Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources, 32287-32294 [2017-14748]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
warrant proposing to extend the NOX
compliance dates for the affected units.
It is not our intent to require a
compliance timeframe that could force
the owners to expedite the planning,
installation, and deployment of the NOX
control equipment in such a way that
would require omitting company
planning procedures and other
important processes the owners and
operators have in place for projects such
as this. We also believe it is prudent to
establish compliance deadlines that
allow the installation of the NOX
controls to be optimally scheduled so as
to not compromise system reliability,
especially taking into consideration that
four of the affected units are within the
same regional transmission organization
system. Entergy, AECC, and EEAA
asserted that 3 years are needed to
develop, plan, permit, install, tune, and
test the equipment at the affected units,
which is consistent with the compliance
deadline we proposed in our April 8,
2015 FIP proposal.8 Additionally, as we
noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section of
this proposed rulemaking, we published
a notice in the Federal Register on April
25, 2017, administratively staying the
effectiveness of the 18-month NOX
compliance deadlines in the FIP for a
period of 90 days as part of our
reconsideration process for the NOX
compliance deadlines.9 To also account
for the 90 day stay of the effectiveness
of these NOX compliance deadlines, we
are proposing to extend the NOX
compliance deadlines for Flint Creek
Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and
Independence Units 1 and 2 by a total
of 21 months to January 27, 2020. We
believe this is consistent with the
requirement under the CAA section
169A(b)(2) and (g)(4) and the Regional
Haze Rule under section 51.308(e)(1)(iv)
to install and operate BART as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than 5 years after approval of
the implementation plan revision.
III. Summary of Proposed Action
After carefully considering the
petitions for reconsideration of the NOX
compliance deadlines submitted by
Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA,
we are proposing to revise the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP by extending the
NOX compliance deadlines for Flint
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence.
After carefully considering the
information presented by the petitioners
and to account for the 90 day stay of the
effectiveness of these NOX compliance
deadlines, we are proposing to extend
the NOX compliance deadlines for Flint
8 80
9 82
FR 18944.
FR 18994.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and
2, and Independence Units 1 and 2 by
a total of 21 months to January 27, 2020.
Upon finalization of this proposed
action, the reconsideration process for
the 18-month NOX compliance
deadlines will conclude.
The revisions to the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP we are proposing at
this time are limited to the NOX
compliance dates for the five
aforementioned units. We are not
proposing to revise any other portions of
the FIP in this proposed action. As such,
we are not accepting public comment at
this time on any issues unrelated to the
NOX compliance dates for these units.
However, we note that the
reconsideration process under CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B) for other portions of
the FIP, as discussed in our April 14,
2017 letter, is ongoing.10 If EPA
determines through the ongoing
reconsideration process that revisions to
other parts of the FIP are warranted, we
will propose such revisions in a future
rulemaking action.
32287
(c) * * *
(c)(7) Compliance dates for AEP Flint
Creek Unit 1 and Entergy White Bluff
Units 1 and 2. The owner or operator of
AEP Flint Creek Unit 1 must comply
with the SO2 emission limit listed in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section by April
27, 2018, and with the NOX emission
limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) by
January 27, 2020. The owner or operator
of White Bluff Units 1 and 2 must
comply with the SO2 emission limit
listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this section
by October 27, 2021, and must comply
with the NOX emission limits listed in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section by
January 27, 2020.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(25) Compliance dates for Entergy
Independence Units 1 and 2. The owner
or operator of each unit must comply
with the SO2 emission limit in
paragraph (c)(24) of this section by
October 27, 2021, and with the NOX
emission limits by January 27, 2020.
[FR Doc. 2017–14692 Filed 7–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best available retrofit
technology, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Interstate
transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional
haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxides,
Visibility.
Dated: June 30, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E—Arkansas
2. Amend § 52.173 by revising (c) (7)
and (25) to read as follows:
■
*
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
10 See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding
‘‘Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of
Final Rule, ‘Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional
Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan,’ published September 7,
2016. 81 FR 66332.’’ A copy of this letter is
included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2015–0189.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0298; FRL–9964–84–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation; State of
Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah
County Nonattainment Area Coarse
Particulate Matter State
Implementation Plan Revisions to
Control Measures for Point Sources
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by Utah on January
4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted
on January 19, 2017, for the coarse
particulate matter (PM10) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Salt Lake County and Utah
County PM10 nonattainment areas. The
revisions that the EPA is proposing to
approve are located in Utah Division of
Administrative Rule (DAR) R307–110–
17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1–4, and
establish emissions limits for PM10,
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for certain stationary
sources in the nonattainment areas.
These actions are being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 14, 2017.
SUMMARY:
■
§ 52.173
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32288
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2017–0298 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.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:
James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, 303–312–6210,
hou.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
I. General Information
a. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
the EPA through www.regulations.gov or
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD
ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
2. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
Under the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were
designated nonattainment for PM10 and
classified as moderate areas by
operation of law as of November 15,
1990 (56 FR 56694, 56840; November 6,
1991). The air quality planning
requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the
Act. As described in section 110 and
172 of the Act, areas designated
nonattainment based on failure to meet
the PM10 NAAQS are required to
develop SIPs with sufficient control
measures to expeditiously attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
On July 8, 1994, the EPA approved
the PM10 SIP for Salt Lake and Utah
Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP
included a demonstration of attainment
and various control measures, including
emission limits at stationary sources.
Because emissions of SO2 and NOX
contribute significantly to the PM10
problem in the area, the SIP included
limits on emissions of SO2 and NOX in
addition to emissions of PM10.
On September 26, 1995, the EPA
designated Ogden City as nonattainment
for PM10 and classified the area as
moderate under section 107(d)(3) of the
Act (60 FR 38726; July 28, 1995).
Subsequently, the EPA approved a clean
data determination for the Ogden City
nonattainment area on January 7, 2013
(78 FR 885), suspending obligations to
submit certain requirements of part D,
subparts 1 and 4 of the Act for so long
as the area continues to attain.
On July 3, 2002 Utah submitted SIP
revisions adopting rule R307–110–10,
which incorporated revisions to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
portions of Utah’s SIP Section IX, Part
A, and rule R307–110–17, which
incorporated revisions to portions of
Utah’s SIP Section IX Part H. These
revisions were approved by the EPA on
December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The
revisions to Utah’s SIP Section IX Part
H removed several stationary sources
subject to reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirements from
the initial list of RACT sources in the
Utah County nonattainment area, based
on SIP threshold limits for PM10, NOx,
and SO2 of 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250
tpy, respectively. In doing so, the
number of major stationary sources
included in the SIP for the Utah County
nonattainment area was reduced from
14 sources to 5 sources. Notably, one of
the sources retained in Utah’s 2002 SIP
was Geneva Steel, which underwent a
protracted closure and had largely
ceased operations by 2004. In 2005, the
PacifiCorp—Lake Side Power Plant was
constructed on a portion of the former
Geneva Steel facility, utilizing banked
emission credits from Geneva Steel’s
closure.
On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted
SIP revisions to R307–110–17 titled
‘‘Section IX, Control Measures for Area
and Point Sources, Part H, Emission
Limits’’ and revisions to Subsection
IX.H.1–4. The titles for Subsection
IX.H.1–4 include: (1) General
Requirements: Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices, PM10
Requirements; (2) Source Specific
Emission Limitations in Salt Lake
County PM10 Nonattainment/
Maintenance Area; (3) Source Specific
Emission Limitations in Utah County
PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area;
and (4) Interim Emission Limits and
Operating Practices. Additionally, on
January 19, 2017, Utah submitted
revisions to Subsection IX.H.1–4.
Further discussion of the revisions to
R307–110–17 and Subsection IX.H.1–4
can be found below.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of Utah’s SIP
A. R307–110–17
1. Section R307–110–17 incorporates
the amendments to Section IX.H into
state rules, thereby making them
effective as a matter of state law. This
is a ministerial provision and does not
by itself include any control measures.
B. Subsection IX.H.1–4
1. Subsection IX.H.1. General
Requirements: Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices, PM10
Requirements. This section establishes
general requirements for record keeping,
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
reporting, and monitoring for the
stationary sources subject to emissions
limits under subsections IX.H.2–4.
Additionally, this section establishes
general refinery requirements,
addressing limitations on emitting units
common to the refineries in the
nonattainment areas. These general
refinery requirements include limits at
fluid catalytic cracking units, limits on
refinery fuel gas, restrictions on liquid
fuel oil consumption, requirement for
sulfur removal units, and requirements
for hydrocarbon flares.
2. Subsection IX.H.2. Source Specific
Emission Limitations in Salt Lake
County PM10 Nonattainment/
Maintenance Area. This section
establishes specific emission limitations
for 14 sources. These sources are Big
West Oil Refinery; Bountiful City Light
and Power; Central Valley Reclamation
Facility; Chevron Products Company;
Hexcel Corporation; Holly Refining and
Marketing Company; Kennecott Utah
Copper (KUC): Bingham Canyon Mine;
KUC: Copperton Concentrator; KUC:
Power Plant and Tailings Impoundment;
32289
KUC: Smelter and Refinery; PacifiCorp
Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; Tesoro
Refining & Marketing Company;
University of Utah; and West Valley
Power Holdings, LLC. Major stationary
sources were identified based on their
potential to emit (PTE) of 100 tons per
year (tpy) or more of PM10, NOx, or SO2.
A summary of the current emission
limits, for retained sources, is outlined
in Table 1 below, and a summary of the
proposed new emission limits is
outlined in Table 2 below.
TABLE 1—CURRENT SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
Mass based
limits
Concentration based
limits
Amoco Oil Company 1
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX
SO2 ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
...................................
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
...................................
113 tpy.
688 tpy.
2,013 tpy.
1.06 tpy.
250 tpy.
5.97.
0.67 tpy.
203.7 tpy.
3.95 tpy.
175 tpy.
1,022 tpy.
2,578 tpy.
22 tpy.
278.7 tpy.
864.6 tpy.
...................................
...................................
175 MMscf natural
gas per year.
10.8 MM pounds of
carbon fiber produced per year.
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
...................................
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
...................................
0.416 tpd.
2.09 tpd.
0.31 tpd.
...................................
...................................
Maximum of 30,000
daily miles for
waste haul trucks.
Fugitive road dust
emission controls.
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
...................................
Total Power Plant .....
Total Power Plant .....
Total Power Plant .....
...................................
257 tpy.
5085 tpy.
6219 tpy.
...................................
...................................
Fugitive dust maintenance program and
mitigation procedures.
PM10 ..........................
SO2 (daily avg) .........
SO2 ...........................
NOX ...........................
PM10 ..........................
Main Stack ................
Main Stack ................
Acid Plant Tail Gas ...
Smelter Powerhouse
Rotary Concentrate
Dryer Stack.
Rotary Concentrate
Dryer Stack.
Total Refinery ...........
Total Refinery ...........
Total Refinery ...........
Source wide ..............
Source wide ..............
Source wide ..............
Source Wide .............
Source wide ..............
400 lb/hr.
5,700 lb/hr.
1200 lb/hr ..................
20.8 lb/hr ...................
4.2 lb/hr.
Bountiful City Light
and Power.
Central Valley Water
Reclamation Facility.
Chevron Products
Company.
Flying J 2 .....................
Hercules Aerospace
Company—Plant
#3 3.
Holly Refining and
Marketing Company.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham Canyon Mine.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Power Plant.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Tailings Impoundment.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
NOX ...........................
Kennecott Utah Copper: Refinery.
University of Utah .......
Utah Power and
Light—Gadsby 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PM10 ..........................
SO2 ...........................
NOX ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
SO2 ...........................
PM10 ..........................
NOX ...........................
18:40 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
7.1 lb/hr .....................
650 ppmvd.
80/9 ppmdv.
67 ppmdv.
51.9 tpy.
162.6 tpy.
121 tpy.
74.3 tpy.
245.8 tpy.
219.3 tpy.
61.3 tpy.
2,983 tpy.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Alternative emission
limits
32290
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—CURRENT SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA—
Continued
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
SO2 ...........................
Source wide ..............
Mass based
limits
Concentration based
limits
Alternative emission
limits
67.7 tpy.
1 The
Amoco Oil Company facility corresponds with the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
Flying J refinery corresponds with the Big West Oil facility in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
3 The Hercules Aerospace Company—Plant #3 corresponds with the Hexcel Corporation in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
4 Utah Power and Light—Gadsby, corresponds with PacifiCorp—Gadsby in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
2 The
TABLE 2—PROPOSED SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA
Concentration
based limits
Alternative
emission limits
0.715 tpd.
2.1 tpd.
1.05 tpd.
.........................................
.........................................
5.50 MMscf natural gas
per day.
0.061 MM pounds of carbon fiber produced per
day.
.........................................
0.416 tpd.
2.09 tpd.
0.31 tpd.
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
Maximum of 30,000
miles for waste haul
trucks per day.
Fugitive road dust emission control requirements.
Requirement to operate a
gas scrubber operated
in accordance with
parametric monitoring.
PM10 ...............................
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
Power Plant Unit #5 .......
Power Plant Unit #5 .......
Power Plant Unit #5
Startup/Shutdown.
Units #1, #2, #3, and #4,
Nov 1–Feb 28/29.
Units #1,# 2, #3, and #4,
Nov 1–Feb 28/29.
Units #1,# 2, and #3,
Nov 1–Feb 28/29.
Unit #4, Nov 1–Feb 28/
29.
Units #1,# 2, and #3, Mar
1–Oct 1.
Units #1,# 2, and #3, Mar
1–Oct 1.
Unit #4, Mar 1–Oct 1 ......
Units #1,# 2, and #3, Mar
1–Oct 1.
Unit #4, Mar 1–Oct 1 ......
Main Stack ......................
18.8 lb/hr.
.........................................
395 lb/hr.
2.0 ppmdv (15% O2 dry).
Main Stack ......................
439 lb/hr.
Main Stack ......................
Main Stack ......................
Main Stack ......................
Refinery: Sum of 2 tank
house boilers.
Refinery: Combined Heat
Plant.
Molybdenum Autoclave
Project: Combined
Heat Plant.
Steam Unit #1 ................
552 lb/hr.
422 lb/hr.
154 lb/hr.
9.5 lb/hr.
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
Mass based limits
Big West Oil .....................
PM10 ...............................
NOX ................................
SO2 .................................
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
GT#1 ...............................
GT#2 and GT#3 .............
Facility Wide ...................
1.037 tons per day (tpd).
0.8 tpd.
0.6 tpd.
0.6 g NOX/kW-hr.
7.5 lb NOX/hr.
0.648 tpd.
PM10 ...............................
NOX ................................
SO2 .................................
.........................................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
.........................................
PM10 ...............................
NOX ................................
SO2 .................................
.........................................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
Kennecott Copperton
Concentrator.
Kennecott Utah Copper: ..
Power Plant and
Tailings Impoundment
Bountiful City Light and
Power.
Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility.
Chevron Products Company.
Hexcel Corporations ........
Holly Refining and Marketing Company.
Kennecott Utah Copper:
Bingham Canyon Mine.
PM10 (Filterable) .............
PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
PM10 (Filterable) .............
PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).
PM10 (Filterable) .............
NOX ................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Kennecott Utah Copper:
Smelter and Refinery.
NOX ................................
PM10 (Filterable) .............
PM10 (Filterable + Condensable).
SO2 (3-hr rolling avg) .....
SO2 (daily avg) ...............
NOX (daily avg) ..............
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
NOX ................................
PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power Plant.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NOX ................................
18:40 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
0.004 grains/dscf.
0.03 grains/dscf.
.........................................
336 ppmdv (3% O2).
.........................................
336 ppmdv (3% O2).
0.029 grains/dscf.
0.29 grains/dscf.
0.029 grains/dscf.
.........................................
.........................................
89.5 lb/hr.
426.5 ppmdv (3% O2).
384 ppmdv (3% O2).
5.96 lb/hr.
5.01 lb/hr.
179 lb/hr.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
32291
TABLE 2—PROPOSED SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT
AREA—Continued
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
Steam Unit #2 ................
Steam Unit #3 ................
University of Utah ............
NOX ................................
.
NOX.
NOX ................................
PM10 ...............................
NOX ................................
SO2 .................................
NOX ................................
204 lb/hr.
142 lb./hr (Nov 1–Feb
28/29).
203 lb/hr (Mar 1–Oct 31).
2.25 tpd.
1.988 tpd.
3.1 tpd.
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
West Valley Power 5 ........
NOX ................................
Concentration
based limits
Mass based limits
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company.
5 West
Steam Unit #3 ................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
Facility Wide ...................
Boiler #3 .........................
Boiler #4a & #4b ............
Boiler #5a & #5b ............
Turbine ...........................
Turbine and WHRU Duct
burner.
Sum of all five turbines ..
Alternative
emission limits
9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
15 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
1,050 lb/day.
Valley Power was not a listed source in the 1994 SIP for the Salt Lake County PM10 NAA.
3. Subsection IX.H.3. Source Specific
Emission Limitations in Utah County
PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area.
This section establishes specific
emission limitations for 6 sources.
These sources are Brigham Young
University (BYU); Geneva Nitrogen Inc.;
PacifiCorp Energy: Lake Side Power
Plant; Payson City Corporation: Payson
City Power; Provo City Power: Power
Plant; and Springville City Corporation:
Whitehead Power Plant. Major
stationary sources were identified based
on their PTE of 100 tons per year (tpy)
or more for PM10, NOX, and SO2. It is
important to note that the SIP threshold
of 100 tpy for all three pollutants is less
than the previous SIP major stationary
source thresholds Utah established in its
2002 SIP revision. The 2002 SIP
revision had established major
stationary source thresholds for PM10,
NOX, and SO2 at 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and
250 tpy, respectively. By lowering the
SIP threshold to 100 tpy for all three
pollutants, three sources are now added
into the SIP. These sources are BYU,
Payson City Power and PacifiCorp
Energy—Lake Side Power Plant.
PacifiCorp Energy—Lake Side Power
Plant sits on a portion of the former
Geneva Steel site. A summary of the
current emission limits, for retained
sources, is outlined in Table 3 below,
and a summary of the proposed new
emission limits are outlined in Table 4
below.
TABLE 3—CURRENT SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE UTAH COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA
Source
Mass based
limits
Pollutant
Geneva Nitrogen Inc:
Geneva Plant.
Provo City Power:
Power Plant.
Springville City Corporation: Whitehead
Power Plant.
Process unit
PM10 ..........................
Prill Tower .................
Montecatini Plant ......
Weatherly Plant ........
All engines combined
0.389 tpd.
0.233 tpd.
2.45 tpd.
NOX ...........................
All engines combined
Alternative
emission limits
0.24 tpd.
NOX ...........................
NOX ...........................
NOX ...........................
Concentration
based limits
1.68 tpd.
TABLE 4—PROPOSED SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE UTAH COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA
Source
Pollutant
6
Mass based
limits
Unit #1
....................
9.55 lb/hr ...................
Unit #2 ......................
37.4 lb/hr ...................
SO2 ...........................
Unit #2 ......................
56.0 lb/hr ...................
NOX ...........................
Unit #3 ......................
37.4 lb/hr ...................
SO2 ...........................
Unit #3 ......................
56.0 lb/hr ...................
NOX ...........................
Unit #4
....................
19.2 lb/hr ...................
NOX ...........................
Unit #5 ......................
74.8 lb/hr ...................
SO2 ...........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
NOX ...........................
NOX ...........................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Brigham Young University.
Process unit
Unit #5 ......................
112.07 lb/hr ...............
18:40 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
7
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Concentration
based limits
95 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
127 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Alternative
emission limits
32292
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—PROPOSED SOURCE SPECIFIC EMISSION LIMITATIONS IN THE UTAH COUNTY PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREA—
Continued
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
7
NOX ...........................
PacifiCorp Energy:
Lakeside Power
Plant.
Payson City Corporation: Payson City
Power.
Provo City Power:
Power Plant.
Springville City Corporation: Whitehead
Power Plant.
Unit #6
PM10 ..........................
Prill Tower .................
19.2 lb/hr ...................
PM2.5 .........................
NOX ...........................
NOX ...........................
NOX ...........................
Prill Tower .................
Montecatini Plant ......
Weatherly Plant ........
Block #1 Turbine/
HRSG Stacks.
18.1 lb/hr.
NOX ...........................
1.54 tpd.
NOX ...........................
All engines combined
2.45 tpd.
NOX ...........................
All engines combined
Alternative
emission limits
0.196 tpd.
30.8 lb/hr.
18.4 lb/hr.
14.9 lb/hr.
Block #2 Turbine/
HRSG Stacks.
All engines combined
Concentration
based limits
0.236 tpd..
NOX ...........................
Geneva Nitrogen Inc.:
Geneva Plant.
....................
Mass based
limits
127 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
1.68 tpd.
6 The NO limit for Unit #1 is 95 ppm (9.55 lb/hr) until it operates for more than 300 hours during a rolling 12-month period, then the limit will
X
be 36 ppm (5.44 lb/hr). This will be accomplished through the installation of low NOX burners with Flue Gas Recirculation.
7 The NO limit for Units #4 and #6 is 127 ppm (38.5 lb/hr) until December 31, 2018, at which time the limit will then be 36 ppm (19.2 lb/hr).
X
4. Subsection IX.H.4. Interim
Emission Limits and Operating
Practices. R307–110–17 Section IX,
Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. This
section establishes interim emission
limits for sources whose new emission
limits under Subsections IX.H.2 and 3
are based on controls that are not
currently installed, with the provision
that all necessary controls needed to
meet the emission limits under
Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be
installed by January 1, 2019. A summary
of the proposed interim emission limits
is outlined in Table 5 below.
TABLE 5—PROPOSED INTERIM EMISSION LIMITS AND OPERATING PRACTICES
Mass based
limits
Source
Pollutant
Process unit
Big West Oil ...............
PM10 ..........................
Facility Wide .............
SO2 ...........................
Facility Wide .............
NOX ...........................
Facility Wide .............
PM10 ..........................
Facility Wide .............
0.377 tpd Oct 1–
March 31.
0.407 tpd April 1–
Sept 30.
2.764 tpd Oct 1–
March 31.
3.639 tpd April 1–
Sept 30.
1.027 tpd Oct 1–Mar
31.
1.145 tpd Apr 1–Sep
30.
0.234 tpd.
SO2 ...........................
NOX ...........................
PM10 ..........................
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
0.5 tpd.
2.52 tpd.
0.44 tpd.
SO2 ...........................
NOX ...........................
PM10 ..........................
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
Facility Wide .............
4.714 tpd.
2.20 tpd.
0.261 tpd.
SO2 ...........................
Facility Wide .............
NOX ...........................
Facility Wide .............
3.699 tpd Nov 1–Feb
28/29.
4.374 tpd Mar 1–Oct
31.
1.988 tpd.
Chevron Products
Company.
Holly Refining and
Marketing Company.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Concentration based
limits
Tesoro Refining and
Marketing Company.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:40 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Alternative emission
limits
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of
the CAA
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the
EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP) toward attainment of the
NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition,
section 110(l) requires that each revision
to an implementation plan submitted by
a state shall be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA
is proposing to approve do not interfere
with any applicable requirements of the
Act. The DAR section R307–110–17 and
Subsection IX.H.1–4, submitted January
4, 2016, and January 19, 2017 are
intended to strengthen the SIP.
Therefore, CAA section 110(l)
requirements are satisfied.
Specifically, the proposed emission
limits for the retained sources in the
Salt Lake County nonattainment area
will result in a reduction of PM10, SO2,
and NOX emissions by 10.64 tpd, 12.87
tpd and 29.97 tpd, respectively, when
compared to the limits established in
the original PM10 SIP. Given the large
net decrease in emissions from the
retained major stationary sources in the
Salt Lake County nonattainment area,
the proposed action will enhance the
area’s ability to attain or maintain the
NAAQS.
The proposed emissions from Geneva
Nitrogen, Provo City Power Plant, and
the Springville City Corporation—
Whitehead Power Plant are consistent
with the 2002 SIP revisions for Utah
County. Additionally, this proposed
action adds three sources—BYU, Payson
City Power and PacifiCorp Energy—
Lake Side Power Plant. Both BYU and
Payson City Power have been in
existence since the original 1994 SIP,
and BYU was initially included as a
source in the original 1994 SIP, but was
removed in 2002. The inclusion of these
two sources do not reflect an increase in
emissions into the Utah County
nonattainment area airshed, but rather
reflect a change in the approach of how
stationary sources are included into the
SIP. PacifiCorp Energy—Lake Side
Power Plant is also being added into the
SIP, but its addition does not reflect an
emissions increase to the nonattainment
area because the facility was required to
use offsetting emissions, largely made
available through the closure of the
Geneva Steel facility. The closing of
Geneva Steel resulted in the removal of
approximately 1,700 tpy PM10, 1,400 tpy
SO2, and 4,200 tpy NOX from the Utah
County airshed. These emission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
reductions were banked and made
available for purchase for future major
source construction and modifications.
In order to construct the Lakeside Power
Plant, banked emission credits were
purchased and used at an offset ratio of
1.2:1 (e.g. For every 1.0 tpy of emissions
allowed at the Lakeside Power Plant, 1.2
tpy of banked emission credits must be
spent from the Utah emissions credit
offset registry.). In total the Lakeside
Power Plant utilized banked emission
credits for PM10, SO2, and NOX in the
amounts of 257 tpy, 66 tpy, and 337 tpy,
respectively. Given the offset ratio
required for the construction of the
Lakeside Power Plant, the inclusion of
this source into the SIP does not result
in any emissions increase to the Utah
County airshed, and actually reflects a
net decrease from the 2002 SIP. As a
result of the decreased emissions from
the closure of the Geneva Steel facility,
and the offsetting ratio required to
construct the Lake Side Power Plant, the
proposed revision to the Utah County
PM10 SIP will enhance the area’s ability
to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
V. Summary of Proposed Action and
Request for Public Comment
The EPA is proposing approval and
requesting public comment on revisions
to Administrative Rule R307–110–17
and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1–4 as
submitted by the State of Utah on
January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017.
These revisions establish emissions
limitations and related requirements for
certain stationary sources of PM10, NOX
and SO2, and will therefore serve to
continue progress towards attainment
and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in
the nonattainment areas. The proposed
revisions reflect more stringent emission
levels for total emissions of PM10, SO2,
and NOX for each of the affected
facilities, as well as updates the
inventory of major stationary sources to
accurately reflect the current sources in
both the Salt Lake County and Utah
County nonattainment areas (e.g.,
removing sources which no longer exist,
or are now covered under an area source
rule). The updated list of sources and
revised emission limits for the major
stationary sources in the two
nonattainment areas will serve to
enhance both area’s ability to attain or
maintain the NAAQS.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the DAQ PM10 SIP revisions as
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32293
discussed in section III of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office
(please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more
information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide 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).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32294
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to 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 proposed 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 30, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017–14748 Filed 7–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0129; FRL–9964–20–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve for the Entergy
R. S. Nelson facility (Nelson) (1) a
portion of a revision to the Louisiana
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted on February 20,
2017; and (2) a revision submitted for
parallel processing on June 20, 2017, by
the State of Louisiana through the
Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ). Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to approve these two
revisions, which address the Best
Available Retrofit Technology
requirement of Regional Haze for Nelson
for sulfur-dioxide (SO2) and particulatematter (PM).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2017–0129, at https://
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jul 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
www.regulations.gov or via email to R6_
LA_BART@epa.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, please
contact Jennifer Huser, huser.jennifer@
epa.gov. 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/commentingepa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347,
huser.jennifer@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr.
Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
B. Our Previous Actions and Our Proposed
Action on Louisiana Regional Haze
II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana’s BART
Analysis for Nelson
A. Identification of Nelson as a BARTEligible Source
B. Evaluation of Whether Nelson Is Subject
to BART
1. Visibility Impairment Threshold
2. CALPUFF Modeling to Screen Sources
3. Nelson is Subject to BART
C. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX
BART
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Louisiana’s Five-Factor Analyses for
SO2 and PM BART for Nelson
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities that are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental
carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form PM2.5, which
impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that can be seen. PM2.5 can also
cause serious adverse health effects and
mortality in humans; it also contributes
to environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE), shows that
visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at
most national parks and wilderness
areas. In 1999, the average visual range
in many Class I areas (i.e., national
parks and memorial parks, wilderness
areas, and international parks meeting
certain size criteria) in the western
United States was 100–150 kilometers,
or about one-half to two-thirds of the
visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of
the eastern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range was less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of
the visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions. CAA
programs have reduced some hazecausing pollution, lessening some
visibility impairment and resulting in
partially improved average visual
ranges.
CAA requirements to address the
problem of visibility impairment
continue to be implemented. In Section
169A of the 1977 Amendments to the
CAA, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas.
This section of the CAA establishes as
a national goal the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any
existing, man-made impairment of
visibility in 156 national parks and
wilderness areas designated as
mandatory Class I Federal areas. On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32287-32294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14748]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0298; FRL-9964-84-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and
Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State
Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
Utah on January 4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted on January 19,
2017, for the coarse particulate matter (PM10) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Salt Lake County and Utah
County PM10 nonattainment areas. The revisions that the EPA
is proposing to approve are located in Utah Division of Administrative
Rule (DAR) R307-110-17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1-4, and establish
emissions limits for PM10, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for certain stationary sources in the
nonattainment areas. These actions are being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
[[Page 32288]]
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0298 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.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: James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6210,
hou.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties
were designated nonattainment for PM10 and classified as
moderate areas by operation of law as of November 15, 1990 (56 FR
56694, 56840; November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements
for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the Act. As described in section
110 and 172 of the Act, areas designated nonattainment based on failure
to meet the PM10 NAAQS are required to develop SIPs with
sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the
NAAQS.
On July 8, 1994, the EPA approved the PM10 SIP for Salt
Lake and Utah Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP included a demonstration
of attainment and various control measures, including emission limits
at stationary sources. Because emissions of SO2 and
NOX contribute significantly to the PM10 problem
in the area, the SIP included limits on emissions of SO2 and
NOX in addition to emissions of PM10.
On September 26, 1995, the EPA designated Ogden City as
nonattainment for PM10 and classified the area as moderate
under section 107(d)(3) of the Act (60 FR 38726; July 28, 1995).
Subsequently, the EPA approved a clean data determination for the Ogden
City nonattainment area on January 7, 2013 (78 FR 885), suspending
obligations to submit certain requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 4
of the Act for so long as the area continues to attain.
On July 3, 2002 Utah submitted SIP revisions adopting rule R307-
110-10, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section
IX, Part A, and rule R307-110-17, which incorporated revisions to
portions of Utah's SIP Section IX Part H. These revisions were approved
by the EPA on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The revisions to Utah's
SIP Section IX Part H removed several stationary sources subject to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements from the
initial list of RACT sources in the Utah County nonattainment area,
based on SIP threshold limits for PM10, NOx, and
SO2 of 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. In doing
so, the number of major stationary sources included in the SIP for the
Utah County nonattainment area was reduced from 14 sources to 5
sources. Notably, one of the sources retained in Utah's 2002 SIP was
Geneva Steel, which underwent a protracted closure and had largely
ceased operations by 2004. In 2005, the PacifiCorp--Lake Side Power
Plant was constructed on a portion of the former Geneva Steel facility,
utilizing banked emission credits from Geneva Steel's closure.
On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted SIP revisions to R307-110-17
titled ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part
H, Emission Limits'' and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. The titles
for Subsection IX.H.1-4 include: (1) General Requirements: Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, PM10 Requirements; (2) Source Specific Emission
Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/
Maintenance Area; (3) Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah
County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area; and (4) Interim
Emission Limits and Operating Practices. Additionally, on January 19,
2017, Utah submitted revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. Further
discussion of the revisions to R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4 can
be found below.
III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's SIP
A. R307-110-17
1. Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Section IX.H
into state rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of state
law. This is a ministerial provision and does not by itself include any
control measures.
B. Subsection IX.H.1-4
1. Subsection IX.H.1. General Requirements: Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices,
PM10 Requirements. This section establishes general
requirements for record keeping,
[[Page 32289]]
reporting, and monitoring for the stationary sources subject to
emissions limits under subsections IX.H.2-4. Additionally, this section
establishes general refinery requirements, addressing limitations on
emitting units common to the refineries in the nonattainment areas.
These general refinery requirements include limits at fluid catalytic
cracking units, limits on refinery fuel gas, restrictions on liquid
fuel oil consumption, requirement for sulfur removal units, and
requirements for hydrocarbon flares.
2. Subsection IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt
Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This
section establishes specific emission limitations for 14 sources. These
sources are Big West Oil Refinery; Bountiful City Light and Power;
Central Valley Reclamation Facility; Chevron Products Company; Hexcel
Corporation; Holly Refining and Marketing Company; Kennecott Utah
Copper (KUC): Bingham Canyon Mine; KUC: Copperton Concentrator; KUC:
Power Plant and Tailings Impoundment; KUC: Smelter and Refinery;
PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; Tesoro Refining & Marketing
Company; University of Utah; and West Valley Power Holdings, LLC. Major
stationary sources were identified based on their potential to emit
(PTE) of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of PM10, NOx, or
SO2. A summary of the current emission limits, for retained
sources, is outlined in Table 1 below, and a summary of the proposed
new emission limits is outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 1--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration based Alternative emission
Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amoco Oil Company \1\.............. PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 113 tpy.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 688 tpy..............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2,013 tpy............
Bountiful City Light and Power..... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 1.06 tpy.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 250 tpy..............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 5.97.................
Central Valley Water Reclamation PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.67 tpy.
Facility. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 203.7 tpy............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.95 tpy.............
Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 175 tpy.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1,022 tpy............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2,578 tpy.
Flying J \2\....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 22 tpy.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 278.7 tpy.
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 864.6 tpy.
Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... 175 MMscf natural gas
#3 \3\. per year.
10.8 MM pounds of
carbon fiber
produced per year.
Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.416 tpd.
Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.09 tpd.............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.31 tpd.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Maximum of 30,000
Canyon Mine. daily miles for
waste haul trucks.
Fugitive road dust
emission controls.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Power Plant. PM10.................. Total Power Plant..... 257 tpy.
NOX................... Total Power Plant..... 5085 tpy.............
SO2................... Total Power Plant..... 6219 tpy.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Tailings ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Fugitive dust
Impoundment. maintenance program
and mitigation
procedures.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter..... PM10.................. Main Stack............ 400 lb/hr.
SO2 (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 5,700 lb/hr..........
SO2................... Acid Plant Tail Gas... 1200 lb/hr........... 650 ppmvd.
NOX................... Smelter Powerhouse.... 20.8 lb/hr........... 80/9 ppmdv.
PM10.................. Rotary Concentrate 4.2 lb/hr.
Dryer Stack.
NOX................... Rotary Concentrate 7.1 lb/hr............ 67 ppmdv.
Dryer Stack.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Refinery.... PM10.................. Total Refinery........ 51.9 tpy.
SO2................... Total Refinery........ 162.6 tpy............
NOX................... Total Refinery........ 121 tpy.
University of Utah................. PM10.................. Source wide........... 74.3 tpy.
NOX................... Source wide........... 245.8 tpy.
SO2................... Source wide........... 219.3 tpy.
Utah Power and Light--Gadsby \4\... PM10.................. Source Wide........... 61.3 tpy.
NOX................... Source wide........... 2,983 tpy............
[[Page 32290]]
SO2................... Source wide........... 67.7 tpy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Amoco Oil Company facility corresponds with the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\2\ The Flying J refinery corresponds with the Big West Oil facility in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\3\ The Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant #3 corresponds with the Hexcel Corporation in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\4\ Utah Power and Light--Gadsby, corresponds with PacifiCorp--Gadsby in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration based Alternative emission
Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big West Oil....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 1.037 tons per day
NOX................... Facility Wide......... (tpd).
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.8 tpd..............
0.6 tpd..............
Bountiful City Light and Power..... NOX................... GT#1.................. 0.6 g NOX/kW-hr.
NOX................... GT#2 and GT#3......... 7.5 lb NOX/hr........
Central Valley Water Reclamation NOX................... Facility Wide......... 0.648 tpd.
Facility.
Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.715 tpd.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.1 tpd..............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 1.05 tpd.............
Hexcel Corporations................ ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... 5.50 MMscf natural
gas per day.
0.061 MM pounds of
carbon fiber
produced per day.
Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.416 tpd.
Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.09 tpd.............
SO2................... 0.31 tpd.............
Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Maximum of 30,000
Canyon Mine. miles for waste haul
trucks per day.
Fugitive road dust
emission control
requirements.
Kennecott Copperton Concentrator... ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Requirement to
operate a gas
scrubber operated in
accordance with
parametric
monitoring.
Kennecott Utah Copper:............. PM10.................. Power Plant Unit #5... 18.8 lb/hr.
Power Plant and NOX................... Power Plant Unit #5... ..................... 2.0 ppmdv (15% O2
dry).
Tailings Impoundment NOX................... Power Plant Unit #5 395 lb/hr.
Startup/Shutdown.
PM10 (Filterable)..... Units #1, #2, #3, and 0.004 grains/dscf.
#4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
PM10 (Filterable + Units #1,# 2, #3, and 0.03 grains/dscf.
Condensable). #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
NOX................... Units #1,# 2, and #3, ..................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2).
Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
NOX................... Unit #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/ ..................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2).
29.
PM10 (Filterable)..... Units #1,# 2, and #3, 0.029 grains/dscf.
Mar 1-Oct 1.
PM10 (Filterable + Units #1,# 2, and #3, 0.29 grains/dscf.
Condensable). Mar 1-Oct 1.
PM10 (Filterable)..... Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1.. 0.029 grains/dscf.
NOX................... Units #1,# 2, and #3, ..................... 426.5 ppmdv (3% O2)..
Mar 1-Oct 1.
NOX................... Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1.. ..................... 384 ppmdv (3% O2)....
Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter and PM10 (Filterable)..... Main Stack............ 89.5 lb/hr...........
Refinery.
PM10 (Filterable + Main Stack............ 439 lb/hr............
Condensable).
SO2 (3-hr rolling avg) Main Stack............ 552 lb/hr............
SO2 (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 422 lb/hr............
NOX (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 154 lb/hr............
NOX................... Refinery: Sum of 2 9.5 lb/hr............
tank house boilers.
NOX................... Refinery: Combined 5.96 lb/hr...........
Heat Plant.
NOX................... Molybdenum Autoclave 5.01 lb/hr...........
Project: Combined
Heat Plant.
PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power NOX................... Steam Unit #1......... 179 lb/hr............
Plant.
[[Page 32291]]
NOX................... Steam Unit #2......... 204 lb/hr............
...................... Steam Unit #3......... 142 lb./hr (Nov 1-Feb
NOX................... 28/29).
NOX................... Steam Unit #3......... 203 lb/hr (Mar 1-Oct
31).
Tesoro Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 2.25 tpd.
Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.988 tpd............
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.1 tpd.
University of Utah................. NOX................... Boiler #3............. ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
Boiler #4a & #4b...... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
Boiler #5a & #5b...... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
Turbine............... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
Turbine and WHRU Duct ..................... 15 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
burner.
West Valley Power \5\.............. NOX................... Sum of all five 1,050 lb/day.
turbines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ West Valley Power was not a listed source in the 1994 SIP for the Salt Lake County PM10 NAA.
3. Subsection IX.H.3. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah
County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This section
establishes specific emission limitations for 6 sources. These sources
are Brigham Young University (BYU); Geneva Nitrogen Inc.; PacifiCorp
Energy: Lake Side Power Plant; Payson City Corporation: Payson City
Power; Provo City Power: Power Plant; and Springville City Corporation:
Whitehead Power Plant. Major stationary sources were identified based
on their PTE of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more for PM10,
NOX, and SO2. It is important to note that the
SIP threshold of 100 tpy for all three pollutants is less than the
previous SIP major stationary source thresholds Utah established in its
2002 SIP revision. The 2002 SIP revision had established major
stationary source thresholds for PM10, NOX, and
SO2 at 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. By
lowering the SIP threshold to 100 tpy for all three pollutants, three
sources are now added into the SIP. These sources are BYU, Payson City
Power and PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. PacifiCorp Energy--
Lake Side Power Plant sits on a portion of the former Geneva Steel
site. A summary of the current emission limits, for retained sources,
is outlined in Table 3 below, and a summary of the proposed new
emission limits are outlined in Table 4 below.
Table 3--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration based Alternative emission
Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Nitrogen Inc: Geneva Plant.. PM10.................. Prill Tower........... 0.24 tpd.............
NOX................... Montecatini Plant..... 0.389 tpd............
NOX................... Weatherly Plant....... 0.233 tpd............
Provo City Power: Power Plant...... NOX................... All engines combined.. 2.45 tpd.............
Springville City Corporation: NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.68 tpd.............
Whitehead Power Plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration based Alternative emission
Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brigham Young University........... NOX................... Unit #1 \6\........... 9.55 lb/hr........... 95 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry).
NOX................... Unit #2............... 37.4 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
SO2................... Unit #2............... 56.0 lb/hr........... 597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
NOX................... Unit #3............... 37.4 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
SO2................... Unit #3............... 56.0 lb/hr........... 597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
NOX................... Unit #4 \7\........... 19.2 lb/hr........... 127 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
NOX................... Unit #5............... 74.8 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
SO2................... Unit #5............... 112.07 lb/hr......... 597 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
[[Page 32292]]
NOX................... Unit #6 \7\........... 19.2 lb/hr........... 127 ppmdv (7% O2
Dry).
Geneva Nitrogen Inc.: Geneva Plant. PM10.................. Prill Tower........... 0.236 tpd............
PM2.5................. Prill Tower........... 0.196 tpd.
NOX................... Montecatini Plant..... 30.8 lb/hr.
NOX................... Weatherly Plant....... 18.4 lb/hr.
PacifiCorp Energy: Lakeside Power NOX................... Block #1 Turbine/HRSG 14.9 lb/hr.
Plant. Stacks.
NOX................... Block #2 Turbine/HRSG 18.1 lb/hr.
Stacks.
Payson City Corporation: Payson NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.54 tpd.
City Power.
Provo City Power: Power Plant...... NOX................... All engines combined.. 2.45 tpd.
Springville City Corporation: NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.68 tpd.
Whitehead Power Plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NOX limit for Unit #1 is 95 ppm (9.55 lb/hr) until it operates for more than 300 hours during a rolling 12-month period, then the limit will be
36 ppm (5.44 lb/hr). This will be accomplished through the installation of low NOX burners with Flue Gas Recirculation.
\7\ The NOX limit for Units #4 and #6 is 127 ppm (38.5 lb/hr) until December 31, 2018, at which time the limit will then be 36 ppm (19.2 lb/hr).
4. Subsection IX.H.4. Interim Emission Limits and Operating
Practices. R307-110-17 Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. This section establishes interim
emission limits for sources whose new emission limits under Subsections
IX.H.2 and 3 are based on controls that are not currently installed,
with the provision that all necessary controls needed to meet the
emission limits under Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be installed
by January 1, 2019. A summary of the proposed interim emission limits
is outlined in Table 5 below.
Table 5--Proposed Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration based Alternative emission
Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big West Oil....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.377 tpd Oct 1-March
31.
0.407 tpd April 1-
Sept 30.
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2.764 tpd Oct 1-March
31.
3.639 tpd April 1-
Sept 30.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.027 tpd Oct 1-Mar
31.
1.145 tpd Apr 1-Sep
30.
Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.234 tpd.
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.5 tpd.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.52 tpd.
Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.44 tpd.
Company.
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 4.714 tpd.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.20 tpd.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.261 tpd.
Company.
SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.699 tpd Nov 1-Feb
28/29.
4.374 tpd Mar 1-Oct
31.
NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.988 tpd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32293]]
IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be
adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not
interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section
R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4, submitted January 4, 2016, and
January 19, 2017 are intended to strengthen the SIP. Therefore, CAA
section 110(l) requirements are satisfied.
Specifically, the proposed emission limits for the retained sources
in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area will result in a reduction
of PM10, SO2, and NOX emissions by
10.64 tpd, 12.87 tpd and 29.97 tpd, respectively, when compared to the
limits established in the original PM10 SIP. Given the large
net decrease in emissions from the retained major stationary sources in
the Salt Lake County nonattainment area, the proposed action will
enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
The proposed emissions from Geneva Nitrogen, Provo City Power
Plant, and the Springville City Corporation--Whitehead Power Plant are
consistent with the 2002 SIP revisions for Utah County. Additionally,
this proposed action adds three sources--BYU, Payson City Power and
PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. Both BYU and Payson City
Power have been in existence since the original 1994 SIP, and BYU was
initially included as a source in the original 1994 SIP, but was
removed in 2002. The inclusion of these two sources do not reflect an
increase in emissions into the Utah County nonattainment area airshed,
but rather reflect a change in the approach of how stationary sources
are included into the SIP. PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant is
also being added into the SIP, but its addition does not reflect an
emissions increase to the nonattainment area because the facility was
required to use offsetting emissions, largely made available through
the closure of the Geneva Steel facility. The closing of Geneva Steel
resulted in the removal of approximately 1,700 tpy PM10,
1,400 tpy SO2, and 4,200 tpy NOX from the Utah
County airshed. These emission reductions were banked and made
available for purchase for future major source construction and
modifications. In order to construct the Lakeside Power Plant, banked
emission credits were purchased and used at an offset ratio of 1.2:1
(e.g. For every 1.0 tpy of emissions allowed at the Lakeside Power
Plant, 1.2 tpy of banked emission credits must be spent from the Utah
emissions credit offset registry.). In total the Lakeside Power Plant
utilized banked emission credits for PM10, SO2,
and NOX in the amounts of 257 tpy, 66 tpy, and 337 tpy,
respectively. Given the offset ratio required for the construction of
the Lakeside Power Plant, the inclusion of this source into the SIP
does not result in any emissions increase to the Utah County airshed,
and actually reflects a net decrease from the 2002 SIP. As a result of
the decreased emissions from the closure of the Geneva Steel facility,
and the offsetting ratio required to construct the Lake Side Power
Plant, the proposed revision to the Utah County PM10 SIP
will enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
V. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
The EPA is proposing approval and requesting public comment on
revisions to Administrative Rule R307-110-17 and revisions to
Subsection IX.H.1-4 as submitted by the State of Utah on January 4,
2016, and January 19, 2017. These revisions establish emissions
limitations and related requirements for certain stationary sources of
PM10, NOX and SO2, and will therefore
serve to continue progress towards attainment and maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS in the nonattainment areas. The proposed
revisions reflect more stringent emission levels for total emissions of
PM10, SO2, and NOX for each of the
affected facilities, as well as updates the inventory of major
stationary sources to accurately reflect the current sources in both
the Salt Lake County and Utah County nonattainment areas (e.g.,
removing sources which no longer exist, or are now covered under an
area source rule). The updated list of sources and revised emission
limits for the major stationary sources in the two nonattainment areas
will serve to enhance both area's ability to attain or maintain the
NAAQS.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the DAQ PM10 SIP revisions as discussed in section
III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or
at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide 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).
[[Page 32294]]
In addition, the SIP is not approved to 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 proposed 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, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 30, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-14748 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
