Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Indiana, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 32606-32615 [2018-14947]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32606
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
petty officer who has been designated
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act
on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone must
contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.
Dated: July 5, 2018.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2018–14993 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0615; FRL–9980–65Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the
Indiana, Pennsylvania Nonattainment
Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP)
revision, submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), to
EPA on October 11, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) in the Indiana, Pennsylvania
SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘Indiana Area’’ or
‘‘Area’’). The Indiana Area is comprised
of Indiana County and a portion of
Armstrong County (Plumcreek
Township, South Bend Township, and
Elderton Borough) in Pennsylvania. The
major sources of SO2 in the Indiana
Area emitting over 2,000 tpy of SO2
include several large electric generating
units (EGUs): Keystone Plant,
Conemaugh Plant, Homer City
Generation, and Seward Generation
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Station (hereafter referred to as
‘‘Keystone,’’ ‘‘Conemaugh,’’ ‘‘Homer
City,’’ and ‘‘Seward’’). The SIP
submission is an attainment plan which
includes the base year emissions
inventory, an analysis of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
and reasonably available control
measure (RACM) requirements,
enforceable emission limitations and
control measures, a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, a modeling
demonstration of SO2 attainment, and
contingency measures for the Indiana
Area. As part of approving the
attainment plan, EPA is also proposing
to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP
SO2 emission limits and associated
compliance parameters for Keystone,
Conemaugh, Homer City and Seward
and proposes to find Pennsylvania has
measures in place to address
nonattainment new source review. EPA
proposes to approve Pennsylvania’s
attainment plan and concludes that the
Indiana Area will attain the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date and that the plan meets
all applicable requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 13, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2017–0615 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Goold, (215) 814–2027, or by
email at goold.megan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action
II. Pennsylvania’s Attainment Plan Submittal
for the Indiana Area
III. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Attainment Plan for the Indiana Area
A. Pollutants Addressed
B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
C. Air Quality Modeling
D. RACM/RACT
E. RFP Plan
F. Contingency Measures
G. New Source Review
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for EPA’s Proposed
Action
On June 2, 2010, the EPA
Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new primary SO2 NAAQS
as a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June
22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This
action also revoked the existing 1971
primary annual and 24-hour standards,
subject to certain conditions.1 EPA
established the NAAQS based on
significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated
with short-term exposures to SO2
emissions ranging from five minutes to
24 hours with an array of adverse
respiratory effects including narrowing
of the airways which can cause
difficulty breathing
(bronchoconstriction) and increased
asthma symptoms. For more
information regarding the health
impacts of SO2, please refer to the June
22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR
35520. Following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
the CAA to designate areas throughout
the United States as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS; this designation
process is described in section
107(d)(1)–(2) of the CAA. On August 5,
2013, EPA promulgated initial air
quality designations for 29 areas for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which
1 EPA’s June 22, 2010 final action revoked the two
1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the
annual standard of 30 ppb because they were
determined not to add additional public health
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See
75 FR 35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2
standard was retained. Currently, the 24-hour and
annual standards are only revoked for certain of
those areas the EPA has already designated for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
became effective on October 4, 2013,
based on violating air quality
monitoring data for calendar years
2009–2011, where there were sufficient
data to support a nonattainment
designation.2
Effective on October 4, 2013, the
Indiana Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
for an area that encompasses the
primary SO2 emitting sources of
Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and
Seward. The October 4, 2013 final
designation triggered a requirement for
Pennsylvania to submit by April 4,
2015, a SIP revision with an attainment
plan for how the Area would attain the
2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than October 4,
2018, in accordance with CAA sections
172(c) and 191–192.
For a number of areas, including the
Indiana Area, EPA published a notice
on March 18, 2016, effective April 18,
2016, that Pennsylvania and other
pertinent states had failed to submit the
required SO2 attainment plan by this
submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736.
This finding initiated a deadline under
CAA section 179(a) for the potential
imposition of new source review and
highway funding sanctions. However,
pursuant to Pennsylvania’s submittal of
October 11, 2017, and EPA’s subsequent
letter dated October 13, 2017, to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal
complete and noting the stopping of the
sanctions’ deadline, these sanctions
under section 179(a) will not be
imposed as a consequence of
Pennsylvania having missed the April 4,
2015 deadline. Additionally, under
CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016,
finding triggered a requirement that EPA
promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) within two years of the
effective date of the finding unless, by
that time, the state has made the
necessary complete submittal and EPA
has approved the submittal as meeting
applicable requirements. This FIP
obligation will no longer apply if and
when EPA makes final the approval
action proposed here.
Attainment plans must meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 172, 191,
and 192. The required components of an
attainment plan submittal are listed in
section 172(c) of Title 1, part D of the
2 EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order
finalized March 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, EPA must
complete the remaining designations for the rest of
the country on a schedule that contains three
specific deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 13–cv–03953–SI
(2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
CAA. EPA’s regulations governing
nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40
CFR part 51, with specific procedural
requirements and control strategy
requirements residing at subparts F and
G, respectively. Soon after Congress
enacted the 1990 Amendments to the
CAA, EPA issued comprehensive
guidance on SIPs, in a document
entitled the ‘‘General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’
published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992) (General Preamble). Among other
things, the General Preamble addressed
SO2 SIPs and fundamental principles for
SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545–49,
13567–68.
On April 23, 2014, EPA issued
recommended guidance (hereafter 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how
state submissions could address the
statutory requirements for SO2
attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA
described the statutory requirements for
an attainment plan, which include: An
accurate base year emissions inventory
of current emissions for all sources of
SO2 within the nonattainment area
(172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration
that includes a modeling analysis
showing that the enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures
taken by the state will provide for
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS
(172(c) and (c)(6)); demonstration of
RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of
RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); new
source review (NSR) requirements
(172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency
measures for the affected area
(172(c)(9)). A synopsis of these
requirements is also provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking on the
Illinois SO2 nonattainment plans,
published on October 5, 2017 at 82 FR
46434.
In order for the EPA to fully approve
a SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110, 172 and 191–192 and
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the
SIP for the affected area needs to
demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that
each of the aforementioned
requirements have been met. Under
CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA
may not approve a SIP that would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning NAAQS
attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement, and no
requirement in effect (or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement,
agreement, or plan in effect before
3 See ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO Nonattainment
2
Area SIP Submissions’’ (April 23, 2014), available
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201606/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_
sip.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32607
November 15, 1990) in any area which
is a nonattainment area for any air
pollutant, may be modified in any
manner unless it ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant.
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states
with areas designated as nonattainment
to demonstrate that the submitted plan
provides for attainment of the NAAQS.
40 CFR part 51, subpart G further
delineates the control strategy
requirements that SIPs must meet, and
EPA has long required that all SIPs and
control strategies reflect four
fundamental principles of
quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability
(General Preamble, at 13567–68). SO2
attainment plans must consist of two
components: (1) Emission limits and
other control measures that assure
implementation of permanent,
enforceable and necessary emission
controls, and (2) a modeling analysis
which meets the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix W which
demonstrates that these emission limits
and control measures provide for timely
attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, but by
no later than the attainment date for the
affected area. In all cases, the emission
limits and control measures must be
accompanied by appropriate methods
and conditions to determine compliance
with the respective emission limits and
control measures and must be
quantifiable (a specific amount of
emission reduction can be ascribed to
the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous and
measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably
determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are
sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities
applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable
(source specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the
assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance recommends that the
emission limits established for the
attainment demonstration be expressed
as short-term average limits (e.g.,
addressing emissions averaged over one
or three hours), but also describes the
option to utilize emission limits with
longer averaging times of up to 30 days
so long as the state meets various
suggested criteria. See 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39.
The guidance recommends that—should
states and sources utilize longer
averaging times—the longer term
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
32608
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
average limit should be set at an
adjusted level that reflects a stringency
comparable to the 1-hour average limit
at the critical emission value shown to
provide for attainment that the plan
otherwise would have set.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance provides an extensive
discussion of EPA’s rationale for
concluding that appropriately set
comparably stringent limitations based
on averaging times as long as 30 days
can be found to provide for attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating
this option, EPA considered the nature
of the standard, conducted detailed
analyses of the impact of 30-day average
limits on the prospects for attaining the
standard, and carefully reviewed how
best to achieve an appropriate balance
among the various factors that warrant
consideration in judging whether a
state’s plan provides for attainment. Id.
at pp. 22–39, and Appendices B, C, and
D.
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum
1-hour average concentrations is less
than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with
365 days of valid monitoring data, the
99th percentile would be the fourth
highest daily maximum 1-hour value.
The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including this
form of determining compliance with
the standard, was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in Nat’l Envt’l Dev.
Ass’n’s Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686
F.3d 803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the
standard has this form, a single
exceedance does not create a violation
of the standard. Instead, at issue is
whether a source operating in
compliance with a properly set longer
term average could cause exceedances,
and if so the resulting frequency and
magnitude of such exceedances, and in
particular, whether EPA can have
reasonable confidence that a properly
set longer term average limit will
provide that the average fourth highest
daily maximum value will be at or
below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA
evaluates whether such plans ‘‘provide
for attainment,’’ based on modeling of
projected allowable emissions and in
light of the NAAQS’ form for
determining attainment at monitoring
sites follows.
For SO2 attainment plans based on
1-hour emission limits, the standard
approach is to conduct modeling using
fixed emission rates. The maximum
modeled emission rate that results in
attainment is labeled the ‘‘critical
emission value.’’ The modeling process
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
for identifying this critical emission
value inherently considers the
numerous variables that affect ambient
concentrations of SO2, such as
meteorological data, background
concentrations, and topography. In the
standard approach, the state would then
provide for attainment by setting a
continuously applicable 1-hour
emission limit at this critical emission
value.
EPA recognizes that some sources
have highly variable emissions, for
example due to variations in fuel sulfur
content and operating rate, that can
make it extremely difficult, even with a
well-designed control strategy, to ensure
in practice that emissions for any given
hour do not exceed the critical emission
value. EPA also acknowledges the
concern that longer term emission limits
can allow short periods with emissions
above the ‘‘critical emission value,’’
which, if coincident with
meteorological conditions conducive to
high SO2 concentrations, could in turn
create the possibility of a NAAQS
exceedance occurring on a day when an
exceedance would not have occurred if
emissions were continuously controlled
at the level corresponding to the critical
emission value. However, for several
reasons, EPA believes that the approach
recommended in its guidance document
suitably addresses this concern. First,
from a practical perspective, EPA
expects the actual emission profile of a
source subject to an appropriately set
longer term average limit to be similar
to the emission profile of a source
subject to an analogous 1-hour average
limit. EPA expects this similarity
because it has recommended that the
longer term average limit be set at a
level that is comparably stringent to the
otherwise applicable 1-hour limit
(reflecting a downward adjustment from
the critical emissions value) and that
takes the source’s emissions profile (and
inherent level of emissions variability)
into account. As a result, EPA expects
either form of emission limit to yield
comparable air quality.
Second, from a more theoretical
perspective, EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having
maximum allowable emissions under an
appropriately set longer term limit, as
compared to the likely air quality with
the source having maximum allowable
emissions under the comparable 1-hour
limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour
average limit scenario, the source is
presumed at all times to emit at the
critical emission level, and in the longer
term average limit scenario, the source
is presumed occasionally to emit more
than the critical emission value but on
average, and presumably at most times,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to emit well below the critical emission
value. In an ‘‘average year,’’ 4
compliance with the 1-hour limit is
expected to result in three exceedance
days (i.e., three days with hourly values
above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a
maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By
comparison, with the source complying
with a longer term limit, it is possible
that additional exceedances would
occur that would not occur in the
1-hour limit scenario (if emissions
exceed the critical emission value at
times when meteorology is conducive to
poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the
likelihood that exceedances that would
be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario
would not occur in the longer term limit
scenario. This result arises because the
longer term limit requires lower
emissions most of the time (because the
limit is set below the critical emission
value), so a source complying with an
appropriately set longer term limit is
likely to have lower emissions at critical
times than would be the case if the
source were emitting as allowed with a
1-hour limit.
To illustrate this point, EPA
conducted a statistical analysis using a
range of scenarios using actual plant
data. The analysis is described in
Appendix B of EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. Based on the
analysis described in its 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, EPA expects
that an emission profile with maximum
allowable emissions under an
appropriately set comparably stringent
30-day average limit is likely to have the
net effect of having a lower number of
exceedances and better air quality than
an emission profile with maximum
allowable emissions under a 1-hour
emission limit at the critical emission
value. This result provides a compelling
policy rationale for allowing the use of
a longer averaging period, in
appropriate circumstances where the
facts indicate this result can be expected
to occur.
The question then becomes whether
this approach, which is likely to
produce a lower number of overall
exceedances even though it may
produce some unexpected exceedances
above the critical emission value, meets
the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and
172(c)(1) for SIPs to ‘‘provide for
4 An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with
average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T
provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile
daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the fourth
highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a
year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion
and an example below uses a single ‘‘average year’’
in order to simplify the illustration of relevant
principles.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
attainment’’ of the NAAQS. For SO2, as
for other pollutants, it is generally
impossible to design a nonattainment
plan in the present that will guarantee
that attainment will occur in the future.
A variety of factors can cause a welldesigned attainment plan to fail and
unexpectedly not result in attainment,
for example if meteorology occurs that
is more conducive to poor air quality
than was anticipated in the plan.
Therefore, in determining whether a
plan meets the requirement to provide
for attainment, EPA’s task is commonly
to judge not whether the plan provides
absolute certainty that attainment will
in fact occur, but rather whether the
plan provides an adequate level of
confidence of prospective NAAQS
attainment. From this perspective, in
evaluating use of a 30-day average limit,
EPA must weigh the likely net effect on
air quality. Such an evaluation must
consider the risk that occasions with
meteorology conducive to high
concentrations will have elevated
emissions leading to exceedances that
would not otherwise have occurred, and
must also weigh the likelihood that the
requirement for lower emissions on
average will result in days not having
exceedances that would have been
expected with emissions at the critical
emissions value. Additional policy
considerations, such as in this case the
desirability of accommodating real
world emissions variability without
significant risk of violations, are also
appropriate factors for EPA to consider
when evaluating whether a plan
provides a reasonable degree of
confidence that the plan will lead to
attainment. Based on these
considerations, especially given the
high likelihood that a continuously
enforceable limit averaged over as long
as 30 days, determined in accordance
with EPA’s guidance, will result in
attainment, EPA believes as a general
matter that such limits, if appropriately
determined, can reasonably be
considered to provide for attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance offers specific
recommendations for determining an
appropriate longer term average limit.
The recommended method starts with
determination of the 1-hour emission
limit that would provide for attainment
(i.e., the critical emission value), and
applies an adjustment factor to
determine the (lower) level of the longer
term average emission limit that would
be estimated to have a stringency
comparable to the otherwise necessary
1-hour emission limit. This method uses
a database of continuous emission data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
reflecting the type of control that the
source will be using to comply with the
SIP emission limits, which (if
compliance requires new controls) may
require use of an emission database
from another source. The recommended
method involves using these data to
compute a complete set of emission
averages, computed according to the
averaging time and averaging
procedures of the prospective emission
limitation (i.e., using 1-hour historical
emission values from the emissions
database to calculate 30-day average
emission values). In this recommended
method, the ratio of the 99th percentile
among these long term averages to the
99th percentile of the 1-hour values
represents an adjustment factor that may
be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour
emission limit (critical emission value)
to determine a longer term average
emission limit that may be considered
comparably stringent.5
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance also addresses a variety of
related topics, such as the potential
utility of setting supplemental emission
limits, such as mass-based limits, to
reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude
of elevated emission levels that might
occur under the longer term emission
rate limit.
Preferred air quality models for use in
regulatory applications are described in
Appendix A of the EPA’s Guideline on
Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,
appendix W).6 In 2005, the EPA
promulgated AERMOD as the Agency’s
preferred near-field dispersion modeling
for a wide range of regulatory
applications addressing stationary
sources (for example in estimating SO2
concentrations) in all types of terrain
based on extensive developmental and
performance evaluation. Supplemental
guidance on modeling for purposes of
demonstrating attainment of the SO2
standard is provided in Appendix A to
the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
Appendix A provides extensive
guidance on the modeling domain, the
source inputs, assorted types of
meteorological data, and background
concentrations. Consistency with the
recommendations in this guidance is
generally necessary for the attainment
demonstration to offer adequately
reliable assurance that the plan provides
for attainment.
As stated previously, attainment
demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
5 For example, if the critical emission value is
1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, and a suitable
adjustment factor is determined to be 70 percent,
the recommended longer term average limit would
be 700 pounds per hour.
6 The EPA published revisions to the Guideline
on Air Quality Models on January 17, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32609
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate
future attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS in the entire area
designated as nonattainment (i.e., not
just at the violating monitor) by using
air quality dispersion modeling (see
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show
that the mix of sources and enforceable
control measures and emission rates in
an identified area will not lead to a
violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a
short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, the
EPA believes that dispersion modeling,
using allowable emissions and
addressing stationary sources in the
affected area (and in some cases those
sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area) is technically
appropriate, efficient and effective in
demonstrating attainment in
nonattainment areas because it takes
into consideration combinations of
meteorological and emission source
operating conditions that may
contribute to peak ground-level
concentrations of SO2.
The meteorological data used in the
analysis should generally be processed
with the most recent version of
AERMET. Estimated concentrations
should include ambient background
concentrations, should follow the form
of the standard, and should be
calculated as described in section
2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010
clarification memo on ‘‘Applicability of
Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the
1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ (U.S. EPA, 2010a).
II. Pennsylvania’s Attainment Plan
Submittal for the Indiana Area
In accordance with section 172(c) of
the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment
plan for the Indiana Area includes: (1)
An emissions inventory for SO2 for the
plan’s base year (2011); and (2) an
attainment demonstration. The
attainment demonstration includes the
following: Analyses that locate, identify,
and quantify sources of emissions
contributing to violations of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the
control strategy for the primary SO2
sources within the nonattainment areas
constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion
modeling analysis of an emissions
control strategy for the primary SO2
sources (Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward), showing attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4,
2018, attainment date; requirements for
RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS
in the Area; contingency measures; the
assertion that Pennsylvania’s existing
SIP-approved NSR program meets the
applicable requirements for SO2; and
the request that emission limitations
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32610
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
and compliance parameters for
Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and
Seward be incorporated into the SIP.
III. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Attainment Plan for the Indiana Area
Consistent with CAA requirements
(see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment
area must include a showing that the
area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. The
demonstration must also meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40
CFR part 51, Appendix W, and include
inventory data, modeling results, and
emissions reductions analyses on which
the state has based its projected
attainment. EPA is proposing that the
attainment plan submitted by
Pennsylvania meets all applicable
requirements of the CAA, and EPA is
proposing to approve the plan
submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure
ongoing attainment in the Indiana Area.
A. Pollutants Addressed
Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan
evaluates SO2 emissions for the Indiana
Area comprised of Indiana County and
a portion of Armstrong County
(Plumcreek Township, South Bend
Township, and Elderton Borough) that
is designated nonattainment for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no
precursors to consider for the SO2
attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant that
arises from direct emissions, and
therefore concentrations are highest
relatively close to the sources and much
lower at greater distances due to
dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration
patterns resemble those of other directly
emitted pollutants like lead, and differ
from those of photochemically-formed
(secondary) pollutants such as ozone.
Pennsylvania’s attainment plan
appropriately considered SO2 emissions
for the Indiana Area.
Reporting Requirements (AERR) at
Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.7
For the base year inventory of actual
emissions, a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate
and current’’ inventory can be
represented by a year that contributed to
the three-year design value used for the
original nonattainment designation. The
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance
notes that the base year inventory
should include all sources of SO2 in the
nonattainment area as well as any
sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area. Pennsylvania
appropriately elected to use 2011 as the
base year as the designation of
nonattainment was based on data from
2009–2011. Actual emissions from all
the sources of SO2 in the Indiana Area
were reviewed and compiled for the
base year emissions inventory
requirement. The primary SO2-emitting
point sources located within the Indiana
Area are Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward, all coal-fired power
plants. Keystone and Conemaugh each
have two pulverized coal-fired (PC)
boilers; Homer City has three coal-fired
boilers; and Seward has two circulating
fluidized bed (CFB) waste coal-fired
boilers. More information about the
emissions inventory for the Indiana
Area (and analysis of the inventory) can
be found in Pennsylvania’s October 11,
2017, submittal as well as EPA’s
emissions inventory Technical Support
Document (TSD), which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
2017–0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
Table 1 shows the level of emissions,
expressed in tons per year (tpy), in the
Indiana Area for the 2011 base year by
emissions source category. The point
source category includes all sources
within the Area.
TABLE 1—2011 BASE YEAR SO2
EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE INDIANA AREA
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
States are required under section
172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate and current
emissions inventories of all sources of
the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
the nonattainment area. These
inventories provide detailed accounting
of all emissions and emissions sources
by precursor or pollutant. In addition,
inventories are used in air quality
modeling to demonstrate that
attainment of the NAAQS is as
expeditious as practicable. The SO2
Nonattainment Guidance provides that
the emissions inventory should be
consistent with the Air Emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
Emission source category
SO2 Emissions
(tpy)
Point ....................................
Area ....................................
Non-road .............................
On-road ...............................
Total ....................................
144,269.017
555.610
1.025
7.730
144,833.382
EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania’s
2011 base year emissions inventory for
the Indiana Area and has made the
7 The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover
overarching federal reporting requirements for the
states to submit emissions inventories for criteria
pollutants to EPA’s Emissions Inventory System.
EPA uses these submittals, along with other data
sources, to build the National Emissions Inventory.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
preliminary determination that this
inventory was developed in a manner
consistent with EPA’s guidance.
Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3),
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s 2011 base year
emissions inventory for the Indiana
Area as it meets CAA requirements.
The attainment demonstration also
provides for a projected attainment year
inventory that includes estimated
emissions for all emission sources of
SO2 which are determined to impact the
nonattainment area for the year in
which the area is expected to attain the
NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018
projected emissions inventory for all
known sources included in the 2011
base year inventory. The projected 2018
emissions are shown in Table 2.
Pennsylvania’s submittal asserts that the
SO2 emissions are expected to decrease
by approximately 75,340 tons, or 40%,
by 2018 from the 2011 base year. More
information about the projected
emissions for the Indiana Area can be
found in Pennsylvania’s October 11,
2017, submittal which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
2017–0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
TABLE 2—2018 ANTICIPATED ACTUAL
PROJECTED SO2 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE INDIANA AREA
Emission source category
Point ....................................
Area ....................................
Non-road .............................
On-road ...............................
Total ....................................
SO2 Emissions
(tpy)
68,545.292
944.688
0.460
3.260
69,493.700
C. Air Quality Modeling
The SO2 attainment demonstration
provides air quality dispersion
modeling analyses to demonstrate that
control strategies chosen to reduce SO2
source emissions will bring the Area
into attainment by the statutory
attainment date of October 4, 2018. The
modeling analyses, conducted pursuant
to recommendations outlined in
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA’s
Modeling Guidance), are used to assess
the control strategy for a nonattainment
area and establish emission limits that
will provide for attainment. The
analysis requires five years of
meteorological data to simulate the
dispersion of pollutant plumes from
multiple point, area, or volume sources
across the averaging times of interest.
The modeling demonstration typically
also relies on maximum allowable
emissions from sources in the
nonattainment area. Though the actual
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emissions are likely to be below the
allowable emissions, sources have the
ability to run at higher production rates
or optimize controls such that emissions
approach the allowable emissions
limits. A modeling analysis that
provides for attainment under all
scenarios of operation for each source
must therefore consider the worst case
scenario of both the meteorology (e.g.
predominant wind directions,
stagnation, etc.) and the maximum
allowable emissions.
PADEP provided two sets of modeling
analyses: One analysis was developed in
accordance with EPA’s Modeling
Guidance and the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, and was
prepared using the default option in
EPA’s preferred dispersion modeling
system, AERMOD; a second modeling
analysis also utilized AERMOD but
included a procedure called
AERMOIST, an alternative model option
which accounts for additional plume
rise associated with the latent heat
release of condensation due to moisture
in a stack’s plume. AERMOIST is
currently not approved by EPA for
regulatory use. A more detailed
discussion of PADEP’s modeling
analysis for the Indiana Area can be
found in Pennsylvania’s October 11,
2017 submittal.
In addition to submitting the Indiana
Area attainment plan to EPA on October
11, 2017, PADEP also submitted a
request to EPA to review AERMOIST for
use in the Indiana Area attainment plan.
EPA has completed a review and
determined that the AERMOIST
procedure is not an appropriate option
for use in the Indiana attainment plan
for the following reasons: (1) There is no
multi-monitor database of SO2
monitoring data available for the four
major sources of SO2 in the Indiana
Area to conduct a source-specific
statistical test to determine if
AERMOIST provides a definitive
improvement over the current
regulatory default version of AERMOD;
(2) AERMOIST was universally applied
to all the major sources in the Indiana
Area regardless of whether the source
plumes are actually saturated; and (3)
there is a lack of supporting analysis for
using relative humidity measurements
in AERMOIST. For these reasons, EPA
is rejecting the AERMOIST modeling
analysis for the Indiana Area attainment
plan. A detailed discussion of the
deficiencies of the AERMOIST modeling
analysis submitted for the Indiana Area
can be found in EPA’s AERMOIST
modeling TSD for the Indiana which
can be found under Docket ID No. EPA–
R03–OAR–2017–0615 and available
online at www.regulations.gov.
EPA has reviewed the default
AERMOD analysis without the
AERMOIST module submitted for the
Indiana Area. The Indiana Area was
divided into two separate modeling
domains. Refer to EPA’s Modeling TSD
for the Indiana Area under Docket ID
EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0615, available at
www.regulations.gov for EPA’s review of
32611
the modeling domains. One domain
included portions of Armstrong County
which only addressed emissions from
Keystone as a source. The other domain
covered all of Indiana County and
addressed emissions from all four
sources in the nonattainment area. For
both domains, background
concentrations included impacts from
non-modeled sources. Each separate
model domain used its own (different)
background concentration.
AERMOD was used to determine the
critical emission values (CEV) for
Conemaugh, Keystone, and Seward
where the modeled 1-hour emission
rates demonstrate compliance with the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The SO2
emission rates for Homer City were
based on the unit 1, unit 2, and unit 3
combined mass-based SO2 emission
limits established in Plan Approval 32–
00055H,8 which authorized the
installation of Novel Integrated
Desulfurization (NID) systems, often
referred to as Dry Flue Gas
Desulphurization (FGD) systems on unit
1 and unit 2. This 1-hour SO2 limit was
based on air dispersion modeling that
demonstrated compliance with the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The CEV rates used
in the demonstration analysis for each
of the four sources are summarized in
the following table. The modeled
emission rate in grams per second was
converted to pounds per hour, which is
the CEV limit.9
TABLE 3—CRITICAL EMISSION VALUES FROM INDIANA, PA SIP MODELING DEMONSTRATION
Modeled rate
(g/s)
Facility
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Conemaugh Generating Station ..............................................................................................................................
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 1 ....................................................................................................................
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 2 ....................................................................................................................
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 3 ....................................................................................................................
Keystone Generating Station ...................................................................................................................................
Seward Generating Station .....................................................................................................................................
426.00
195.30
195.30
410.76
1,223.58
640.00
CEV limit
(lbs/hr)
3,381.00
1,550.02
1,550.02
3,260.02
9,711.10
5,079.44
Using the EPA conversion factor for
the SO2 NAAQS, the final 1-hour CEV
model run design values for the
Armstrong County portion (196.28 mg/
m3) and the Indiana County portion
(196.44 mg/m3) of the Indiana Area are
less than 75 ppb.10
PADEP also provided air dispersion
modeling with randomly reassigned
emissions (RRE) to provide support for
establishing longer term emission limits
for Keystone and Seward that would
provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and Section I of this proposed
rulemaking provide an extensive
discussion of EPA’s rationale for
concluding that emission limits that are
appropriately set based on averaging
times longer than 1 hour and up to as
long as 30 days can be found to provide
for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
When determining longer term emission
limits, EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance states,
8 Plan Approval 32–00055H was issued on April
2, 2012, and modified on April 4, 2013, by the DEP.
9 Based on the National Institute of Standards and
Technology conversion: 1 pound = 453.59237
grams.
10 The SO NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
2
AERMOD gives results in mg/m3. The conversion
factor for SO2 (at the standard conditions applied
in the ambient SO2 reference method) is 1ppb =
approximately 2.619 mg/m3.
See Pennsylvania’s SO2 Round 3 Designations
Proposed Technical Support Document at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/
documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘[T]he EPA is not precluding states from
using other approaches to determine
appropriate longer term average limits.
However, the EPA would recommend in all
cases that the analysis begin with
determination of the critical emission values.
A comparison of the 1-hour limit and the
proposed longer term limit, in particular an
assessment of whether the longer term
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32612
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
average limit may be considered to be of
comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit at the
critical emission value, would be a critical
element of a demonstration that any longer
term average limits in the SIP will help
provide adequate assurance that the plan will
provide for attainment and maintenance of
the 1-hour NAAQS.’’
As discussed in the RACM/RACT
section below, a 24-hour block average
SO2 emission limit for Keystone and a
rolling 30-day average SO2 emission
limit for Seward were developed by
conducting additional modeling with
SO2 emissions distributions
representative of future operations
which were derived for each facility by
evaluating emissions for 2014–2016. For
each facility, the emissions were
randomly reassigned to develop 100
hourly emission files for use in 100
AERMOD simulations. These AERMOD
simulations included CEV rates for three
facilities, and hourly emissions for
either Seward or Keystone. EPA believes
that the distribution of emissions
modeled in the 100 RRE methodology,
which were based on historical
operating levels and scaled to conform
with the longer term limits, are a
reasonable representation of an
allowable emissions distribution for
both Seward and Keystone. EPA
believes that the 100 RRE analyses and
model results for Keystone and Seward
provide adequate assurance that the
longer term emission limits for both of
these facilities will result in attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the
attainment date. A more detailed
discussion of the RRE modeling is
provided in EPA’s Modeling TSD for the
Indiana Area under Docket ID EPA–
R03–OAR–2017–0615, available at
www.regulations.gov.
EPA has reviewed the modeling that
Pennsylvania submitted to support the
attainment demonstration for the
Indiana Area and has determined that
the default AERMOD modeling is
consistent with CAA requirements,
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, and
EPA’s 2014 SO2 Guidance for SO2
attainment demonstration modeling.
Because the AERMOD analysis
employing AERMOIST has not been
approved by EPA for use in the
attainment demonstration for the
Indiana Area, EPA is not proposing to
approve the modeling submitted by
PADEP which employed AERMOIST.
EPA is proposing to approve the default
non-AERMOIST modeling, including
the CEV and RRE simulations, provided
in the attainment plan and EPA believes
that the modeling reasonably
demonstrates that the Indiana Area will
attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS by the attainment date.
D. RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that
each attainment plan provide for the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures (i.e., RACM)
as expeditiously as practicable and shall
provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
Section 172(c)(6) requires SIPs to
contain enforceable emission limitations
and control measures as may be
necessary or appropriate to provide for
NAAQS attainment. EPA interprets
RACM, including RACT, under section
172, as measures that a state determines
to be both reasonably available and
contribute to attainment as
expeditiously as practicable ‘‘for
existing sources in the area.’’
Pennsylvania’s October 11, 2017,
submittal discusses federal and state
measures that Pennsylvania asserts will
provide emission reductions leading to
attainment and maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules,
Pennsylvania cites its low sulfur fuel
rules, which were SIP-approved on July
10, 2014 (79 FR 39330). Pennsylvania’s
low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to
refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail
outlet fuel storage facilities, commercial
and industrial facilities, and facilities
with units burning regulated fuel oil to
produce electricity and domestic home
heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules
reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils
used in combustion units, thereby
reducing SO2 emissions and the
formation of sulfates that cause
decreased visibility.
Pennsylvania’s submittal discusses
that the main SO2 emitting sources at
Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and
Seward are all equipped with FGD
systems (wet limestone scrubbers, dry
FGD, or in-furnace limestone injection
systems) to reduce SO2 emissions. Table
4 lists the control technology at each of
the main SO2 emitting sources at each
facility.
TABLE 4—CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AT THE FOUR MAJOR SO2 SOURCES IN THE INDIANA AREA
Facility
Unit
SO2 control
Conemaugh .............................................
031—Main Boiler 1 ..................................
031—Main Boiler 2 ..................................
031—Boiler 1 ...........................................
032—Boiler 2 ...........................................
033—Boiler 3 ...........................................
031—Boiler 1 ...........................................
032—Boiler 2 ...........................................
034—CFB Boiler 1 ..................................
035—CFB Boiler 2 ..................................
Wet limestone scrubber ..........................
Wet limestone scrubber ..........................
Dry FGD ..................................................
Dry FGD ..................................................
Wet limestone scrubber ..........................
Wet limestone scrubber ..........................
Wet limestone scrubber ..........................
In-furnace limestone injection .................
In-furnace limestone injection .................
Homer City ...............................................
Keystone ..................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Seward .....................................................
With these controls installed,
Pennsylvania’s submittal discusses
facility-specific control measures,
namely SO2 emission limits for
Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward,
and new SO2 emission limits for
Keystone. Keystone’s new limits were
developed through air dispersion
modeling (default AERMOD) submitted
by PADEP. The modeling analysis is
discussed in section III.C. Air Quality
Modeling of this proposed rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
and in the Modeling TSD. In order to
ensure that the Indiana Area
demonstrates attainment with the SO2
NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the
following combination of emission
limits at the four facilities is sufficient
for the Indiana Area to meet the SO2
NAAQS and serve as RACM/RACT:
• Conemaugh’s current SO2 emission
limits contained in the Title V
Operating Permit (TVOP) 32–00059
because the emission limits for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Control
installation
date
∼1994
∼1995
11/18/2015
5/23/2016
∼2002
9/24/2009
11/22/2009
∼2004
∼2004
Conemaugh determined by the
modeling as necessary for SO2
attainment would be less stringent;
• Seward’s current SO2 emission
limit in TVOP 32–00040 because the
emission limits for Seward determined
by the modeling as necessary for SO2
attainment would be less stringent;
• Homer City’s current SO2 emission
limits established in Plan Approval 32–
00055H and Plan Approval 32–00055I;
and
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32613
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• A new, more stringent combined
SO2 emission limit for Keystone Unit 1
and Unit 2 of 9,600 pounds per hour
(lbs/hr) block 24-hour average limit.
The emission limits for each of the
SO2-emitting facilities are listed in
Table 5.
TABLE 5—SO2 EMISSION LIMITS FOR INDIANA AREA FACILITIES
Facility
Conemaugh .........................................
Homer City ...........................................
Keystone ..............................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Seward .................................................
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
The emission limits for Conemaugh,
Keystone and Seward have averaging
times greater than 1-hour (ranging
between three hours and 30 days). The
default non-AERMOIST modeling
analysis for the Indiana Area was used
to establish CEVs for each facility. These
(1-hour) CEVs were used for developing
longer than 1-hour emission limits for
Seward, Conemaugh, and Keystone. SO2
limits at Conemaugh are set to a 3-hour
block average. This average is roughly in
line with the CEV modeled limit and the
ratio from Appendix C in EPA’s 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
Keystone’s limits were set to a 24-hour
block average based on the 100 RRE
simulation method discussed in Section
III.C. Air Quality Modeling in this
proposed rulemaking. A similar
approach was used to establish a 30-day
rolling average for Seward. Appendices
C–1a and C–4 of Pennsylvania’s October
11, 2017 SIP submittal provide a
detailed explanation of the longer term
emission limits. EPA believes the 100
RRE iteration approach used in
Pennsylvania’s submittal for
determining longer term emission limits
for Seward and Keystone can be used to
demonstrate compliance with the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. EPA’s analysis of the
default AERMOD modeling analysis
using longer term emission limits
shows, as discussed in detail in the
Modeling TSD, that the emission limits
listed in Table 5 are sufficient for the
Indiana Area to attain the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. EPA’s analysis of the longer
term emission limits is discussed in
more detail in the Modeling TSD for the
Indiana Area under Docket ID EPA–
R03–OAR–2017–0615, available at
www.regulations.gov.
The emission limits or compliance
parameters, such as contingency
measures, or both, were established
through Consent Orders and
Agreements (COAs) and Consent Orders
(COs) between PADEP and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Emission limit
(lbs/hr)
Source description
Jkt 244001
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
1,656 (TVOP 32–00059) .....................
3-hour block.
6,360 (Plan Approval 32–00055H) and
limits specified in Plan Approval 32–
00055I.
9,600 (New limit based on default
AERMOD).
3,038.4 (TVOP 32–00040) ..................
1-hour block.
respective facility (see Appendices B–1
through B–4 of the October 11, 2017,
SIP submittal). The collective emission
limits and all related compliance
parameters (i.e. the measures which
include system audits, record-keeping
and reporting, and corrective actions)
have been proposed for incorporation
into the SIP to make these changes
permanently federally enforceable.
PADEP affirms that the implementation
of existing and new emission limits and
corresponding compliance parameters
for the four EGUs will enable the
Indiana Area to attain and maintain the
SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s determination that the
proposed SO2 control strategy at
Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and
Seward constitutes RACM/RACT for
each SO2 source in the Indiana Area
based on the modeling analysis
previously described. EPA finds
Pennsylvania’s control strategy for
RACM/RACT including emission limits
and compliance parameters for the four
EGUs will enable the Indiana Area to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Furthermore, PADEP requests that the
unredacted portions of the COAs, COs,
Plan Approvals, and TVOP submitted
by PADEP with the attainment plan be
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
Including the emission limits listed in
the CO for Keystone, the Plan Approval
for Homer City, and the TVOPs for
Conemaugh and Seward (see Table 4),
and corresponding compliance
parameters found in the COAs and COs
for Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City,
and Seward in the Pennsylvania SIP
means that these measures will become
permanent and enforceable SIP
measures to meet the requirements of
the CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes to
approve Pennsylvania’s October 11,
2017 SIP submittal as meeting the
RACM/RACT requirements of section
172(c)(1) and the enforceable emission
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Averaging period
24-hour block.
30-day rolling.
limitation and control measures
requirements of section 172(c)(6) of the
CAA.
E. RFP Plan
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires
that an attainment plan includes a
demonstration that shows reasonable
further progress (i.e., RFP) for meeting
air quality standards will be achieved
through generally linear incremental
improvement in air quality. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ‘‘such
annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by this part (part D) or may
reasonably be required by EPA for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.’’ As stated in the 1994
SO2 Guidelines Document 11 and
repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, EPA continues to believe that
this definition is most appropriate for
pollutants that are emitted from
numerous and diverse sources, where
the relationship between particular
sources and ambient air quality are not
directly quantified. In such cases,
emissions reductions may be required
from various types and locations of
sources. The relationship between SO2
and sources is much more defined, and
usually there is a single step between
pre-control nonattainment and postcontrol attainment. Therefore, EPA
interpreted RFP for SO2 as adherence to
an ambitious compliance schedule in
both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document
and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. EPA finds the control
measures included in Pennsylvania’s
submittal demonstrate attainment for
the Area with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
based on the modeling submitted by
11 SO Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
2
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994. Located at:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
32614
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Pennsylvania. The permits and
compliance orders submitted by
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the SIP
require these control measures and
resulting emission reductions to be
achieved as expeditiously as
practicable. As a result, based on air
quality modeling reviewed by EPA, this
is projected to yield a sufficient
reduction in SO2 emissions from the
major sources in the Indiana Area
resulting in modeled attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS for the Indiana Area.
Therefore, EPA has determined that
PADEP’s SO2 attainment plan for the
Indiana Area fulfills the RFP
requirements for the Indiana Area. EPA
does not anticipate future
nonattainment, or that the Area will not
attain the NAAQS by the October 4,
2018 attainment date. EPA proposes to
approve Pennsylvania’s attainment plan
with respect to the RFP requirements.
F. Contingency Measures
In accordance with section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA, contingency measures are
required as additional measures to be
implemented in the event that an area
fails to meet the RFP requirements or
fails to attain the standard by its
attainment date. These measures must
be fully adopted rules or control
measures that can be implemented
quickly and without additional EPA or
state action if the area fails to meet RFP
requirements or fails to meet its
attainment date, and should contain
trigger mechanisms and an
implementation schedule. However,
SO2 presents special considerations. As
stated in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS
promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR
35520) and in the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, EPA
concluded that because of the
quantifiable relationship between SO2
sources and control measures, it is
appropriate that state agencies develop
a comprehensive program to identify
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS
and undertake an aggressive follow-up
for compliance and enforcement.
The COAs or COs for Conemaugh,
Homer City, Keystone, and Seward (see
Appendices B–1 through B–4 of the
October 11, 2017 submittal) each
contain the following measures that are
designed to keep the Indiana Area from
triggering an exceedance or violation of
the SO2 NAAQS: (1) Upon execution of
the COA or CO, if SO2 emissions from
the combined SO2 emitting sources at
the facility exceed 99% of the SO2
emissions limit for the facility (listed in
Table 3), within 48 hours the facility is
required to undertake a full system
audit of the SO2 emitting sources and
submit a written report to PADEP
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
within 15 days, and corrective actions
shall be identified by PADEP as
necessary; and (2) Upon execution of
the COA or CO, if the Strongstown
monitor (ID 42–063–0004) measures a 1hour concentration exceeding 75 ppb,
PADEP will notify the facility in the
Area, and the facility in the Area is
required to identify whether any of the
SO2-emitting sources at the respective
facility were running at the time of the
exceedance, and within a reasonable
time period leading up to the
exceedance, not to exceed 24 hours. If
any of the SO2-emitting sources were
running at the time of the exceedance,
the facility must then analyze the
meteorological data on the day the daily
exceedance occurred to ensure that the
daily exceedance was not due to SO2
emissions from the respective facility.
The facility’s findings must be
submitted to PADEP within 30 days of
being notified of the exceedance.
Additionally, if PADEP identifies a
daily maximum SO2 concentration
exceeding 75 ppb at a PADEP-operated
SO2 ambient air quality monitor in the
Indiana Area, within five days, PADEP
will contact Conemaugh, Homer City,
Keystone, and Seward to trigger the
implementation of the daily exceedance
report contingency measure described
in section VIII.C. of the October 11, 2017
submittal. If necessary, section 4(27) of
the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control
Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take
any action it deems necessary or proper
for the effective enforcement of APCA
and the rules and regulations
promulgated under APCA. Such actions
include the issuance of orders and the
assessment of civil penalties. A more
detailed description of the contingency
measures can be found in section VIII of
the October 11, 2017 submittal as well
as the COAs and COs included in the
submittal and included for
incorporation by reference into the SIP.
EPA is proposing to find that
Pennsylvania’s October 11, 2017
submittal includes sufficient measures
to expeditiously identify the source of
any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for
aggressive follow-up including
enforcement measures within PADEP’s
authority as necessary. Therefore, EPA
proposes that the contingency measures
submitted by Pennsylvania follow the
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and
meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.
G. New Source Review 12
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires
that an attainment plan require permits
12 The CAA new source review (NSR) program is
composed of three separate programs: Prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD), NNSR, and Minor
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the construction and operation of
new or modified major stationary
sources in a nonattainment area.
Pennsylvania has a fully implemented
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) program for criteria pollutants
in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127,
Subchapter E, which was approved into
the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9,
1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012
(77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP
revision pertaining to the preconstruction permitting requirements of
Pennsylvania’s NNSR program to
update the regulations to meet EPA’s
2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then
approved an update to Pennsylvania’s
NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77
FR 41276). These rules provide for
appropriate NSR as required by CAA
sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR
51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing
construction or major modification in
the Indiana Area without need for
modification of the approved rules.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the
Pennsylvania SIP meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this
Area.
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision for the
Indiana Area, as submitted through
PADEP to EPA on October 11, 2017, for
the purpose of demonstrating
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing
to approve the base year emissions
inventory, a modeling demonstration of
SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/
RACT, enforceable emission limitations
and control measures, a RFP plan, and
contingency measures for the Indiana
Area and is proposing that the
Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements
for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing
to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP
specific SO2 emission limits,
NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the
CAA and applies in undesignated areas and in areas
that meet the NAAQS—designated ‘‘attainment
areas’’—as well as areas where there is insufficient
information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS—designated ‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The
NNSR program is established in part D of title I of
the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS—designated
‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR program
addresses construction or modification activities
that do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and applies
regardless of the designation of the area in which
a source is located. Together, these programs are
referred to as the NSR programs. Section 173 of the
CAA lays out the NNSR program for
preconstruction review of new major sources or
major modifications to existing sources, as required
by CAA section 172(c)(5). The programmatic
elements for NNSR include, among other things,
compliance with the lowest achievable emissions
rate and the requirement to obtain emissions offsets.
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules
compliance parameters, and
contingency measures established for
the SO2 sources impacting the Indiana
Area.
EPA has determined that
Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Indiana
County meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s
attainment plan for the Indiana Area as
submitted on October 11, 2017. EPA’s
analysis for this proposed action is
discussed in Section III of this proposed
rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Final approval of this SIP submittal will
remove EPA’s duty to promulgate and
implement a FIP under CAA section
110(c).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the portions of the COAs or
COs entered between Pennsylvania and
Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and
Seward that are not redacted, as well as
the unredacted portions of the TVOPs or
Plan Approval included in the October
11, 2017 submittal. These include
emission limits and associated
compliance parameters (i.e. the
measures which include system audits,
record-keeping and reporting, and
corrective actions). EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rulemaking for more
information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Jul 12, 2018
Jkt 244001
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule,
concerning the SO2 attainment plan for
the Indiana nonattainment area in
Pennsylvania, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
PO 00000
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32615
Dated: June 27, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018–14947 Filed 7–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 218
RIN 0648–XG273
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of
Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System Low Frequency Active Sonar
in the Western and Central North
Pacific Ocean and Eastern Indian
Ocean
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Receipt of application for
rulemaking and letter of authorization;
request for comments and information.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for
authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to the use of Surveillance
Towed Array Sensor Systems Low
Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA)
sonar systems onboard U.S. Navy
surveillance ships for training and
testing activities conducted under the
authority of the Secretary of the Navy in
the western and central North Pacific
and eastern Indian oceans beginning
August 2019. Pursuant to the
implementing regulations of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is announcing our receipt of the Navy’s
request for the development and
implementation of regulations
governing the incidental taking of
marine mammals and inviting
information, suggestions, and comments
on the Navy’s application and request.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than August 13,
2018.
SUMMARY:
Comments on the
application should be addressed to Jolie
Harrison, Chief, Permits and
Conservation Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service. Physical comments
should be sent to 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–
3225 and electronic comments should
be sent to ITP.Youngkin@noaa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM
13JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32606-32615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14947]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615; FRL-9980-65-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Indiana, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), to EPA on October 11, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Indiana, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Indiana Area'' or ``Area''). The
Indiana Area is comprised of Indiana County and a portion of Armstrong
County (Plumcreek Township, South Bend Township, and Elderton Borough)
in Pennsylvania. The major sources of SO2 in the Indiana
Area emitting over 2,000 tpy of SO2 include several large
electric generating units (EGUs): Keystone Plant, Conemaugh Plant,
Homer City Generation, and Seward Generation Station (hereafter
referred to as ``Keystone,'' ``Conemaugh,'' ``Homer City,'' and
``Seward''). The SIP submission is an attainment plan which includes
the base year emissions inventory, an analysis of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control
measure (RACM) requirements, enforceable emission limitations and
control measures, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling
demonstration of SO2 attainment, and contingency measures
for the Indiana Area. As part of approving the attainment plan, EPA is
also proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP SO2
emission limits and associated compliance parameters for Keystone,
Conemaugh, Homer City and Seward and proposes to find Pennsylvania has
measures in place to address nonattainment new source review. EPA
proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan and concludes that
the Indiana Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the plan meets all
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 13, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0615 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold, (215) 814-2027, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Indiana Area
III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the
Indiana Area
A. Pollutants Addressed
B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
C. Air Quality Modeling
D. RACM/RACT
E. RFP Plan
F. Contingency Measures
G. New Source Review
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new primary SO2 NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also
revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject
to certain conditions.\1\ EPA established the NAAQS based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to
SO2 emissions ranging from five minutes to 24 hours with an
array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways
which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and
increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health
impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final
rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the
United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation
process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. On August 5,
2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which
[[Page 32607]]
became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there were
sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's June 22, 2010 final action revoked the two 1971
primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30
ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520.
However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained.
Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for
certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
\2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order finalized March 2,
2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
13-cv-03953-SI (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective on October 4, 2013, the Indiana Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting sources of Keystone,
Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward. The October 4, 2013 final
designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit by April
4, 2015, a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would
attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA sections
172(c) and 191-192.
For a number of areas, including the Indiana Area, EPA published a
notice on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania
and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding
sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of October 11,
2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 13, 2017, to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of
the sanctions' deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not
be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania having missed the April 4,
2015 deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18,
2016, finding triggered a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the
finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete
submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable
requirements. This FIP obligation will no longer apply if and when EPA
makes final the approval action proposed here.
Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. The required
components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c)
of Title 1, part D of the CAA. EPA's regulations governing
nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific
procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at
subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990
Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a
document entitled the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' published at 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the
General Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and fundamental
principles for SIP control strategies. Id. at 13545-49, 13567-68.
On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could
address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment
plans.\3\ In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements
for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within
the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that
includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide
for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c) and (c)(6));
demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including
RACT (172(c)(1)); new source review (NSR) requirements (172(c)(5)); and
adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)). A
synopsis of these requirements is also provided in the notice of
proposed rulemaking on the Illinois SO2 nonattainment plans,
published on October 5, 2017 at 82 FR 46434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191-192 and EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate
to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have
been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a
SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no
requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in
any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be
modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as
nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for
attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates
the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long
required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental
principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and
accountability (General Preamble, at 13567-68). SO2
attainment plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits
and other control measures that assure implementation of permanent,
enforceable and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling
analysis which meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W
which demonstrates that these emission limits and control measures
provide for timely attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the attainment date
for the affected area. In all cases, the emission limits and control
measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to
determine compliance with the respective emission limits and control
measures and must be quantifiable (a specific amount of emission
reduction can be ascribed to the measures), fully enforceable
(specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable requirements for which
compliance can be practicably determined), replicable (the procedures
for determining compliance are sufficiently specific and non-subjective
so that two independent entities applying the procedures would obtain
the same result), and accountable (source specific limits must be
permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP
demonstrations).
EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance recommends that
the emission limits established for the attainment demonstration be
expressed as short-term average limits (e.g., addressing emissions
averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the option to
utilize emission limits with longer averaging times of up to 30 days so
long as the state meets various suggested criteria. See 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance
recommends that--should states and sources utilize longer averaging
times--the longer term
[[Page 32608]]
average limit should be set at an adjusted level that reflects a
stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the critical
emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan otherwise
would have set.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an
extensive discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that
appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging
times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered
the nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact
of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the standard,
and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate balance among
the various factors that warrant consideration in judging whether a
state's plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 22-39, and Appendices
B, C, and D.
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days
of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth
highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single
exceedance does not create a violation of the standard. Instead, at
issue is whether a source operating in compliance with a properly set
longer term average could cause exceedances, and if so the resulting
frequency and magnitude of such exceedances, and in particular, whether
EPA can have reasonable confidence that a properly set longer term
average limit will provide that the average fourth highest daily
maximum value will be at or below 75 ppb. A synopsis of how EPA
evaluates whether such plans ``provide for attainment,'' based on
modeling of projected allowable emissions and in light of the NAAQS'
form for determining attainment at monitoring sites follows.
For SO2 attainment plans based on 1-hour emission
limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed
emission rates. The maximum modeled emission rate that results in
attainment is labeled the ``critical emission value.'' The modeling
process for identifying this critical emission value inherently
considers the numerous variables that affect ambient concentrations of
SO2, such as meteorological data, background concentrations,
and topography. In the standard approach, the state would then provide
for attainment by setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission
limit at this critical emission value.
EPA recognizes that some sources have highly variable emissions,
for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating
rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed
control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given
hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges
the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods
with emissions above the ``critical emission value,'' which, if
coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high
SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of
a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have
occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level
corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several
reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance
document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical
perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source
subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar
to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour
average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended
that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably
stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a
downward adjustment from the critical emissions value) and that takes
the source's emissions profile (and inherent level of emissions
variability) into account. As a result, EPA expects either form of
emission limit to yield comparable air quality.
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions
under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the
critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario,
the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical
emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit
well below the critical emission value. In an ``average year,'' \4\
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three
exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and
a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with
the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that
additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour
limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the
longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is
set below the critical emission value), so a source complying with an
appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower emissions
at critical times than would be the case if the source were emitting as
allowed with a 1-hour limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air
quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three
years of 99th percentile daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the
fourth highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a year with 365
days with valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a
single ``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of
relevant principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate this point, EPA conducted a statistical analysis
using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. The analysis is
described in Appendix B of EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance. Based on the analysis described in its 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, EPA expects that an emission profile with
maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set comparably
stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net effect of
having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality than an
emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-hour
emission limit at the critical emission value. This result provides a
compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer averaging
period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate this
result can be expected to occur.
The question then becomes whether this approach, which is likely to
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may
produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value,
meets the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for SIPs to
``provide for
[[Page 32609]]
attainment'' of the NAAQS. For SO2, as for other pollutants,
it is generally impossible to design a nonattainment plan in the
present that will guarantee that attainment will occur in the future. A
variety of factors can cause a well-designed attainment plan to fail
and unexpectedly not result in attainment, for example if meteorology
occurs that is more conducive to poor air quality than was anticipated
in the plan. Therefore, in determining whether a plan meets the
requirement to provide for attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge
not whether the plan provides absolute certainty that attainment will
in fact occur, but rather whether the plan provides an adequate level
of confidence of prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective,
in evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely
net effect on air quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk
that occasions with meteorology conducive to high concentrations will
have elevated emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise
have occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement
for lower emissions on average will result in days not having
exceedances that would have been expected with emissions at the
critical emissions value. Additional policy considerations, such as in
this case the desirability of accommodating real world emissions
variability without significant risk of violations, are also
appropriate factors for EPA to consider when evaluating whether a plan
provides a reasonable degree of confidence that the plan will lead to
attainment. Based on these considerations, especially given the high
likelihood that a continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long
as 30 days, determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result
in attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if
appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific
recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average
limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour
emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical
emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the
(lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be
estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-
hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission
data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to
comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new
controls) may require use of an emission database from another source.
The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete
set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and
averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation (i.e.,
using 1-hour historical emission values from the emissions database to
calculate 30-day average emission values). In this recommended method,
the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long term averages to the
99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an adjustment factor
that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit (critical
emission value) to determine a longer term average emission limit that
may be considered comparably stringent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, if the critical emission value is 1000 pounds
of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is
determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average
limit would be 700 pounds per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also addresses a
variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting
supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the
likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might
occur under the longer term emission rate limit.
Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in Appendix A of the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
(40 CFR part 51, appendix W).\6\ In 2005, the EPA promulgated AERMOD as
the Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range
of regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example
in estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain
based on extensive developmental and performance evaluation.
Supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating
attainment of the SO2 standard is provided in Appendix A to
the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Appendix A provides
extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted
types of meteorological data, and background concentrations.
Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally
necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable
assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality
Models on January 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling (see Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the
mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in
an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2
NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, the EPA believes that
dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing
stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those
sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and
effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it
takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level
concentrations of SO2.
The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should
follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described
in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 clarification memo on
``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA,
2010a).
II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Indiana Area
In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Indiana Area includes: (1) An emissions
inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2)
an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the
following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of
emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS;
a determination that the control strategy for the primary
SO2 sources within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/
RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy
for the primary SO2 sources (Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward), showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by
the October 4, 2018, attainment date; requirements for RFP toward
attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures;
the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program
meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request
that emission limitations
[[Page 32610]]
and compliance parameters for Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and
Seward be incorporated into the SIP.
III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Indiana
Area
Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment area must include a
showing that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and
include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions
analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is
proposing that the attainment plan submitted by Pennsylvania meets all
applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA is proposing to approve the
plan submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure ongoing attainment in the
Indiana Area.
A. Pollutants Addressed
Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates
SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area comprised of Indiana
County and a portion of Armstrong County (Plumcreek Township, South
Bend Township, and Elderton Borough) that is designated nonattainment
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider
for the SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant
that arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are
highest relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater
distances due to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration
patterns resemble those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead,
and differ from those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants
such as ozone. Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered
SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area.
B. Emissions Inventory Requirements
States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all
sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment
area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions
and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition,
inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that
attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions
inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover overarching
federal reporting requirements for the states to submit emissions
inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory
System. EPA uses these submittals, along with other data sources, to
build the National Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a ``comprehensive,
accurate and current'' inventory can be represented by a year that
contributed to the three-year design value used for the original
nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources
of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources
located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in
the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base
year as the designation of nonattainment was based on data from 2009-
2011. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the
Indiana Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions
inventory requirement. The primary SO2-emitting point
sources located within the Indiana Area are Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward, all coal-fired power plants. Keystone and Conemaugh
each have two pulverized coal-fired (PC) boilers; Homer City has three
coal-fired boilers; and Seward has two circulating fluidized bed (CFB)
waste coal-fired boilers. More information about the emissions
inventory for the Indiana Area (and analysis of the inventory) can be
found in Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal as well as EPA's
emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be
found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tons per year
(tpy), in the Indiana Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source
category. The point source category includes all sources within the
Area.
Table 1--2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Indiana Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions
Emission source category (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................................. 144,269.017
Area................................................... 555.610
Non-road............................................... 1.025
On-road................................................ 7.730
Total.................................................. 144,833.382
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory
for the Indiana Area and has made the preliminary determination that
this inventory was developed in a manner consistent with EPA's
guidance. Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to
approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the
Indiana Area as it meets CAA requirements.
The attainment demonstration also provides for a projected
attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all
emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the
nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain
the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory
for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory. The
projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 2. Pennsylvania's submittal
asserts that the SO2 emissions are expected to decrease by
approximately 75,340 tons, or 40%, by 2018 from the 2011 base year.
More information about the projected emissions for the Indiana Area can
be found in Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal which can be
found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
Table 2--2018 Anticipated Actual Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for
the Indiana Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions
Emission source category (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................................. 68,545.292
Area................................................... 944.688
Non-road............................................... 0.460
On-road................................................ 3.260
Total.................................................. 69,493.700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Air Quality Modeling
The SO2 attainment demonstration provides air quality
dispersion modeling analyses to demonstrate that control strategies
chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area
into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018.
The modeling analyses, conducted pursuant to recommendations outlined
in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), are used to
assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area and establish
emission limits that will provide for attainment. The analysis requires
five years of meteorological data to simulate the dispersion of
pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume sources across
the averaging times of interest. The modeling demonstration typically
also relies on maximum allowable emissions from sources in the
nonattainment area. Though the actual
[[Page 32611]]
emissions are likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have
the ability to run at higher production rates or optimize controls such
that emissions approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling
analysis that provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation
for each source must therefore consider the worst case scenario of both
the meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.)
and the maximum allowable emissions.
PADEP provided two sets of modeling analyses: One analysis was
developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, and was prepared using the
default option in EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, AERMOD; a
second modeling analysis also utilized AERMOD but included a procedure
called AERMOIST, an alternative model option which accounts for
additional plume rise associated with the latent heat release of
condensation due to moisture in a stack's plume. AERMOIST is currently
not approved by EPA for regulatory use. A more detailed discussion of
PADEP's modeling analysis for the Indiana Area can be found in
Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 submittal.
In addition to submitting the Indiana Area attainment plan to EPA
on October 11, 2017, PADEP also submitted a request to EPA to review
AERMOIST for use in the Indiana Area attainment plan. EPA has completed
a review and determined that the AERMOIST procedure is not an
appropriate option for use in the Indiana attainment plan for the
following reasons: (1) There is no multi-monitor database of
SO2 monitoring data available for the four major sources of
SO2 in the Indiana Area to conduct a source-specific
statistical test to determine if AERMOIST provides a definitive
improvement over the current regulatory default version of AERMOD; (2)
AERMOIST was universally applied to all the major sources in the
Indiana Area regardless of whether the source plumes are actually
saturated; and (3) there is a lack of supporting analysis for using
relative humidity measurements in AERMOIST. For these reasons, EPA is
rejecting the AERMOIST modeling analysis for the Indiana Area
attainment plan. A detailed discussion of the deficiencies of the
AERMOIST modeling analysis submitted for the Indiana Area can be found
in EPA's AERMOIST modeling TSD for the Indiana which can be found under
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615 and available online at
www.regulations.gov.
EPA has reviewed the default AERMOD analysis without the AERMOIST
module submitted for the Indiana Area. The Indiana Area was divided
into two separate modeling domains. Refer to EPA's Modeling TSD for the
Indiana Area under Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at
www.regulations.gov for EPA's review of the modeling domains. One
domain included portions of Armstrong County which only addressed
emissions from Keystone as a source. The other domain covered all of
Indiana County and addressed emissions from all four sources in the
nonattainment area. For both domains, background concentrations
included impacts from non-modeled sources. Each separate model domain
used its own (different) background concentration.
AERMOD was used to determine the critical emission values (CEV) for
Conemaugh, Keystone, and Seward where the modeled 1-hour emission rates
demonstrate compliance with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
SO2 emission rates for Homer City were based on the unit 1,
unit 2, and unit 3 combined mass-based SO2 emission limits
established in Plan Approval 32-00055H,\8\ which authorized the
installation of Novel Integrated Desulfurization (NID) systems, often
referred to as Dry Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) systems on unit 1
and unit 2. This 1-hour SO2 limit was based on air
dispersion modeling that demonstrated compliance with the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The CEV rates used in the demonstration analysis
for each of the four sources are summarized in the following table. The
modeled emission rate in grams per second was converted to pounds per
hour, which is the CEV limit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Plan Approval 32-00055H was issued on April 2, 2012, and
modified on April 4, 2013, by the DEP.
\9\ Based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology
conversion: 1 pound = 453.59237 grams.
Table 3--Critical Emission Values From Indiana, PA SIP Modeling
Demonstration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled rate CEV limit (lbs/
Facility (g/s) hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh Generating Station............ 426.00 3,381.00
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 1... 195.30 1,550.02
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 2... 195.30 1,550.02
Homer City Generating Station, Unit 3... 410.76 3,260.02
Keystone Generating Station............. 1,223.58 9,711.10
Seward Generating Station............... 640.00 5,079.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2 NAAQS, the
final 1-hour CEV model run design values for the Armstrong County
portion (196.28 [mu]g/m\3\) and the Indiana County portion (196.44
[mu]g/m\3\) of the Indiana Area are less than 75 ppb.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
AERMOD gives results in [mu]g/m\3\. The conversion factor for
SO2 (at the standard conditions applied in the ambient
SO2 reference method) is 1ppb = approximately 2.619
[mu]g/m\3\.
See Pennsylvania's SO2 Round 3 Designations Proposed
Technical Support Document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/35_pa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PADEP also provided air dispersion modeling with randomly
reassigned emissions (RRE) to provide support for establishing longer
term emission limits for Keystone and Seward that would provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and Section I of this proposed rulemaking provide an extensive
discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that emission limits that
are appropriately set based on averaging times longer than 1 hour and
up to as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. When determining longer term emission
limits, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance states,
``[T]he EPA is not precluding states from using other approaches
to determine appropriate longer term average limits. However, the
EPA would recommend in all cases that the analysis begin with
determination of the critical emission values. A comparison of the
1-hour limit and the proposed longer term limit, in particular an
assessment of whether the longer term
[[Page 32612]]
average limit may be considered to be of comparable stringency to a
1-hour limit at the critical emission value, would be a critical
element of a demonstration that any longer term average limits in
the SIP will help provide adequate assurance that the plan will
provide for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS.''
As discussed in the RACM/RACT section below, a 24-hour block
average SO2 emission limit for Keystone and a rolling 30-day
average SO2 emission limit for Seward were developed by
conducting additional modeling with SO2 emissions
distributions representative of future operations which were derived
for each facility by evaluating emissions for 2014-2016. For each
facility, the emissions were randomly reassigned to develop 100 hourly
emission files for use in 100 AERMOD simulations. These AERMOD
simulations included CEV rates for three facilities, and hourly
emissions for either Seward or Keystone. EPA believes that the
distribution of emissions modeled in the 100 RRE methodology, which
were based on historical operating levels and scaled to conform with
the longer term limits, are a reasonable representation of an allowable
emissions distribution for both Seward and Keystone. EPA believes that
the 100 RRE analyses and model results for Keystone and Seward provide
adequate assurance that the longer term emission limits for both of
these facilities will result in attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS by the attainment date. A more detailed discussion of the RRE
modeling is provided in EPA's Modeling TSD for the Indiana Area under
Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at www.regulations.gov.
EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to
support the attainment demonstration for the Indiana Area and has
determined that the default AERMOD modeling is consistent with CAA
requirements, Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, and EPA's 2014
SO2 Guidance for SO2 attainment demonstration
modeling. Because the AERMOD analysis employing AERMOIST has not been
approved by EPA for use in the attainment demonstration for the Indiana
Area, EPA is not proposing to approve the modeling submitted by PADEP
which employed AERMOIST. EPA is proposing to approve the default non-
AERMOIST modeling, including the CEV and RRE simulations, provided in
the attainment plan and EPA believes that the modeling reasonably
demonstrates that the Indiana Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.
D. RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures
(i.e., RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 172(c)(6) requires SIPs to contain
enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be
necessary or appropriate to provide for NAAQS attainment. EPA
interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a
state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to
attainment as expeditiously as practicable ``for existing sources in
the area.''
Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017, submittal discusses federal and
state measures that Pennsylvania asserts will provide emission
reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites
its low sulfur fuel rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79
FR 39330). Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to
refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage
facilities, commercial and industrial facilities, and facilities with
units burning regulated fuel oil to produce electricity and domestic
home heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of
sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion units, thereby reducing
SO2 emissions and the formation of sulfates that cause
decreased visibility.
Pennsylvania's submittal discusses that the main SO2
emitting sources at Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward are all
equipped with FGD systems (wet limestone scrubbers, dry FGD, or in-
furnace limestone injection systems) to reduce SO2
emissions. Table 4 lists the control technology at each of the main
SO2 emitting sources at each facility.
Table 4--Control Technology at the Four Major SO2 Sources in the Indiana Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control
Facility Unit SO2 control installation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh............................... 031--Main Boiler 1........ Wet limestone scrubber.... ~1994
031--Main Boiler 2........ Wet limestone scrubber.... ~1995
Homer City.............................. 031--Boiler 1............. Dry FGD................... 11/18/2015
032--Boiler 2............. Dry FGD................... 5/23/2016
033--Boiler 3............. Wet limestone scrubber.... ~2002
Keystone................................ 031--Boiler 1............. Wet limestone scrubber.... 9/24/2009
032--Boiler 2............. Wet limestone scrubber.... 11/22/2009
Seward.................................. 034--CFB Boiler 1......... In-furnace limestone ~2004
injection.
035--CFB Boiler 2......... In-furnace limestone ~2004
injection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these controls installed, Pennsylvania's submittal discusses
facility-specific control measures, namely SO2 emission
limits for Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward, and new SO2
emission limits for Keystone. Keystone's new limits were developed
through air dispersion modeling (default AERMOD) submitted by PADEP.
The modeling analysis is discussed in section III.C. Air Quality
Modeling of this proposed rulemaking and in the Modeling TSD. In order
to ensure that the Indiana Area demonstrates attainment with the
SO2 NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the following combination of
emission limits at the four facilities is sufficient for the Indiana
Area to meet the SO2 NAAQS and serve as RACM/RACT:
Conemaugh's current SO2 emission limits
contained in the Title V Operating Permit (TVOP) 32-00059 because the
emission limits for Conemaugh determined by the modeling as necessary
for SO2 attainment would be less stringent;
Seward's current SO2 emission limit in TVOP 32-
00040 because the emission limits for Seward determined by the modeling
as necessary for SO2 attainment would be less stringent;
Homer City's current SO2 emission limits
established in Plan Approval 32-00055H and Plan Approval 32-00055I; and
[[Page 32613]]
A new, more stringent combined SO2 emission
limit for Keystone Unit 1 and Unit 2 of 9,600 pounds per hour (lbs/hr)
block 24-hour average limit.
The emission limits for each of the SO2-emitting
facilities are listed in Table 5.
Table 5--SO2 Emission Limits for Indiana Area Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lbs/
Facility Source description hr) Averaging period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conemaugh......................... Unit 1............... 1,656 (TVOP 32- 3-hour block.
Unit 2............... 00059).
Homer City........................ Unit 1............... 6,360 (Plan Approval 1-hour block.
Unit 2............... 32-00055H) and
Unit 3............... limits specified in
Plan Approval 32-
00055I.
Keystone.......................... Unit 1............... 9,600 (New limit 24-hour block.
Unit 2............... based on default
AERMOD).
Seward............................ Unit 1............... 3,038.4 (TVOP 32- 30-day rolling.
Unit 2............... 00040).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission limits for Conemaugh, Keystone and Seward have
averaging times greater than 1-hour (ranging between three hours and 30
days). The default non-AERMOIST modeling analysis for the Indiana Area
was used to establish CEVs for each facility. These (1-hour) CEVs were
used for developing longer than 1-hour emission limits for Seward,
Conemaugh, and Keystone. SO2 limits at Conemaugh are set to
a 3-hour block average. This average is roughly in line with the CEV
modeled limit and the ratio from Appendix C in EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Keystone's limits were set to a
24-hour block average based on the 100 RRE simulation method discussed
in Section III.C. Air Quality Modeling in this proposed rulemaking. A
similar approach was used to establish a 30-day rolling average for
Seward. Appendices C-1a and C-4 of Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP
submittal provide a detailed explanation of the longer term emission
limits. EPA believes the 100 RRE iteration approach used in
Pennsylvania's submittal for determining longer term emission limits
for Seward and Keystone can be used to demonstrate compliance with the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the default AERMOD
modeling analysis using longer term emission limits shows, as discussed
in detail in the Modeling TSD, that the emission limits listed in Table
5 are sufficient for the Indiana Area to attain the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the longer term emission limits
is discussed in more detail in the Modeling TSD for the Indiana Area
under Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0615, available at
www.regulations.gov.
The emission limits or compliance parameters, such as contingency
measures, or both, were established through Consent Orders and
Agreements (COAs) and Consent Orders (COs) between PADEP and the
respective facility (see Appendices B-1 through B-4 of the October 11,
2017, SIP submittal). The collective emission limits and all related
compliance parameters (i.e. the measures which include system audits,
record-keeping and reporting, and corrective actions) have been
proposed for incorporation into the SIP to make these changes
permanently federally enforceable. PADEP affirms that the
implementation of existing and new emission limits and corresponding
compliance parameters for the four EGUs will enable the Indiana Area to
attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the
proposed SO2 control strategy at Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer
City, and Seward constitutes RACM/RACT for each SO2 source
in the Indiana Area based on the modeling analysis previously
described. EPA finds Pennsylvania's control strategy for RACM/RACT
including emission limits and compliance parameters for the four EGUs
will enable the Indiana Area to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Furthermore, PADEP requests that the unredacted portions of the
COAs, COs, Plan Approvals, and TVOP submitted by PADEP with the
attainment plan be approved into the Pennsylvania SIP. Including the
emission limits listed in the CO for Keystone, the Plan Approval for
Homer City, and the TVOPs for Conemaugh and Seward (see Table 4), and
corresponding compliance parameters found in the COAs and COs for
Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and Seward in the Pennsylvania SIP
means that these measures will become permanent and enforceable SIP
measures to meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes
to approve Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP submittal as meeting the
RACM/RACT requirements of section 172(c)(1) and the enforceable
emission limitation and control measures requirements of section
172(c)(6) of the CAA.
E. RFP Plan
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
includes a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e.,
RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through
generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1)
of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part
(part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.'' As stated in the 1994 SO2 Guidelines
Document \11\ and repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition is most
appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and diverse
sources, where the relationship between particular sources and ambient
air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases, emissions
reductions may be required from various types and locations of sources.
The relationship between SO2 and sources is much more
defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control
nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted
RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule
in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. EPA finds the control measures
included in Pennsylvania's submittal demonstrate attainment for the
Area with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on the modeling submitted
by
[[Page 32614]]
Pennsylvania. The permits and compliance orders submitted by
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the SIP require these control measures
and resulting emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable. As a result, based on air quality modeling reviewed by
EPA, this is projected to yield a sufficient reduction in
SO2 emissions from the major sources in the Indiana Area
resulting in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the
Indiana Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2
attainment plan for the Indiana Area fulfills the RFP requirements for
the Indiana Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that
the Area will not attain the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment
date. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with
respect to the RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
Located at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Contingency Measures
In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency
measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to
attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be
fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly
and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet
RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should
contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However,
SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final
2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520)
and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded
that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2
sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies
develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of
the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement.
The COAs or COs for Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward
(see Appendices B-1 through B-4 of the October 11, 2017 submittal) each
contain the following measures that are designed to keep the Indiana
Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the SO2
NAAQS: (1) Upon execution of the COA or CO, if SO2 emissions
from the combined SO2 emitting sources at the facility
exceed 99% of the SO2 emissions limit for the facility
(listed in Table 3), within 48 hours the facility is required to
undertake a full system audit of the SO2 emitting sources
and submit a written report to PADEP within 15 days, and corrective
actions shall be identified by PADEP as necessary; and (2) Upon
execution of the COA or CO, if the Strongstown monitor (ID 42-063-0004)
measures a 1-hour concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify the
facility in the Area, and the facility in the Area is required to
identify whether any of the SO2-emitting sources at the
respective facility were running at the time of the exceedance, and
within a reasonable time period leading up to the exceedance, not to
exceed 24 hours. If any of the SO2-emitting sources were
running at the time of the exceedance, the facility must then analyze
the meteorological data on the day the daily exceedance occurred to
ensure that the daily exceedance was not due to SO2
emissions from the respective facility. The facility's findings must be
submitted to PADEP within 30 days of being notified of the exceedance.
Additionally, if PADEP identifies a daily maximum SO2
concentration exceeding 75 ppb at a PADEP-operated SO2
ambient air quality monitor in the Indiana Area, within five days,
PADEP will contact Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward to
trigger the implementation of the daily exceedance report contingency
measure described in section VIII.C. of the October 11, 2017 submittal.
If necessary, section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control
Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary or
proper for the effective enforcement of APCA and the rules and
regulations promulgated under APCA. Such actions include the issuance
of orders and the assessment of civil penalties. A more detailed
description of the contingency measures can be found in section VIII of
the October 11, 2017 submittal as well as the COAs and COs included in
the submittal and included for incorporation by reference into the SIP.
EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017
submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the
source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive
follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority as
necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures
submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.
G. New Source Review 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of
three separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I
of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas and in areas that meet
the NAAQS--designated ``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--designated ``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is
established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--designated ``nonattainment
areas.'' The Minor NSR program addresses construction or
modification activities that do not qualify as ``major'' and applies
regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is
located. Together, these programs are referred to as the NSR
programs. Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program for
preconstruction review of new major sources or major modifications
to existing sources, as required by CAA section 172(c)(5). The
programmatic elements for NNSR include, among other things,
compliance with the lowest achievable emissions rate and the
requirement to obtain emissions offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan
require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a
fully implemented Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program for
criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E,
which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR
64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision
pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of
Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's
2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to
Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These
rules provide for appropriate NSR as required by CAA sections 172(c)(5)
and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing
construction or major modification in the Indiana Area without need for
modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the
Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this
Area.
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for the
Indiana Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on October 11, 2017,
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of
SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, enforceable
emission limitations and control measures, a RFP plan, and contingency
measures for the Indiana Area and is proposing that the Pennsylvania
SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania
SIP specific SO2 emission limits,
[[Page 32615]]
compliance parameters, and contingency measures established for the
SO2 sources impacting the Indiana Area.
EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Indiana County meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Indiana Area as
submitted on October 11, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action
is discussed in Section III of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action. Final
approval of this SIP submittal will remove EPA's duty to promulgate and
implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the portions of the COAs or COs entered
between Pennsylvania and Conemaugh, Homer City, Keystone, and Seward
that are not redacted, as well as the unredacted portions of the TVOPs
or Plan Approval included in the October 11, 2017 submittal. These
include emission limits and associated compliance parameters (i.e. the
measures which include system audits, record-keeping and reporting, and
corrective actions). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rulemaking for
more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, concerning the SO2
attainment plan for the Indiana nonattainment area in Pennsylvania,
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to
apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 27, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-14947 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
