Approval and
Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Call
for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions for Billings/Laurel,
MT,’’ 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993); ‘‘Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,’’
59 FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994);
‘‘Ambient Air Quality Standards, National and
Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur
Dioxide),’’ 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494–60 FR 12495
(March 7, 1995); ‘‘Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Various States:
Montana,’’ 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170–67 FR 22171,
67 FR 22183–67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions for the area or (2) provide a
demonstration that the affected
monitor(s) is or are located in the area
of maximum concentration. As
explained in more detail later in this
section, the EPA believes that it is
permissible to substitute current sourcespecific allowable emissions for actual
emissions for the purpose of
demonstrating (1) in this paragraph.
If a demonstration shows that the
monitor(s) is or are located in the area
of maximum concentration, the EPA
believes that it may be appropriate to
determine that the nonattainment area is
attaining the standard based on
monitoring data alone. The state did not
submit a demonstration that the monitor
was located in the area of maximum
concentration, therefore its submittal
needed to provide a modeling
demonstration in support of a clean data
determination.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance states that, when air agencies
provide monitoring and/or modeling to
support clean data determinations, the
monitoring data provided by the state
should follow the EPA’s ‘‘SO2 NAAQS
Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance
Document’’ (SO2 monitoring TAD) and
the modeling provided by the state
should follow the EPA’s ‘‘SO2 NAAQS
Designations Modeling Technical
Assistance Document’’ (SO2 Modeling
TAD).11 12 The SO2 Modeling TAD
outlines modeling approaches for future
SO2 NAAQS attainment status
designations and states that, for the
purposes of modeling to characterize air
quality for use in SO2 designations, the
EPA recommends using a minimum of
the most recent three years of actual
emissions data and concurrent
meteorological data to allow the
modeling to simulate what a monitor
would observe. Additionally, the SO2
Modeling TAD indicates that it is
acceptable to use allowable emission
rates instead of actual emission rates.
Although past actual emissions could
have been higher than those under the
most recent allowable rate, the SO2
Modeling TAD reflects the EPA’s belief
that it is reasonable to account for any
lower allowable limits currently in
place when determining if an area is
11 The SO NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
2
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division, May 2013, can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf.
12 The SO NAAQS Designations Modeling
2
Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division, May 2013, can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201606/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
attaining the NAAQS. In addition, the
SO2 Modeling TAD indicates that,
where an allowable emissions limit has
been lowered during the relevant threeyear period (such as through the
implementation of emissions controls),
the air agency may rely on the new limit
in demonstrating that the modeled limit
assures attainment. In this fashion, the
most recent permitted or potential to
emit rate should be used along with a
minimum of the most recent three years
of meteorological data.13
The EPA believes that modeling a mix
of current allowable emissions and
actual emissions would be permissible
in such an analysis as long as the same
type of emissions are used for each
source for all three years. For instance,
if a state decided to use current
allowables for a facility in a modeling
analysis, the state would need to use
current allowables for all three years of
the analysis for that facility. The state
would not necessarily need to use
current allowables for the other sources
in the analysis (i.e., actuals would be
permissible for all three years for other
sources in the area). The EPA believes
this kind of analysis is appropriate for
both designations and clean data
determinations, both of which use the
analysis to determine whether the area
is currently meeting the NAAQS.
The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance does not
on its face suggest that modeling
allowable emissions would be an
acceptable alternative to modeling
actual emissions in the clean data
determination or redesignations
contexts. However, the Agency
considers it to have been an oversight
on its part not to have addressed this
alternative possibility in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, as the
Agency clearly has endorsed the use of
both actual emissions and allowable
emissions in the SO2 Modeling TAD in
general and in the recent rounds of area
designations under the SO2 NAAQS, in
contexts where, as here, the Agency is
making a factual judgment about
whether an area has attained the
NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance
also suggests that modeling of
allowables emissions, combined with
other information, could also be used to
determine whether, after the attainment
deadline has passed, areas in fact timely
attained the NAAQS under CAA section
179. Therefore, although the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in
the clean data determination and
redesignations contexts, the EPA
believes it is not inconsistent with the
13 See
PO 00000
page 10 of the SO2 Modeling TAD.
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28607
guidance to endorse that practice now,
provided the allowables-based modeling
is conducted appropriately pursuant to
the SO2 Modeling TAD and applicable
EPA regulations such as those governing
stack heights and dispersion techniques
at 40 CFR 51.100 and 40 CFR 51.118.
d. What information did the state
provide to the EPA to demonstrate that
the area attained the NAAQS?
On February 2, 2016, the state
submitted a request asking the EPA to
determine that the nonattainment area
attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS per the EPA’s Clean Data
Policy. The request included the most
recent three years of complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data from the 2013–2015
monitoring period; the design value for
2013–2015 was 66.0 ppb. In a response
letter, dated March 4, 2016, the EPA
stated that, because the request did not
include a modeling demonstration
showing attainment utilizing the most
recent three years of actual emissions or
a demonstration that the monitor was
located in the area of maximum
concentration for the nonattainment
area, the state’s request did not contain
the necessary supporting information as
outlined in the EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance. In a
letter dated August 4, 2016, the state
provided modeling of the most recent
three years of actual emissions (2013–
2015) for the nonattainment area.
However, in the provided modeling, the
Doe Run Herculaneum facility was
zeroed out despite the fact that the
facility was still operating in 2013.14 On
November 9, 2016, the EPA asked the
state (via email) to provide additional
information regarding the exclusion of
emissions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility for the 2013–2015
emission years from the modeling
demonstration as well as additional
information regarding its selection of
the 2014 emissions data year as a
surrogate for the interactive sources’
emissions.15 The state submitted
supporting information to the EPA on
November 21, 2016. In its November
14 The Doe Run Herculaneum (Herculaneum)
facility was a lead smelting facility identified by the
state and the EPA as the largest source of SO2
emissions in Jefferson County at the time of the
promulgation of nonattainment designations in
2013. The facility ceased operations in December
2013. Although the source operated in 2013,
emitting 11,477 tons of SO2, the state zeroed out its
emissions in each of the 2013–2015 emission years
in the modeling information.
15 The state modeled all interactive sources
utilizing the sources’ 2014 emission limits
(essentially modeling the 2014 emissions input
three times). The EPA requested that the state
confirm that utilizing 2014 as a surrogate for 2013
and 2015 was appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
28608
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
2016 submittal the state spoke to the
complexity of modeling fugitive
emissions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility and the
appropriateness of utilizing 2014
emissions as a surrogate for the
interactive sources. On February 22,
2017, the state provided additional
supplemental information that consisted
of available 2016 emissions inventory
information. On May 1, 2017, the EPA
received email notification from the
state that its 2016 ambient air quality
data was certified as complete and
continues to show attainment of the
standard; the design value for 2014–
2016 is 23.0 ppb. These
communications are available in the
docket for this action.
e. What is the EPA’s rationale for
proposing this action?
The EPA is proposing to issue a
determination of attainment for the
nonattainment area based on the area’s
2013–2015 modeling demonstration,
which is supported by monitoring data
from the Mott Street monitor. The 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and
the accompanying 2016 SO2 Modeling
TAD allow for nonattainment areas to
model a mix of actual emissions and
current allowable emissions, and as
noted previously, we interpret that
document to also allow this approach
for a clean data determination.
The state modeled actual emissions
for all sources except for the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility, which was
modeled at zero emissions, since the
facility shut down in December 2013.16
This treatment of the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility is appropriate
because the demonstration includes
emissions for Doe Run Herculaneum
using the most recent allowable
emissions rate, which has been
permanently and enforceably lowered
during the relevant period. The
maximum modeled impact from the
model scenario is 172.8 mg/m3, or 66
ppb, which complies with the 1-hour
standard of 75 ppb. The model results
satisfy the criteria for determinations of
attainment according to the EPA’s
guidance and policy.
III. What is the EPA’s analysis of the
state’s air quality monitoring and
modeling data, and the state’s
supplemental emissions inventory
information?
a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data
Evaluation
According to the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, to
support a clean data determination
based on monitoring, the state needs to
demonstrate that the area is meeting the
standard based on three consecutive
calendar years of complete and qualityassured air quality monitoring data
(consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). The EPA has determined
that three complete consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data from the Mott
Street monitor have been recorded in
the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS),
and the data meets the requirements of
Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests
improved air quality in the
nonattainment area. As shown in Table
1, the 99th percentile 1-hour average (in
ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor has
decreased after 2013, when the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility ceased primary
smelting operations. As shown in Table
2, during the 2014–2016 monitoring
period, the nonattainment area met the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS. The
certified annual design value for the
nonattainment area for the 2014–2016
monitoring period is 23.0 ppb. Although
clean data at a monitor sited in the area
of maximum concentration could be
sufficient for purposes of a clean data
determination under the EPA’s
guidance, the state did not submit a
demonstration showing that the Mott
Street monitor is located in the area of
maximum concentration. Thus, the
monitoring data on its own is not
sufficient to support a clean data
determination in this case, and, as such,
the state submitted modeling to support
the clean data determination.
TABLE 1—99TH PERCENTILE 1-HOUR AVERAGE IN PARTS PER BILLION (PPB) AT THE MOTT STREET MONITOR
[2013–2016]
Monitor
Site name
2013
29–099–0027 ....................................
Mott Street ........................................
2014
143
2015
18
2016
38
13
TABLE 2—1-HOUR PRIMARY SO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUE (DV) FOR THE MOTT STREET MONITOR 99TH PERCENTILE 1HOUR AVERAGE IN PARTS PER BILLION (PPB) AT THE MOTT STREET MONITOR
[2014–2016]
State
County
MO ..................................................
Jefferson ........................................
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Modeling Data and Supplemental
2016 Emissions Information Evaluation
As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance states
that, in order for the EPA to make a
clean data determination, the state may
16 The Doe Run was limited to the terms of a
consent decree applicable to the Herculaneum
facility entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and EPA
in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, Case No. 4:10–cv–01895–JCH
on December 21, 2011 (2011 Consent Decree). On
December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the
2011 Consent Decree, Doe Run permanently ceased
operations of the sintering plant. The 2011 Consent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
Monitor
29–099–0027
Site name
Mott Street .....................................
dv
23.0
need to submit information in addition
to monitoring data if the area was
designated nonattainment based on air
quality monitoring data. In August 2016,
the state submitted modeling data for
the most recent three years (2013–
2015).17 In February 2017, the state
submitted supplemental preliminary
2016 emissions data in support of
assumptions made in the 2013–2015
modeling demonstration.18 The EPA
reviewed the submitted modeling data
Decree also required Doe Run to permanently cease
smelting operations and retire the blast furnaces by
April 30, 2014; Doe Run ceased operation of the
blast furnaces on December 31, 2013, concurrently
with the cessation of operation of the sintering
plant.
17 The state’s submittal included 2013–2015
emissions data as it was the complete and quality
assured data set at the time of the submittal. The
submittal includes a table of the sources included
in the model and the emission rates used in the
model. This information is provided in the docket.
18 2016 emissions data submitted by the state in
February 2017 included only data quality assured
as of September 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
and supporting 2016 preliminary
emissions data information for the
nonattainment area to determine
consistency with the EPA’s Clean Data
Policy, the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance and the 2016 SO2
Modeling TAD.
The EPA reviewed the August 2016
submittal to determine if the
appropriate meteorological inputs were
utilized. The state determined that the
2013–2015 meteorological data
collected at the Doe Run Herculaneum
meteorological sites were inappropriate
for use in the model analysis as the data
were disjointed. The data were
disjointed due to a 2013 Consent
Judgment between the state and Doe
Run that allowed Doe Run Herculaneum
to cease meteorological measurements at
certain towers and to move the
remaining tower to allow for site
remediation. The state elected to use the
most recent full three-year period
(2013–2015) of data as measured at a
spatially representative NWS airport
site. The state utilized the St. Louis,
Missouri downtown airport (Cahokia)
for surface data and the Lincoln, Illinois
site for upper air data. The
meteorological data from the time
period of 2013–2015 was processed and
paired with the emissions data as
discussed later in this preamble. The
EPA believes that the utilization of
meteorological data from these sites was
appropriate.19
The EPA finds that the state
sufficiently considered all significant
sources of SO2 emissions for inclusion
in the modeling demonstration,
including permitted sources of SO2
emissions inside of the nonattainment
area boundary, nearby sources (located
within 20 kilometers (km) of the
nonattainment area boundary and
emitting greater than 1 ton per year (tpy)
of SO2) outside the nonattainment area
boundary, and large sources (sources
that emit greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2)
located within 50 km of the
nonattainment boundary. The EPA finds
the modeled source inventory was
created in accordance with the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance and the
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
To characterize the emissions from
the sources in the modeling inventory,
the state used hourly varying emissions,
as reported to the EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) program
database, for three of the fifteen sources,
and the 2014 actual emissions, as
reported in the Missouri Emission
19 See the state’s August 2016 modeling
demonstration, provided in the docket to this
action, for model selection information (i.e.,
receptor grid selection).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
Inventory System (MoEIS), for the
remaining twelve sources. For the
remaining twelve sources, the state
converted the annual emissions to
hourly emission rates utilizing
operational hours reported by the
facilities (as hourly emissions were not
available for these twelve sources). The
state’s November 2016 supplemental
information indicated that the state
evaluated actual emissions for each year
in the three-year period (2013–2015)
separately. As can be expected, there
were variations in hourly emissions
during the modeled time period (2013–
2015); emissions from either 2013 or
2015 were slightly higher than the 2014
emissions for six of the twelve sources.
As such, in the November 2016
supplemental information, the state
revised the modeling to reflect the
highest hourly emissions (either
reported to CAMD or converted to
hourly emission rates by the State) for
each interactive source during the threeyear period. The variation in emissions
resulted in only a 0.02 percent increase
on the model-predicted concentrations;
the highest modeled impact increased
from 172.82 mg/m3 to 172.85 mg/m3.
Considering the variation resulted in
only a 0.02 percent increase on the
predicted modeling concentrations, the
EPA agrees with the state’s assertion
that the use of hourly emission data
(either reported to CAMD or converted
to hourly emission rates by the State)
from 2014 for the interactive sources
was a reasonable representation of the
time period.
The state did not include emissions
from Doe Run Herculaneum in the
modeling demonstration for any of the
2013–2015 emission years. The state
modeled the facility at zero emissions
from 2013–2015 even though the
facility’s primary smelting operation
was active during 2013.20 The EPA
believes that this modeling analysis
supports the rationale outlined in
section II.e. for proposing the clean data
determination. The EPA believes that
modeling the Doe Run Herculaneum
facility at zero emissions is in
accordance with the 2016 SO2 Modeling
TAD as it is representative of current
allowable emissions at the source.
Because the EPA is interpreting that the
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD’s provision for
modeling a mix of current allowables
and actuals for area designations is also
appropriate for purposes of a clean data
determination, the EPA finds that the
emissions from all modeled sources
20 Herculaneum emitted an estimated 11,477 tons
of SO2 in 2013 prior to it ceasing operations in
December of 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28609
were characterized appropriately in the
model.
As previously described, the state
submitted additional information to the
EPA in February 2017. In this submittal,
the state acknowledged that that
emissions data for the 4th quarter of
2016 was not yet available nor quality
assured for modeling purposes. Most of
the modeled source inventory data will
not be available until at least mid-2017.
However, the state compared ‘‘data
elements of 2016’’ to 2013 to determine
whether the 2013 data could serve as a
surrogate for 2016 data.21 The state
asserted that, because the August 2016
modeling demonstration used actual
emissions for the period 2013–2015 for
all sources except Doe Run
Herculaneum, a modeling
demonstration for the period 2014–2016
would likely yield similar results
because Doe Run Herculaneum was not
operational in any of those three years.
The supplemental information
submitted by the state included an
examination of variations in
meteorology and in modeled source
inventory emissions. This included a
qualitative climatological comparison
between the years 2013 and 2016 for the
St. Louis, Missouri downtown airport
location and highlighted the similarities
and differences observed in those years.
The state asserted that the
meteorological information indicates
that the differences in meteorological
conditions from 2013 to 2016 are
insignificant.
The state also provided 2016
emissions information, as reported to
CAMD, for the three EGUs (Ameren’s
Labadie, Meramec and Rush Island
facilities) and compared them to the
modeled 2013 emissions data. Partial
data for 2016 (through September 30,
2016) emissions data was provided in
CAMD; the state compared available
2016 emissions data (January 1, 2016–
September 30, 2016) to 2013 emissions
data for these three sources.22 23 For
2016, the three reported quarters were
extrapolated to a full year for an annual
comparison.24 This extrapolation
assumed a continuation of comparable
21 Key data elements included meteorological
data, available emission data and monitoring data.
22 Ameren’s Labadie and Meramec facilities are
not in the nonattainment area but are within 50 km
of the nonattainment area and emit greater than
2,000 tpy of SO2. Therefore, they were included in
the state’s modeling demonstration and subsequent
supplemental information.
23 All emissions data used in the analysis are
available through the EPA’s CAMD database online.
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-marketsdata-resources.
24 The first three quarters of 2016 were
extrapolated to a full year for annual comparison by
multiplying by 75 percent (×/0.75).
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
28610
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
emission levels. The extrapolated 2016
data indicated that the Labadie facility’s
SO2 emissions decreased 21 percent, the
Meramec facility’s SO2 emissions
decreased 23 percent and the Rush
Island facility’s SO2 emissions
decreased 3 percent from 2013 annual
emission rates. The state also asserted
that updating the modeling data to
include 2014–2016 emissions and
meteorological information would not
change the outcome of the previously
submitted modeling information (which
utilized 2013–2015 data) that modeled
attainment of the NAAQS. Essentially,
the state claimed, the maximum
modeled impact from the model
scenario (172.8 mg/m3 or 66 ppb in the
northwest portion of the nonattainment
area) utilizing 2013–2015 emission data
without Doe Run Herculaneum
emissions, is indicative of 2014–2016
air quality without contributions from
the Doe Run Herculaneum facility and
demonstrates that the nonattainment
area has attained the standard of 75 ppb.
While the state’s analysis of available
2016 emissions and meteorology data is
informative, the EPA interprets that the
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD allows
for modeling of a mix of actual
emissions and current allowable
emissions to support a clean data
determination, and therefore the state’s
2013–2015 modeling demonstration is
sufficient to allow an assessment as to
whether the area has achieved clean
data.
The EPA acknowledges the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility’s primary smelting
operation is permanently shut down
and recognizes the corresponding
relationship between the decrease in the
emissions from Doe Run Herculaneum
and the decreased monitored
concentrations at the Mott Street
monitor as seen in table 3. The
maximum hourly SO2 concentration
was reduced by 87 percent from 2013
(143 ppb) to 2014 (18 ppb) after the Doe
Run Herculaneum facility closed. A
comparison of the 99th percentile 1-hr
average from the last full production
year (2012) to the first post-shutdown
year (2014) shows a 93 percent
reduction in monitored SO2
concentrations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
TABLE 3—DECREASE IN DOE RUN
HERCULANEUM SO2 EMISSIONS VS.
THE DECREASE IN MONITORED 99TH
PERCENTILE 1-HOUR AVERAGES
[2012–2015]
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
99th percentile
1-hour
average
(ppb)
Herculaneum
SO2 emissions
(tpy)
268
143
18
38
17,894
11,477
<1
<1
..........
..........
..........
..........
The maximum modeled impact from
the 2013–2015 model scenario is 172.8
mg/m3 or 66 ppb which complies with
the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The
model results, along with monitored
attainment of the NAAQS at the Mott
Street monitor for the same time period,
satisfies the criteria for clean data
according to the EPA’s guidance.
Certified and quality assured 2016 air
quality monitoring data is indicative of
a substantial improvement in SO2 air
quality in the nonattainment area; the
design value for 2014–2016 is 23.0 ppb.
Missouri’s monitoring data, technical
modeling analysis and supplemental
information all support an EPA
determination, consistent with its Clean
Data Policy, that the nonattainment area
has clean data and warrants a clean data
determination.
VI. What would be the effects of this
action, if promulgated?
If this proposed determination is
made final, the requirements for the
state to submit an attainment
demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures,
and other planning SIPs revisions
related to attainment of the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS shall be
suspended until such time, if any, that
the EPA subsequently determines, after
notice-and-comment rulemaking in the
Federal Register, that the area has
violated the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS. If this were to occur, the basis
for the suspension of the specific SIP
requirements would no longer exist, and
the state would thereafter have to
address the pertinent requirements. If
finalized, this determination of
attainment would not shield the area
from other required actions, such as
provisions to address pollution
transport, which could require emission
reductions at sources or other types of
emission activities contributing
significantly to nonattainment in other
areas or states, or interfering with
maintenance in those areas. The EPA
has the authority to require emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reductions as necessary and appropriate
to deal with transported air pollution
situations. See CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(2)(A), and 126.
If, after considering any comments
received on this proposal, the EPA
finalizes a clean data determination for
this area, the state would need to
continue to monitor and/or model air
quality to verify continued attainment.
The air agency would be expected to
continue to operate an appropriate air
quality monitoring network in the
affected area, in accordance with the
EPA regulations, to verify the
attainment status of the area (see 40 CFR
part 58).
This proposed clean data
determination is limited to a
determination that the area attained the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS as
evidenced by the state’s monitoring data
and modeling analysis; this proposed
action, if finalized, would not constitute
a redesignation to attainment under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The
designation status of the nonattainment
area will remain nonattainment for the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS until
such time as the state submits an
approvable redesignation request and
maintenance plan, and the EPA takes
final rulemaking action to determine
that such submission meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to
attainment.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to make a
determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and
would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal
requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements. For that
reason, this proposed 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
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 120 / Friday, June 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 the 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 proposed action does
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur dioxide, attainment
determination.
Dated: June 5, 2017.
Edward H, Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017–13190 Filed 6–22–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0089; FRL–9963–87–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; ME; New Motor
Vehicle Emission Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maine
on August 18, 2015. This SIP revision
includes Maine’s revised regulation for
new motor vehicle emission standards.
Maine has updated its rule to be
consistent with various updates made to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:12 Jun 22, 2017
Jkt 241001
California’s low emission vehicle (LEV)
program. Maine has adopted these
revisions to reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), as well as to reduce greenhouse
gases. The intended effect of this action
is to propose approval of Maine’s
August 18, 2015 SIP revision. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2013–0089 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Rackauskas, Air Quality Planning Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA New England Regional Office, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail
code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–
3912, telephone number (617) 918–
1628, fax number (617) 918–0628, email
rackauskas.eric@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. The California LEV Program
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28611
III. Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On August 18, 2015, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP
consisting of Maine’s amended Chapter
127 ‘‘New Motor Vehicle Emission
Standards.’’ The regulation establishes
motor vehicle emission standards for
new gasoline powered passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, medium-duty
vehicles, as well as for heavy-duty
diesel vehicles.
A prior version of Maine’s Chapter
127 is currently in the Maine SIP. It was
effective in the State of Maine on
December 31, 2000 and approved by
EPA into the SIP on April 28, 2005 (70
FR 21959). The SIP-approved version of
Chapter 127 includes California’s LEV I
and LEV II standards, effective for
model years 1994–2003 and 2004–2010,
respectively. It does not include the
California zero emission vehicle (ZEV)
mandate for Maine.
Since that time, Maine has made
several revisions to Chapter 127. The
version included in Maine’s August 18,
2015 SIP revision includes the following
requirements, beyond those previously
approved into the SIP. The SIP revision
includes California’s 2007 heavy-duty
diesel engine (HDDE) emission
standards. This was phased in from
2007 through 2009, with full
compliance required for model year
2010 and subsequent engines. The
California regulations were identical to
EPA’s HDDE rule that requires engines
to emit 95% less NOX and 90% less
particulate matter (PM) than the
previous standards.
Maine’s revised regulation also
includes requirements for diesel fueled
auxiliary power units (APUs). APUs are
engines, other than the main vehicle
engine, that could be used for heating or
cooling a sleeper truck, or powering a
refrigerator unit while the main vehicle
engine is powered down. The amended
Chapter 127 allows truck owners to
install either a California certified or a
Federal Tier 4 certified APU.1
Maine’s revised rule also includes the
California ZEV program. In 2003, the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
finalized modifications to the ZEV
program that better aligned the
requirements with the status of thenavailable technology development. The
updated CARB regulations require that
10% of vehicles be ZEVs starting in
1 For information on the Federal Tier 4 diesel
program see 40 CFR part 1039.
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28605-28611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13190]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0251; FRL-9963-75-Region 7]
Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Determination of Attainment for the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Jefferson County Nonattainment
Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Jefferson County nonattainment area, in Missouri,
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) per the EPA's Clean Data
Policy. This proposed determination of attainment is based upon
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
from the 2014-2016 monitoring period, associated dispersion modeling,
and supplemental emissions inventory information, which demonstrate
that the Jefferson County area attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0251, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tracey Casburn, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7016, or by email at
casburn.tracey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information
by addressing the following:
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of this action?
a. Nonattainment Designation
b. Clean Data Policy
c. How does a Nonattainment Area achieve ``Clean Data'' for the
2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS?
d. What information did the state provide to the EPA to
demonstrate that the area has attained the NAAQS?
e. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
III. What is the EPA's analysis of the state's Air Quality
Monitoring and Modeling Data, and the state's Supplemental Emissions
Inventory Information?
a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Evaluation
b. Modeling Data and Supplemental 2016 Emissions Information
Evaluation
IV. What would be the effects of this action, if promulgated?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Jefferson County 2010 1-
hour primary SO2 nonattainment area (hereby referred to as
``the nonattainment area''), in Missouri, has attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS.\1\ This proposed determination of
attainment is based on a February 2016 request from the state (as later
supplemented) that the EPA consider information--including complete,
quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data from the
2013-2015 monitoring period, with additional certified monitoring data
from 2016, associated dispersion modeling for the 2013-2015 emission
years, as well as supplemental 2016 emissions inventory information--
which show that the nonattainment area has attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the valid 1-hour primary standard design value
is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion (ppb). 40 CFR
50.17(b).
\2\ In accordance with Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, a 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS design value is valid if it encompasses
three consecutive calendar years of complete data. A year meets data
completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete. A
quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days
for each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete
data if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values, including
state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.
\3\ Monitoring data must be reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has made the monitoring data, the modeling data, the
supplemental emissions inventory information and additional information
submitted by the state to support this proposed action available in the
docket to this rulemaking through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
II. What is the background of this action?
a. Nonattainment Designation
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), the EPA established a health-based
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 ppb. Upon promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d) of the Clean Air
[[Page 28606]]
Act (CAA) requires the EPA to designate any area that does not meet (or
that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the NAAQS as nonattainment. On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated
a portion of Jefferson County, Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2010
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013.\4\ The
designation was based on 2008-2010 monitoring data in Herculaneum,
Missouri, which monitored violations of the standard (see section III
of this document for additional monitoring information). The effective
date of the nonattainment designation was October 4, 2013. This action
established an attainment date five years after the effective date for
the areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(i.e., by October 4, 2018). The state was also required to submit a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the nonattainment area to the EPA
that meets the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172(c) and 191-192
within 18 months following the October 4, 2013, effective date of
designation (i.e., by April 4, 2015). The State of Missouri submitted
the ``Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Jefferson County Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area'' on June 5, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), codified at 40 CFR 81.326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clean Data Policy
Where states request a clean data determination of a designated
SO2 NAAQS nonattainment area, the EPA will determine whether
or not an area has attained the NAAQS based on air quality monitoring
data (when available) and air quality dispersion modeling information
for the affected area as necessary. The EPA issued ``Clean Data''
policy memoranda for SO2 and other NAAQS describing reduced
attainment planning requirements for nonattainment areas that attain
the NAAQS, but have not yet been redesignated as
attainment.5 6 Additionally, the EPA has issued national
rulemakings that have codified this policy for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.\7\ Under the Clean Data
policy, the EPA interprets the requirements of the CAA that are
specifically designed to help an area achieve attainment, such as
attainment demonstrations and implementation of reasonably available
control measures (including reasonably available control technology),
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, and contingency
measures, to be suspended as long as air quality continues to meet the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum of December 14, 2004, from Steve Page, Director,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air
Division Directors, ``Clean Data Policy for the Fine Particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' This document is available
at: https://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/guidance.htm.
\6\ The memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air
Division Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions'' provides guidance for the application of the
clean data policy to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS.
This document is available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
\7\ See, e.g., 81 FR 58010, 81 FR 58127-58129 (August 24, 2016)
(promulgating 40 CFR 51.1015); 80 FR 12264, 80 FR 12296
(promulgating 51.1118). See also 70 FR 71612, 70 FR 71664-46
(November 29, 2005); 72 FR 20585, 72 FR 20603-20605 (April 25,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the memorandum of April 23, 2014, from Steve Page, Director, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Air Division
Directors ``Guidance for 1-hr SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance), the
EPA explained its intention to extend the Clean Data Policy to 1-hour
SO2 nonattainment areas that attained the standard. As noted
therein, the legal bases set forth in the various guidance documents
and regulations establishing the Clean Data Policy for other pollutants
are equally pertinent to all NAAQS.\8\ This proposed rule is also
consistent with prior actions of the EPA applying the Clean Data Policy
to two other nonattainment areas under the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See court cases upholding legal basis for the EPA's Clean
Data Determination Policy, NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d at 1258-61 (D.C.
Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 315 Fed. App. 651, 652 (9th Cir. 2009).
\9\ 82 FR 13227 (March 10, 2016) and 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean data determinations are not redesignations to attainment. For
the EPA to redesignate an area to attainment, a state must submit and
receive full approval of a redesignation request that satisfies all of
the statutory criteria for redesignation to attainment, including a
demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions; have a fully approved SIP that
meets all of the applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and CAA
part D; and have a fully approved maintenance plan.
c. How does a nonattainment area achieve ``clean data'' for the 2010 1-
hour primary SO2 NAAQS?
Generally, the EPA relies on ambient air quality monitoring data
alone in order to make determinations of attainment for areas
designated nonattainment for a particular NAAQS. However, given the
Agency's historical approach toward SO2, the source-specific
nature of SO2 emissions, and the localized effect of those
emissions, in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA stated that it did not expect to rely solely
on monitored air quality data in all areas when determining if an area
has attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR
35551). As the EPA noted in the preamble, in order for the EPA to
determine that an area is attaining the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS, dispersion modeling may be needed to show no
violating receptors even if a monitoring site showed no violations.\10\
This was because, as the EPA explained in the preamble, the Agency did
not expect that most existing SO2 monitors were well sited
to record maximum 1-hour ambient SO2 concentrations under
the new NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
states that, in order for a nonattainment area that was designated
based on air quality monitoring data to be determined as attaining the
NAAQS, the state would need to meet a series of criteria. First, the
state would need to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard
based on three consecutive calendar years of air quality monitoring
that is complete and quality-assured (consistent with 40 CFR part 58
requirements). Second, the state would need to either (1) provide
modeling of the most recent three years of actual
[[Page 28607]]
emissions for the area or (2) provide a demonstration that the affected
monitor(s) is or are located in the area of maximum concentration. As
explained in more detail later in this section, the EPA believes that
it is permissible to substitute current source-specific allowable
emissions for actual emissions for the purpose of demonstrating (1) in
this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As noted in the preamble to the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35551), this has been the EPA's general
position throughout the history of implementation of the
SO2 NAAQS program. See, e.g., ``Air Quality Control
Regions, Criteria, and Control techniques; Attainment Status
Designations,'' 43 FR 40412, 43 FR 40415-43 FR 40416 (September 11,
1978); ``Air Quality Control Regions, Criteria, and Control
Techniques,'' 43 FR 45993, 43 FR 46000-43 FR 46002 (October 5,
1978); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans: State Implementation
Plans; General Preamble,'' 57 FR 13498, 57 FR 13545, 57 FR 13547-57
FR 13557, 57 FR 13548 (April 16, 1992); ``Approval and Promulgation
of State Implementation Plans; Call for Sulfur Dioxide SIP Revisions
for Billings/Laurel, MT,'' 58 FR 41430 (August 4, 1993);
``Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio,'' 59
FR 12886, 59 FR 12887 (March 18, 1994); ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards, National and Implementation Plans for Sulfur Oxides
(Sulfur Dioxide),'' 60 FR 12492, 60 FR 12494-60 FR 12495 (March 7,
1995); ``Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgation: Various States: Montana,'' 67 FR 22167, 67 FR 22170-67
FR 22171, 67 FR 22183-67 FR 22887 (May 2, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a demonstration shows that the monitor(s) is or are located in
the area of maximum concentration, the EPA believes that it may be
appropriate to determine that the nonattainment area is attaining the
standard based on monitoring data alone. The state did not submit a
demonstration that the monitor was located in the area of maximum
concentration, therefore its submittal needed to provide a modeling
demonstration in support of a clean data determination.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance states that,
when air agencies provide monitoring and/or modeling to support clean
data determinations, the monitoring data provided by the state should
follow the EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document'' (SO2 monitoring
TAD) and the modeling provided by the state should follow the EPA's
``SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document'' (SO2 Modeling TAD).11 12 The
SO2 Modeling TAD outlines modeling approaches for future
SO2 NAAQS attainment status designations and states that,
for the purposes of modeling to characterize air quality for use in
SO2 designations, the EPA recommends using a minimum of the
most recent three years of actual emissions data and concurrent
meteorological data to allow the modeling to simulate what a monitor
would observe. Additionally, the SO2 Modeling TAD indicates
that it is acceptable to use allowable emission rates instead of actual
emission rates. Although past actual emissions could have been higher
than those under the most recent allowable rate, the SO2
Modeling TAD reflects the EPA's belief that it is reasonable to account
for any lower allowable limits currently in place when determining if
an area is attaining the NAAQS. In addition, the SO2
Modeling TAD indicates that, where an allowable emissions limit has
been lowered during the relevant three-year period (such as through the
implementation of emissions controls), the air agency may rely on the
new limit in demonstrating that the modeled limit assures attainment.
In this fashion, the most recent permitted or potential to emit rate
should be used along with a minimum of the most recent three years of
meteorological data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented
Monitoring Draft Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, May
2013, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf.
\12\ The SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical
Assistance Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Assessment Division, May 2013, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
\13\ See page 10 of the SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that modeling a mix of current allowable emissions
and actual emissions would be permissible in such an analysis as long
as the same type of emissions are used for each source for all three
years. For instance, if a state decided to use current allowables for a
facility in a modeling analysis, the state would need to use current
allowables for all three years of the analysis for that facility. The
state would not necessarily need to use current allowables for the
other sources in the analysis (i.e., actuals would be permissible for
all three years for other sources in the area). The EPA believes this
kind of analysis is appropriate for both designations and clean data
determinations, both of which use the analysis to determine whether the
area is currently meeting the NAAQS.
The EPA recognizes that its 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance does not on its face suggest that modeling allowable emissions
would be an acceptable alternative to modeling actual emissions in the
clean data determination or redesignations contexts. However, the
Agency considers it to have been an oversight on its part not to have
addressed this alternative possibility in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, as the Agency clearly has endorsed the use
of both actual emissions and allowable emissions in the SO2
Modeling TAD in general and in the recent rounds of area designations
under the SO2 NAAQS, in contexts where, as here, the Agency
is making a factual judgment about whether an area has attained the
NAAQS. Moreover, the 2014 guidance also suggests that modeling of
allowables emissions, combined with other information, could also be
used to determine whether, after the attainment deadline has passed,
areas in fact timely attained the NAAQS under CAA section 179.
Therefore, although the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance was
silent on using allowable emissions in the clean data determination and
redesignations contexts, the EPA believes it is not inconsistent with
the guidance to endorse that practice now, provided the allowables-
based modeling is conducted appropriately pursuant to the
SO2 Modeling TAD and applicable EPA regulations such as
those governing stack heights and dispersion techniques at 40 CFR
51.100 and 40 CFR 51.118.
d. What information did the state provide to the EPA to demonstrate
that the area attained the NAAQS?
On February 2, 2016, the state submitted a request asking the EPA
to determine that the nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS per the EPA's Clean Data Policy. The
request included the most recent three years of complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data from the 2013-2015
monitoring period; the design value for 2013-2015 was 66.0 ppb. In a
response letter, dated March 4, 2016, the EPA stated that, because the
request did not include a modeling demonstration showing attainment
utilizing the most recent three years of actual emissions or a
demonstration that the monitor was located in the area of maximum
concentration for the nonattainment area, the state's request did not
contain the necessary supporting information as outlined in the EPA's
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. In a letter dated
August 4, 2016, the state provided modeling of the most recent three
years of actual emissions (2013-2015) for the nonattainment area.
However, in the provided modeling, the Doe Run Herculaneum facility was
zeroed out despite the fact that the facility was still operating in
2013.\14\ On November 9, 2016, the EPA asked the state (via email) to
provide additional information regarding the exclusion of emissions
from the Doe Run Herculaneum facility for the 2013-2015 emission years
from the modeling demonstration as well as additional information
regarding its selection of the 2014 emissions data year as a surrogate
for the interactive sources' emissions.\15\ The state submitted
supporting information to the EPA on November 21, 2016. In its November
[[Page 28608]]
2016 submittal the state spoke to the complexity of modeling fugitive
emissions from the Doe Run Herculaneum facility and the appropriateness
of utilizing 2014 emissions as a surrogate for the interactive sources.
On February 22, 2017, the state provided additional supplemental
information that consisted of available 2016 emissions inventory
information. On May 1, 2017, the EPA received email notification from
the state that its 2016 ambient air quality data was certified as
complete and continues to show attainment of the standard; the design
value for 2014-2016 is 23.0 ppb. These communications are available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Doe Run Herculaneum (Herculaneum) facility was a lead
smelting facility identified by the state and the EPA as the largest
source of SO2 emissions in Jefferson County at the time
of the promulgation of nonattainment designations in 2013. The
facility ceased operations in December 2013. Although the source
operated in 2013, emitting 11,477 tons of SO2, the state
zeroed out its emissions in each of the 2013-2015 emission years in
the modeling information.
\15\ The state modeled all interactive sources utilizing the
sources' 2014 emission limits (essentially modeling the 2014
emissions input three times). The EPA requested that the state
confirm that utilizing 2014 as a surrogate for 2013 and 2015 was
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing this action?
The EPA is proposing to issue a determination of attainment for the
nonattainment area based on the area's 2013-2015 modeling
demonstration, which is supported by monitoring data from the Mott
Street monitor. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and
the accompanying 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD allow for
nonattainment areas to model a mix of actual emissions and current
allowable emissions, and as noted previously, we interpret that
document to also allow this approach for a clean data determination.
The state modeled actual emissions for all sources except for the
Doe Run Herculaneum facility, which was modeled at zero emissions,
since the facility shut down in December 2013.\16\ This treatment of
the Doe Run Herculaneum facility is appropriate because the
demonstration includes emissions for Doe Run Herculaneum using the most
recent allowable emissions rate, which has been permanently and
enforceably lowered during the relevant period. The maximum modeled
impact from the model scenario is 172.8 [mu]g/m3, or 66 ppb, which
complies with the 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The model results satisfy
the criteria for determinations of attainment according to the EPA's
guidance and policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Doe Run was limited to the terms of a consent decree
applicable to the Herculaneum facility entered into by Doe Run,
Missouri, and EPA in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, Case No. 4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21,
2011 (2011 Consent Decree). On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the
terms of the 2011 Consent Decree, Doe Run permanently ceased
operations of the sintering plant. The 2011 Consent Decree also
required Doe Run to permanently cease smelting operations and retire
the blast furnaces by April 30, 2014; Doe Run ceased operation of
the blast furnaces on December 31, 2013, concurrently with the
cessation of operation of the sintering plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is the EPA's analysis of the state's air quality monitoring
and modeling data, and the state's supplemental emissions inventory
information?
a. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Evaluation
According to the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance,
to support a clean data determination based on monitoring, the state
needs to demonstrate that the area is meeting the standard based on
three consecutive calendar years of complete and quality-assured air
quality monitoring data (consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements).
The EPA has determined that three complete consecutive calendar years
of quality-assured air quality monitoring data from the Mott Street
monitor have been recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), and
the data meets the requirements of Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 and 40
CFR part 58. This data suggests improved air quality in the
nonattainment area. As shown in Table 1, the 99th percentile 1-hour
average (in ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor has decreased after 2013,
when the Doe Run Herculaneum facility ceased primary smelting
operations. As shown in Table 2, during the 2014-2016 monitoring
period, the nonattainment area met the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. The certified annual design value for the
nonattainment area for the 2014-2016 monitoring period is 23.0 ppb.
Although clean data at a monitor sited in the area of maximum
concentration could be sufficient for purposes of a clean data
determination under the EPA's guidance, the state did not submit a
demonstration showing that the Mott Street monitor is located in the
area of maximum concentration. Thus, the monitoring data on its own is
not sufficient to support a clean data determination in this case, and,
as such, the state submitted modeling to support the clean data
determination.
Table 1--99th Percentile 1-Hour Average in Parts per Billion (ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor
[2013-2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor Site name 2013 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-099-0027................... Mott Street..... 143 18 38 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--1-Hour Primary SO2 NAAQS Design Value (dv) for the Mott Street Monitor 99th Percentile 1-Hour Average
in Parts per Billion (ppb) at the Mott Street Monitor
[2014-2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State County Monitor Site name dv
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO................................ Jefferson............ 29-099-0027 Mott Street.......... 23.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Modeling Data and Supplemental 2016 Emissions Information Evaluation
As noted earlier, the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance states that, in order for the EPA to make a clean data
determination, the state may need to submit information in addition to
monitoring data if the area was designated nonattainment based on air
quality monitoring data. In August 2016, the state submitted modeling
data for the most recent three years (2013-2015).\17\ In February 2017,
the state submitted supplemental preliminary 2016 emissions data in
support of assumptions made in the 2013-2015 modeling
demonstration.\18\ The EPA reviewed the submitted modeling data
[[Page 28609]]
and supporting 2016 preliminary emissions data information for the
nonattainment area to determine consistency with the EPA's Clean Data
Policy, the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and the
2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The state's submittal included 2013-2015 emissions data as
it was the complete and quality assured data set at the time of the
submittal. The submittal includes a table of the sources included in
the model and the emission rates used in the model. This information
is provided in the docket.
\18\ 2016 emissions data submitted by the state in February 2017
included only data quality assured as of September 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reviewed the August 2016 submittal to determine if the
appropriate meteorological inputs were utilized. The state determined
that the 2013-2015 meteorological data collected at the Doe Run
Herculaneum meteorological sites were inappropriate for use in the
model analysis as the data were disjointed. The data were disjointed
due to a 2013 Consent Judgment between the state and Doe Run that
allowed Doe Run Herculaneum to cease meteorological measurements at
certain towers and to move the remaining tower to allow for site
remediation. The state elected to use the most recent full three-year
period (2013-2015) of data as measured at a spatially representative
NWS airport site. The state utilized the St. Louis, Missouri downtown
airport (Cahokia) for surface data and the Lincoln, Illinois site for
upper air data. The meteorological data from the time period of 2013-
2015 was processed and paired with the emissions data as discussed
later in this preamble. The EPA believes that the utilization of
meteorological data from these sites was appropriate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See the state's August 2016 modeling demonstration,
provided in the docket to this action, for model selection
information (i.e., receptor grid selection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that the state sufficiently considered all
significant sources of SO2 emissions for inclusion in the
modeling demonstration, including permitted sources of SO2
emissions inside of the nonattainment area boundary, nearby sources
(located within 20 kilometers (km) of the nonattainment area boundary
and emitting greater than 1 ton per year (tpy) of SO2)
outside the nonattainment area boundary, and large sources (sources
that emit greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2) located within 50
km of the nonattainment boundary. The EPA finds the modeled source
inventory was created in accordance with the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance and the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD.
To characterize the emissions from the sources in the modeling
inventory, the state used hourly varying emissions, as reported to the
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) program database, for three of
the fifteen sources, and the 2014 actual emissions, as reported in the
Missouri Emission Inventory System (MoEIS), for the remaining twelve
sources. For the remaining twelve sources, the state converted the
annual emissions to hourly emission rates utilizing operational hours
reported by the facilities (as hourly emissions were not available for
these twelve sources). The state's November 2016 supplemental
information indicated that the state evaluated actual emissions for
each year in the three-year period (2013-2015) separately. As can be
expected, there were variations in hourly emissions during the modeled
time period (2013-2015); emissions from either 2013 or 2015 were
slightly higher than the 2014 emissions for six of the twelve sources.
As such, in the November 2016 supplemental information, the state
revised the modeling to reflect the highest hourly emissions (either
reported to CAMD or converted to hourly emission rates by the State)
for each interactive source during the three-year period. The variation
in emissions resulted in only a 0.02 percent increase on the model-
predicted concentrations; the highest modeled impact increased from
172.82 [mu]g/m\3\ to 172.85 [mu]g/m\3\. Considering the variation
resulted in only a 0.02 percent increase on the predicted modeling
concentrations, the EPA agrees with the state's assertion that the use
of hourly emission data (either reported to CAMD or converted to hourly
emission rates by the State) from 2014 for the interactive sources was
a reasonable representation of the time period.
The state did not include emissions from Doe Run Herculaneum in the
modeling demonstration for any of the 2013-2015 emission years. The
state modeled the facility at zero emissions from 2013-2015 even though
the facility's primary smelting operation was active during 2013.\20\
The EPA believes that this modeling analysis supports the rationale
outlined in section II.e. for proposing the clean data determination.
The EPA believes that modeling the Doe Run Herculaneum facility at zero
emissions is in accordance with the 2016 SO2 Modeling TAD as
it is representative of current allowable emissions at the source.
Because the EPA is interpreting that the 2016 SO2 Modeling
TAD's provision for modeling a mix of current allowables and actuals
for area designations is also appropriate for purposes of a clean data
determination, the EPA finds that the emissions from all modeled
sources were characterized appropriately in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Herculaneum emitted an estimated 11,477 tons of
SO2 in 2013 prior to it ceasing operations in December of
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously described, the state submitted additional information
to the EPA in February 2017. In this submittal, the state acknowledged
that that emissions data for the 4th quarter of 2016 was not yet
available nor quality assured for modeling purposes. Most of the
modeled source inventory data will not be available until at least mid-
2017. However, the state compared ``data elements of 2016'' to 2013 to
determine whether the 2013 data could serve as a surrogate for 2016
data.\21\ The state asserted that, because the August 2016 modeling
demonstration used actual emissions for the period 2013-2015 for all
sources except Doe Run Herculaneum, a modeling demonstration for the
period 2014-2016 would likely yield similar results because Doe Run
Herculaneum was not operational in any of those three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Key data elements included meteorological data, available
emission data and monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supplemental information submitted by the state included an
examination of variations in meteorology and in modeled source
inventory emissions. This included a qualitative climatological
comparison between the years 2013 and 2016 for the St. Louis, Missouri
downtown airport location and highlighted the similarities and
differences observed in those years. The state asserted that the
meteorological information indicates that the differences in
meteorological conditions from 2013 to 2016 are insignificant.
The state also provided 2016 emissions information, as reported to
CAMD, for the three EGUs (Ameren's Labadie, Meramec and Rush Island
facilities) and compared them to the modeled 2013 emissions data.
Partial data for 2016 (through September 30, 2016) emissions data was
provided in CAMD; the state compared available 2016 emissions data
(January 1, 2016-September 30, 2016) to 2013 emissions data for these
three sources.22 23 For 2016, the three reported quarters
were extrapolated to a full year for an annual comparison.\24\ This
extrapolation assumed a continuation of comparable
[[Page 28610]]
emission levels. The extrapolated 2016 data indicated that the Labadie
facility's SO2 emissions decreased 21 percent, the Meramec
facility's SO2 emissions decreased 23 percent and the Rush
Island facility's SO2 emissions decreased 3 percent from
2013 annual emission rates. The state also asserted that updating the
modeling data to include 2014-2016 emissions and meteorological
information would not change the outcome of the previously submitted
modeling information (which utilized 2013-2015 data) that modeled
attainment of the NAAQS. Essentially, the state claimed, the maximum
modeled impact from the model scenario (172.8 [mu]g/m\3\ or 66 ppb in
the northwest portion of the nonattainment area) utilizing 2013-2015
emission data without Doe Run Herculaneum emissions, is indicative of
2014-2016 air quality without contributions from the Doe Run
Herculaneum facility and demonstrates that the nonattainment area has
attained the standard of 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ameren's Labadie and Meramec facilities are not in the
nonattainment area but are within 50 km of the nonattainment area
and emit greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2. Therefore, they
were included in the state's modeling demonstration and subsequent
supplemental information.
\23\ All emissions data used in the analysis are available
through the EPA's CAMD database online. https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/clean-air-markets-data-resources.
\24\ The first three quarters of 2016 were extrapolated to a
full year for annual comparison by multiplying by 75 percent (x/
0.75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the state's analysis of available 2016 emissions and
meteorology data is informative, the EPA interprets that the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and the 2016 SO2
Modeling TAD allows for modeling of a mix of actual emissions and
current allowable emissions to support a clean data determination, and
therefore the state's 2013-2015 modeling demonstration is sufficient to
allow an assessment as to whether the area has achieved clean data.
The EPA acknowledges the Doe Run Herculaneum facility's primary
smelting operation is permanently shut down and recognizes the
corresponding relationship between the decrease in the emissions from
Doe Run Herculaneum and the decreased monitored concentrations at the
Mott Street monitor as seen in table 3. The maximum hourly
SO2 concentration was reduced by 87 percent from 2013 (143
ppb) to 2014 (18 ppb) after the Doe Run Herculaneum facility closed. A
comparison of the 99th percentile 1-hr average from the last full
production year (2012) to the first post-shutdown year (2014) shows a
93 percent reduction in monitored SO2 concentrations.
Table 3--Decrease in Doe Run Herculaneum SO2 Emissions vs. the Decrease
in Monitored 99th Percentile 1-Hour Averages
[2012-2015]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th
percentile 1- Herculaneum
Year hour average SO2 emissions
(ppb) (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................... 268 17,894
2013.................................... 143 11,477
2014.................................... 18 <1
2015.................................... 38 <1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum modeled impact from the 2013-2015 model scenario is
172.8 [mu]g/m\3\ or 66 ppb which complies with the 1-hour standard of
75 ppb. The model results, along with monitored attainment of the NAAQS
at the Mott Street monitor for the same time period, satisfies the
criteria for clean data according to the EPA's guidance. Certified and
quality assured 2016 air quality monitoring data is indicative of a
substantial improvement in SO2 air quality in the
nonattainment area; the design value for 2014-2016 is 23.0 ppb.
Missouri's monitoring data, technical modeling analysis and
supplemental information all support an EPA determination, consistent
with its Clean Data Policy, that the nonattainment area has clean data
and warrants a clean data determination.
VI. What would be the effects of this action, if promulgated?
If this proposed determination is made final, the requirements for
the state to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs revisions
related to attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS
shall be suspended until such time, if any, that the EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal
Register, that the area has violated the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS. If this were to occur, the basis for the
suspension of the specific SIP requirements would no longer exist, and
the state would thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements.
If finalized, this determination of attainment would not shield the
area from other required actions, such as provisions to address
pollution transport, which could require emission reductions at sources
or other types of emission activities contributing significantly to
nonattainment in other areas or states, or interfering with maintenance
in those areas. The EPA has the authority to require emissions
reductions as necessary and appropriate to deal with transported air
pollution situations. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D), 110(a)(2)(A), and
126.
If, after considering any comments received on this proposal, the
EPA finalizes a clean data determination for this area, the state would
need to continue to monitor and/or model air quality to verify
continued attainment. The air agency would be expected to continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in the affected
area, in accordance with the EPA regulations, to verify the attainment
status of the area (see 40 CFR part 58).
This proposed clean data determination is limited to a
determination that the area attained the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS as evidenced by the state's monitoring data and
modeling analysis; this proposed action, if finalized, would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the
CAA. The designation status of the nonattainment area will remain
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS until
such time as the state submits an approvable redesignation request and
maintenance plan, and the EPA takes final rulemaking action to
determine that such submission meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
monitoring data and modeling and would, if finalized, result in the
suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any
additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed 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
[[Page 28611]]
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 the 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 proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur dioxide, attainment determination.
Dated: June 5, 2017.
Edward H, Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-13190 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P