Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 42738-42746 [2017-19210]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
42738
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(i) A notice embodied in the copies in
machine-readable form in such a
manner that on visually perceptible
printouts it appears either with or near
the title, or at the end of the work;
(ii) A notice that is displayed at the
user’s terminal at sign on;
(iii) A notice that is continuously on
terminal display; or
(iv) A legible notice reproduced
durably, so as to withstand normal use,
on a gummed or other label securely
affixed to the copies or to a box, reel,
cartridge, cassette, or other container
used as a permanent receptacle for the
copies.
(8) Motion pictures and other
audiovisual works. (i) The following
constitute examples of acceptable
methods of affixation and positions of
the copyright notice on motion pictures
and other audiovisual works: A notice
that is embodied in the copies by a
photomechanical or electronic process,
in such a position that it ordinarily
would appear whenever the work is
performed in its entirety, and that is
located:
(A) With or near the title;
(B) With the cast, credits, and similar
information;
(C) At or immediately following the
beginning of the work; or
(D) At or immediately preceding the
end of the work.
(ii) In the case of an untitled motion
picture or other audiovisual work whose
duration is sixty seconds or less, in
addition to any of the locations listed in
paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a
notice that is embodied in the copies by
a photomechanical or electronic
process, in such a position that it
ordinarily would appear to the
projectionist or broadcaster when
preparing the work for performance, is
acceptable if it is located on the leader
of the film or tape immediately
preceding the beginning of the work.
(iii) In the case of a motion picture or
other audiovisual work that is
distributed to the public for private use,
the notice may be affixed, in addition to
the locations specified in paragraph
(c)(8)(i) of this section, on the housing
or container, if it is a permanent
receptacle for the work.
(9) Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural
works. The following constitute
examples of acceptable methods of
affixation and positions of the copyright
notice on various forms of pictorial,
graphic, and sculptural works:
(i) Where a work is reproduced in
two-dimensional copies, a notice affixed
directly or by means of a label
cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached
durably, so as to withstand normal use,
of the front or back of the copies, or to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
any backing, mounting, matting,
framing, or other material to which the
copies are durably attached, so as to
withstand normal use, or in which they
are permanently housed, is acceptable.
(ii) Where a work is reproduced in
three-dimensional copies, a notice
affixed directly or by means of a label
cemented, sewn, or otherwise attached
durably, so as to withstand normal use,
to any visible portion of the work, or to
any base, mounting, framing, or other
material on which the copies are
durably attached, so as to withstand
normal use, or in which they are
permanently housed, is acceptable.
(iii) Where, because of the size or
physical characteristics of the material
in which the work is reproduced in
copies, it is impossible or extremely
impracticable to affix a notice to the
copies directly or by means of a durable
label, a notice is acceptable if it appears
on a tag that is of durable material, so
as to withstand normal use, and that is
attached to the copy with sufficient
durability that it will remain with the
copy while it is passing through its
normal channels of commerce.
(iv) Where a work is reproduced in
copies consisting of sheet-like or strip
material bearing multiple or continuous
reproductions of the work, the notice
may be applied:
(A) To the reproduction itself;
(B) To the margin, selvage, or reverse
side of the material at frequent and
regular intervals; or
(C) If the material contains neither a
selvage nor a reverse side, to tags or
labels, attached to the copies and to any
spools, reels, or containers housing
them in such a way that a notice is
visible while the copies are passing
through their normal channels of
commerce.
(v) If the work is permanently housed
in a container, such as a game or puzzle
box, a notice reproduced on the
permanent container is acceptable.
§ 202.6
[Amended]
5. In § 202.6(e)(1), remove ‘‘SE., an
unpublished collection or’’ and add in
its place ‘‘SE., an unpublished
collection, or’’.
■
Dated: August 14, 2017.
Karyn Temple Claggett,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director
of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Approved by:
Carla Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2017–19285 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062; FRL–9967–62–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Regional Haze Federal
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing
regional haze in the State of Montana.
The EPA promulgated a FIP on
September 18, 2012, in response to the
State’s decision in 2006 to not submit a
regional haze State Implementation Plan
(SIP). We proposed revisions to that FIP
on April 14, 2017, and are now
finalizing those revisions. Specifically,
the EPA is finalizing revisions to the
FIP’s requirement for best available
retrofit technology (BART) for the
Trident cement kiln owned and
operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement
Holdings, Inc. (Oldcastle), located in
Three Forks, Montana. In response to a
request from Oldcastle, and in light of
new information that was not available
at the time we originally promulgated
the FIP, we are revising the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) emission limit for the
Trident cement kiln. We are also
correcting errors we made in our FIP
regarding the reasonable progress
determination for the Blaine County #1
Compressor Station and the instructions
for compliance determinations for
particulate matter (PM) BART emission
limits at electrical generating units
(EGUs) and cement kilns. This action
does not address the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s June 9,
2015 vacatur and remand of portions of
the FIP regarding the Colstrip and
Corette power plants; we plan to
address the court’s remand in a separate
action.
DATES: This rule is effective October 12,
2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012
Montana FIP
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
I. Proposed Action
On September 18, 2012, the EPA
promulgated a FIP that included a NOX
BART emission limit for the Holcim
(US), Inc., Trident cement kiln located
in Three Forks, Montana.1 2 On April 14,
2017, the EPA proposed to revise the
2012 FIP with respect to the BART
emission limit for the Trident cement
kiln.3 Specifically, in response to newly
available information regarding the
efficiency of controls we determined in
our 2012 FIP to be BART, the EPA
proposed to revise the NOX emission
limit from 6.5 lb/ton clinker to 7.6 lb/
ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling
averages). The EPA also proposed to
correct errors we made in our FIP
regarding the reasonable progress
determination for the Blaine County #1
Compressor Station and in the
instructions for compliance
determinations for PM BART emission
limits at EGUs and cement kilns. The
proposed correction to our erroneous
reasonable progress determination for
the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station would result in the source no
1 Oldcastle
Materials Cement Holdings, Inc.,
(Oldcastle) is the current owner and operator of the
Trident cement kiln.
2 77 FR 57864.
3 82 FR 17948.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
longer being subject to reasonable
progress requirements and would thus
remove the NOX emission limit of 21.8
lbs NOX/hr (average of three stack test
runs). The proposed correction to the
PM compliance determination
instructions would include regulatory
text that was inadvertently left out of
the September 18, 2012 final rule and
would allow sources to retain the PM
stack testing schedule already
established under state permits. The
EPA proposed to revise the specific
portions of Montana’s regional haze FIP
under our general rulemaking and CAAspecific authorities, as appropriate. See
5 U.S.C. 551(5); 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1),
7410(c)(1), 7410(k)(6). We did not
address the Ninth Circuit’s June 9, 2015
vacatur and remand of unrelated
portions of the FIP in this action and
plan to address the court’s remand in a
separate action.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
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, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 4 On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.5 These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. The EPA deferred
action on regional haze that emanates
from a variety of sources until
4 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as
mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national
parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and
all international parks that were in existence on
August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance
with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply
only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility
of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section,
we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
5 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42739
monitoring, modeling and scientific
knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.6
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised
the existing visibility regulations to
integrate provisions addressing regional
haze and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–51.309. The EPA revised
the RHR on January 10, 2017.7
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.8 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. A
state must submit its SIP and SIP
revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the
EPA and citizens under the CAA; that
is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a
state elects not to make a required SIP
submittal, fails to make a required SIP
submittal or if we find that a state’s
required submittal is incomplete or not
approvable, then we must promulgate a
FIP to fill this regulatory gap.9 Montana
is on the path towards a regional haze
SIP and is working closely with the
Region to replace all or portions of the
FIP as soon as practicable.
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states, or the EPA if developing a FIP,
to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires states’ implementation
plans to contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the
states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA.
Under the RHR, states or the EPA are
6 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart P).
7 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
8 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA
sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B.
9 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
42740
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published
the Guidelines for BART Determinations
under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states and
the EPA in determining which sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and the appropriate
emission limits for each applicable
source.10 The process of establishing
BART emission limitations follows
three steps: First, identify the sources
that meet the definition of ‘‘BARTeligible source’’ set forth in 40 CFR
51.301; 11 second, determine which of
these sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, identify the best
available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7)
of the CAA requires that states, or the
EPA if developing a FIP, must consider
the following five factors in making
BART determinations: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States or the
EPA must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
NOX, and PM.
A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze
must include source-specific BART
emission limits and compliance
schedules for each source subject to
BART. Once a state or the EPA has
made a BART determination, the BART
controls must be installed and operated
as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of the
EPA’s approval of the final SIP or the
date of the EPA’s promulgation of the
10 70
FR 39104.
11 BART-eligible
sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
FIP.12 In addition to what is required by
the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP or FIP include all
regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART emission
limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40
CFR part 51, subpart K.
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as
mentioned previously each regional
haze SIP or FIP must contain measures
as necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goals. As part of determining what
measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, the SIP or FIP must
first identify anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment that are to be
considered in developing the long-term
strategy for addressing visibility
impairment.13 States or the EPA must
then consider the four statutory
reasonable progress factors in selecting
control measures for inclusion in the
long-term strategy—the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful
life of potentially affected sources. See
CAA section 169A(g)(1) (defining the
reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Finally, the SIP or
FIP must establish reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within
the state for the plan implementation
period (or ‘‘planning period’’), based on
the measures included in the long-term
strategy.14 If a RPG provides for a slower
rate of improvement in visibility than
the rate needed to attain the national
goal by 2064, the SIP or FIP must
demonstrate, based on the four
reasonable progress factors, why the rate
to attain the national goal by 2064 is not
reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.15
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state, or the
EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a
gap in the SIP with respect to this
requirement, consult with FLMs before
adopting and submitting a required SIP
or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP
revision.16 Further, the EPA must
include in its proposed FIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a FIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
12 CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
13 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
14 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
15 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
16 40 CFR 51.308(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA and FLMs regarding the EPA’s FIP,
visibility protection program, including
development and review of FIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the
2012 Montana FIP
On September 18, 2012, the EPA
promulgated a FIP to address Montana’s
regional haze obligations that included
BART emission limits for two power
plants and two cement kilns, and an
emission limit for a natural gas
compressor station based on reasonable
progress requirements.17 The EPA took
this action because Montana decided
not to submit a regional haze SIP,
knowing that as a result the EPA would
be required to promulgate a FIP.18 The
BART emission limits for the two
cement kilns and the reasonable
progress requirements for the
compressor station addressed in this
action were not at issue in the petitions
filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.19 The EPA plans to address the
court’s remand in a separate action.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
Our proposed action provided a 45day public comment period and an
opportunity to request a public hearing.
During this period, we received eight
comments from the following four
commenters: NorthWestern Energy
(NorthWestern),20 Montana Department
of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) 21
Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings
(Oldcastle; through Bison Engineering,
Inc.),22 and an anonymous public
comment. We did not receive a request
to hold a public hearing. The comments
17 77
FR 57864.
from Richard H. Opper, Director,
Montana Department of Environmental Quality to
Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air Program, June
19, 2006.
19 Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to review the EPA’s NOX and SO2
BART determinations at the power plants, Colstrip
and Corette (PPL Montana, LLC, the National Parks
Conservation Association, Montana Environmental
Information Center, and the Sierra Club). The court
vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission limits at
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette and remanded
those portions of the FIP back to the EPA for further
proceedings. National Parks Conservation
Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
20 Letter dated May 12, 2017, from Elizabeth
Stimatz to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–
0062.
21 Letter dated May 30, 2017, from David L.
Klemp to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–
0062.
22 Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M.
Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc, on behalf of
Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to EPA,
Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation.
18 Letter
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
discussed portions of the proposal
regarding the Trident cement kiln and
Blaine County #1 Compressor station;
we did not receive any comments on
our proposed correction for PM
compliance determinations for EGUs
and cement kilns.
Comment: NorthWestern agreed with
us that the Q/D ratio used to determine
that the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station was subject to reasonable
progress requirements, where ‘‘Q’’
represents actual NOX + SO2 emissions
in tons per year (tpy) and ‘‘D’’
represents the distance in kilometers
from the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station to the nearest Class I area, was
incorrect as published in our 2012 final
rule. Specifically, Northwestern agrees
that ‘‘D’’ should be 133 kilometers
instead of 107 kilometers, and that the
revised Q/D ratio would be below the
threshold for further evaluation for
reasonable progress controls. As such,
explained NorthWestern, it is only
appropriate that the reasonable progress
requirement of a NOX emission limit of
21.8 lb/hr (average of three stack test
runs) as well as the corresponding
compliance date, test method,
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for the Blaine
County #1 Compressor Station be
removed from the FIP. Additionally,
NorthWestern contends that NOX + SO2,
or ‘‘Q’’, should be 745 tpy instead of
1,155 tpy with acknowledgement that
this revision may not affect the EPA’s
determination that the Blaine County #1
Compressor Station should be removed
from the reasonable progress emission
limit.
Response: We acknowledge
NorthWestern’s support for our
correction to ‘‘D’’ in the Q/D ratio for
the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station that would effectively remove
the source from reasonable progress
NOX requirements for the first
implementation period of the RHR. We
also agree with NorthWestern that a
revision to ‘‘Q’’ from 1,155 tpy to 745
tpy will not affect our determination
that the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station should be removed from the
reasonable progress limit; therefore, we
are not addressing the issue of whether
‘‘Q’’ should be 745 tpy, as opposed to
1,155 tpy.
Comment: An anonymous commenter
stated that the use of Q/D to measure the
emissions of NOX and SO2 is efficient;
however, ‘‘D’’ can be calculated
mistakenly which could ultimately
affect the decision-making related to
further investigation or evaluation.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s assertions that using an
incorrect distance (D) can adversely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
impact decision making concerning
further evaluation of a source.
Comment: MT DEQ expressed support
for our proposal to amend the FIP before
the compliance dates for the two
affected facilities and appreciated our
consideration of input from regulated
facilities in Montana. MT DEQ also
noted that they are working closely with
EPA staff to submit a regional haze SIP
as soon as practicable.
Response: We acknowledge MT DEQ’s
support for our action and will continue
working with MT DEQ as they develop
a regional haze SIP.
Comment: Oldcastle advocated a
BART emission limit of 8.3 lb NOX/ton
clinker for the Trident kiln, as opposed
to the limit proposed by the EPA of 7.6
lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling
averages). Oldcastle derived their
proposed emission limit from a
projected control efficiency of 40%
when applied to a baseline emission
rate of 13.9 lb/ton clinker (that is, 13.9
lb/ton clinker × [1 ¥ 40/100] = 8.3 lb/
ton clinker).
Response: We maintain that the
appropriate BART emission limit for the
Trident kiln is 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker.
In comparison to Oldcastle, we derived
our proposed emission limit from the
same projected control efficiency of
40%, but applied the control efficiency
to a lower baseline emission rate of 12.6
lb/ton clinker (that is, 12.6 lb/ton
clinker × [1 ¥ 40/100] = 7.6 lb/ton
clinker). Therefore, the proposed
emission limits differ only because of
the different baseline emission rates
used to calculate them. We address the
question of the baseline emission rate in
a separate response.
The proposed emission limit for the
Trident kiln of 7.6 lb/ton clinker is
nearly equal to that for the Ash Grove
Montana City kiln of 7.5 lb/ton clinker
established through a control
technology demonstration.23 The
Montana City kiln is of the same general
design (long wet kiln) as the Trident
kiln, operates in a similar environment,
and is a direct competitor in the
regional cement market. While the
ultimate emission limit for the Montana
City kiln was set through a control
technology demonstration, rather than a
BART determination, it is a reflection of
the level of NOX control that is feasible
with SNCR.24 Moreover, as discussed in
a later response, the two kilns have
similar baseline emissions. Accordingly,
we find that it is reasonable to expect a
23 EPA letter to Ash Grove Cement Co., December
29, 2016.
24 Prior to the control technology demonstration,
the EPA established a NOX BART emission limit of
8.0 lb/ton clinker for the Montana City kiln.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42741
similar level of controlled NOX
emissions from the Trident kiln when
equipped with SNCR.
As stated in our proposed rule, it is
challenging to predict the performance
of SNCR for long cement kilns. For this
reason, in the proposed rule, the EPA
invited comment on whether, in place
of the BART emission limit of 7.6 lb
NOX/ton clinker, the emission limit for
the Trident kiln should be established
through a control technology
demonstration in a manner similar to
that required by consent decrees for the
Ash Grove Montana City kiln and other
long kilns. Such an approach would
have served to demonstrate with some
clarity the NOX emission limit for the
Trident kiln. As discussed in a later
response, Oldcastle strongly felt that a
requirement to use this approach was
unnecessary. In the absence of support
for a control technology demonstration
from Oldcastle, or from other
commenters, and for reasons stated
elsewhere in response to comments, the
EPA is finalizing an emission limit of
7.6 lb/ton clinker.
Comment: Oldcastle agreed with the
EPA’s assessment in the proposed rule
that SNCR is theoretically capable of
reducing NOX emissions from a long
wet cement kiln by 40% on average.
Oldcastle also recognized that the EPA
largely based this assumption on the
performance of SNCR demonstrated at
the long wet kiln located at the Ash
Grove Montana City facility.
Response: The 40% reduction is a
demonstrated, rather than theoretical,
control effectiveness for SNCR when
applied to long cement kilns. As
acknowledged by the commenter, this
level of control was demonstrated at the
Montana City long wet kiln in
association with a control technology
demonstration.
Moreover, in arriving at an assumed
control effectiveness of 40%, the EPA’s
conclusions were not strictly based on
the performance of SNCR at the
Montana City kiln. As explained in the
proposal, we also re-evaluated the
performance of SNCR at the three Ash
Grove long wet kilns in Midlothian,
Texas, that served as the basis for the
emission limit for Trident in our 2012
final rule. In addition, we reviewed the
performance of SNCR at several LaFarge
kilns subject to control technology
demonstrations. The EPA’s evaluation
of the control effectiveness of SNCR
when applied to long cement kilns is
further discussed in the Technical
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
42742
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Support Document (TSD) associated
with this rulemaking.25
Comment: Oldcastle disagreed with
the baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton
clinker (as the 99th percentile 30-day
rolling average) that, after a 40% NOX
reduction with SNCR, the EPA used to
calculate the proposed emission limit of
7.6 lb/ton clinker. Oldcastle stated that
the appropriate baseline emission rate is
13.9 lb/ton clinker, reflecting a period
during late 2012 during which optimal
conditions were disrupted by ash ring
build-up on the interior wall of the kiln,
leading to elevated NOX emissions.
Oldcastle also disagreed with the EPA’s
characterization of operations during
late 2012 as resulting from ‘‘exceptional
circumstances’’ that should be excluded
from the calculation of baseline
emissions, and with the EPA’s
statements in the proposed rule that
such conditions could be avoided by
proper kiln operation and maintenance.
Oldcastle stated that ash rings are part
of normal long-term operations and
occur approximately twice every year.
Finally, in response to the EPA’s
statements in the proposal that a
violation of the emission limit could be
prevented by shutting down the kiln to
remove ash rings, Oldcastle commented
that multiple factors (e.g., such as harm
to the kiln, baghouse, and other
equipment) must be considered before
performing an unplanned shutdown.
Oldcastle commented that if elevated
NOX emissions do occur as the result of
ash ring build-up, an unplanned shut
down could be required purely to
ensure compliance with the emission
limit.
Response: We disagree that the
appropriate baseline emission rate for
the purpose of calculating the NOX
emission limit should be 13.9 lb/ton
clinker. In our proposed rule, we
explained the reasons for retaining the
baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton
from the 2012 rule.26 27 Much of that
explanation was in response to a letter
submitted by Oldcastle (through Bison
Engineering) and dated February 13,
2017, that among other things addressed
the baseline emission rate. Oldcastle’s
comments on the proposed rule largely
repeat points made in their February 13,
2017 letter, and do not present new
information that the EPA did not
address in the proposed rule, or that
would lead the EPA to choose a
different baseline emission rate (and
thereby a different emission limit). As
such, in responding to Oldcastle’s
comments here, we repeat much of the
discussion from our proposed rule.
In order to determine a representative
baseline NOX emissions rate for the
Trident kiln, the EPA reviewed nine
years of actual emissions data (2008–
2016, as the 99th percentile 30-day
rolling average).28 This expanded on the
period of actual emissions data used to
set the baseline in the 2012 rule, which
was limited to 2008–2011.
The EPA recognizes that ash rings are
part of normal long-term operations for
long kilns, and thus the BART emission
limit should, generally speaking, allow
operation of a kiln while a typical ash
ring is present, provided that the SNCR
system is reducing emissions during the
ash ring event as much as it reasonably
can. Accordingly, the EPA has
considered the ash ring issue when
establishing the single value of the
baseline emission rate upon which the
BART emission limit is based.
The original emissions baseline
period of 2008–2011 used in the 2012
FIP, together with the emissions for
2013 through 2016, yield eight years of
emissions data in support of the 12.6 lb/
ton clinker baseline used by the EPA.29
Assuming, as asserted by Oldcastle, that
ash rings occur approximately twice per
year, some 16 ash ring events can be
statistically expected to have occurred
during this eight-year period.
From the set of approximately 2,400
values for 30-day average emission
during the eight-year period,30 the EPA
has chosen the 99th percentile value,
12.6 lb/ton clinker, as the baseline
emission rate for setting the BART
emission limit (by reducing this value
by 40%). We believe this is a reasonable
choice in that it will mean that for most
ash ring events compliance with the
BART emissions limit would not
necessitate removing the ash ring earlier
than when the kiln operators have seen
fit to remove similar ash rings during
the eight years of operation of the kiln.
Oldcastle is arguing that the baseline
emission rate should instead be set at
13.9 lb/ton of clinker. Notably, there
were about 29 30-day average emission
values above 13.9 lb/ton during the
28 See
25 Refer
to Technical Support Document—
Oldcastle Trident Federal Implementation Plan
Revision, March 8, 2017 (‘‘TSD for Oldcastle’’; EPA
docket ID EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062–0042).
26 The original source of the 12.6 lb/ton clinker
was a submittal from the previous owner of the
Trident facility, Holcim, Inc. See footnote 93 in
2012 proposed rule at 77 FR 24019.
27 See proposed rule at 82 FR 17953/4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
TSD for Oldcastle, pages 8–10.
baseline periods of 2008–2011 and 2013–
2016 yield an identical baseline emission rate of
12.6 lb/ton clinker (as the 99th percentile 30-day
rolling average). Data for 2012, while reviewed, was
not included in the calculation of the baseline due
to the unusually elevated NOX emissions that
occurred late in that year.
30 Does not include days when the kiln was not
operated.
29 The
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2012 ash ring event. Under both the
emission limit we proposed and the
emission limit favored by Oldcastle, if
an ash ring similar to the 2012 event
were to occur in the future, the BART
emission limit could not be met merely
by achieving 40% emission reductions
via SNCR. Thus, Oldcastle and we agree
that not every ash ring event must be
accommodated by the BART emission
limit, and Oldcastle and we agree that
Oldcastle should be expected to
intervene, differently than the kiln
operator actually did in 2012, if an
event like the one that occurred in 2012
occurs again (while also applying
SNCR). Where Oldcastle and we
disagree is that Oldcastle favors a higher
BART limit that would allow Oldcastle
to take no action, which is different
from the operator’s past ash ringcorrecting practices with respect to ash
ring events that have more moderate
effects on emissions than the 2012 ash
ring event. While we do not have clear
evidence of whether and when such
more moderate ash rings events have
occurred in the past and what effects
they had on NOX emissions, it
reasonable to predict that in the future
there may be events for which our
proposed emission limit would require
corrective action (beyond the
application of SNCR) that is different
than the operator’s ash ring-correcting
practices of the past, while the emission
limit favored by Oldcastle would not
require this. The considerations on how
to respond to Oldcastle’s comments on
this issue are discussed in more detail
in the paragraphs that follow.
The representativeness of the baseline
NOX emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton clinker
used for setting the emission limit at the
Trident kiln is supported by the nearly
identical emissions observed at the
Montana City kiln in association with
the control technology demonstration.
During the baseline collection period for
the Montana City kiln, between March
and August 2014, the 99th percentile
30-day rolling average emission rate
without SNCR applied was 12.8 lb NOX/
ton clinker.31 Though this represents a
shorter baseline period than that
considered for Trident, it reinforces that
the two kilns should be subject to
similar emission limits after being
equipped with SNCR. By contrast, using
the higher baseline emission rate of 13.9
lb/ton clinker for Trident would result
in a relatively large difference between
the emission limits—7. 5 lb/ton clinker
31 See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Summary of Ash Grove
Montana City Control Technology Demonstration
Data.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA.
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
for Montana City, and 8.3 lb/ton clinker
for Trident.
Moreover, if the EPA were to use the
higher baseline emission rate of 13.9 lb/
ton clinker (again yielding an emission
limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker at a 40%
reduction with SNCR), then the
emission limit would be overly lenient
during periods of otherwise normal kiln
operation, and the SNCR could be
operated at efficiencies well below the
demonstrated level of control
effectiveness. That is, when baseline
emissions are at otherwise normal
levels, the control effectiveness of the
SNCR could be reduced below the level
at which it is capable of performing by
reducing the amount of reagent injected
into the kiln, while still meeting the
emission limit. For example, consider if
SNCR had been operated in 2016, the
last full year for which emissions data
is available, where the uncontrolled 30day rolling average emissions ranged
from 8.9 to 12.6 lb/ton clinker, with an
average of 10.4 lb/ton clinker.32 At an
emission limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker
(corresponding to a 13.9 lb/ton clinker
baseline), and depending on the 30-day
period, the SNCR could have been
operated at a control efficiency of 6.7%
to 34.1%, and at an average of only
20.5%. Indeed, for long periods, the
SNCR could have been operated well
below the 40% reduction that the EPA
has concluded, and Oldcastle has
agreed, SNCR can achieve. Though this
opportunity to operate the SNCR system
at a lesser level of effectiveness would
also occur at the proposed emission
limit of 7.6 lb/ton, it would occur less
frequently and the effect would be much
less pronounced, yet the proposed
emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton still allows
for normal variation in uncontrolled
NOX emissions (to include emissions
variation due to ash ring formation). In
essence, allowing for the higher baseline
advocated by the commenter would
unnecessarily undermine the basic
intent of the BART controls: To lower
emissions that impact visibility using
the best available control technology.
In conclusion, the EPA’s thorough
consideration of nine years of actual
emissions data and the application of a
40% reduction to the 99th percentile
value of the historical set of 30-day
average emission values, leads to an
appropriate BART emission limit for the
Trident kiln.
Comment: Oldcastle stated that the
EPA’s proposed BART determination of
7.6 lb/ton clinker did not address
32 See spreadsheet titled ‘‘Oldcastle Trident NO
X
emissions 2008 through 2016 with additions by
EPA.xlsx,’’ March 8, 2017, prepared by the EPA
(EPA docket ID EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0062–0039).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
control costs or visibility improvement.
They commented that, based on their
updated analysis,33 the costs associated
with the emission limit are not justified
by the visibility benefits.
Response: We disagree with the
implication that it was necessary to reweigh the costs and visibility benefits of
SNCR in this action, which was not a
new or updated control technology
determination but rather a revision to
how the EPA calculated the ultimate
emission limit given the technology
selected pursuant to our previous fivefactor analysis. See 82 FR 17948, 17951.
The BART Guidelines provide that
states or the EPA, when evaluating
technically feasible technologies
pursuant to a five-factor analysis,
perform the analysis ‘‘tak[ing] into
account the most stringent emission
control level that the technology is
capable of achieving.’’ 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, IV.D.1. The Guidelines
further state that the control
effectiveness of a technology should be
informed by, among other things, recent
regulatory decisions, engineering
estimates, and the experience of other
sources. Id. The EPA determined in
2012 that BART is based on SNCR with
a 50% control effectiveness for the
Trident kiln, see 77 FR 57864, 57882.
No party requested judicial review of
that determination. However, since the
time of our 2012 rule, sources and the
EPA have gained further experience
related to using SNCR to control NOX
from long wet kilns; and additional data
and experience indicate that the most
stringent level of emission control
possible under these circumstances may
not be 50%, as previously assumed.
However, as Oldcastle assured the EPA
when they first approached us to
request a revised NOX emission limit for
the Trident kiln in May 2016 and
throughout the process of revising the
emission limit, they are committed to
installing and operating SNCR on the
kiln.34 Most recently, Oldcastle restated
their commitment to doing so in
comments on the proposed rule.35 For
this reason, and as we stated in the
proposed rule, the EPA did not find it
necessary or appropriate to revisit the
selection of SNCR as the BART control
33 Oldcastle is referring to submittals to the EPA
that were cited in the proposed rule. See footnote
22 at 82 FR 17952. These submittals can be found
in the docket.
34 See, e.g., Letter dated Sept. 30, 2016, from
Kevin M. Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc. on
behalf of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to
EPA, Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, pages
2, 6, 19.
35 Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M.
Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc, on behalf of
Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings to EPA,
Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, page 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42743
technology was determined in the 2012
rule.
Additionally, given that Oldcastle has
committed to the most effective control
technology for long kilns, SNCR, and in
fact had largely completed construction
by the time we published the proposed
rule in April 2017, there would be little
merit in retrospectively assessing less
effective control technologies in an
updated five-factor BART analysis. The
BART Guidelines reflect that it is
reasonable, if a source has already
committed to a BART determination
that consists of the most stringent
controls available, to forgo completing
the remaining analyses pursuant to a
BART determination. 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, IV.D.1. Oldcastle has
communicated to the EPA that it is
committed to installing and operating
SNCR on the Trident kiln. Therefore,
consistent with the reasoning of the
BART Guidelines, we found that it is
not necessary in this instance to revisit
the cost effectiveness and visibility
benefits associated with SNCR, and
instead as explained in our proposal,
constrained this FIP revision to
considering only the appropriate control
effectiveness associated with that
control technology.
Because Oldcastle has committed to
installing SNCR as the BART control, it
is only the emission limit that is in
dispute. However, even if we had
revisited the full five-factor BART
analysis in this action, it is very likely
we would have arrived at the same
emission limit we are finalizing today.
The 2012 rule established an emission
limit of 6.5 lb/ton clinker, while we
have proposed 7.6 lb/ton clinker, and
Oldcastle advocates for 8.3 lb/ton
clinker. Note that compliance with a
more stringent emission limit requires
that more reagent be injected into the
kiln to reduce NOX than for a less
stringent emission limit, thereby
increasing Oldcastle’s annual costs to
operate the SNCR. Though annual costs
would increase with a more stringent
emission limit, NOX reductions can
generally be expected to increase in
proportion to those costs. An exception
is if the amount of reagent injected is
increased to the point that it is no longer
effective at reducing NOX and leads to
excessive ammonia slip (that is, wasted
reagent). However, as demonstrated at
the Montana City kiln, a 40% reduction
in NOX, which serves as the basis for
Trident’s emission limit, can be
achieved at acceptable levels of
ammonia slip.36 Therefore, the cost
effectiveness of SNCR, when calculated
as the costs per ton of pollutant
36 Refer
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
to proposed rule at 71 FR 17953.
12SER1
42744
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
removed (i.e., $/ton) in accordance with
the BART Guidelines,37 would be
roughly the same at any of the three
emission limits under consideration.38
Further, due to the increase in NOX
reductions, greater visibility benefits
would be expected to occur as the
emission limit becomes more stringent.
Because the cost effectiveness would
remain roughly constant, while the
visibility benefits would increase, we
see no reason that the SNCR should be
operated below the level of control
effectiveness demonstrated for the
technology (i.e., a 40% NOX reduction).
Therefore, we are finalizing an emission
limit for the Trident kiln consistent with
that level of control: 7.6 lb/ton clinker.
Comment: Oldcastle commented that
they strongly feel that a requirement to
conduct a control technology
demonstration, such as that conducted
for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln
under consent decree, is problematic
and unnecessary. Further, they
commented that if such a control
technology demonstration were to be
conducted, the results would likely be
similar to those for the Montana City
kiln. Finally, Oldcastle stated that a
control technology demonstration
would not address the economic and
operational concerns (e.g., ash rings)
that they also raised in comments.
Response: Because Oldcastle, or other
commenters, have not expressed
support for a control technology
demonstration, and because the results
from the Montana City kiln
demonstration can effectively and
reasonably be applied to the Trident
kiln, we are not requiring such a
demonstration for the Trident kiln.
Instead, we are finalizing an emission
limit of 7.6 lb/ton clinker.
IV. Final Action
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
The EPA is taking final action to
revise portions of the Montana Regional
Haze FIP. Specifically, the EPA is
revising the BART NOX emission limit
in the second line of the table in 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(2) for the Oldcastle Trident
kiln from 6.5 lb NOX/ton clinker to 7.6
lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day rolling
averages).39 We are also making two
corrections: (1) Removing the reasonable
progress NOX emission limit of 21.8 lb/
hr (average of three stack test runs)
37 70
FR 39167.
precisely, the cost effectiveness (as $/ton)
would slightly decrease in value at a more stringent
emission limit because the fixed capital costs would
be distributed over a greater number of tons of NOX
reduced.
39 The table in 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) currently
refers to Holcim (US) Inc. As described later on, the
EPA is also updating this table to reflect the Trident
kiln’s new ownership.
38 More
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
found at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(3) for the
Blaine County #1 Compressor Station,
Engine #1 and #2, including removing
the corresponding compliance date at 40
CFR 52.1396(d), test method (40 CFR
52.1396(e)(5)), testing requirements (40
CFR 52.1396(j)) and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements found at 40 CFR
52.1396(k) from the FIP, and (2) revising
the regulatory text found at 40 CFR
52.1396(f)(1) and (2) related to
compliance determinations for
particulate matter for electrical
generating units and cement kilns.
Finally, we are changing ‘‘Holcim’’
references to ‘‘Oldcastle’’ and ‘‘Trident’’
at 40 CFR 52.1396(a), (c)(2), and (f)(2)(ii)
and replacing the compliance date
timeframes in 40 CFR 52.1396(d) with
the actual compliance dates based on
the effective date of the 2012 FIP.
We find that the revisions will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment,
reasonable progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA,
because the FIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant
reduction in emissions compared to
current levels. Although this revision
will allow an increase in emissions after
October 2017 as compared to the prior
FIP, the FIP as a whole will still result
in overall NOX and SO2 reductions
compared to those currently allowed. In
addition, the areas where the Trident
cement kiln and the Blaine County #1
Compressor Station are located have not
been designated nonattainment for any
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). We also find that we satisfied
the applicable requirements for
coordination and consultation with the
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) because
we described the proposed revisions to
the regional haze FIP with the Forest
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Park Service on
Thursday, March 2, 2017, and sent a
draft of our proposed regional haze FIP
revisions to the Forest Service, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National
Park Service on March 9, 2017.40
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
40 We did not receive any formal comments from
the FLM agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 41 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. This final rule revision applies
to only five facilities in the State of
Montana. It is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
B. Executive Order 13711: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 action because it
is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA).42 Because this final rule
revises the reporting requirements for 4
facilities and removes all requirements
for an additional facility, the PRA does
not apply.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities as no small
entities are subject to the requirements
of this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
revisions to the FIP reduce private
sector expenditures. Additionally, we
do not foresee significant costs (if any)
for state and local governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
41 58
42 44
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
12SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. However, the EPA did
send letters to each of the Montana
tribes explaining our regional haze FIP
revision action and offering
consultation; however, no tribe asked
for consultation.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). The EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
As explained previously, the Montana
Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant
reduction in emissions compared to
current levels.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of particular
applicability.
M. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 13, 2017. Pursuant
to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this section
is subject to the requirements of the
CAA section 307(d) as it promulgates a
FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA
section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
Dated: September 1, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB—Montana
2. Section 52.1396 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(3);
■ d. Revising paragraph (d);
■ e. Removing paragraph (e)(5);
■ f. Revising the heading of paragraph
(f) and paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)
introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii); and
■ g. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(j) and (k).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.1396 Federal implementation plan for
regional haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to each owner and operator of the
following coal-fired electric generating
units (EGUs) in the State of Montana:
PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Power
Plant, Units 1, 2; and PPL Montana,
LLC, JE Corette Steam Electric Station.
This section also applies to each owner
and operator of cement kilns at the
following cement production plants:
Ash Grove Cement, Montana City Plant;
and Oldcastle Materials Cement
Holdings, Inc., Trident Plant. This
section also applies to each owner and
operator of CFAC and M2 Green
Redevelopment LLC, Missoula site.
Note to Paragraph (a): On June 9, 2015, the
NOX and SO2 emission limits for Colstrip
Units 1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by
court order.
*
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) The owners/operators of cement
kilns subject to this section shall not
emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or
NOX in excess of the following
limitations, in pounds per ton of clinker
produced, averaged over a rolling 30day period for SO2 and NOX:
SO2 emission
limit
(lb/ton clinker)
PM emission limit
Ash Grove, Montana City ........
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
Source name
If the process weight rate of the kiln is less than or equal to 30 tons per
hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using E = 4.10p0.67 where
E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and p = process weight rate in
tons per hour; however, if the process weight rate of the kiln is greater
than 30 tons per hour, then the emission limit shall be calculated using E
= 55.0p0.11¥40, where E = rate of emission in pounds per hour and P =
process weight rate in tons per hour..
0.77 lb/ton clinker ..............................................................................................
Oldcastle, Trident .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42745
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
NOX emission
limit
(lb/ton clinker)
11.5
8.0
1.3
7.6
42746
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Compliance date. The owners and
operators of the BART sources subject to
this section shall comply with the
emission limitations and other
requirements of this section as follows,
unless otherwise indicated in specific
paragraphs: Compliance with PM
emission limits is required by November
17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and
NOX emission limits is required by
April 16, 2013, unless installation of
additional emission controls is
necessary to comply with emission
limitations under this rule, in which
case compliance is required by October
18, 2017.
Note to Paragraph (d): On June 9, 2015, the
NOX and SO2 emission limits, and thereby
compliance dates, for Colstrip Units 1 and 2
and Corette were vacated by court order.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES1
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Compliance determinations for
particulate matter—(1) EGU particulate
matter BART emission limits.
Compliance with the particulate matter
BART emission limits for each EGU
BART unit shall be determined by the
owner/operator from annual
performance stack tests. Within 60 days
of the compliance deadline specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, and on at
least an annual basis thereafter, the
owner/operator of each unit shall
conduct a stack test on each unit to
measure the particulate emissions using
EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as
appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. A test shall consist of three
runs, with each run at least 120 minutes
in duration and each run collecting a
minimum sample of 60 dry standard
cubic feet. Results shall be reported by
the owner/operator in lb/MMBtu. The
results from a stack test meeting the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(1) that
was completed within 12 months prior
to the compliance deadline can be used
in lieu of the first stack test required. If
this option is chosen, then the next
annual stack test shall be due no more
than 12 months after the stack test that
was used. In addition to annual stack
tests, owner/operator shall monitor
particulate emissions for compliance
with the BART emission limits in
accordance with the applicable
Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM) plan developed and approved in
accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
(2) Cement kiln particulate matter
BART emission limits. Compliance with
the particulate matter BART emission
limits for each cement kiln shall be
determined by the owner/operator from
annual performance stack tests. Within
60 days of the compliance deadline
specified in paragraph (d) of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:01 Sep 11, 2017
Jkt 241001
section, and on at least an annual basis
thereafter, the owner/operator of each
unit shall conduct a stack test on each
unit to measure particulate matter
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D,
or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. A test shall consist of three
runs, with each run at least 120 minutes
in duration and each run collecting a
minimum sample of 60 dry standard
cubic feet. The average of the results of
three test runs shall be used by the
owner/operator for demonstrating
compliance. The results from a stack
test meeting the requirements of this
paragraph (f)(2) that was completed
within 12 months prior to the
compliance deadline can be used in lieu
of the first stack test required. If this
option is chosen, then the next annual
stack test shall be due no more than 12
months after the stack test that was
used. Clinker production shall be
determined in accordance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b).
Results of each test shall be reported by
the owner/operator as the average of
three valid test runs. In addition to
annual stack tests, owner/operator shall
monitor particulate emissions for
compliance with the BART emission
limits in accordance with the applicable
Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM) plan developed and approved in
accordance with 40 CFR part 64.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E)
of particulate matter shall be computed
by the owner/operator for each run in
lb/ton clinker, using the following
equation:
E = (CsQs)/PK
Where:
E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker
produced;
Cs = concentration of PM in grains per
standard cubic foot (gr/scf);
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas,
where Cs and Qs are on the same basis
(either wet or dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–19210 Filed 9–11–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0361; FRL–9967–57–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; KY; Revisions to
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ), on September 9, 2016. The
changes to the SIP that EPA is taking
final action to approve pertain to
changes to the Commonwealth’s air
quality standards for carbon monoxide
(CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone, particulate matter (both PM10
and PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) to
reflect the historical and current
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA has determined that the
September 9, 2016, SIP revision is
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). KDAQ’s submission also
included additional air quality
standards for hydrogen sulfide,
fluorides, and odor; however, EPA is not
approving these state standards into the
SIP.
DATES: This rule will be effective
October 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2017–0361. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12SER1.SGM
12SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42738-42746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19210]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062; FRL-9967-62-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to the
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing regional haze in the State
of Montana. The EPA promulgated a FIP on September 18, 2012, in
response to the State's decision in 2006 to not submit a regional haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP). We proposed revisions to that FIP on
April 14, 2017, and are now finalizing those revisions. Specifically,
the EPA is finalizing revisions to the FIP's requirement for best
available retrofit technology (BART) for the Trident cement kiln owned
and operated by Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc. (Oldcastle),
located in Three Forks, Montana. In response to a request from
Oldcastle, and in light of new information that was not available at
the time we originally promulgated the FIP, we are revising the
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit for the Trident cement
kiln. We are also correcting errors we made in our FIP regarding the
reasonable progress determination for the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station and the instructions for compliance determinations for
particulate matter (PM) BART emission limits at electrical generating
units (EGUs) and cement kilns. This action does not address the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and
remand of portions of the FIP regarding the Colstrip and Corette power
plants; we plan to address the court's remand in a separate action.
DATES: This rule is effective October 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as
[[Page 42739]]
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6252, dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Montana FIP
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP that included a
NOX BART emission limit for the Holcim (US), Inc., Trident
cement kiln located in Three Forks, Montana.1 2 On April 14,
2017, the EPA proposed to revise the 2012 FIP with respect to the BART
emission limit for the Trident cement kiln.\3\ Specifically, in
response to newly available information regarding the efficiency of
controls we determined in our 2012 FIP to be BART, the EPA proposed to
revise the NOX emission limit from 6.5 lb/ton clinker to 7.6
lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling averages). The EPA also proposed
to correct errors we made in our FIP regarding the reasonable progress
determination for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station and in the
instructions for compliance determinations for PM BART emission limits
at EGUs and cement kilns. The proposed correction to our erroneous
reasonable progress determination for the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station would result in the source no longer being subject to
reasonable progress requirements and would thus remove the
NOX emission limit of 21.8 lbs NOX/hr (average of
three stack test runs). The proposed correction to the PM compliance
determination instructions would include regulatory text that was
inadvertently left out of the September 18, 2012 final rule and would
allow sources to retain the PM stack testing schedule already
established under state permits. The EPA proposed to revise the
specific portions of Montana's regional haze FIP under our general
rulemaking and CAA-specific authorities, as appropriate. See 5 U.S.C.
551(5); 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1), 7410(c)(1), 7410(k)(6). We did not
address the Ninth Circuit's June 9, 2015 vacatur and remand of
unrelated portions of the FIP in this action and plan to address the
court's remand in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., (Oldcastle) is
the current owner and operator of the Trident cement kiln.
\2\ 77 FR 57864.
\3\ 82 FR 17948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
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,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \4\ On December 2,
1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source
or small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.\5\ These regulations represented the first phase in
addressing visibility impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional
haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling
and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\5\ 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999.\6\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class
I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300-51.309. The EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\7\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\8\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a state elects not to
make a required SIP submittal, fails to make a required SIP submittal
or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete or not
approvable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory
gap.\9\ Montana is on the path towards a regional haze SIP and is
working closely with the Region to replace all or portions of the FIP
as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a), CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states, or the EPA if developing a
FIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the
CAA requires states' implementation plans to contain such measures as
may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure,
install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as
determined by the states, or in the case of a FIP, the EPA. Under the
RHR, states or the EPA are
[[Page 42740]]
directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible''
sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the RHR at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states
and the EPA in determining which sources should be subject to the BART
requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each applicable
source.\10\ The process of establishing BART emission limitations
follows three steps: First, identify the sources that meet the
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \11\
second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7) of the CAA requires that states,
or the EPA if developing a FIP, must consider the following five
factors in making BART determinations: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. States or the EPA must address all visibility-
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are
sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 70 FR 39104.
\11\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific
BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject
to BART. Once a state or the EPA has made a BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of the EPA's
approval of the final SIP or the date of the EPA's promulgation of the
FIP.\12\ In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART emission limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously each
regional haze SIP or FIP must contain measures as necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goals. As part of
determining what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress,
the SIP or FIP must first identify anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment that are to be considered in developing the long-term
strategy for addressing visibility impairment.\13\ States or the EPA
must then consider the four statutory reasonable progress factors in
selecting control measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy--the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of potentially affected sources. See CAA section 169A(g)(1)
(defining the reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
Finally, the SIP or FIP must establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for each Class I area within the state for the plan implementation
period (or ``planning period''), based on the measures included in the
long-term strategy.\14\ If a RPG provides for a slower rate of
improvement in visibility than the rate needed to attain the national
goal by 2064, the SIP or FIP must demonstrate, based on the four
reasonable progress factors, why the rate to attain the national goal
by 2064 is not reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
\14\ 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\15\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP
that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to this requirement, consult
with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP
revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.\16\ Further, the EPA must
include in its proposed FIP a description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a FIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the EPA and FLMs regarding the
EPA's FIP, visibility protection program, including development and
review of FIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the
implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Montana FIP
On September 18, 2012, the EPA promulgated a FIP to address
Montana's regional haze obligations that included BART emission limits
for two power plants and two cement kilns, and an emission limit for a
natural gas compressor station based on reasonable progress
requirements.\17\ The EPA took this action because Montana decided not
to submit a regional haze SIP, knowing that as a result the EPA would
be required to promulgate a FIP.\18\ The BART emission limits for the
two cement kilns and the reasonable progress requirements for the
compressor station addressed in this action were not at issue in the
petitions filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\19\ The EPA
plans to address the court's remand in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 77 FR 57864.
\18\ Letter from Richard H. Opper, Director, Montana Department
of Environmental Quality to Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8 Air
Program, June 19, 2006.
\19\ Several parties petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to review the EPA's NOX and SO2 BART
determinations at the power plants, Colstrip and Corette (PPL
Montana, LLC, the National Parks Conservation Association, Montana
Environmental Information Center, and the Sierra Club). The court
vacated the NOX and SO2 BART emission limits
at Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette and remanded those portions of
the FIP back to the EPA for further proceedings. National Parks
Conservation Association v. EPA, 788 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
Our proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period and an
opportunity to request a public hearing. During this period, we
received eight comments from the following four commenters:
NorthWestern Energy (NorthWestern),\20\ Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) \21\ Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings
(Oldcastle; through Bison Engineering, Inc.),\22\ and an anonymous
public comment. We did not receive a request to hold a public hearing.
The comments
[[Page 42741]]
discussed portions of the proposal regarding the Trident cement kiln
and Blaine County #1 Compressor station; we did not receive any
comments on our proposed correction for PM compliance determinations
for EGUs and cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Letter dated May 12, 2017, from Elizabeth Stimatz to Docket
ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062.
\21\ Letter dated May 30, 2017, from David L. Klemp to Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062.
\22\ Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M. Mathews, Bison
Engineering, Inc, on behalf of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings
to EPA, Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NorthWestern agreed with us that the Q/D ratio used to
determine that the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station was subject to
reasonable progress requirements, where ``Q'' represents actual
NOX + SO2 emissions in tons per year (tpy) and
``D'' represents the distance in kilometers from the Blaine County #1
Compressor Station to the nearest Class I area, was incorrect as
published in our 2012 final rule. Specifically, Northwestern agrees
that ``D'' should be 133 kilometers instead of 107 kilometers, and that
the revised Q/D ratio would be below the threshold for further
evaluation for reasonable progress controls. As such, explained
NorthWestern, it is only appropriate that the reasonable progress
requirement of a NOX emission limit of 21.8 lb/hr (average
of three stack test runs) as well as the corresponding compliance date,
test method, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station be removed from the FIP.
Additionally, NorthWestern contends that NOX +
SO2, or ``Q'', should be 745 tpy instead of 1,155 tpy with
acknowledgement that this revision may not affect the EPA's
determination that the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station should be
removed from the reasonable progress emission limit.
Response: We acknowledge NorthWestern's support for our correction
to ``D'' in the Q/D ratio for the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station
that would effectively remove the source from reasonable progress
NOX requirements for the first implementation period of the
RHR. We also agree with NorthWestern that a revision to ``Q'' from
1,155 tpy to 745 tpy will not affect our determination that the Blaine
County #1 Compressor Station should be removed from the reasonable
progress limit; therefore, we are not addressing the issue of whether
``Q'' should be 745 tpy, as opposed to 1,155 tpy.
Comment: An anonymous commenter stated that the use of Q/D to
measure the emissions of NOX and SO2 is
efficient; however, ``D'' can be calculated mistakenly which could
ultimately affect the decision-making related to further investigation
or evaluation.
Response: We agree with the commenter's assertions that using an
incorrect distance (D) can adversely impact decision making concerning
further evaluation of a source.
Comment: MT DEQ expressed support for our proposal to amend the FIP
before the compliance dates for the two affected facilities and
appreciated our consideration of input from regulated facilities in
Montana. MT DEQ also noted that they are working closely with EPA staff
to submit a regional haze SIP as soon as practicable.
Response: We acknowledge MT DEQ's support for our action and will
continue working with MT DEQ as they develop a regional haze SIP.
Comment: Oldcastle advocated a BART emission limit of 8.3 lb
NOX/ton clinker for the Trident kiln, as opposed to the
limit proposed by the EPA of 7.6 lb/ton clinker (both as 30-day rolling
averages). Oldcastle derived their proposed emission limit from a
projected control efficiency of 40% when applied to a baseline emission
rate of 13.9 lb/ton clinker (that is, 13.9 lb/ton clinker x [1 - 40/
100] = 8.3 lb/ton clinker).
Response: We maintain that the appropriate BART emission limit for
the Trident kiln is 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker. In comparison to
Oldcastle, we derived our proposed emission limit from the same
projected control efficiency of 40%, but applied the control efficiency
to a lower baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton clinker (that is, 12.6
lb/ton clinker x [1 - 40/100] = 7.6 lb/ton clinker). Therefore, the
proposed emission limits differ only because of the different baseline
emission rates used to calculate them. We address the question of the
baseline emission rate in a separate response.
The proposed emission limit for the Trident kiln of 7.6 lb/ton
clinker is nearly equal to that for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln of
7.5 lb/ton clinker established through a control technology
demonstration.\23\ The Montana City kiln is of the same general design
(long wet kiln) as the Trident kiln, operates in a similar environment,
and is a direct competitor in the regional cement market. While the
ultimate emission limit for the Montana City kiln was set through a
control technology demonstration, rather than a BART determination, it
is a reflection of the level of NOX control that is feasible
with SNCR.\24\ Moreover, as discussed in a later response, the two
kilns have similar baseline emissions. Accordingly, we find that it is
reasonable to expect a similar level of controlled NOX
emissions from the Trident kiln when equipped with SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EPA letter to Ash Grove Cement Co., December 29, 2016.
\24\ Prior to the control technology demonstration, the EPA
established a NOX BART emission limit of 8.0 lb/ton
clinker for the Montana City kiln.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in our proposed rule, it is challenging to predict the
performance of SNCR for long cement kilns. For this reason, in the
proposed rule, the EPA invited comment on whether, in place of the BART
emission limit of 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker, the emission limit
for the Trident kiln should be established through a control technology
demonstration in a manner similar to that required by consent decrees
for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln and other long kilns. Such an
approach would have served to demonstrate with some clarity the
NOX emission limit for the Trident kiln. As discussed in a
later response, Oldcastle strongly felt that a requirement to use this
approach was unnecessary. In the absence of support for a control
technology demonstration from Oldcastle, or from other commenters, and
for reasons stated elsewhere in response to comments, the EPA is
finalizing an emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton clinker.
Comment: Oldcastle agreed with the EPA's assessment in the proposed
rule that SNCR is theoretically capable of reducing NOX
emissions from a long wet cement kiln by 40% on average. Oldcastle also
recognized that the EPA largely based this assumption on the
performance of SNCR demonstrated at the long wet kiln located at the
Ash Grove Montana City facility.
Response: The 40% reduction is a demonstrated, rather than
theoretical, control effectiveness for SNCR when applied to long cement
kilns. As acknowledged by the commenter, this level of control was
demonstrated at the Montana City long wet kiln in association with a
control technology demonstration.
Moreover, in arriving at an assumed control effectiveness of 40%,
the EPA's conclusions were not strictly based on the performance of
SNCR at the Montana City kiln. As explained in the proposal, we also
re-evaluated the performance of SNCR at the three Ash Grove long wet
kilns in Midlothian, Texas, that served as the basis for the emission
limit for Trident in our 2012 final rule. In addition, we reviewed the
performance of SNCR at several LaFarge kilns subject to control
technology demonstrations. The EPA's evaluation of the control
effectiveness of SNCR when applied to long cement kilns is further
discussed in the Technical
[[Page 42742]]
Support Document (TSD) associated with this rulemaking.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Refer to Technical Support Document--Oldcastle Trident
Federal Implementation Plan Revision, March 8, 2017 (``TSD for
Oldcastle''; EPA docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062-0042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Oldcastle disagreed with the baseline emission rate of
12.6 lb/ton clinker (as the 99th percentile 30-day rolling average)
that, after a 40% NOX reduction with SNCR, the EPA used to
calculate the proposed emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton clinker. Oldcastle
stated that the appropriate baseline emission rate is 13.9 lb/ton
clinker, reflecting a period during late 2012 during which optimal
conditions were disrupted by ash ring build-up on the interior wall of
the kiln, leading to elevated NOX emissions. Oldcastle also
disagreed with the EPA's characterization of operations during late
2012 as resulting from ``exceptional circumstances'' that should be
excluded from the calculation of baseline emissions, and with the EPA's
statements in the proposed rule that such conditions could be avoided
by proper kiln operation and maintenance. Oldcastle stated that ash
rings are part of normal long-term operations and occur approximately
twice every year. Finally, in response to the EPA's statements in the
proposal that a violation of the emission limit could be prevented by
shutting down the kiln to remove ash rings, Oldcastle commented that
multiple factors (e.g., such as harm to the kiln, baghouse, and other
equipment) must be considered before performing an unplanned shutdown.
Oldcastle commented that if elevated NOX emissions do occur
as the result of ash ring build-up, an unplanned shut down could be
required purely to ensure compliance with the emission limit.
Response: We disagree that the appropriate baseline emission rate
for the purpose of calculating the NOX emission limit should
be 13.9 lb/ton clinker. In our proposed rule, we explained the reasons
for retaining the baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton from the 2012
rule.26 27 Much of that explanation was in response to a
letter submitted by Oldcastle (through Bison Engineering) and dated
February 13, 2017, that among other things addressed the baseline
emission rate. Oldcastle's comments on the proposed rule largely repeat
points made in their February 13, 2017 letter, and do not present new
information that the EPA did not address in the proposed rule, or that
would lead the EPA to choose a different baseline emission rate (and
thereby a different emission limit). As such, in responding to
Oldcastle's comments here, we repeat much of the discussion from our
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The original source of the 12.6 lb/ton clinker was a
submittal from the previous owner of the Trident facility, Holcim,
Inc. See footnote 93 in 2012 proposed rule at 77 FR 24019.
\27\ See proposed rule at 82 FR 17953/4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine a representative baseline NOX
emissions rate for the Trident kiln, the EPA reviewed nine years of
actual emissions data (2008-2016, as the 99th percentile 30-day rolling
average).\28\ This expanded on the period of actual emissions data used
to set the baseline in the 2012 rule, which was limited to 2008-2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See TSD for Oldcastle, pages 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recognizes that ash rings are part of normal long-term
operations for long kilns, and thus the BART emission limit should,
generally speaking, allow operation of a kiln while a typical ash ring
is present, provided that the SNCR system is reducing emissions during
the ash ring event as much as it reasonably can. Accordingly, the EPA
has considered the ash ring issue when establishing the single value of
the baseline emission rate upon which the BART emission limit is based.
The original emissions baseline period of 2008-2011 used in the
2012 FIP, together with the emissions for 2013 through 2016, yield
eight years of emissions data in support of the 12.6 lb/ton clinker
baseline used by the EPA.\29\ Assuming, as asserted by Oldcastle, that
ash rings occur approximately twice per year, some 16 ash ring events
can be statistically expected to have occurred during this eight-year
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The baseline periods of 2008-2011 and 2013-2016 yield an
identical baseline emission rate of 12.6 lb/ton clinker (as the 99th
percentile 30-day rolling average). Data for 2012, while reviewed,
was not included in the calculation of the baseline due to the
unusually elevated NOX emissions that occurred late in
that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the set of approximately 2,400 values for 30-day average
emission during the eight-year period,\30\ the EPA has chosen the 99th
percentile value, 12.6 lb/ton clinker, as the baseline emission rate
for setting the BART emission limit (by reducing this value by 40%). We
believe this is a reasonable choice in that it will mean that for most
ash ring events compliance with the BART emissions limit would not
necessitate removing the ash ring earlier than when the kiln operators
have seen fit to remove similar ash rings during the eight years of
operation of the kiln. Oldcastle is arguing that the baseline emission
rate should instead be set at 13.9 lb/ton of clinker. Notably, there
were about 29 30-day average emission values above 13.9 lb/ton during
the 2012 ash ring event. Under both the emission limit we proposed and
the emission limit favored by Oldcastle, if an ash ring similar to the
2012 event were to occur in the future, the BART emission limit could
not be met merely by achieving 40% emission reductions via SNCR. Thus,
Oldcastle and we agree that not every ash ring event must be
accommodated by the BART emission limit, and Oldcastle and we agree
that Oldcastle should be expected to intervene, differently than the
kiln operator actually did in 2012, if an event like the one that
occurred in 2012 occurs again (while also applying SNCR). Where
Oldcastle and we disagree is that Oldcastle favors a higher BART limit
that would allow Oldcastle to take no action, which is different from
the operator's past ash ring-correcting practices with respect to ash
ring events that have more moderate effects on emissions than the 2012
ash ring event. While we do not have clear evidence of whether and when
such more moderate ash rings events have occurred in the past and what
effects they had on NOX emissions, it reasonable to predict
that in the future there may be events for which our proposed emission
limit would require corrective action (beyond the application of SNCR)
that is different than the operator's ash ring-correcting practices of
the past, while the emission limit favored by Oldcastle would not
require this. The considerations on how to respond to Oldcastle's
comments on this issue are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs
that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Does not include days when the kiln was not operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The representativeness of the baseline NOX emission rate
of 12.6 lb/ton clinker used for setting the emission limit at the
Trident kiln is supported by the nearly identical emissions observed at
the Montana City kiln in association with the control technology
demonstration. During the baseline collection period for the Montana
City kiln, between March and August 2014, the 99th percentile 30-day
rolling average emission rate without SNCR applied was 12.8 lb
NOX/ton clinker.\31\ Though this represents a shorter
baseline period than that considered for Trident, it reinforces that
the two kilns should be subject to similar emission limits after being
equipped with SNCR. By contrast, using the higher baseline emission
rate of 13.9 lb/ton clinker for Trident would result in a relatively
large difference between the emission limits--7. 5 lb/ton clinker
[[Page 42743]]
for Montana City, and 8.3 lb/ton clinker for Trident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See spreadsheet titled ``Summary of Ash Grove Montana City
Control Technology Demonstration Data.xlsx,'' March 8, 2017,
prepared by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, if the EPA were to use the higher baseline emission rate
of 13.9 lb/ton clinker (again yielding an emission limit of 8.3 lb/ton
clinker at a 40% reduction with SNCR), then the emission limit would be
overly lenient during periods of otherwise normal kiln operation, and
the SNCR could be operated at efficiencies well below the demonstrated
level of control effectiveness. That is, when baseline emissions are at
otherwise normal levels, the control effectiveness of the SNCR could be
reduced below the level at which it is capable of performing by
reducing the amount of reagent injected into the kiln, while still
meeting the emission limit. For example, consider if SNCR had been
operated in 2016, the last full year for which emissions data is
available, where the uncontrolled 30-day rolling average emissions
ranged from 8.9 to 12.6 lb/ton clinker, with an average of 10.4 lb/ton
clinker.\32\ At an emission limit of 8.3 lb/ton clinker (corresponding
to a 13.9 lb/ton clinker baseline), and depending on the 30-day period,
the SNCR could have been operated at a control efficiency of 6.7% to
34.1%, and at an average of only 20.5%. Indeed, for long periods, the
SNCR could have been operated well below the 40% reduction that the EPA
has concluded, and Oldcastle has agreed, SNCR can achieve. Though this
opportunity to operate the SNCR system at a lesser level of
effectiveness would also occur at the proposed emission limit of 7.6
lb/ton, it would occur less frequently and the effect would be much
less pronounced, yet the proposed emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton still
allows for normal variation in uncontrolled NOX emissions
(to include emissions variation due to ash ring formation). In essence,
allowing for the higher baseline advocated by the commenter would
unnecessarily undermine the basic intent of the BART controls: To lower
emissions that impact visibility using the best available control
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See spreadsheet titled ``Oldcastle Trident NOX
emissions 2008 through 2016 with additions by EPA.xlsx,'' March 8,
2017, prepared by the EPA (EPA docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0062-
0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the EPA's thorough consideration of nine years of
actual emissions data and the application of a 40% reduction to the
99th percentile value of the historical set of 30-day average emission
values, leads to an appropriate BART emission limit for the Trident
kiln.
Comment: Oldcastle stated that the EPA's proposed BART
determination of 7.6 lb/ton clinker did not address control costs or
visibility improvement. They commented that, based on their updated
analysis,\33\ the costs associated with the emission limit are not
justified by the visibility benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Oldcastle is referring to submittals to the EPA that were
cited in the proposed rule. See footnote 22 at 82 FR 17952. These
submittals can be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We disagree with the implication that it was necessary to
re-weigh the costs and visibility benefits of SNCR in this action,
which was not a new or updated control technology determination but
rather a revision to how the EPA calculated the ultimate emission limit
given the technology selected pursuant to our previous five-factor
analysis. See 82 FR 17948, 17951. The BART Guidelines provide that
states or the EPA, when evaluating technically feasible technologies
pursuant to a five-factor analysis, perform the analysis ``tak[ing]
into account the most stringent emission control level that the
technology is capable of achieving.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
IV.D.1. The Guidelines further state that the control effectiveness of
a technology should be informed by, among other things, recent
regulatory decisions, engineering estimates, and the experience of
other sources. Id. The EPA determined in 2012 that BART is based on
SNCR with a 50% control effectiveness for the Trident kiln, see 77 FR
57864, 57882. No party requested judicial review of that determination.
However, since the time of our 2012 rule, sources and the EPA have
gained further experience related to using SNCR to control
NOX from long wet kilns; and additional data and experience
indicate that the most stringent level of emission control possible
under these circumstances may not be 50%, as previously assumed.
However, as Oldcastle assured the EPA when they first approached us to
request a revised NOX emission limit for the Trident kiln in
May 2016 and throughout the process of revising the emission limit,
they are committed to installing and operating SNCR on the kiln.\34\
Most recently, Oldcastle restated their commitment to doing so in
comments on the proposed rule.\35\ For this reason, and as we stated in
the proposed rule, the EPA did not find it necessary or appropriate to
revisit the selection of SNCR as the BART control technology was
determined in the 2012 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See, e.g., Letter dated Sept. 30, 2016, from Kevin M.
Mathews, Bison Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Oldcastle Materials
Cement Holdings to EPA, Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, pages
2, 6, 19.
\35\ Letter dated May 28, 2017, from Kevin M. Mathews, Bison
Engineering, Inc, on behalf of Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings
to EPA, Region 8, Office of Air and Radiation, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, given that Oldcastle has committed to the most
effective control technology for long kilns, SNCR, and in fact had
largely completed construction by the time we published the proposed
rule in April 2017, there would be little merit in retrospectively
assessing less effective control technologies in an updated five-factor
BART analysis. The BART Guidelines reflect that it is reasonable, if a
source has already committed to a BART determination that consists of
the most stringent controls available, to forgo completing the
remaining analyses pursuant to a BART determination. 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, IV.D.1. Oldcastle has communicated to the EPA that it is
committed to installing and operating SNCR on the Trident kiln.
Therefore, consistent with the reasoning of the BART Guidelines, we
found that it is not necessary in this instance to revisit the cost
effectiveness and visibility benefits associated with SNCR, and instead
as explained in our proposal, constrained this FIP revision to
considering only the appropriate control effectiveness associated with
that control technology.
Because Oldcastle has committed to installing SNCR as the BART
control, it is only the emission limit that is in dispute. However,
even if we had revisited the full five-factor BART analysis in this
action, it is very likely we would have arrived at the same emission
limit we are finalizing today. The 2012 rule established an emission
limit of 6.5 lb/ton clinker, while we have proposed 7.6 lb/ton clinker,
and Oldcastle advocates for 8.3 lb/ton clinker. Note that compliance
with a more stringent emission limit requires that more reagent be
injected into the kiln to reduce NOX than for a less
stringent emission limit, thereby increasing Oldcastle's annual costs
to operate the SNCR. Though annual costs would increase with a more
stringent emission limit, NOX reductions can generally be
expected to increase in proportion to those costs. An exception is if
the amount of reagent injected is increased to the point that it is no
longer effective at reducing NOX and leads to excessive
ammonia slip (that is, wasted reagent). However, as demonstrated at the
Montana City kiln, a 40% reduction in NOX, which serves as
the basis for Trident's emission limit, can be achieved at acceptable
levels of ammonia slip.\36\ Therefore, the cost effectiveness of SNCR,
when calculated as the costs per ton of pollutant
[[Page 42744]]
removed (i.e., $/ton) in accordance with the BART Guidelines,\37\ would
be roughly the same at any of the three emission limits under
consideration.\38\ Further, due to the increase in NOX
reductions, greater visibility benefits would be expected to occur as
the emission limit becomes more stringent. Because the cost
effectiveness would remain roughly constant, while the visibility
benefits would increase, we see no reason that the SNCR should be
operated below the level of control effectiveness demonstrated for the
technology (i.e., a 40% NOX reduction). Therefore, we are
finalizing an emission limit for the Trident kiln consistent with that
level of control: 7.6 lb/ton clinker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Refer to proposed rule at 71 FR 17953.
\37\ 70 FR 39167.
\38\ More precisely, the cost effectiveness (as $/ton) would
slightly decrease in value at a more stringent emission limit
because the fixed capital costs would be distributed over a greater
number of tons of NOX reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Oldcastle commented that they strongly feel that a
requirement to conduct a control technology demonstration, such as that
conducted for the Ash Grove Montana City kiln under consent decree, is
problematic and unnecessary. Further, they commented that if such a
control technology demonstration were to be conducted, the results
would likely be similar to those for the Montana City kiln. Finally,
Oldcastle stated that a control technology demonstration would not
address the economic and operational concerns (e.g., ash rings) that
they also raised in comments.
Response: Because Oldcastle, or other commenters, have not
expressed support for a control technology demonstration, and because
the results from the Montana City kiln demonstration can effectively
and reasonably be applied to the Trident kiln, we are not requiring
such a demonstration for the Trident kiln. Instead, we are finalizing
an emission limit of 7.6 lb/ton clinker.
IV. Final Action
The EPA is taking final action to revise portions of the Montana
Regional Haze FIP. Specifically, the EPA is revising the BART
NOX emission limit in the second line of the table in 40 CFR
52.1396(c)(2) for the Oldcastle Trident kiln from 6.5 lb
NOX/ton clinker to 7.6 lb NOX/ton clinker (30-day
rolling averages).\39\ We are also making two corrections: (1) Removing
the reasonable progress NOX emission limit of 21.8 lb/hr
(average of three stack test runs) found at 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(3) for
the Blaine County #1 Compressor Station, Engine #1 and #2, including
removing the corresponding compliance date at 40 CFR 52.1396(d), test
method (40 CFR 52.1396(e)(5)), testing requirements (40 CFR 52.1396(j))
and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements found at 40
CFR 52.1396(k) from the FIP, and (2) revising the regulatory text found
at 40 CFR 52.1396(f)(1) and (2) related to compliance determinations
for particulate matter for electrical generating units and cement
kilns. Finally, we are changing ``Holcim'' references to ``Oldcastle''
and ``Trident'' at 40 CFR 52.1396(a), (c)(2), and (f)(2)(ii) and
replacing the compliance date timeframes in 40 CFR 52.1396(d) with the
actual compliance dates based on the effective date of the 2012 FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The table in 40 CFR 52.1396(c)(2) currently refers to
Holcim (US) Inc. As described later on, the EPA is also updating
this table to reflect the Trident kiln's new ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the revisions will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment, reasonable progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA, because the FIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to
current levels. Although this revision will allow an increase in
emissions after October 2017 as compared to the prior FIP, the FIP as a
whole will still result in overall NOX and SO2
reductions compared to those currently allowed. In addition, the areas
where the Trident cement kiln and the Blaine County #1 Compressor
Station are located have not been designated nonattainment for any
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). We also find that we
satisfied the applicable requirements for coordination and consultation
with the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) because we described the proposed
revisions to the regional haze FIP with the Forest Service, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on Thursday, March
2, 2017, and sent a draft of our proposed regional haze FIP revisions
to the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Park Service on March 9, 2017.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ We did not receive any formal comments from the FLM
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 \41\ and was therefore not submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule
revision applies to only five facilities in the State of Montana. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 13711: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 action
because it is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\42\ Because this
final rule revises the reporting requirements for 4 facilities and
removes all requirements for an additional facility, the PRA does not
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small
entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this
rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The revisions to
the FIP reduce private sector expenditures. Additionally, we do not
foresee significant costs (if any) for state and local governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
[[Page 42745]]
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule. However, the EPA did send letters to each of the Montana tribes
explaining our regional haze FIP revision action and offering
consultation; however, no tribe asked for consultation.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As
explained previously, the Montana Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to
current levels.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability.
M. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2017. Pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(1)(B), this section is subject to the requirements of the CAA
section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing
a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 1, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart BB--Montana
0
2. Section 52.1396 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraph (d);
0
e. Removing paragraph (e)(5);
0
f. Revising the heading of paragraph (f) and paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)
introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii); and
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j) and (k).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1396 Federal implementation plan for regional haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the
State of Montana: PPL Montana, LLC, Colstrip Power Plant, Units 1, 2;
and PPL Montana, LLC, JE Corette Steam Electric Station. This section
also applies to each owner and operator of cement kilns at the
following cement production plants: Ash Grove Cement, Montana City
Plant; and Oldcastle Materials Cement Holdings, Inc., Trident Plant.
This section also applies to each owner and operator of CFAC and M2
Green Redevelopment LLC, Missoula site.
Note to Paragraph (a): On June 9, 2015, the NOX and
SO2 emission limits for Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and
Corette were vacated by court order.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) The owners/operators of cement kilns subject to this section
shall not emit or cause to be emitted PM, SO2 or
NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per
ton of clinker produced, averaged over a rolling 30-day period for
SO2 and NOX:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission NOX emission
limit (lb/ton limit (lb/ton
Source name PM emission limit clinker) clinker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove, Montana City.............. If the process weight rate of the kiln is 11.5 8.0
less than or equal to 30 tons per hour,
then the emission limit shall be
calculated using E = 4.10p\0.67\ where E
= rate of emission in pounds per hour
and p = process weight rate in tons per
hour; however, if the process weight
rate of the kiln is greater than 30 tons
per hour, then the emission limit shall
be calculated using E = 55.0p\0.11\-40,
where E = rate of emission in pounds per
hour and P = process weight rate in tons
per hour..
Oldcastle, Trident................... 0.77 lb/ton clinker...................... 1.3 7.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42746]]
* * * * *
(d) Compliance date. The owners and operators of the BART sources
subject to this section shall comply with the emission limitations and
other requirements of this section as follows, unless otherwise
indicated in specific paragraphs: Compliance with PM emission limits is
required by November 17, 2012. Compliance with SO2 and
NOX emission limits is required by April 16, 2013, unless
installation of additional emission controls is necessary to comply
with emission limitations under this rule, in which case compliance is
required by October 18, 2017.
Note to Paragraph (d): On June 9, 2015, the NOX and
SO2 emission limits, and thereby compliance dates, for
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 and Corette were vacated by court order.
* * * * *
(f) Compliance determinations for particulate matter--(1) EGU
particulate matter BART emission limits. Compliance with the
particulate matter BART emission limits for each EGU BART unit shall be
determined by the owner/operator from annual performance stack tests.
Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in paragraph (d) of
this section, and on at least an annual basis thereafter, the owner/
operator of each unit shall conduct a stack test on each unit to
measure the particulate emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as
appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. A test shall consist of
three runs, with each run at least 120 minutes in duration and each run
collecting a minimum sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. Results
shall be reported by the owner/operator in lb/MMBtu. The results from a
stack test meeting the requirements of this paragraph (f)(1) that was
completed within 12 months prior to the compliance deadline can be used
in lieu of the first stack test required. If this option is chosen,
then the next annual stack test shall be due no more than 12 months
after the stack test that was used. In addition to annual stack tests,
owner/operator shall monitor particulate emissions for compliance with
the BART emission limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance
Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
(2) Cement kiln particulate matter BART emission limits. Compliance
with the particulate matter BART emission limits for each cement kiln
shall be determined by the owner/operator from annual performance stack
tests. Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, and on at least an annual basis thereafter, the
owner/operator of each unit shall conduct a stack test on each unit to
measure particulate matter emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17,
as appropriate, in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. A test shall consist of
three runs, with each run at least 120 minutes in duration and each run
collecting a minimum sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. The average
of the results of three test runs shall be used by the owner/operator
for demonstrating compliance. The results from a stack test meeting the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(2) that was completed within 12
months prior to the compliance deadline can be used in lieu of the
first stack test required. If this option is chosen, then the next
annual stack test shall be due no more than 12 months after the stack
test that was used. Clinker production shall be determined in
accordance with the requirements found at 40 CFR 60.63(b). Results of
each test shall be reported by the owner/operator as the average of
three valid test runs. In addition to annual stack tests, owner/
operator shall monitor particulate emissions for compliance with the
BART emission limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance
Assurance Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
* * * * *
(ii) For Trident, the emission rate (E) of particulate matter shall
be computed by the owner/operator for each run in lb/ton clinker, using
the following equation:
E = (CsQs)/PK
Where:
E = emission rate of PM, lb/ton of clinker produced;
Cs = concentration of PM in grains per standard cubic
foot (gr/scf);
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or
dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production, tons/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-19210 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
