Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 50314-50326 [2018-21667]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50314
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6 office.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Act, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) 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 Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 18, 2018.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018–21718 Filed 10–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0681; FRL–9984–98–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the
Beaver, 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 September 29, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of
the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) in the Beaver County,
Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Beaver
Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The Beaver Area is
comprised of a portion of Beaver County
(Industry Borough, Shippingport
Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton
Township, Potter Township and
Vanport Township) in Pennsylvania.
The SIP submission is an attainment
plan which includes the base year
emissions inventory, an analysis of the
reasonably available control technology
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(RACT) and reasonably available control
measure (RACM) requirements, a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
a modeling demonstration of SO2
attainment, contingency measures for
the Beaver Area, and Pennsylvania’s
new source review (NSR) permitting
program. As part of approving the
attainment plan, EPA is also proposing
to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP
new SO2 emission limits and associated
compliance parameters for the
FirstEnergy Generation, LLC
(FirstEnergy) Bruce Mansfield Power
Station (Bruce Mansfield Facility) and a
consent order with Jewel Acquisition
Midland steel plant (Jewel Facility).
This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before November 5, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2017–0681 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-dockts.
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. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area
Plan
III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer
Averaging Times
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
IV. Pennsylvania’s Attainment Plan
Submittal for the Beaver Area
V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Attainment Plan for the Beaver 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
VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background for EPA’s Proposed
Action
On June 2, 2010, the EPA
Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new SO2 NAAQS as a 1hour standard of 75 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations. See 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40
CFR 50.17(a)–(b). 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 5 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)
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
became effective on October 4, 2013,
based on violating air quality
monitoring data for calendar years
2009–2011, where there was 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
Effective on October 4, 2013, the
Beaver Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
for an area that encompasses several
past and current sources of SO2
emissions and the nearby SO2 monitor
(Air Quality Site ID: 42–007–0005). The
October 4, 2013 final designation
triggered a requirement for
Pennsylvania to submit 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 section 192(a).
For a number of areas, including the
Beaver 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
September 29, 2017, and EPA’s
subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017,
to Pennsylvania finding the submittal
complete and noting the stopping of
these sanctions’ deadline, these
sanctions under section 179(a) will not
be imposed as a consequence of
Pennsylvania’s missing the SIP
submission deadline. Additionally,
under CAA section 110(c), the March
18, 2016 finding triggers a requirement
that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two
years 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. EPA’s
obligation to promulgate and implement
a FIP will not apply if EPA makes final
the approval action proposed here.
II. Requirements for SO2
Nonattainment Area Plans
Attainment plans must meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 110, 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. The EPA’s regulations
governing nonattainment SIPs are set
forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific
procedural requirements and control
strategy requirements residing at
entered on March 2, 2015, by 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50315
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 in 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)); demonstration of RFP
(172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM,
including RACT (172(c)(1)); NSR
(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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
50316
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant.
III. Attainment Demonstration and
Longer Term Averaging
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 (i.e., 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
average limit should be set at an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 use 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,
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 1hour 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 plans for SO2 based on 1-hour
emission limits, the standard approach
is to conduct modeling using fixed
emission rates. The maximum emission
rate that would be modeled to result in
attainment (i.e., an ‘‘average year’’ 4
4 An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with
average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 Appendix T
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shows three, not four days with
maximum hourly levels exceeding 75
ppb) is labeled the ‘‘critical emission
value.’’ The modeling process for
identifying this critical emissions 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 emissions 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 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
provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile
daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth highest
maximum daily 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\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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,’’ 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 well 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.
As a hypothetical example to
illustrate these points, suppose a source
that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2
per hour, which results in air quality at
the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in
a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose
further that in an ‘‘average year,’’ these
emissions cause the 5-highest maximum
daily average 1-hour concentrations to
be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and
70 ppb. Then suppose that the source
becomes subject to a 30-day average
emission limit of 700 pounds per hour.
It is theoretically possible for a source
meeting this limit to have emissions that
occasionally exceed 1000 pounds per
hour, but with a typical emissions
profile emissions would much more
commonly be between 600 and 800
pounds per hour. In this simplified
example, assume a zero background
concentration, which allows one to
assume a linear relationship between
emissions and air quality. (A nonzero
background concentration would make
the mathematics more difficult but
would give similar results.) Air quality
will depend on what emissions happen
on what critical hours, but suppose that
emissions at the relevant times on these
5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 1100
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour,
900 pounds per hour, and 1200 pounds
per hour, respectively. (This is a
conservative example because the
average of these emissions, 900 pounds
per hour, is well over the 30-day average
emission limit.) These emissions would
result in daily maximum 1-hour
concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40
ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 ppb. In this
example, the fifth day would have an
exceedance that would not otherwise
have occurred, but the third and fourth
days would not have exceedances that
otherwise would have occurred. In this
example, the fourth highest maximum
daily concentration under the 30-day
average would be 67.5 ppb.
This simplified example illustrates
the findings of a more complicated
statistical analysis that EPA conducted
using a range of scenarios using actual
plant data. As described in Appendix B
of EPA’s 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, EPA found that the
requirement for lower average emissions
is highly likely to yield better air quality
than is required with a comparably
stringent 1-hour limit. Based on
analyses described in Appendix B of 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50317
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 weigh in
judging 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
calculate a complete set of emission
averages, computed according to the
averaging time and averaging
procedures of the prospective emission
limitation. 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
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
50318
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour
emission limit 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 EPA’s Guideline on Air
Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W).6 In 2005, EPA
promulgated the American
Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(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 April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment
area SIP guidance document referenced
above. 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
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, 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
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).
IV. Pennsylvania’s Attainment Plan
Submittal for the Beaver Area
In accordance with section 172(c) of
the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment
plan for the Beaver Area includes: (1)
An emissions inventory for SO2 for the
plan’s base year (2011); (2) an
attainment demonstration including an
analysis that locates, identifies, and
quantifies sources of emissions
contributing to violations of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and a dispersion modeling
analysis of an emissions control strategy
for the primary remaining SO2 sources
in the area and which also accounts for
smaller sources within the Area in the
background concentration, showing
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the
October 4, 2018 attainment date; (3) a
determination that the control strategy
for the primary remaining SO2 sources
within the nonattainment area
constitutes RACM/RACT; (4)
requirements for RFP toward attaining
the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; (5)
contingency measures; and (6) the
assertion that Pennsylvania’s existing
SIP-approved NSR program meets the
applicable requirements for SO2. The
Pennsylvania attainment plan for the
Beaver Area also includes the request
that emission limitations and
compliance parameters contained in a
consent order with Bruce Mansfield and
a consent order with Jewel be
incorporated into the SIP.
V. EPA’s Analysis of Pennsylvania’s
Attainment Plan for the Beaver Area
Consistent with CAA requirements
(see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for a SO2 nonattainment
area must show that the area will attain
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable. The demonstration must
also meet the requirements of 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 is sufficient,
and EPA is proposing to approve the
plan to ensure ongoing attainment.
A. Pollutants Addressed
Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan
evaluates SO2 emissions for the Area
within the portion of Beaver County
(Industry Borough, Shippingport
Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton
Township, Potter Township and
Vanport Township) 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.
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 2014
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
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
projected actual emissions for 2018 are
below the 2011 emissions inventory. It
should be noted that the sources most
likely causing impacts at the previously
violating monitor, including AES Beaver
Valley and Horsehead, have closed or
SO2
remain idled such as the Jewel Facility’s
Facility
Emissions
(tpy)
Meltshop. The remaining primary SO2
sources with their new allowable
Total ...............................
26,591.051 emissions may be above the total 2011
* IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is actual emissions in the Area; however,
not physically in the Beaver Area, but mod- the remaining primary sources were
eling shows it has a small impact on it. An- modeled using emissions above their
other source located near the Area, Anchor
Hocking/Monaca, which had 2011 SO2 emis- new allowable emissions (as listed in
sions of 26.068 tons, was also evaluated. Table 4) and demonstrate attainment as
Based on the modeling analysis, Anchor discussed subsequently in this Notice.
Hocking/Monaca does not have significant im- SO2 impacts are very source specific
pacts in the Beaver Area and is not included
and assumptions cannot be made
in the inventory.
merely related to the total amount of
A more detailed discussion of the
emissions in an area. Also, as discussed
emissions inventory for the Beaver Area in the submittal, the projected actual
can be found in Pennsylvania’s
emissions are based on business
September 29, 2017 submittal, as well
projections of 2018 operations, and
as, the emissions inventory Technical
TABLE 1—2011 BASE YEAR SO2
allowable maximum 2018 emissions are
EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE Support Document (TSD), which can be assuming that the plant is operating
found under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
8,760 hours per year and in compliance
BEAVER AREA
OAR–2017–0681 and is available online with the comparably stringent longer
at www.regulations.gov. EPA has
term average limit. The allowable
SO2
evaluated Pennsylvania’s 2011 base year maximum provides the worst-case
Emission source category
Emissions
emissions inventory for the Beaver Area emissions for the facilities versus the
(tpy)
and has made the determination that
actual anticipated emissions which are
Point ......................................
26,591.051 this inventory was developed
based on typical operating hours and on
Area ......................................
29.784 consistently with section 172(c)(3) and
projected business demand. In this case,
Non-road ...............................
0.111 EPA’s guidance as discussed in detail in
the modeled maximum SO2 emissions
On-road .................................
1.530 the inventory TSD. Therefore, EPA is
were not set equal to the allowable
proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s
maximum emissions, but were greater
Total ...............................
26,622.476 2011 base year emissions inventory for
than the allowable maximum emissions.
the Beaver Area.
The attainment plan also provides for For Bruce Mansfield, the 2018
TABLE 2—POINT SOURCE 2011
maximum modeled emissions were
a projected attainment year inventory
ACTUAL SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION
that includes estimated emissions for all 45,038.226 tpy. The 2018 modeled
maximum emissions for Koppel and
INVENTORY
emission sources of SO2 which are
Shell were 306.6 tpy and 22.0 tpy,
determined to impact the Beaver Area
respectively.
SO2
for the year in which the area is
Facility
Emissions
Reductions in projected 2018 SO2
expected to attain the NAAQS.
(tpy)
Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions in the onroad, nonroad and
nonpoint source categories can be
AES BEAVER VALLEY ........
3,085.634 emissions inventory for all known
attributed to lower sulfur content limits
sources
included
in
the
2011
base
year
BRUCE MANSFIELD ...........
21,195.710
for gasoline and diesel fuels for the
HORSEHEAD .......................
2,014.920 inventory and one additional source,
onroad and nonroad sector, and more
Shell
Chemical
Appalachia
LLC’s
IPSCO KOPPEL
stringent sulfur content limits on home
TUBULARS/KOPPEL * ......
130.420 recently permitted petrochemicals
heating oil and other distillate/residual
JEWEL ..................................
162.100 complex. This source will not start
fuel oils for the nonpoint sector which
SHELL ..................................
0.000 operation until after 2018 but has been
limits are included in the Pennsylvania
included to provide assurance that the
All Other Point Sources
Combined ..........................
2.267 NAAQS will be attained and maintained SIP. A detailed discussion of projected
emissions for the Beaver Area can be
notwithstanding commencement of its
found in Pennsylvania’s September 29,
operation.
The projected 2018 emissions are
2017 submittal which can be found
shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Projected under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
allowable emissions for 2018 exceed the 2017–0681 and online at
2011 emissions inventory; however,
www.regulations.gov.
attainment in the area. Pennsylvania
appropriately elected to use 2011 as the
base year, as the Area was designated
nonattainment with monitor data from
2009–2011. Actual emissions from all
the sources of SO2 in the Beaver Area
were reviewed and compiled for the
base year emissions inventory
requirement. One additional source
located outside the area was included in
the inventory due to its proximity to the
Area. The source is IPSCO Koppel
Tubular (Koppel) with 2011 emissions
of 130.42 tons per year (tpy). Table 1
shows the level of emissions, expressed
in tpy, in the Beaver Area for the 2011
base year by emissions source category.
The point source category includes all
sources within the nonattainment area
and one source (Koppel) just outside the
area.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
50319
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
TABLE 2—POINT SOURCE 2011—
Continued
ACTUAL SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION
INVENTORY
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
50320
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—2018 PROJECTED SO2 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR THE BEAVER AREA
SO2
emissions
(tpy)
anticipated
actual
Emission source category
SO2
emissions
(tpy) *includes
allowable
emissions for
all point
sources
Point .........................................................................................................................................................................
Area .........................................................................................................................................................................
Non-road ..................................................................................................................................................................
On-road ....................................................................................................................................................................
14,679.771
22.586
0.057
0.590
32,420.050
22.586
0.057
0.590
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
14,703.004
32,443.283
TABLE 4—2018 PROJECTED POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR THE BEAVER AREA
2018
Allowable
Max SO2
(tpy)
Facility
2018
Anticipated
Actual SO2
(tpy)
AES BEAVER VALLEY ...........................................................................................................................................
BRUCE MANSFIELD ...............................................................................................................................................
HORSEHEAD ..........................................................................................................................................................
IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL * ................................................................................................................
JEWEL .....................................................................................................................................................................
SHELL ** ..................................................................................................................................................................
All Other Point Sources Combined .........................................................................................................................
0.000
32,245.560
0.000
149.500
1.603
21.000
2.387
0.000
14,542.309
0.000
133.472
1.603
0.000
2.387
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
32,420.050
14,679.771
* IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is not physically in the nonattainment area, but modeling shows it has a small impact on it. It is included in the 2011 base year and 2018 attainment year inventories.
** Shell does not anticipate startup to occur prior to the end of 2018. Annual emissions after startup are limited by the facility’s Plan Approval to
less than 21 tons SO2 per year.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Air Quality Modeling
The SO2 attainment demonstration
provides an air quality dispersion
modeling analysis 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 analysis, conducted pursuant
to recommendations outlined in
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA’s
Modeling Guidance), is used for the
attainment demonstration 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
source must therefore consider the
worst-case scenario of both the
meteorology (e.g. predominant wind
directions, stagnation, etc.) and the
maximum allowable emissions. In this
case, the modeled maximum SO2
emissions were greater than the
allowable maximum SO2 emissions.
PADEP’s modeling analysis was
developed in accordance with EPA’s
Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, and was
prepared using EPA’s preferred
dispersion modeling system, AERMOD.
A more detailed discussion of PADEP’s
modeling analysis for the Beaver Area
can be found in Pennsylvania’s
September 29, 2017 submittal as well as
the modeling TSD, which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
2017–0681 which is available online at
www.regulations.gov.
For its modeling demonstration,
PADEP evaluated SO2 emissions from
the Bruce Mansfield Facility located in
Shippingport Borough and potential
SO2 emissions from Shell Chemical
Appalachia LLC’s (Shell Chemical
Appalachia) planned petrochemicals
complex to be located in Potter and
Center Townships. SO2 emissions from
Koppel, located outside the Beaver Area
were also included in the modeling. The
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Jewel Facility Meltshop was idled in
2015 and its emissions were not
included in the attainment modeling
demonstration. To resume operation,
the Meltshop must comply with a
Consent Order and Agreement (COA)
described in section D of this notice.
EPA has reviewed the modeling that
Pennsylvania submitted to support the
attainment demonstration for the Beaver
Area and has determined that this
modeling is consistent with CAA
requirements, Appendix W, and EPA’s
Guidance for SO2 attainment
demonstration modeling. The modeling
properly characterized source limits,
local meteorological data, background
concentrations, and provided an
adequate model receptor grid to capture
maximum modeled concentrations.
Using the EPA conversion factor for the
SO2 NAAQS, the modeled design values
for the Beaver Area are less than 75 ppb
as shown in Table 5 below.8 EPA’s
analysis of the modeling is discussed in
8 The SO NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
2
AERMOD gives results in micrograms per meter
cubed (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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
more detail in EPA’s modeling TSD,
which can be found under Docket ID
No. EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0681. EPA
proposes to conclude that the modeling
provided in the attainment plan shows
that the Beaver Area will attain the 2010
1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the
attainment date and proposes to
approve the attainment demonstration.
D. RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that
each attainment plan provide for the
implementation of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable for
attainment of the NAAQS. 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.’’ In
addition, CAA section 172(c)(6) requires
plans to include enforceable emission
limitations and control measures as may
be necessary or appropriate to provide
for attainment by the attainment date.
Pennsylvania’s September 29, 2017
submittal discusses federal and state
measures that 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 attainment plan
submittal discusses facility closures and
facility-specific control measures.
Pennsylvania’s submittal indicates that
two of the three largest sources in the
Beaver Area were permanently shut
down prior to January 2, 2017. The
Horsehead facility closed in the spring
of 2014 and has been demolished. AES
Beaver Valley was a coal fired power
plant that permanently shut down in the
fall of 2015. Appendix A of the state
submittal includes PADEP’s approval
letters of Emission Reduction Credits for
these facilities which indicate
permanent facility closure. The Jewel
Facility is currently idled and has
agreed in a Consent Order and
Agreement with PADEP that its
Meltshop cannot emit any SO2
emissions unless additional modeling is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
done to support attainment and new
SO2 emissions limitations are
established for the SIP as necessary.
This restriction is established in a COA
(see Appendix C of the September 29,
2017 submittal) between PADEP and the
Jewel Facility which PADEP seeks to
have incorporated by reference into the
SIP, thereby making it permanently
federally enforceable under the CAA. In
addition to these actual emission
reductions in the Area of 5,100.554 tpy,
new SO2 emission limits were
developed through air dispersion
modeling (AERMOD) submitted by
PADEP as discussed below, and in
section IV.C. Air Quality Modeling of
this proposed rulemaking as well as in
the modeling TSD.
In order to ensure that the Beaver
Area demonstrates attainment with the
SO2 NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the
following combination of emission
limits at the Bruce Mansfield Facility
are sufficient for the Beaver Area to
meet the SO2 NAAQS and serve as
RACM/RACT. For the Bruce Mansfield
Facility, the new emission limits are
established in a COA (see Appendix C
of the September 29, 2017 submittal)
between PADEP and FirstEnergy for the
Bruce Mansfield Facility, which PADEP
has also submitted for incorporation
into the SIP as permanently federally
enforceable limits under the CAA.
The Facility’s SO2 emission sources
include three coal-fired boilers (Unit 1,
Unit 2, and Unit 3) that were included
in the air dispersion modeling. The SO2
emissions from each of the three boilers
are controlled by three individual Flue
Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems. Unit
1 and Unit 2 each vent through two
flues within a common stack. Unit 3
vents through two flues in the other
stack. To demonstrate compliance with
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
FirstEnergy requested that the Unit 1
and Unit 2 combined emission limit be
established as a function of the Unit 3
emission limit. On and after October 1,
2018, FirstEnergy shall begin calculating
a pound per hour (lb/hr) 30-operating
day rolling average SO2 emission rate
for Unit 1 (Source ID 031) and Unit 2
(Source ID 032) from Chimney 1 (Stacks
S01–S04), and a lb/hr 30-operating day
rolling average SO2 emission rate for
Unit 3 (Source ID 033) from Chimney 2
(Stacks S05 and S06), using data from
the PADEP-certified Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at
the Bruce Mansfield Facility. The 30operating day rolling average SO2
emissions rates shall be calculated using
the procedures outlined in the Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
regulations in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63.
The 30-operating day rolling average
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50321
SO2 emissions rate for Units 1 and 2
cannot exceed the result of equation one
(EQ–1), below, with Chimney 1 (CH1)
and Chimney 2 (CH2) in service,
calculated daily. In addition, the 30operating day rolling average emissions
rate cannot exceed 7,362 lb/hr for Units
1 and 2 combined. The 30-operating day
rolling average SO2 emissions rate
cannot exceed 3,584 lb/hr for Unit 3.
The results of EQ–1 are only valid when
Unit 3 emissions are less than or equal
to 3,584 lb/hr.
EQ–1: CH1SO2 Lim = ¥1.38E–04 ×
CH2SO22 ¥ 0.920 × CH2SO2 + 7100
Where:
CH1SO2 Lim: Chimney 1 SO2 lb/hr 30-day
rolling average Limit
CH1SO2 Lim ≤7,362 lb/hr
CH2SO2: Chimney 2 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling
average.
CH2SO2 ≤3,584 lb/hr
Also, FirstEnergy is required by the
COA to use its PADEP-certified CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the new
emission restrictions as detailed in the
COA (Paragraph 3.a. of the COA). In
accordance with the current version of
PADEP’s Continuous Source Monitoring
Manual, FirstEnergy is required by the
COA to continue to provide quarterly
reports of emissions data as recorded by
the CEMS to PADEP.
Additionally, FirstEnergy shall
achieve as detailed in the COA at least
a 95% removal efficiency from the FGDs
following the general requirements
contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter
139.11. FirstEnergy shall annually test
for removal efficiency of the FGDs by
using a combination of CEMS data and
coal sampling in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A, Method 19. Three test runs
shall be conducted concurrently in the
two flues that feed each unit during the
annual tests. Each test run shall be a
minimum of sixty minutes in duration.
A report of the efficiency test shall be
provided annually to PADEP. The first
report shall be submitted within one (1)
year of the final execution of this COA
and annually thereafter. FirstEnergy
shall maintain records of the operation
of and emissions monitoring from the
FGDs, including the annual efficiency
report.
The auxiliary boilers located at the
Bruce Mansfield Facility are limited by
an existing federally enforceable
operating permit to a capacity factor of
less than 5% in any 12-consecutive
month period. PADEP stated this
existing federally enforceable limitation
has reduced the potential to emit SO2 to
levels at which additional SO2 controls
are not feasible. Thus PADEP concluded
the permit restrictions are RACM and no
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
50322
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
further control is needed from these
auxiliary boilers for the Area to attain
the NAAQS or to reflect RACT from
these boilers. EPA finds Pennsylvania’s
conclusion for the auxiliary boilers
reasonable given the existing permit
limitations and low potential to emit
SO2.
Operating restrictions are also placed
on the Jewel Facility as RACM/RACT.
To ensure that the Beaver Area will
demonstrate attainment with the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the Jewel Facility
has agreed to conditions in a COA
which specifies zero SO2 emissions
from the Meltshop, which is the Jewel
Facility Source ID 106. Other SO2
emission sources at the facility were
addressed in the modeling analysis as
part of the ‘‘background’’ sources as
discussed in section V. C. of this notice.
The COA also requires additional
modeling and SO2 emission limitations
for the SIP as necessary to assure
attainment before the Jewel Facility
would be able to operate the Meltshop.
EPA is proposing here to approve the
requirement for zero emissions from the
Meltshop as RACM/RACT; any
authorization of nonzero emissions from
this Meltshop source would need to be
subject to EPA review as a SIP revision
with required modeling analysis
showing continued attainment of the
NAAQS.
Based on the modeling analysis
discussed in section V.C. Air Quality
Modeling above, the collective emission
limits and related compliance
parameters for the Bruce Mansfield
Facility, along with the operating
restrictions at the Jewel Facility, have
been proposed as RACM/RACT and for
incorporation into the SIP, therefore
making them federally enforceable.
PADEP asserts that this proposed
control strategy as demonstrated by the
modeling analysis is sufficient for the
Beaver Area to attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
To establish the emission limit
equation (EQ–1) described earlier in this
section, Pennsylvania conducted a
modeling analysis that included eleven
modeling runs, supplemented with six
additional modeling runs performed by
FirstEnergy, to determine the range of
emission rates for the three Units at the
Bruce Mansfield Facility that provide
for attainment. In each of these runs, the
model demonstrates that the respective
set of hourly emissions would result in
the 5-year average of the 99th percentile
of daily maximum hourly SO2
concentrations below the level of the
1-hour NAAQS. The modeling results
are presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF AIR DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS FOR FIRSTENERGY BRUCE MANSFIELD 1-HOUR SO2
MODELED EMISSION VALUES
Unit 1 & unit 2
combined
1-hour SO2
rate
(lb/hr)
Model run
1 ...................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
1FE * ............................................................................................................................................
4 ...................................................................................................................................................
2FE * ............................................................................................................................................
5 ...................................................................................................................................................
3FE * ............................................................................................................................................
6 ...................................................................................................................................................
4FE * ............................................................................................................................................
7 ...................................................................................................................................................
5FE * ............................................................................................................................................
8 ...................................................................................................................................................
6FE * ............................................................................................................................................
9 ...................................................................................................................................................
10 .................................................................................................................................................
11 .................................................................................................................................................
10,282.70
9,254.43
8,226.16
7,484.24
7,197.89
6,765.97
6,169.62
5,952.47
5,141.35
5,051.66
4,113.08
4,015.93
3,084.81
2,857.18
2,056.54
1,028.27
0.00
Unit 3
1-hour SO2
rate
(lb/hr)
0.00
761.19
1,482.72
2,006.14
2,206.62
2,507.57
2,885.44
3,009.17
3,469.90
3,510.68
3,985.46
4,012.20
4,407.53
4,513.72
4,743.88
4,956.43
5,041.58
Maximum
modeled
1-hour SO2
design concentration
(μg/m3)
196.17563
196.18089
196.17966
196.18033
196.17977
196.14426
196.18044
196.07897
196.17912
196.11106
196.17974
196.04158
196.18032
196.10031
196.18082
196.18081
196.17832
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
* FirstEnergy model run.
FirstEnergy developed adjustment
factors to convert the 1-hour emission
rates (Table 5) to comparably stringent
30-operating day emission rates for each
unit at the Bruce Mansfield Facility. To
do this, historic operating data for 2012–
2016 from EPA’s Clean Air Markets
Database (CAMD) were used in
accordance with the methods EPA
recommended in Appendix C and
Appendix D of EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. The SO2
emission limit adjustment factor was
calculated as 0.59 for Unit 1, 0.717 for
Unit 2, and 0.794 for Unit 3. The
adjustment factor for Unit 2 was applied
to Unit 1 as First Energy deemed it a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
more representative correction factor for
Unit 1. It was noted in Pennsylvania’s
submittal that Unit 2’s hourly emissions
have a tendency to be higher more
frequently than Unit 1. Given this fact,
Pennsylvania asserted that applying the
adjustment factor developed for Unit 2
(higher frequency of higher emissions)
to Unit 1 will continue to protect the
NAAQS. EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance allows for using a unit more
representative of planned operations
going forward under the newly
established emission limits stating ‘‘. . .
data from other sources of comparable
source type, size, operation, fuel, and
control type may be more useful for
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these comparisons.’’ In addition, Unit
2’s adjustment factors of 0.717 is very
similar to the average adjustment factor
for 30-day emission values (0.71) listed
in Appendix D of EPA’s SO2
Nonattainment Guidance for sources
with wet scrubbers (the same control
technology that Unit 1 and 2 have in
place). For these reasons, EPA believes
it is appropriate to utilize 0.717 as the
adjustment factor for Unit 1.
The unit specific adjustment factors
(0.717 for Units 1 and 2, and 0.794 for
Unit 3) were multiplied by the 1-hour
modeled emission rates shown in Table
5, resulting in the corresponding 30-day
average emission rates shown in
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
columns three and five in Table 6.
These corresponding 30-day average
emission rates show a series of 30-day
average limits for Units 1 and 2
combined emissions and for Unit 3
emissions, respectively. Pennsylvania
then determined an equation (EQ–1),
identified above, that can be used to
interpolate additional combinations of
emissions that would also result in
attainment.
Table 6 addresses the relationship
between the modeling results and
Pennsylvania’s emission limit in
particular addressing whether the
modeling demonstrates that
Pennsylvania’s compliance equation
provides for attainment throughout the
range of possible combinations of
allowable emissions. For each model
run, Table 6 shows the modeled
emission rates for Units 1 + 2 (reflecting
the sum of emissions from the two
units) and for Unit 3, along with the
corresponding 30-day average emission
rates. EPA calculated the sixth column
of Table 6 by plugging in the Unit 3 30day average emission rates (from the
fifth column, Table 6) into the equation,
and determining the limit for Units 1
and 2. In three cases, the entry in the
sixth column is ‘‘Disallowed,’’ because
the emission rate for Unit 3 is higher
than the 30-operating day average limit
(3,584 lbs/hr) that independently
applies to Unit 3. An important feature
of Table 6 is that the limit on the sum
of emissions from Units 1 and 2
computed using the equation (EQ–1), in
all cases is lower than the 30-day
50323
average sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions
that was calculated as comparably
stringent to the modeled 1-hour sum of
Units 1 and 2 emissions. For a full range
of cases, Pennsylvania demonstrated
that its equation required a level of
emissions that is lower than the level
(adjusted to reflect comparable
stringency) demonstrated to result in
attainment. In other words, the equation
(EQ–1) used to calculate the 30-day
average limits is slightly more stringent
than the comparably stringent adjusted
30-day average limits. By this means,
Pennsylvania demonstrated that the
compliance equation that it adopted,
supplemented by independent limits on
the emissions of Unit 3 and on the sum
of emissions from Units 1 and 2,
provides for attainment.
TABLE 6—FIRSTENERGY BRUCE MANSFIELD 30-DAY AVERAGE SO2 EMISSION LIMITS
Modeled
emissions
for units
1+2
(lb/hr)
Model run
1 .....................................................................................
2 .....................................................................................
3 .....................................................................................
1FE * ...............................................................................
4 .....................................................................................
2FE * ...............................................................................
5 .....................................................................................
3FE * ...............................................................................
6 .....................................................................................
4FE * ...............................................................................
7 .....................................................................................
5FE * ...............................................................................
8 .....................................................................................
6FE * ...............................................................................
9 .....................................................................................
10 ...................................................................................
11 ...................................................................................
10,282.70
9,254.43
8,226.16
7,484.24
7,197.89
6,765.97
6,169.62
5,952.47
5,141.35
5,051.66
4,113.08
4,015.93
3,084.81
2,857.18
2,056.54
1,028.27
0.00
Corresponding
30-day
average
emissions
for units
1+2
(lb/hr) **
Corresponding
30-day
average
emissions
for unit 3
(lb/hr) **
Modeled
emissions
for unit 3
(lb/hr)
7,372.70
6,635.43
5,898.16
5,366.20
5,160.89
4,851.20
4,323.62
4,267.92
3,686.35
3,622.04
2,949.08
2,879.42
2,211.81
2,048.60
1,474.54
737.27
0.00
0.00
761.19
1,482.72
2,006.14
2,206.62
2,507.57
2,885.44
3,009.17
3,469.90
3,510.68
3,985.46
4,012.20
4,407.53
4,513.72
4,743.88
4,956.43
5,041.58
0.00
604.38
1,177.28
1,592.88
1,752.06
1,991.01
2,291.04
2,389.28
2,755.10
2,787.48
3,164.46
3,185.69
3,499.58
3,583.89
3,766.64
3,935.41
4,003.01
30-day
average SO2
limit for
units 1 + 2
based on
30-day
average
equivalent
to modeled
unit 3
emissions
(lb/hr) ***
7100.0
6493.6
5825.6
5284.4
5064.5
4721.2
4267.9
4114.1
3517.8
3463.3
2806.8
2768.7
2190.3
2030.3
Disallowed
Disallowed
Disallowed
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
* FirstEnergy model run.
** Corresponding 30-day average emission rates were calculated by multiplying the modeled 1-hour emission rates from Table 5 by PADEP’s
adjustment ratios (0.717 for Units 1 and 2; 0.794 for Unit 3).
*** The limit that would result from the compliance equation (EQ–1) using the Unit 3 30-operating day average emission rate that corresponds
to the modeled 1-hour rate (from fifth column of this table).
EPA’s guidance for longer term
average limits states that plans based on
such limits can be considered to provide
for attainment where appropriate as
long as the longer term limit is
comparably stringent to the 1-hour limit
that would otherwise be set, and as long
as EPA can have reasonable confidence
that occasions of emissions above the
CEV will be limited in frequency and
magnitude. To address this latter
criterion, Pennsylvania has provided an
analysis of historic emissions, assessing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
the frequency of elevated emissions.
This analysis used 2012–2016 CAMD
data. Pennsylvania established a limit
based on an equation involving the
emissions from multiple units. The
equation was derived from the modeled
CEV values (from Table 5). These values
were used to develop a polynomial
equation which was plotted on a graph
and compared to the 2012–2016 CAMD
data. This comparison demonstrates that
during 2012–2016, the Bruce Mansfield
Facility only exceeded the 1 hour
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions formula for 0.50% of the
hours.9 PADEP’s CEV analysis is
9 Appendix E–1 of Pennsylvania’s September 29,
2017 submittal included a statement that ‘‘[p]rior to
the implementation of the new emissions limits
associated with the 2010 standard, the occasions
when emissions have exceeded the proposed CEVs
have been relatively few. In fact, it has only
occurred 13% of the time during the period of
2012–2016.’’ Pennsylvania submitted a correction
to this statement and the corresponding emissions
analysis on June 11, 2018 via email which is
included in Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2017–
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
Continued
05OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
50324
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
provided in an excel spreadsheet in the
Docket at www.regulations.gov.
Accordingly, EPA believes that
PADEP has demonstrated that its limit
for the Bruce Mansfield facility will
assure that occasions of emissions
exceeding critical levels will be limited.
More generally, EPA believes that
PADEP has met EPA’s recommended
criteria for longer term average limits
and believes that the emission limits
proposed by PADEP for the Bruce
Mansfield Facility will provide
reasonable assurance that the Area will
attain the standard.
Additional information on the
development of the adjustment factor
and limits, including statistical analyses
performed to develop the limits in
accordance with the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance, can be found
in Section IV: Control Strategies and in
Appendices D and E of the
Pennsylvania attainment plan submittal
of September 29, 2017. These
adjustment factors are reasonably
consistent with the average adjustment
factor identified in Appendix D of the
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance for
units controlled with wet FGDs (an
adjustment factor of 0.71). EPA
reviewed the modeling which shows the
Beaver Area attaining the NAAQS with
these limits at the Bruce Mansfield
Facility and reviewed the methodology
used to develop the 30-operating day
limits and agrees that the limits are
reasonable and follow EPA’s 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. EPA is
proposing to approve the emission
limits for the Bruce Mansfield Facility
Units 1, 2 and 3 as representing RACM/
RACT.
EPA finds that the proposed SO2
control strategy at the Bruce Mansfield
Facility and Jewel Facility, the only
remaining significant SO2 sources in the
Area after the closure of Horsehead and
AES Beaver Valley, constitute RACM/
RACT for sources in the Beaver Area
based on the modeling analysis
previously described which
demonstrates the Beaver Area is
projected to attain the SO2 NAAQS by
the 2018 attainment date. Furthermore,
with our final approval of
Pennsylvania’s attainment plan, the
emission limits described for the three
units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility
and corresponding compliance
parameters found in the COA for the
Bruce Mansfield Facility as well as the
operating restrictions on the Jewel
Facility will become permanent and
enforceable SIP measures to meet the
requirements of the CAA. EPA proposes
0681. EPA has reviewed the correction and agrees
with the assessment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
that Pennsylvania has satisfied the
requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1)
and 172(c)(6) to adopt and submit all
RACM and enforceable emission
limitations and control measures as
needed to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable.
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 originally in
the 1994 SO2 Guidelines Document 10
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. The control
measures for attainment of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS included in Pennsylvania’s
submittal have been modeled to achieve
attainment of the NAAQS. The SO2
emission reductions from the permanent
shutdowns at Horsehead and AES
Beaver Valley along with the COAs
including specific emission limits and
compliance parameters which are
effective at the Bruce Mansfield Facility
on October 1, 2018, and operating
restrictions on the Jewel Facility
effective on October 1, 2018, show the
resulting emission reductions to be
achieved as expeditiously as practicable
for the Area. EPA guidance recommends
a compliance date of January 1, 2017 for
purposes of providing for a calendar
year of meeting the standard, however
10 SO Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
2
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994. Located at:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in this plan some sources in the area did
not have any emissions for several years
while other sources still in operation
such as the Bruce Mansfield and Jewel
facilities will have new limits effective
October 1, 2018. However, air quality
data in this area has shown attainment
of the NAAQS since 2015. Also based
on air quality modeling reviewed by
EPA, the new limits and shutdowns
result in modeled attainment of the SO2
NAAQS for the Beaver Area. Therefore,
EPA has determined that PADEP’s SO2
attainment plan for the Beaver Area
fulfills the RFP requirements for the
Area. EPA does not anticipate future
nonattainment, or that the Area will not
meet 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 Bruce Mansfield Facility COA
(see Appendix C of the September 29,
2017 submittal) contains the following
measures that are designed to keep the
Area from triggering an exceedance or
violation of the SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the
SO2 emissions from Units 1, 2 or 3
exceed 99% of the limits set forth in
paragraph 3A of the COA, FirstEnergy
shall, within 48 hours, begin a full
system audit of Units 1, 2, and 3 SO2
controls. The audit shall document the
operating parameters of the sources and
their control devices and evaluate
whether the units and control devices
were operating effectively. If the units
and/or control devices were not
operating effectively, FirstEnergy shall
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
identify corrective actions to be
implemented to ensure that the limits in
Paragraph 3(a) of the COA are not
exceeded. Only one audit in a seven
operating day period is required if SO2
emissions from Units 1, 2, and 3 exceed
99% of the limits in Paragraph 3(a) of
the COA. The audit shall be
documented and records maintained on
site, and a report documenting the audit
provided to PADEP within 45 days of
completing the audit. (2) At any time
after October 1, 2018, if any PADEP SO2
monitor within the Beaver Area
measures a 1-hour concentration
exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify
the Jewel Facility, Koppel, Shell, and
FirstEnergy in writing. A 1-hour SO2
concentration that exceeds 75 ppb at
any PADEP SO2 monitor in the Beaver
Area will be a ‘‘daily exceedance.’’
FirstEnergy shall identify whether Unit
1, Unit 2, and/or Unit 3 were running
at the time of the exceedance and within
a reasonable time period leading up to
the exceedance. If Unit 1, Unit 2, and/
or Unit 3 were running at the time of the
exceedance, and within a reasonable
time period leading up to the
exceedance, FirstEnergy shall perform
an analysis of meteorological data on
the day the daily exceedance occurred
to ensure that the daily exceedance was
not due to SO2 emissions from that
source. The meteorological data analysis
may include trajectories run at three
different heights (one at stack height
and two more within the boundary
layer) by NOAA’s Hysplit program or an
equivalent program, hourly
meteorological data collected at the
FirstEnergy Beaver Valley nuclear
power station to determine stability
parameters within the river valley, and/
or an analysis of Pittsburgh
International Airport’s radiosonde data
and modeled upper air data. The overall
goal of the meteorological data analysis
is to investigate if emissions from the
source could have potentially mixed
down to the SO2 monitor measuring the
exceedance. The source’s finding must
be submitted in writing to PADEP
within 45 days of PADEP notifying
FirstEnergy. These measures will be
incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP
upon EPA’s final approval of this
attainment plan.
There is also one contingency
measure pertaining to the Jewel Facility.
According to the COA with the facility,
if the Jewel Facility Meltshop is
reactivated and if any of PADEP’s
monitors in the Beaver Area measure a
1-hour SO2 concentration of 75 ppb or
greater, PADEP will notify the Jewel
Facility both verbally and in writing.
The Jewel Facility shall notify PADEP of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
the operational status of the Meltshop
within 10 days of the notice.
Additionally, PADEP states in its
attainment plan that if PADEP identifies
a 1-hour daily maximum concentration
at a PADEP operated SO2 ambient air
quality monitor in the Beaver Area that
registers a concentration exceeding 75
ppb, PADEP would proceed with the
following actions and enforcement as
appropriate: (1) Within 5 business days,
the PADEP Bureau of Air Quality
Monitoring Division will contact the Air
Resource Management Division Chief
and the Southwest Regional Office
(SWRO) Air Program Manager to report
the monitored value. (2) Within 5
business days, SWRO staff will contact
FirstEnergy and the Jewel Facility, if
reactivated, to trigger the
implementation of their contingency
measures found in the COAs. If
necessary, section 4(27) of the
Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act
(APCA), 35 P.S. § 4004(27), authorizes
PADEP to take any action it deems
necessary or proper for the effective
enforcement of the APCA and the rules
and regulations promulgated under the
APCA. Such actions include the
issuance of orders (i.e., enforcement
orders and orders to take corrective
action to address air pollution or the
danger of air pollution from a source)
and the assessment of civil penalties. A
more detailed description of the
contingency measures can be found in
section VIII of the September 27, 2017
submittal as well as in the COAs
included in the submittal and included
for incorporation by reference into the
SIP.
EPA is proposing to find that
Pennsylvania’s September 29, 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 under the APCA 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 11
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires
that an attainment plan require permits
11 The CAA new source review (NSR) program is
composed of three separate programs: Prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment NSR
(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part
C of title I of the CAA and applies in undesignated
areas and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50325
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 originally
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 new source review 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 Beaver 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.
VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision, its
attainment plan for the Beaver Area, as
submitted through PADEP to EPA on
September 29, 2017, for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the base year
emissions inventory, a modeling
demonstration of SO2 attainment, an
analysis of RACM/RACT, an RFP plan,
and contingency measures for the
Beaver 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 and
compliance parameters and control
measures established for the SO2
sources impacting the Beaver Area.
EPA has determined that
Pennsylvania’s SO2 attainment plan for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Beaver
not in attainment of the NAAQS —‘‘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\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
50326
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
County meets the applicable
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
Thus, EPA is proposing to approve
Pennsylvania’s attainment plan for the
Beaver Area as submitted on September
29, 2017. EPA’s analysis for this
proposed action is discussed in Section
V 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 for this Area.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include regulatory text in a final rule
that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 40 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the portions of the COAs entered
between Pennsylvania and FirstEnergy
and Pennsylvania and Jewel included in
the PADEP submittal of September 29,
2017 that are not redacted. This
includes emission limits and associated
compliance parameters, recordingkeeping and reporting, and contingency
measures. 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
preamble for more information).
VIII. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Oct 04, 2018
Jkt 247001
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 Beaver 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: September 24, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018–21667 Filed 10–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1152
[Docket No. EP 749; Docket No. EP 749
(Sub-No. 1)]
National Association of Reversionary
Property Owners—Petition for
Rulemaking; Limiting Extensions of
Trail Use Negotiating Periods
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) grants in part a petition
by the National Association of
Reversionary Property Owners (NARPO)
and opens a proceeding in Docket No.
EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) to consider revising
regulations related to the National Trails
System Act. The Board proposes to
modify its regulations to limit the
number of 180-day extensions of a trail
use negotiating period to a maximum of
six extensions, absent extraordinary
circumstances.
SUMMARY:
Comments are due by November
1, 2018; replies are due by November
21, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may
be submitted either via the Board’s efiling format or in paper format. Any
person using e-filing should attach a
document and otherwise comply with
the instructions found on the Board’s
website at ‘‘www.stb.gov’’ at the ‘‘E–
FILING’’ link. Any person submitting a
filing in paper format should send an
original and 10 paper copies of the filing
to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn:
Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1), 395 E
Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Fancher, (202) 245–0355.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
14, 2018, NARPO filed a petition for
rulemaking requesting that the Board
consider issuing three rules related to 16
U.S.C. 1247(d), the codification of
section 8(d) of the National Trails
System Act (Trails Act), Public Law 90–
543, section 8, 82 Stat. 919 (1968).
Specifically, NARPO asks that the Board
open a proceeding to consider rules that
would: (1) Limit the number of 180-day
extensions of a trail use negotiating
period to six; (2) require a rail carrier or
trail sponsor negotiating an interim trail
use agreement to send notice of the
issuance of a Certificate of Interim Trail
Use (CITU) or Notice of Interim Trail
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50314-50326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681; FRL-9984-98-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Beaver, 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 September 29, 2017, for the
purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Beaver County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Beaver Area'' or ``Area''). The Beaver
Area is comprised of a portion of Beaver County (Industry Borough,
Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough, Brighton Township, Potter
Township and Vanport Township) in Pennsylvania. 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, a reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2
attainment, contingency measures for the Beaver Area, and
Pennsylvania's new source review (NSR) permitting program. As part of
approving the attainment plan, EPA is also proposing to approve into
the Pennsylvania SIP new SO2 emission limits and associated
compliance parameters for the FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (FirstEnergy)
Bruce Mansfield Power Station (Bruce Mansfield Facility) and a consent
order with Jewel Acquisition Midland steel plant (Jewel Facility). This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 5, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0681 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-dockts.
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. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan
III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Averaging Times
[[Page 50315]]
IV. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Beaver Area
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Beaver
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
VI. EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. 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 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 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520
(June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). 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 5 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) 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 became effective on
October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2009-2011, where there was 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 entered on March 2,
2015, by 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 Beaver Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses several past and current sources of SO2
emissions and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID:
42-007-0005). The October 4, 2013 final designation triggered a
requirement for Pennsylvania to submit 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 section 192(a).
For a number of areas, including the Beaver 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 September
29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017, to
Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of
these sanctions' deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will
not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania's missing the SIP
submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March
18, 2016 finding triggers a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years 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. EPA's
obligation to promulgate and implement a FIP will not apply if EPA
makes final the approval action proposed here.
II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area Plans
Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA,
and specifically CAA sections 110, 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. The 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 in 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)); demonstration of RFP
(172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NSR
(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
[[Page 50316]]
greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging
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 (i.e., 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 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 use 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,
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
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 plans for SO2 based on 1-hour emission limits, the
standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed emission rates.
The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to result in attainment
(i.e., an ``average year'' \4\ shows three, not four days with maximum
hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the ``critical emission
value.'' The modeling process for identifying this critical emissions
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 values (e.g., the fourth
highest maximum daily 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 emissions 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 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
[[Page 50317]]
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,'' 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 well 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.
As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a
source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which
results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a
design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an ``average year,''
these emissions cause the 5-highest maximum daily average 1-hour
concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then
suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission
limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source
meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000
pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would
much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this
simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which
allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air
quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics
more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend
on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that
emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour,
1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and
1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example
because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well
over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result
in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5
ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an
exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and
fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have
occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily
concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.
This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more
complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of
scenarios using actual plant data. As described in Appendix B of EPA's
2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA found that the
requirement for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield
better air quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour
limit. Based on analyses described in Appendix B of 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 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 weigh in judging 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 calculate a
complete set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging
time and averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation.
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
[[Page 50318]]
be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour emission limit 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 EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W).\6\ In 2005, EPA promulgated the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (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 April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment area SIP guidance
document referenced above. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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).
IV. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Beaver Area
In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Beaver Area includes: (1) An emissions
inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); (2) an
attainment demonstration including an analysis that locates,
identifies, and quantifies sources of emissions contributing to
violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and a dispersion modeling
analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary remaining
SO2 sources in the area and which also accounts for smaller
sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018
attainment date; (3) a determination that the control strategy for the
primary remaining SO2 sources within the nonattainment area
constitutes RACM/RACT; (4) requirements for RFP toward attaining the
SO2 NAAQS in the Area; (5) contingency measures; and (6) the
assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets
the applicable requirements for SO2. The Pennsylvania
attainment plan for the Beaver Area also includes the request that
emission limitations and compliance parameters contained in a consent
order with Bruce Mansfield and a consent order with Jewel be
incorporated into the SIP.
V. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Beaver Area
Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment
demonstration for a SO2 nonattainment area must show 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 is sufficient, and EPA is
proposing to approve the plan to ensure ongoing attainment.
A. Pollutants Addressed
Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates
SO2 emissions for the Area within the portion of Beaver
County (Industry Borough, Shippingport Borough, Midland Borough,
Brighton Township, Potter Township and Vanport Township) 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.
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 2014
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
[[Page 50319]]
attainment in the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011
as the base year, as the Area was designated nonattainment with monitor
data from 2009-2011. Actual emissions from all the sources of
SO2 in the Beaver Area were reviewed and compiled for the
base year emissions inventory requirement. One additional source
located outside the area was included in the inventory due to its
proximity to the Area. The source is IPSCO Koppel Tubular (Koppel) with
2011 emissions of 130.42 tons per year (tpy). Table 1 shows the level
of emissions, expressed in tpy, in the Beaver Area for the 2011 base
year by emissions source category. The point source category includes
all sources within the nonattainment area and one source (Koppel) just
outside the area.
Table 1--2011 Base Year SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Beaver Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions
Emission source category (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 26,591.051
Area.................................................... 29.784
Non-road................................................ 0.111
On-road................................................. 1.530
---------------
Total............................................... 26,622.476
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Point Source 2011
Actual Sulfur Dioxide Emission Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emissions
Facility (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AES BEAVER VALLEY....................................... 3,085.634
BRUCE MANSFIELD......................................... 21,195.710
HORSEHEAD............................................... 2,014.920
IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL *.......................... 130.420
JEWEL................................................... 162.100
SHELL................................................... 0.000
All Other Point Sources Combined........................ 2.267
---------------
Total............................................... 26,591.051
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is not physically in the Beaver Area, but
modeling shows it has a small impact on it. Another source located
near the Area, Anchor Hocking/Monaca, which had 2011 SO2 emissions of
26.068 tons, was also evaluated. Based on the modeling analysis,
Anchor Hocking/Monaca does not have significant impacts in the Beaver
Area and is not included in the inventory.
A more detailed discussion of the emissions inventory for the
Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017
submittal, as well as, the emissions inventory Technical Support
Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2017-0681 and is available online at www.regulations.gov. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the
Beaver Area and has made the determination that this inventory was
developed consistently with section 172(c)(3) and EPA's guidance as
discussed in detail in the inventory TSD. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the
Beaver Area.
The attainment plan also provides for a projected attainment year
inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of
SO2 which are determined to impact the Beaver 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 and one additional source,
Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC's recently permitted petrochemicals
complex. This source will not start operation until after 2018 but has
been included to provide assurance that the NAAQS will be attained and
maintained notwithstanding commencement of its operation.
The projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
Projected allowable emissions for 2018 exceed the 2011 emissions
inventory; however, projected actual emissions for 2018 are below the
2011 emissions inventory. It should be noted that the sources most
likely causing impacts at the previously violating monitor, including
AES Beaver Valley and Horsehead, have closed or remain idled such as
the Jewel Facility's Meltshop. The remaining primary SO2
sources with their new allowable emissions may be above the total 2011
actual emissions in the Area; however, the remaining primary sources
were modeled using emissions above their new allowable emissions (as
listed in Table 4) and demonstrate attainment as discussed subsequently
in this Notice. SO2 impacts are very source specific and
assumptions cannot be made merely related to the total amount of
emissions in an area. Also, as discussed in the submittal, the
projected actual emissions are based on business projections of 2018
operations, and allowable maximum 2018 emissions are assuming that the
plant is operating 8,760 hours per year and in compliance with the
comparably stringent longer term average limit. The allowable maximum
provides the worst-case emissions for the facilities versus the actual
anticipated emissions which are based on typical operating hours and on
projected business demand. In this case, the modeled maximum
SO2 emissions were not set equal to the allowable maximum
emissions, but were greater than the allowable maximum emissions. For
Bruce Mansfield, the 2018 maximum modeled emissions were 45,038.226
tpy. The 2018 modeled maximum emissions for Koppel and Shell were 306.6
tpy and 22.0 tpy, respectively.
Reductions in projected 2018 SO2 emissions in the
onroad, nonroad and nonpoint source categories can be attributed to
lower sulfur content limits for gasoline and diesel fuels for the
onroad and nonroad sector, and more stringent sulfur content limits on
home heating oil and other distillate/residual fuel oils for the
nonpoint sector which limits are included in the Pennsylvania SIP. A
detailed discussion of projected emissions for the Beaver Area can be
found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 and online at
www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 50320]]
Table 3--2018 Projected SO2 Emission Inventory for the Beaver Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions
(tpy)
SO2 emissions *includes
(tpy) allowable
Emission source category anticipated emissions for
actual all point
sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 14,679.771 32,420.050
Area.................................... 22.586 22.586
Non-road................................ 0.057 0.057
On-road................................. 0.590 0.590
-------------------------------
Total............................... 14,703.004 32,443.283
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--2018 Projected Point Source Emissions for the Beaver Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018
2018 Anticipated
Facility Allowable Max Actual SO2
SO2 (tpy) (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AES BEAVER VALLEY....................... 0.000 0.000
BRUCE MANSFIELD......................... 32,245.560 14,542.309
HORSEHEAD............................... 0.000 0.000
IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL *.......... 149.500 133.472
JEWEL................................... 1.603 1.603
SHELL **................................ 21.000 0.000
All Other Point Sources Combined........ 2.387 2.387
-------------------------------
Total............................... 32,420.050 14,679.771
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS/KOPPEL is not physically in the nonattainment
area, but modeling shows it has a small impact on it. It is included
in the 2011 base year and 2018 attainment year inventories.
** Shell does not anticipate startup to occur prior to the end of 2018.
Annual emissions after startup are limited by the facility's Plan
Approval to less than 21 tons SO2 per year.
C. Air Quality Modeling
The SO2 attainment demonstration provides an air quality
dispersion modeling analysis 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 analysis, conducted pursuant to recommendations outlined
in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), is used for
the attainment demonstration 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 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. In this case, the modeled maximum
SO2 emissions were greater than the allowable maximum
SO2 emissions.
PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's
Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance,
and was prepared using EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system,
AERMOD. A more detailed discussion of PADEP's modeling analysis for the
Beaver Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal
as well as the modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681 which is available online at www.regulations.gov.
For its modeling demonstration, PADEP evaluated SO2
emissions from the Bruce Mansfield Facility located in Shippingport
Borough and potential SO2 emissions from Shell Chemical
Appalachia LLC's (Shell Chemical Appalachia) planned petrochemicals
complex to be located in Potter and Center Townships. SO2
emissions from Koppel, located outside the Beaver Area were also
included in the modeling. The Jewel Facility Meltshop was idled in 2015
and its emissions were not included in the attainment modeling
demonstration. To resume operation, the Meltshop must comply with a
Consent Order and Agreement (COA) described in section D of this
notice.
EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to
support the attainment demonstration for the Beaver Area and has
determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements,
Appendix W, and EPA's Guidance for SO2 attainment
demonstration modeling. The modeling properly characterized source
limits, local meteorological data, background concentrations, and
provided an adequate model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled
concentrations. Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2
NAAQS, the modeled design values for the Beaver Area are less than 75
ppb as shown in Table 5 below.\8\ EPA's analysis of the modeling is
discussed in
[[Page 50321]]
more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID
No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681. EPA proposes to conclude that the modeling
provided in the attainment plan shows that the Beaver Area will attain
the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date and
proposes to approve the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The SO2 NAAQS level is expressed in ppb but
AERMOD gives results in micrograms per meter cubed ([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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. RACM/RACT
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide
for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for
attainment of the NAAQS. 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.'' In addition, CAA section
172(c)(6) requires plans to include enforceable emission limitations
and control measures as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for
attainment by the attainment date.
Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and
state measures that 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 attainment plan submittal discusses facility
closures and facility-specific control measures. Pennsylvania's
submittal indicates that two of the three largest sources in the Beaver
Area were permanently shut down prior to January 2, 2017. The Horsehead
facility closed in the spring of 2014 and has been demolished. AES
Beaver Valley was a coal fired power plant that permanently shut down
in the fall of 2015. Appendix A of the state submittal includes PADEP's
approval letters of Emission Reduction Credits for these facilities
which indicate permanent facility closure. The Jewel Facility is
currently idled and has agreed in a Consent Order and Agreement with
PADEP that its Meltshop cannot emit any SO2 emissions unless
additional modeling is done to support attainment and new
SO2 emissions limitations are established for the SIP as
necessary. This restriction is established in a COA (see Appendix C of
the September 29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and the Jewel Facility
which PADEP seeks to have incorporated by reference into the SIP,
thereby making it permanently federally enforceable under the CAA. In
addition to these actual emission reductions in the Area of 5,100.554
tpy, new SO2 emission limits were developed through air
dispersion modeling (AERMOD) submitted by PADEP as discussed below, and
in section IV.C. Air Quality Modeling of this proposed rulemaking as
well as in the modeling TSD.
In order to ensure that the Beaver Area demonstrates attainment
with the SO2 NAAQS, PADEP asserts that the following
combination of emission limits at the Bruce Mansfield Facility are
sufficient for the Beaver Area to meet the SO2 NAAQS and
serve as RACM/RACT. For the Bruce Mansfield Facility, the new emission
limits are established in a COA (see Appendix C of the September 29,
2017 submittal) between PADEP and FirstEnergy for the Bruce Mansfield
Facility, which PADEP has also submitted for incorporation into the SIP
as permanently federally enforceable limits under the CAA.
The Facility's SO2 emission sources include three coal-
fired boilers (Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3) that were included in the
air dispersion modeling. The SO2 emissions from each of the
three boilers are controlled by three individual Flue Gas
Desulfurization (FGD) systems. Unit 1 and Unit 2 each vent through two
flues within a common stack. Unit 3 vents through two flues in the
other stack. To demonstrate compliance with the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, FirstEnergy requested that the Unit 1 and Unit 2
combined emission limit be established as a function of the Unit 3
emission limit. On and after October 1, 2018, FirstEnergy shall begin
calculating a pound per hour (lb/hr) 30-operating day rolling average
SO2 emission rate for Unit 1 (Source ID 031) and Unit 2
(Source ID 032) from Chimney 1 (Stacks S01-S04), and a lb/hr 30-
operating day rolling average SO2 emission rate for Unit 3
(Source ID 033) from Chimney 2 (Stacks S05 and S06), using data from
the PADEP-certified Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at
the Bruce Mansfield Facility. The 30-operating day rolling average
SO2 emissions rates shall be calculated using the procedures
outlined in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations in
40 CFR parts 60 and 63. The 30-operating day rolling average
SO2 emissions rate for Units 1 and 2 cannot exceed the
result of equation one (EQ-1), below, with Chimney 1 (CH1) and Chimney
2 (CH2) in service, calculated daily. In addition, the 30-operating day
rolling average emissions rate cannot exceed 7,362 lb/hr for Units 1
and 2 combined. The 30-operating day rolling average SO2
emissions rate cannot exceed 3,584 lb/hr for Unit 3. The results of EQ-
1 are only valid when Unit 3 emissions are less than or equal to 3,584
lb/hr.
EQ-1: CH1SO2 Lim = -1.38E-04 x CH2SO2\2\ - 0.920
x CH2SO2 + 7100
Where:
CH1SO2 Lim: Chimney 1 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling
average Limit
CH1SO2 Lim <=7,362 lb/hr
CH2SO2: Chimney 2 SO2 lb/hr 30-day rolling
average.
CH2SO2 <=3,584 lb/hr
Also, FirstEnergy is required by the COA to use its PADEP-certified
CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the new emission restrictions as
detailed in the COA (Paragraph 3.a. of the COA). In accordance with the
current version of PADEP's Continuous Source Monitoring Manual,
FirstEnergy is required by the COA to continue to provide quarterly
reports of emissions data as recorded by the CEMS to PADEP.
Additionally, FirstEnergy shall achieve as detailed in the COA at
least a 95% removal efficiency from the FGDs following the general
requirements contained in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 139.11. FirstEnergy shall
annually test for removal efficiency of the FGDs by using a combination
of CEMS data and coal sampling in accordance with the procedures
outlined in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 19. Three test runs
shall be conducted concurrently in the two flues that feed each unit
during the annual tests. Each test run shall be a minimum of sixty
minutes in duration. A report of the efficiency test shall be provided
annually to PADEP. The first report shall be submitted within one (1)
year of the final execution of this COA and annually thereafter.
FirstEnergy shall maintain records of the operation of and emissions
monitoring from the FGDs, including the annual efficiency report.
The auxiliary boilers located at the Bruce Mansfield Facility are
limited by an existing federally enforceable operating permit to a
capacity factor of less than 5% in any 12-consecutive month period.
PADEP stated this existing federally enforceable limitation has reduced
the potential to emit SO2 to levels at which additional
SO2 controls are not feasible. Thus PADEP concluded the
permit restrictions are RACM and no
[[Page 50322]]
further control is needed from these auxiliary boilers for the Area to
attain the NAAQS or to reflect RACT from these boilers. EPA finds
Pennsylvania's conclusion for the auxiliary boilers reasonable given
the existing permit limitations and low potential to emit
SO2.
Operating restrictions are also placed on the Jewel Facility as
RACM/RACT. To ensure that the Beaver Area will demonstrate attainment
with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the Jewel Facility has
agreed to conditions in a COA which specifies zero SO2
emissions from the Meltshop, which is the Jewel Facility Source ID 106.
Other SO2 emission sources at the facility were addressed in
the modeling analysis as part of the ``background'' sources as
discussed in section V. C. of this notice. The COA also requires
additional modeling and SO2 emission limitations for the SIP
as necessary to assure attainment before the Jewel Facility would be
able to operate the Meltshop. EPA is proposing here to approve the
requirement for zero emissions from the Meltshop as RACM/RACT; any
authorization of nonzero emissions from this Meltshop source would need
to be subject to EPA review as a SIP revision with required modeling
analysis showing continued attainment of the NAAQS.
Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section V.C. Air
Quality Modeling above, the collective emission limits and related
compliance parameters for the Bruce Mansfield Facility, along with the
operating restrictions at the Jewel Facility, have been proposed as
RACM/RACT and for incorporation into the SIP, therefore making them
federally enforceable. PADEP asserts that this proposed control
strategy as demonstrated by the modeling analysis is sufficient for the
Beaver Area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
To establish the emission limit equation (EQ-1) described earlier
in this section, Pennsylvania conducted a modeling analysis that
included eleven modeling runs, supplemented with six additional
modeling runs performed by FirstEnergy, to determine the range of
emission rates for the three Units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility that
provide for attainment. In each of these runs, the model demonstrates
that the respective set of hourly emissions would result in the 5-year
average of the 99th percentile of daily maximum hourly SO2
concentrations below the level of the 1-hour NAAQS. The modeling
results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5--Summary of Air Dispersion Modeling Results for FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield 1-Hour SO2 Modeled Emission
Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
modeled
Unit 1 & unit Unit 3 1[dash]hour
Model run 2 combined 1- 1[dash]hour SO2 design
hour SO2 rate SO2 rate (lb/ concentration
(lb/hr) hr) ([micro]g/
m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................... 10,282.70 0.00 196.17563
2............................................................... 9,254.43 761.19 196.18089
3............................................................... 8,226.16 1,482.72 196.17966
1FE *........................................................... 7,484.24 2,006.14 196.18033
4............................................................... 7,197.89 2,206.62 196.17977
2FE *........................................................... 6,765.97 2,507.57 196.14426
5............................................................... 6,169.62 2,885.44 196.18044
3FE *........................................................... 5,952.47 3,009.17 196.07897
6............................................................... 5,141.35 3,469.90 196.17912
4FE *........................................................... 5,051.66 3,510.68 196.11106
7............................................................... 4,113.08 3,985.46 196.17974
5FE *........................................................... 4,015.93 4,012.20 196.04158
8............................................................... 3,084.81 4,407.53 196.18032
6FE *........................................................... 2,857.18 4,513.72 196.10031
9............................................................... 2,056.54 4,743.88 196.18082
10.............................................................. 1,028.27 4,956.43 196.18081
11.............................................................. 0.00 5,041.58 196.17832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FirstEnergy model run.
FirstEnergy developed adjustment factors to convert the 1-hour
emission rates (Table 5) to comparably stringent 30-operating day
emission rates for each unit at the Bruce Mansfield Facility. To do
this, historic operating data for 2012-2016 from EPA's Clean Air
Markets Database (CAMD) were used in accordance with the methods EPA
recommended in Appendix C and Appendix D of EPA's 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. The SO2 emission limit adjustment
factor was calculated as 0.59 for Unit 1, 0.717 for Unit 2, and 0.794
for Unit 3. The adjustment factor for Unit 2 was applied to Unit 1 as
First Energy deemed it a more representative correction factor for Unit
1. It was noted in Pennsylvania's submittal that Unit 2's hourly
emissions have a tendency to be higher more frequently than Unit 1.
Given this fact, Pennsylvania asserted that applying the adjustment
factor developed for Unit 2 (higher frequency of higher emissions) to
Unit 1 will continue to protect the NAAQS. EPA's SO2
Nonattainment Guidance allows for using a unit more representative of
planned operations going forward under the newly established emission
limits stating ``. . . data from other sources of comparable source
type, size, operation, fuel, and control type may be more useful for
these comparisons.'' In addition, Unit 2's adjustment factors of 0.717
is very similar to the average adjustment factor for 30-day emission
values (0.71) listed in Appendix D of EPA's SO2
Nonattainment Guidance for sources with wet scrubbers (the same control
technology that Unit 1 and 2 have in place). For these reasons, EPA
believes it is appropriate to utilize 0.717 as the adjustment factor
for Unit 1.
The unit specific adjustment factors (0.717 for Units 1 and 2, and
0.794 for Unit 3) were multiplied by the 1-hour modeled emission rates
shown in Table 5, resulting in the corresponding 30-day average
emission rates shown in
[[Page 50323]]
columns three and five in Table 6. These corresponding 30-day average
emission rates show a series of 30-day average limits for Units 1 and 2
combined emissions and for Unit 3 emissions, respectively. Pennsylvania
then determined an equation (EQ-1), identified above, that can be used
to interpolate additional combinations of emissions that would also
result in attainment.
Table 6 addresses the relationship between the modeling results and
Pennsylvania's emission limit in particular addressing whether the
modeling demonstrates that Pennsylvania's compliance equation provides
for attainment throughout the range of possible combinations of
allowable emissions. For each model run, Table 6 shows the modeled
emission rates for Units 1 + 2 (reflecting the sum of emissions from
the two units) and for Unit 3, along with the corresponding 30-day
average emission rates. EPA calculated the sixth column of Table 6 by
plugging in the Unit 3 30-day average emission rates (from the fifth
column, Table 6) into the equation, and determining the limit for Units
1 and 2. In three cases, the entry in the sixth column is
``Disallowed,'' because the emission rate for Unit 3 is higher than the
30-operating day average limit (3,584 lbs/hr) that independently
applies to Unit 3. An important feature of Table 6 is that the limit on
the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2 computed using the equation
(EQ-1), in all cases is lower than the 30-day average sum of Units 1
and 2 emissions that was calculated as comparably stringent to the
modeled 1-hour sum of Units 1 and 2 emissions. For a full range of
cases, Pennsylvania demonstrated that its equation required a level of
emissions that is lower than the level (adjusted to reflect comparable
stringency) demonstrated to result in attainment. In other words, the
equation (EQ-1) used to calculate the 30-day average limits is slightly
more stringent than the comparably stringent adjusted 30-day average
limits. By this means, Pennsylvania demonstrated that the compliance
equation that it adopted, supplemented by independent limits on the
emissions of Unit 3 and on the sum of emissions from Units 1 and 2,
provides for attainment.
Table 6--FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield 30-Day Average SO2 Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-day average
SO2 limit for
Modeled Corresponding Corresponding units 1 + 2 based
emissions for 30-day average Modeled 30-day average on 30-day average
Model run units 1 + 2 emissions for emissions for emissions for equivalent to
(lb/hr) units 1 + 2 unit 3 (lb/hr) unit 3 (lb/hr) modeled unit 3
(lb/hr) ** ** emissions (lb/hr)
***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ 10,282.70 7,372.70 0.00 0.00 7100.0
2............................ 9,254.43 6,635.43 761.19 604.38 6493.6
3............................ 8,226.16 5,898.16 1,482.72 1,177.28 5825.6
1FE *........................ 7,484.24 5,366.20 2,006.14 1,592.88 5284.4
4............................ 7,197.89 5,160.89 2,206.62 1,752.06 5064.5
2FE *........................ 6,765.97 4,851.20 2,507.57 1,991.01 4721.2
5............................ 6,169.62 4,323.62 2,885.44 2,291.04 4267.9
3FE *........................ 5,952.47 4,267.92 3,009.17 2,389.28 4114.1
6............................ 5,141.35 3,686.35 3,469.90 2,755.10 3517.8
4FE *........................ 5,051.66 3,622.04 3,510.68 2,787.48 3463.3
7............................ 4,113.08 2,949.08 3,985.46 3,164.46 2806.8
5FE *........................ 4,015.93 2,879.42 4,012.20 3,185.69 2768.7
8............................ 3,084.81 2,211.81 4,407.53 3,499.58 2190.3
6FE *........................ 2,857.18 2,048.60 4,513.72 3,583.89 2030.3
9............................ 2,056.54 1,474.54 4,743.88 3,766.64 Disallowed
10........................... 1,028.27 737.27 4,956.43 3,935.41 Disallowed
11........................... 0.00 0.00 5,041.58 4,003.01 Disallowed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FirstEnergy model run.
** Corresponding 30-day average emission rates were calculated by multiplying the modeled 1-hour emission rates
from Table 5 by PADEP's adjustment ratios (0.717 for Units 1 and 2; 0.794 for Unit 3).
*** The limit that would result from the compliance equation (EQ-1) using the Unit 3 30-operating day average
emission rate that corresponds to the modeled 1-hour rate (from fifth column of this table).
EPA's guidance for longer term average limits states that plans
based on such limits can be considered to provide for attainment where
appropriate as long as the longer term limit is comparably stringent to
the 1-hour limit that would otherwise be set, and as long as EPA can
have reasonable confidence that occasions of emissions above the CEV
will be limited in frequency and magnitude. To address this latter
criterion, Pennsylvania has provided an analysis of historic emissions,
assessing the frequency of elevated emissions. This analysis used 2012-
2016 CAMD data. Pennsylvania established a limit based on an equation
involving the emissions from multiple units. The equation was derived
from the modeled CEV values (from Table 5). These values were used to
develop a polynomial equation which was plotted on a graph and compared
to the 2012-2016 CAMD data. This comparison demonstrates that during
2012-2016, the Bruce Mansfield Facility only exceeded the 1 hour
emissions formula for 0.50% of the hours.\9\ PADEP's CEV analysis is
[[Page 50324]]
provided in an excel spreadsheet in the Docket at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Appendix E-1 of Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal
included a statement that ``[p]rior to the implementation of the new
emissions limits associated with the 2010 standard, the occasions
when emissions have exceeded the proposed CEVs have been relatively
few. In fact, it has only occurred 13% of the time during the period
of 2012-2016.'' Pennsylvania submitted a correction to this
statement and the corresponding emissions analysis on June 11, 2018
via email which is included in Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0681.
EPA has reviewed the correction and agrees with the assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, EPA believes that PADEP has demonstrated that its
limit for the Bruce Mansfield facility will assure that occasions of
emissions exceeding critical levels will be limited. More generally,
EPA believes that PADEP has met EPA's recommended criteria for longer
term average limits and believes that the emission limits proposed by
PADEP for the Bruce Mansfield Facility will provide reasonable
assurance that the Area will attain the standard.
Additional information on the development of the adjustment factor
and limits, including statistical analyses performed to develop the
limits in accordance with the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance, can be found in Section IV: Control Strategies and in
Appendices D and E of the Pennsylvania attainment plan submittal of
September 29, 2017. These adjustment factors are reasonably consistent
with the average adjustment factor identified in Appendix D of the 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance for units controlled with wet
FGDs (an adjustment factor of 0.71). EPA reviewed the modeling which
shows the Beaver Area attaining the NAAQS with these limits at the
Bruce Mansfield Facility and reviewed the methodology used to develop
the 30-operating day limits and agrees that the limits are reasonable
and follow EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. EPA is
proposing to approve the emission limits for the Bruce Mansfield
Facility Units 1, 2 and 3 as representing RACM/RACT.
EPA finds that the proposed SO2 control strategy at the
Bruce Mansfield Facility and Jewel Facility, the only remaining
significant SO2 sources in the Area after the closure of
Horsehead and AES Beaver Valley, constitute RACM/RACT for sources in
the Beaver Area based on the modeling analysis previously described
which demonstrates the Beaver Area is projected to attain the
SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Furthermore, with our
final approval of Pennsylvania's attainment plan, the emission limits
described for the three units at the Bruce Mansfield Facility and
corresponding compliance parameters found in the COA for the Bruce
Mansfield Facility as well as the operating restrictions on the Jewel
Facility will become permanent and enforceable SIP measures to meet the
requirements of the CAA. EPA proposes that Pennsylvania has satisfied
the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) to adopt and
submit all RACM and enforceable emission limitations and control
measures as needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as
practicable.
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 originally in the 1994 SO2
Guidelines Document \10\ 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. The control measures for
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in Pennsylvania's
submittal have been modeled to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The
SO2 emission reductions from the permanent shutdowns at
Horsehead and AES Beaver Valley along with the COAs including specific
emission limits and compliance parameters which are effective at the
Bruce Mansfield Facility on October 1, 2018, and operating restrictions
on the Jewel Facility effective on October 1, 2018, show the resulting
emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable for
the Area. EPA guidance recommends a compliance date of January 1, 2017
for purposes of providing for a calendar year of meeting the standard,
however in this plan some sources in the area did not have any
emissions for several years while other sources still in operation such
as the Bruce Mansfield and Jewel facilities will have new limits
effective October 1, 2018. However, air quality data in this area has
shown attainment of the NAAQS since 2015. Also based on air quality
modeling reviewed by EPA, the new limits and shutdowns result in
modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the Beaver Area.
Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2 attainment
plan for the Beaver Area fulfills the RFP requirements for the Area.
EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that the Area will not
meet the October 4, 2018 attainment date. EPA proposes to approve
Pennsylvania's attainment plan with respect to the RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC 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 Bruce Mansfield Facility COA (see Appendix C of the September
29, 2017 submittal) contains the following measures that are designed
to keep the Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the
SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the SO2 emissions from Units 1,
2 or 3 exceed 99% of the limits set forth in paragraph 3A of the COA,
FirstEnergy shall, within 48 hours, begin a full system audit of Units
1, 2, and 3 SO2 controls. The audit shall document the
operating parameters of the sources and their control devices and
evaluate whether the units and control devices were operating
effectively. If the units and/or control devices were not operating
effectively, FirstEnergy shall
[[Page 50325]]
identify corrective actions to be implemented to ensure that the limits
in Paragraph 3(a) of the COA are not exceeded. Only one audit in a
seven operating day period is required if SO2 emissions from
Units 1, 2, and 3 exceed 99% of the limits in Paragraph 3(a) of the
COA. The audit shall be documented and records maintained on site, and
a report documenting the audit provided to PADEP within 45 days of
completing the audit. (2) At any time after October 1, 2018, if any
PADEP SO2 monitor within the Beaver Area measures a 1-hour
concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP will notify the Jewel Facility,
Koppel, Shell, and FirstEnergy in writing. A 1-hour SO2
concentration that exceeds 75 ppb at any PADEP SO2 monitor
in the Beaver Area will be a ``daily exceedance.'' FirstEnergy shall
identify whether Unit 1, Unit 2, and/or Unit 3 were running at the time
of the exceedance and within a reasonable time period leading up to the
exceedance. If Unit 1, Unit 2, and/or Unit 3 were running at the time
of the exceedance, and within a reasonable time period leading up to
the exceedance, FirstEnergy shall perform an analysis of meteorological
data on the day the daily exceedance occurred to ensure that the daily
exceedance was not due to SO2 emissions from that source.
The meteorological data analysis may include trajectories run at three
different heights (one at stack height and two more within the boundary
layer) by NOAA's Hysplit program or an equivalent program, hourly
meteorological data collected at the FirstEnergy Beaver Valley nuclear
power station to determine stability parameters within the river
valley, and/or an analysis of Pittsburgh International Airport's
radiosonde data and modeled upper air data. The overall goal of the
meteorological data analysis is to investigate if emissions from the
source could have potentially mixed down to the SO2 monitor
measuring the exceedance. The source's finding must be submitted in
writing to PADEP within 45 days of PADEP notifying FirstEnergy. These
measures will be incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP upon EPA's
final approval of this attainment plan.
There is also one contingency measure pertaining to the Jewel
Facility. According to the COA with the facility, if the Jewel Facility
Meltshop is reactivated and if any of PADEP's monitors in the Beaver
Area measure a 1-hour SO2 concentration of 75 ppb or
greater, PADEP will notify the Jewel Facility both verbally and in
writing. The Jewel Facility shall notify PADEP of the operational
status of the Meltshop within 10 days of the notice.
Additionally, PADEP states in its attainment plan that if PADEP
identifies a 1-hour daily maximum concentration at a PADEP operated
SO2 ambient air quality monitor in the Beaver Area that
registers a concentration exceeding 75 ppb, PADEP would proceed with
the following actions and enforcement as appropriate: (1) Within 5
business days, the PADEP Bureau of Air Quality Monitoring Division will
contact the Air Resource Management Division Chief and the Southwest
Regional Office (SWRO) Air Program Manager to report the monitored
value. (2) Within 5 business days, SWRO staff will contact FirstEnergy
and the Jewel Facility, if reactivated, to trigger the implementation
of their contingency measures found in the COAs. If necessary, section
4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S.
Sec. 4004(27), authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary
or proper for the effective enforcement of the APCA and the rules and
regulations promulgated under the APCA. Such actions include the
issuance of orders (i.e., enforcement orders and orders to take
corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air
pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties. A more
detailed description of the contingency measures can be found in
section VIII of the September 27, 2017 submittal as well as in the COAs
included in the submittal and included for incorporation by reference
into the SIP.
EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 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 under
the APCA 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 \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The CAA new source review (NSR) program is composed of
three separate programs: Prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), Nonattainment NSR (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established
in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in undesignated areas
and 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 --
``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 originally 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 new source review 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 Beaver 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.
VI. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision, its
attainment plan for the Beaver Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA
on September 29, 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, an RFP plan, and
contingency measures for the Beaver 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 and
compliance parameters and control measures established for the
SO2 sources impacting the Beaver Area.
EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment
plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Beaver
[[Page 50326]]
County meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Thus, EPA is proposing to
approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Beaver Area as submitted
on September 29, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action is
discussed in Section V 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 for this Area.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in a
final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 40 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the portions of the COAs entered between Pennsylvania and
FirstEnergy and Pennsylvania and Jewel included in the PADEP submittal
of September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission
limits and associated compliance parameters, recording-keeping and
reporting, and contingency measures. 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 preamble for more information).
VIII. 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 Beaver 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: September 24, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-21667 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
