Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Redesignation of the Hillsborough County 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 37173-37187 [2019-16070]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 23, 2019.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019–16330 Filed 7–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0552; FRL–9997–32–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Designation of
Areas; FL; Redesignation of the
Hillsborough County 2010 1-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to
Attainment
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In a letter dated June 7, 2018,
the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), submitted a request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to redesignate the Hillsborough County
sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Hillsborough County Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’)
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
primary national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard) and to
approve an accompanying State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the
Area. The submittal was received by
EPA on June 12, 2018. Through a letter
dated April 16, 2019, FDEP submitted a
revision to the June 7, 2018,
redesignation request and SIP revision
asking EPA to incorporate certain
conditions into the SIP from a recent
permit revision applicable to the Tampa
Electric Company—Big Bend Station
(Big Bend) power plant. The submission
was received by EPA on April 25, 2019.
EPA is proposing to determine that the
Hillsborough County Area attained the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018; to approve the SIP revision
containing the State’s plan for
maintaining attainment of the 2010 1hour SO2 standard and to incorporate
the maintenance plan into the SIP; to
redesignate the Hillsborough County
Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS; and to incorporate into the
SIP certain permitting conditions
applicable to Big Bend, including a
condition that lowers the SO2 emissions
cap and a condition that restricts fuel
use at two electric generating units to
natural gas.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
Comments must be received on
or before August 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0552 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Ms. Sanchez may be reached by phone
at (404) 562–9644 or via electronic mail
at sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following
four separate but related actions: (1) To
determine that the Hillsborough County
Area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS by its applicable attainment
date of October 4, 2018; (2) to approve
Florida’s maintenance plan for
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the Area and incorporate it
into the SIP; (3) to redesignate the
Hillsborough County Area to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and (4)
incorporate certain revised permitting
conditions applicable to Big Bend into
the SIP, including a condition that
lowers the SO2 emissions cap and a
condition that limits fuel use to natural
gas at two electric generating units. The
Hillsborough County Area is comprised
of the portion of Hillsborough County
encompassed by the polygon with the
vertices using Universal Traverse
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37173
Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM
zone 17 with datum NAD83 as follows:
(1) Vertices-UTM Easting (m) 358581,
UTM Northing 3076066; (2) verticesUTM Easting (m) 355673, UTM
Northing 3079275; (3) UTM Easting (m)
360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4)
vertices-UTM Easting (m) 366850, UTM
Northing 3086692; (5) vertices-UTM
Easting (m) 368364, UTM Northing
3083760; and (6) vertices-UTM Easting
(m) 365708, UTM Northing 3079121.
There is one major point source of SO2
emissions within the Hillsborough
County Area—Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC
Riverview facility (Mosaic).1 Big Bend is
located just outside of the Area and is
the largest source of SO2 within 25 km
outside of the Area.
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Hillsborough County Area attained
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018. EPA is also proposing to approve
Florida’s SIP revision containing the
maintenance plan for the Hillsborough
County Area in accordance with the
requirements of section 175A of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The
maintenance plan submitted with
Florida’s request for redesignation is
intended to help keep the Hillsborough
County Area in attainment of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS through the year
2032.
EPA is also proposing to determine
that the Hillsborough County Area has
met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve a request to change the
designation of the portion of
Hillsborough County that is designated
nonattainment to attainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Finally, EPA is proposing to
incorporate certain revised permitting
conditions applicable to Big Bend into
the Florida SIP.
II. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the
primary SO2 NAAQS, establishing a
new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010). Under EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS is met at a monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations is less than
1 There are two smaller point sources within the
Area—Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. Plant No. 6
(Ajax) and Harsco Minerals (Harsco). Cumulative
SO2 emissions for these sources were less than 6
tons and 1 ton according to Florida’s annual
operating report for 2011 and 2015, respectively.
See Table 5 below and Appendix D in the June 7,
2018, submittal.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37174
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
or equal to 75 ppb (based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix T). See 40 CFR 50.17.
Ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 3-year period must meet a data
completeness requirement. A year meets
data completeness requirements when
all four quarters are complete, and a
quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each
quarter have complete data. A sampling
day has complete data if 75 percent of
the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by
exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the
Administrator, are reported.2
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area
that does not meet (or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet) the NAAQS. EPA
designated the Area as nonattainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
effective October 4, 2013, using 2009–
2011 complete, quality assured, and
certified ambient air quality data. See 78
FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). Under the
CAA, nonattainment areas must attain
this NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but not later than five years
after the October 4, 2013, effective date
of the designation. See CAA section
192(a). Therefore, the Hillsborough
County Area’s applicable attainment
date was no later than October 4, 2018.
EPA’s 2010 SO2 nonattainment
designation for the Area triggered an
obligation for Florida to develop a
nonattainment SIP revision addressing
certain requirements under CAA title I,
part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart
1’’) and to submit that SIP revision to
EPA in accordance with the deadlines
in title I, part D, subpart 5 (hereinafter
‘‘Subpart 5’’). Subpart 1 contains the
general requirements for nonattainment
areas for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that
provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), requires reasonable further
progress (RFP), includes base-year and
attainment-year emissions inventories, a
SIP-approved nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) permitting
program that accounts for growth in the
area, enforceable emissions limitations
and other such control measures, and
provides for the implementation of
contingency measures. This SIP revision
was due within 18 months following the
October 4, 2013, effective date of
designation (i.e., April 4, 2015). See
CAA section 191(a). Florida submitted a
2 See
40 CFR part 50, Appendix T, section 3(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
nonattainment SIP revision to EPA on
April 3, 2015.
On July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749), EPA
approved Florida’s April 3, 2015, SO2
nonattainment SIP revision. This SIP
revision provided a modeled attainment
demonstration and satisfied the required
nonattainment planning requirements
mentioned above for the Hillsborough
County Area. The revision included a
base year emissions inventory, a
modeling demonstration of attainment
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, RACM/
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), an RFP plan, NNSR
permitting program, and contingency
measures for the Hillsborough County
Area. As discussed in Sections V and
VI, below, the nonattainment SIP
revision included permit conditions to
reduce SO2 emissions at Mosaic and Big
Bend.
As part of that action, EPA
incorporated into the Florida SIP
specified SO2 emissions caps,
compliance monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for emission units at
Mosaic (Permit No. 0570008–080–AC,
issued on January 15, 2015) and Big
Bend (Permit No. 0570039–074–AC,
issued on February 26, 2015). Florida
based its modeled attainment
demonstration, submitted with its April
3, 2015, nonattainment SIP revision, on
these conditions. Big Bend has four
emission units (EUs 1 through 4), and
Big Bend’s permit placed an SO2
emissions cap on all four units at 3,162
lb/hr on a 30-day boiler operating day
average. On December 14, 2018, Florida
issued a final air construction permit to
Big Bend (Permit No. 0570039–120–AC)
that, among other things, restricts two
units to the use of natural gas; lowers
the four-unit emissions cap from 3,162
lb/hr to 2,156 lb/hr; and modifies
monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements for EUs 1 and 2.3 Florida’s
April 19, 2019, submittal requests that
EPA incorporate into the Florida SIP
certain permit conditions established in
Permit No. 0570039–120–AC. Some of
the identified conditions replace
specific conditions from Permit No.
0570039–074–AC that EPA approved
into the SIP for purposes demonstrating
attainment of the SO2 standard pursuant
to the nonattainment requirements of
sections 172, 191, and 192 of the CAA.
3 Florida incorporated the conditions applicable
to Big Bend from Permit No. 0570039–120–AC into
the facility’s Title V operating permit on February
8, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. What are the criteria for
redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation provided that the
following criteria are met: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA
provided guidance on redesignations in
the General Preamble for the
Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4,
1992 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);
2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992;
3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
4. ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
April 23, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘‘SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance’’).
EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance discusses the CAA
requirements that air agencies need to
address when implementing the 2010
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
SO2 NAAQS in areas designated as
nonattainment for the standard. The
guidance includes recommendations for
air agencies to consider as they develop
SIPs to satisfy the requirements of
sections 110, 172, 175A, 191, and 192 of
the CAA to show future attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, the SO2 nonattainment
guidance provides recommendations for
air agencies to consider as they develop
redesignation requests and maintenance
plans to satisfy the requirements of
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. If there
are no air quality monitors located in
the affected area, or there are air quality
monitors located in the area but
analyses show that none of the monitors
are located in the area of maximum
concentration,4 then air quality
dispersion modeling will generally be
needed to estimate SO2 concentrations
in the area.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Why is EPA proposing these
actions?
Through a letter dated June 7, 2018,
FDEP submitted a request for EPA to
redesignate the Hillsborough County
Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and an associated SIP
revision containing a maintenance plan.
Through a letter dated April 16, 2019,
FDEP submitted a revision to the June
7, 2018, redesignation request and SIP
revision asking EPA to incorporate
certain conditions into the SIP from a
recent permit revision applicable to Big
Bend. EPA’s evaluation indicates that
the Hillsborough County Area meets the
requirements for redesignation as set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including
the maintenance plan requirements
under section 175A of the CAA. As a
result of this evaluation, EPA is
proposing to determine that the Area
has attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS by its attainment date of
October 4, 2018, in accordance with
section 179(c)(1) of the CAA, based
upon air quality dispersion modeling
analyses.5 EPA is also proposing to
approve Florida’s maintenance plan for
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the Area and incorporate it
into the SIP, to redesignate the
Hillsborough County Area to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and to
incorporate certain conditions from the
revised Big Bend permit into the SIP
4 See section VIII.A of the 2014 SO
2
Nonattainment Area Guidance.
5 Section 179(c)(1) reads as follows: ‘‘As
expeditiously as practicable after the applicable
attainment date for any nonattainment area, but not
later than 6 months after such date, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area’s
air quality as of the attainment date, whether the
area attained the standard by that date.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
because these conditions further reduce
SO2 emissions.
V. Operational Changes to Big Bend’s
Emission Units
Florida’s June 7, 2018, redesignation
request and maintenance plan for the
Hillsborough County Area relies upon
the State’s model-based attainment
demonstration from its April 3, 2015,
SO2 attainment SIP which EPA
approved on July 3, 2017. EPA’s
approval action incorporated into the
Florida SIP a four-unit emissions cap of
3,162 lb/hr on a 30-day boiler operating
day average and certain compliance
monitoring and recordkeeping and
reporting parameters from Permit No.
0570039–074–AC. Florida modeled the
Big Bend emissions cap along with the
Mosaic SO2 emissions cap (and other
Mosaic permit conditions) to
demonstrate attainment of the standard
by the attainment date. Florida
established the Big Bend emissions cap
to demonstrate attainment of the SO2
standard based on a worst-case
operating scenario considering the
physical design, heat input, and
emissions variability of each unit at Big
Bend. To demonstrate compliance with
the four-unit cap, Permit No. 0570039–
074–AC required each unit to monitor
SO2 emissions with a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS).
The SO2 emissions cap specified in that
permit and the Mosaic permit
conditions were the basis for the modelbased attainment demonstration in
Florida’s 2015 nonattainment SIP.
On December 14, 2018, Florida issued
a revised air construction permit (Permit
No. 0570039–120–AC) to Big Bend that
lowers the four-unit emissions cap from
3,162 lb/hr to 2,156 lb/hr; restricts EUs
1 and 2 to only burn natural gas; and
since the amount of sulfur in natural gas
is negligible, authorizes the removal of
the SO2 CEMS for EUs 1 and 2 and
requires monitoring for these two units
in accordance with the calculation
method allowed for gas-fired acid rain
units in 40 CFR part 75 to demonstrate
compliance with the lowered emissions
cap.6 EUs 1 and 2 share a stack and a
permit also authorizes additional changes
not applicable to this proposed action, including
removal of all coal and solid fuels from the list of
permitted fuels for EUs 1 and 2 so that the units
are no longer subject to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coaland Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units in Subpart UUUUU in Title 40, Part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63) (also
called the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards
(MATS) rule). EUs 008, 015, and 016 will be
removed because the units are not necessary for
natural gas firing operations. Additionally, this
permit authorizes relocation of the existing
monitoring points for the nitrogen oxides, carbon
dioxide, and ammonia CEMS from the common
PO 00000
6 The
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37175
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system to
control SO2. Permit No. 0570039–074–
AC required certified CEMS as the
method of SO2 emissions monitoring
and compliance for EUs 1 and 2.
However, with the restriction on EUs 1
and 2 to burn natural gas in the revised
permit, the new method of monitoring
and compliance for EUs 1 and 2 utilizes
the protocol in 40 CFR part 75,
Appendix D to determine the hourly
SO2 emission rate from each unit. EUs
3 and 4 continue to certify compliance
with the emissions cap through use of
CEMS. Therefore, Big Bend will
demonstrate compliance of the lowered
four-unit emissions cap through a
combination of 40 CFR part 75,
Appendix D (EUs 1 and 2) and SO2
CEMS data (EUs 3 and 4). As required
by 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, section
2.1, Big Bend will measure and record
the hourly flow rate of natural gas
combusted by EUs 1 and 2 with an inline fuel flowmeter. The pounds-perhour SO2 emission rates for each of
these two units will then be calculated
by using the equation provided in 40
CFR part 75, Appendix D, section 3.3.1,
along with the measured hourly natural
gas flow rate to each unit and the
vendor certified sulfur content of the
combusted natural gas.
Florida’s April 16, 2019, submittal
requests that EPA incorporate into the
SIP certain conditions from Permit No.
0570039–120–AC. As noted below,
some of these conditions replace
conditions that EPA incorporated into
the SIP from Permit No. 0570039–074–
AC in the Agency’s July 3, 2017 action
approving the State’s nonattainment
SIP. The conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP from Permit
No. 0570039–120–AC are: (1) Section 2,
Condition 4 (new)—describing the 40
CFR part 75, Appendix D monitoring
methodology and compliance
requirements for EUs 1 and 2; 7 (2) the
‘‘SO2 Emissions Cap’’ provision from
Section 3, Condition 4 (replacement)—
setting a four-unit emissions cap of
2,156 lb/hr averaged over a 30-day
boiler operating day, requiring that EUs
stack for EUs 1 and 2 to the common inlet duct of
the flue gas desulfurization system for these two
units. This permit also removes other monitoring
requirements for other pollutants and removes the
MATS conditions that are no longer applicable
because the permit exempts EUs 1 and 2 from
MATS requirements.
7 The permit condition states that the permittee
shall keep a daily log of natural gas combusted at
Units 1 and 2 and shall record the sulfur content
of the natural gas as provided by the fuel supplier.
The SO2 mass emissions calculated by following
procedures in Appendix D of 40 CFR 75 shall be
averaged on a 30-boiler operating day basis to
demonstrate the contribution of Units 1 and 2 to the
4-unit SO2 cap. [Rule 62–4.070(3), F.A.C. and
Application No. 0570039–120–AC].
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
37176
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
1 and 2 demonstrate compliance with
the cap by monitoring natural gas fuel
flow and following the procedures in
Appendix D to 40 CFR 75 to determine
SO2 mass emissions, and requiring that
EUs 3 and 4 demonstrate compliance
with the cap through CEMS; 8 (3) the
‘‘SO2 CEMS’’ provision from Section 3,
Condition 4 (replacement)—requiring
EUs 3 and 4 to use CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the cap
and to meet the quality assurance and
quality control requirements outlined in
the facility’s title V permit; 9 and (4) the
‘‘Methods of Operation’’ for Units 1 and
2 provision from Section 3, Condition 6
(new)—restricting EUs 1 and 2 to
burning only natural gas from a
federally regulated pipeline.10 As
discussed in section VI of this notice,
Florida’s April 19, 2019, submittal
provides even more air quality
protection than the model-based
attainment plan approved by EPA.
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of the
redesignation request and SIP revision?
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
The five redesignation criteria
provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater
8 This permit condition states that the combined
emissions of SO2 from all four-fossil fuel fired
steam generating units (EU 001–EU 004, combined)
shall not exceed 2,156 lb/hour based on a 30-boiler
operating day rolling average. Units 1 and 2 shall
demonstrate compliance with the cap by
monitoring the natural gas fuel flow and following
procedures in Appendix D of 40 CFR part 75 to
determine SO2 mass emissions. For Units 3 and 4,
compliance with this SO2 emissions cap shall be
demonstrated by data collected from the existing
SO2 CEMS. The new emissions cap applies at all
times when these units are operating including
periods of startup and shutdown. [Rules 62–
4.070(1) and (3), and 62–4.080(1), F.A.C.;
Hillsborough County SO2 Maintenance SIP; and
Application No. 0570039–120–AC]. In its April 16,
2019 submittal, Florida identifies this provision as
‘‘Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 2’’;
however, it is contained under the heading ‘‘4.
Permit Being Modified: Permit No. 0570039–096–
AC’’ in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039–120–AC.
9 This permit condition states that the permittee
shall use existing SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate
continuous compliance for Units 3 and 4 with the
SO2 emissions cap specified in Condition 2. The
existing SO2 CEMS shall continue to meet and
follow the quality assurance and quality control
requirements outline in the facility’s Title V air
operation permit. [Rules 62–4.070(1) and (3), and
62–4.080(1), F.A.C.; SO2 Attainment SIP; and
Application No. 0570039–120–AC]. In its April 16,
2019 submittal, Florida identifies this provision as
‘‘Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 3;
however, it is contained under the heading ‘‘4.
Permit Being Modified: Permit No. 0570039–096–
AC’’ in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039–120–AC.
10 This permit condition states that Big Ben Units
1 and 2 shall fire only natural gas from a federally
regulated pipeline. No solid fuels shall be burned
in these units. In its April 16, 2019 submittal,
Florida identifies this provision as ‘‘Section 3,
Subsection A, Specific Condition 3a’’; however, it
is contained under the heading ‘‘6. Permits Being
Modified: Permit Nos. 0570039–066–AC & 109–AC’’
in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039–120–AC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
detail for the Hillsborough County Area
in the following paragraphs.
Criterion (1)—The Administrator
determines that the area has attained
the NAAQS.
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). As discussed in
section VIII.A of the SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance, there are generally two
components needed to support an
attainment determination for SO2,
which should be considered
interdependently.11 The first
component relies on air quality
monitoring data. For SO2, any available
monitoring data would need to indicate
that all monitors in the affected area are
meeting the standard as stated in 40
CFR 50.17 using data analysis
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix T. The second component
relies on air quality modeling data. If
there are no air quality monitors located
in the affected area, or there are air
quality monitors located in the area, but
analyses show that none of the monitors
are located in the area of maximum
concentration,12 then air quality
dispersion modeling will generally be
needed to estimate SO2 concentrations
in the area. Such dispersion modeling
should be conducted to estimate SO2
concentrations throughout the
nonattainment area using actual
emissions and meteorological
information for the most recent three
calendar years. However, EPA may also
make determinations of attainment
based on the modeling from the
attainment demonstration for the
applicable SIP for the affected area,
eliminating the need for separate
actuals-based modeling to support the
determination that an area is currently
attaining. If the air agency has
previously submitted a modeled
attainment demonstration using
allowable emissions, no further
modeling is needed as long as the
source characteristics are still
reasonably represented and so long as
emissions are at or below allowable
levels. Where both monitoring and
modeling information is available, such
as the case with the Hillsborough
County Area, EPA will consider both
types of evidence.
Florida’s pre- and post-modification
attainment demonstration modeling
indicates that the only ambient SO2
monitor in the Area—the East Bay
monitor (AQS ID: 12–057–0109)—is not
cited in the area of maximum
concentration for both Mosaic and Big
Bend, and therefore, the clean
monitoring data at the monitor does not
on its own demonstrate that the Area is
currently attaining the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. For that reason, EPA’s
proposed approval of Florida’s
redesignation and maintenance plan SIP
for the Hillsborough County Area is
based on the modeled attainment
demonstration that includes permanent
and enforceable SO2 controls and
emissions limits at Mosaic and Big Bend
showing attainment of the 2010 SO2
standard by the statutory deadline. EPA
approved the attainment demonstration
for the Area on July 3, 2017, and
incorporated the new allowable
emission rates and control measures
into the SIP, making them permanent
and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749.
Florida’s redesignation request indicates
that the control strategies were fully
implemented at Mosaic in November
2017 and at Big Bend in early 2016 (i.e.,
these sources are emitting SO2 at or
below the SIP-approved allowable
emission levels). The revised conditions
in Permit No. 0570039–120–AC
applicable to Big Bend became effective
on December 14, 2018. If EPA approves
these revised permit conditions into the
SIP, they will become permanent and
enforceable measures. As discussed
below, EPA proposes to find that these
permit revisions continue to assure
attainment because, among other things,
they reduce the SO2 emissions cap by
approximately 32 percent. Details
regarding the control strategies and
emissions reductions are provided in
the Criterion (3) section of this notice.
Details regarding the modeling analysis
are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
11 SO is primarily a localized, source-specific
2
pollutant, and therefore, SO2 control measures are,
by definition, based on what is directly and
quantifiably necessary to attain the NAAQS.
12 See section VIII.A of the SO Nonattainment
2
Area Guidance.
13 See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (EPA’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models) (January 17, 2017)
located at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
appendix_w/2016/AppendixW_2017.pdf.
14 Version 14134 of the AERMOD Modeling
System was the current EPA-recommended
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Florida’s EPA-Approved Modeling
Analysis
Florida’s modeling analysis was
developed in accordance with EPA’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Modeling Guidance) 13 and the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance and was
prepared using EPA’s preferred
dispersion modeling system—the
American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (AERMOD)—
consisting of the AERMOD (version
14134) 14 model and multiple data input
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
37177
preprocessors as described below. FDEP
used regulatory default options and the
rural land use designation in the
AERMOD modeling.
The pre-processors AERMET (version
14134) and AERMINUTE were used to
process five years (i.e., 2008–2012) of 1minute meteorological data from the
Tampa National Weather Service Office
(NWS) at the Tampa International
Airport, Tampa, Florida, surface level
site, based on FDEP’s land use
classifications, in combination with
twice daily upper-air meteorological
information from the same site. The
Tampa International Airport is located
approximately 20 km northwest from
the Hillsborough Area.
The AERMOD pre-processor
AERMAP (version 11103) was used to
generate terrain inputs for the receptors,
based on a digital elevation mapping
database from the National Elevation
Dataset developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey. FDEP used
AERSURFACE to generate directionspecific land-use surface characteristics
for the modeling.
The stack heights used in the
modeling meet the Good Engineering
Practice stack height criteria and the
Building Profile Input Program for
Plume Rise Model Enhancements was
used to generate direction-specific
building downwash parameters. FDEP
developed a Cartesian receptor grid
across the entire Area (extending up to
8.5 km from the monitor), with 100
meter spacing in ambient air to ensure
that maximum concentrations are
captured in the analysis.
FDEP selected a background SO2
concentration based on local SO2
monitoring data from the East Bay
monitor for the period January 2012 to
December 2013. This background
concentration from the nearby ambient
air monitor is used to account for SO2
impacts from all sources that are not
specifically included in the AERMOD
modeling analysis. The ambient
monitoring data was obtained from the
Florida Air Monitoring and Assessment
System. Due to its close proximity to
Mosaic and Big Bend, monitored
concentrations at this station are
strongly influenced by emissions from
both facilities. As a result, and as
allowed by EPA’s Modeling Guideline,
the data was filtered to remove
measurements where the wind direction
could transport pollutants from Mosaic
and Big Bend to the monitor. More
specifically, the data was filtered to
remove measurements where hourly
wind directions were between 275° to 4°
or 153° to 241°.
EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance provides a procedure for
establishing longer-term averaging times
for SO2 emission limits (up to a 30-day
rolling averaging time).15 In approving
Florida’s 2015 attainment
demonstration, EPA concluded that
FDEP completed this analysis for both
Mosaic and Big Bend to derive a SIP
emission limit with a block 24-hour
longer-term averaging time and a rolling
30-day longer-term averaging time,
respectively, that are comparatively
stringent to the 1-hour limit. For more
details, see Florida’s April 3, 2015,
nonattainment SIP submittal and EPA’s
final approval. See 82 FR 30749 (July 3,
2017).16
The results of Florida’s attainment
modeling are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 presents the results from the six
sets of AERMOD modeling runs that
were performed. The six modeling runs
were the result of using an uncontrolled,
or pre-modification, scenario and five
different controlled, or postmodification, scenarios to account for
possible control strategies that involved
two-unit and three-unit emissions caps
at Mosaic, in addition to individual
emissions caps. The model also
included the 3,162 lbs/hr emissions cap
at Big Bend. The four Big Bend units
were modeled at constant emissions
rates derived by distributing the
emissions cap based on the relative
maximum allowable heat input for each
unit. Maximum allowable permitted
emissions caps were used for the
modeling demonstration. These
emissions limits and other control
measures were established in
construction permits issued by FDEP.
EPA incorporated the permit conditions
necessary to demonstrate modeled
attainment into the Florida SIP via the
approved attainment plan making them
permanent and enforceable. Florida
incorporated the conditions applicable
to Big Bend from Permit No. 0570039–
074–AC into the facility’s Title V
operating permit 17 and will incorporate
the conditions for Mosaic into the next
Title V revision for that facility.
As noted above, Florida’s modeling
presents five post-control modeling
runs, summarized in Table 1, which
were used by FDEP to identify the worst
possible scenario of emissions
distributions between Mosaic’s three
sulfuric acid Emissions Units (EUs)
004–006. FDEP began by evaluating
maximum sulfuric acid production rates
and catalyst limitations, which resulted
in a total SO2 emissions cap of 600
pounds per hour (lb/hr) for Mosaic EUs
004–006. This overall cap was then
scaled to a 24-hour limit, maintaining
comparative stringency with the 1-hour
limit, following the procedures in the
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The 24hour emissions rate resulting from this
procedure is 577.8 lb/hr. FDEP rounded
down the limit for an additional buffer
for the maximum modeled impact,
resulting in a 24-hour limit of 575 lb/hr.
FDEP then back-calculated to a 1-hour
critical emission value (CEV) emissions
cap of 597 lb/hr. This three-unit
emissions cap was then modeled in
several configurations to mimic
variability in emissions possible under
the scenario of all three units operating
simultaneously. The different
configurations were determined by
apportioning the emissions cap (597 lb/
hr) based on each unit emitting at its
individual emissions limit with the
remainder of the cap distributed to the
other two units based on their relative
production capacities. The highest
impact is presented in Table 1 as the
three-unit emissions cap scenario.
FDEP also evaluated two-unit
emissions caps, which assumed that
only two of the three units were
operating. The six possible two-unit
operating scenarios were evaluated in
turn by modeling each unit operating at
its individual emission limit, while the
remainder of the 597 lb/hr cap was
distributed to the other operating unit.
The highest modeled impact is
presented in Table 2 as the two-unit
operating scenario. For the three
remaining scenarios, each sulfuric acid
plant was assumed to operate alone at
its individual emissions cap. For all of
the modeling scenarios, the four Big
Bend units were modeled at constant
emissions rates derived by distributing
the 1-hour CEV emissions cap 18 based
on the relative maximum allowable heat
input for each unit. The results for each
of these scenarios are also presented in
Table 1. Table 1 shows that the
maximum 1-hour average across all five
years of meteorological data (2008–
2012) is less than or equal to the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb for the
five post-control AERMOD modeling
regulatory version at the time the modeling was
performed in 2014–2015, and therefore was
appropriate for the modeling analysis.
15 FDEP followed EPA’s SO Nonattainment Area
2
Guidance on procedures for establishing emissions
limits with averaging periods longer than 1 hour.
16 Florida’s nonattainment SIP submittal is
located in Docket No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0624.
17 See Title V Operating Permit No. 0570039–
110–AV issued by FDEP on November 7, 2017.
18 The details of Florida’s procedures for
developing the 1-hour CEV and longer-term average
emissions limits are provided in its April 3, 2015,
nonattainment SIP submittal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
37178
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
runs. For more details, see Florida’s
April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP
submittal.
April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP
submittal.
TABLE 1—MAXIMUM MODELED SO2 IMPACTS IN THE HILLSBOROUGH AREA, MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
[ppb]
Maximum predicted impact
Model scenario
Averaging time
Background
Mosaic
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Pre-modification .........
Three-unit ..................
Two-unit .....................
EU 004 only ...............
EU 005 only ...............
EU 006 only ...............
1-hour
1-hour
1-hour
1-hour
1-hour
1-hour
............
............
............
............
............
............
425.50 (162.4)
118.90 (45.4)
123.59 (47.2)
0.33 (0.12)
0.25 (0.10)
0.33 (0.12)
The pre-control analysis resulted in a
predicted impact of 170.5 ppb. The
post-control analysis resulted in a
worst-case predicted impact of 74.9 ppb
in the three-unit operating scenario.
EPA determined that the modeling
results indicate sufficient reductions in
air quality impact with the
implementation of the post-construction
control plan for Mosaic and Big Bend.
The control measures that have been
implemented at the Mosaic and Big
Bend are outlined in the Criterion (3)
section of this notice. The collective
emission limit and related compliance
parameters have been incorporated into
the SIP, making them permanent and
federally enforceable. More details on
the pre-construction and postconstruction operations at the facilities
are included in Florida’s nonattainment
SIP submission and in EPA’s
rulemaking on that submittal.19
On July 3, 2017, EPA approved the
modeled attainment demonstration
described above and concluded that it is
consistent with CAA requirements,
EPA’s Modeling Guideline, and EPA’s
guidance for SO2 attainment
demonstration modeling. Florida’s
redesignation request indicates that the
control strategies were fully
implemented at Mosaic in November
2017 and at Big Bend in early 2016,
meaning that emissions are at or below
the levels modeled in Florida’s
attainment plan. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that air quality
modeling supports the conclusion that
the Area has attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and attained the standard
by the applicable deadline.
19 See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017) (final rule), 81
FR 57522 (August 23, 2016) (proposed rule), and
Florida’s SIP submittal located in Docket EPA–R04–
OAR–2015–0624.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
0.82
55.90
52.22
170.84
170.84
170.84
(0.31)
(21.3)
(19.9)
(65.2)
(65.2)
(65.2)
20.40
21.44
18.83
17.26
17.26
17.26
(7.8)
(8.2)
(7.2)
(6.6)
(6.6)
(6.6)
Effect of the Big Bend Permit Revisions
on Florida’s EPA-Approved Modeling
Analysis
As discussed above, since the time
that EPA approved Florida’s attainment
demonstration modeling on July 3,
2017, Florida issued a revised permit to
Big Bend that restricts EUs 1 and 2 to
only burning natural gas; reduces the
four-unit SO2 cap from 3,162 lb/hr to
2,156 lb/hr (each on a 30-day average
basis); and amends the method for
demonstrating compliance with the
four-unit cap. Florida’s April 19, 2019,
submittal revises its pending June 7,
2018, redesignation request and
associated SIP revision for the
Hillsborough County Area by asking
EPA to incorporate the aforementioned
permit conditions into the SIP. Florida’s
2019 submittal states that its modelbased attainment demonstration
(described above) is still valid for
demonstrating attainment in the Area.
Florida’s conclusion is based on the
approximate 32 percent reduction in the
four-unit cap and the change in stack
parameters for the stack shared by EUs
1 and 2 due to the switch to natural gas.
According to the State, the plume
flowrate, exit velocity, and temperature
for the stack shared by EUs 1 and 2 have
all increased. Florida’s submittal also
asserts that a faster flowrate and velocity
leaving the stack will lead to increased
plume rise and that the warmer
temperatures will also increase plume
rise. With increased plume rise,
pollutants will be able to disperse more
before reaching the ground and will lead
to lower pollutant concentrations at the
surface. Therefore, Florida believes that
the new stack parameters for the shared
stack of EUs 1 and 2, along with the
reduced SO2 emissions cap, would lead
to lower modeled concentrations.
Florida’s submittal also notes that the
stack parameters for EUs 3 and 4 have
not changed from the values used in the
modeling demonstration. The stack
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Total
SO2 NAAQS
Big Bend
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
446.72 (170.5)
196.24 (74.9)
194.65 (74.3)
188.43 (71.9)
188.35 (71.9)
188.43 (71.9)
196.4 (75)
configuration for EUs 1 through 4,
which have stack heights of 150 meters,
are spaced less than 120 meters apart
and are over 2 kilometers (km) from the
Area, which according to the State,
leads to the stacks behaving as a single,
distant point source for receptors within
the Area. The submittal also asserts that
any potential emissions scenario with
the revised cap would be expected to
lead to decreased modeled
concentrations due to the overall
decrease in emissions from the four EUs
due to the revised four-unit SO2 cap.
EPA proposes to agree with Florida’s
assessment and conclusion regarding
the effect of the revised Big Bend permit
conditions on the State’s model-based
attainment demonstration. EPA believes
that Florida’s modeling, which showed
that Big Bend’s maximum impact was
87% of the NAAQS at 170.84 mg/m3 (see
Table 1) and demonstrated attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS using a four-unit
SO2 cap of 3,162 lb/hr, is more
conservative (in relation to a
demonstration relying on the lowered
cap) and is still valid for demonstrating
attainment in the Area.
Monitoring Data
For SO2, a location may be considered
to be attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR
50.17 and Appendix T of part 50, based
on three complete, consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. Specifically, to attain
the NAAQS at each monitoring site, the
3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile (fourth highest value) of 1hour daily maximum concentrations
measured at each monitor within an
area must be less than or equal to 75
ppb. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA
Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors
should have remained at the same
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
37179
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
As discussed above, FDEP currently
operates one ambient SO2 monitor in
the Area, the East Bay monitor. This
monitor is located approximately 1 km
southeast of Mosaic and 7 km north of
Big Bend. The original nonattainment
designation was based on the 2009–
2011 design value of 103 ppb at this
monitor. As shown in Table 2, the
design values at this monitor have
decreased steadily since 2011.
TABLE 2—HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AREA SO2 MONITORED DESIGN VALUES
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[ppb]
Monitoring station
(AQS site ID)
2011–2013
design
value
2012–2014
design
value
2013–2015
design
value
2014–2016
design
value
2015–2017
design
value 20
2016–2018
design
value
East Bay (12–057–0109) .....................................................
93 ppb
79 ppb
66 ppb
66 ppb
60 ppb
Incomplete.21
Quality-assured and certified ambient
air monitoring data for the 2015–2017
period, the most recent 3-year period
with complete data, are attaining the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with a design
value of 60 ppb. This design value is
approximately 43 percent lower than
the 2009–2011 design value and 40
percent lower than the NAAQS.
Although the 2016–2018 design value is
invalid due to incomplete data in 2018,
EPA has no reason to believe that the
2016–2018 design value would have
been above the NAAQS if the monitor
had complete data for 2018 given the
downward trend in emissions shown in
Table 2 and a 2015–2017 design value
that is 40 percent lower than the
NAAQS. Furthermore, since 2013, the
annual 99th percentile daily maximum
1-hour SO2 concentration has remained
below the standard, and there have been
no 1-hour values recorded above the
level of the standard since late 2016.
EPA believes that the significant
decrease in SO2 concentrations is due to
the permanent and enforceable control
measures at Mosaic and Big Bend. Thus,
the monitoring data also support the
conclusion that the Area has attained
the standard.
EPA is proposing to determine that
the Area has attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS based on the modeling
analysis discussed above which is not
contradicted by monitoring data.
Preliminary monitoring data for the
Area for 2019 indicates that the Area
continues to attain the standard and has
not measured any exceedances of the 1hour SO2 standard.22 If, before EPA
takes final action, monitoring data or
other evidence causes EPA to conclude
that the Area is not continuing to meet
the standard, EPA will not go forward
with the redesignation. As discussed in
more detail below, Florida has
committed to continue monitoring
ambient SO2 concentrations in this Area
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Any
future changes to the state or local air
monitoring station network in the Area
will be submitted to EPA for approval
in Florida’s annual ambient air
monitoring network plan, as required by
40 CFR 58.10.
Criterion (2)—The Administrator has
fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k); and Criterion (5)—
Florida has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the state has met
all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of title I of the
CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and
that the state has a fully-approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes
to find that Florida has met all
applicable SIP requirements for the
Hillsborough County Area under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements) for purposes of
redesignation. Additionally, EPA
proposes to find that the Florida SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meets
applicable SIP requirements for
purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA
proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Area and, if applicable,
that they are fully approved under
section 110(k). SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior
to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
A. The Hillsborough County Area Has
Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
20 The 2017 data is available at https://
www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report.
21 The East Bay monitor did not collect a valid
2016–2018 design value due to incomplete data in
2018.
22 Preliminary 2019 data is available at https://
www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. General SIP Requirements
General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(NNSR permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions
for public and local agency participation
in planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the interstate transport of air pollutants.
The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classifications are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that the CAA’s interstate
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
37180
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
transport requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA interprets the other
section 110(a)(2) elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment
plan submissions nor linked with an
area’s attainment status not to be
‘‘applicable’’ requirements for purposes
of redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section 110
and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio,
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001). Nonetheless,
EPA has approved Florida’s SIP
revisions related to the section 110
requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
with the exception of the interstate
transport elements at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 81 FR 67179
(September 30, 2016).
2. Title I, Part D, Applicable SIP
Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D, comprised of
CAA sections 171–179B, sets forth the
basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
All areas that were designated
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS were
designated under Subpart 1 of the CAA
in accordance with the deadlines in
Subpart 5. For purposes of evaluating
this redesignation request, the
applicable Subpart 1 SIP requirements
are contained in section 172(c)(1)–(9),
section 176, and sections 191 and 192.
A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in sections
172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I.
See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
a. Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
Section 172 requires states with
nonattainment areas to submit plans
providing for timely attainment and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
meeting a variety of other requirements.
As discussed in section V.A, above,
EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the
attainment-related nonattainment
planning requirements of section 172 is
that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not
‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore
need not be approved into the SIP
before EPA can redesignate the area. In
the 1992 General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth
its interpretation of applicable
requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is
attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that
the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for
attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those
nonattainment planning requirements
‘‘have no meaning’’ for an area that has
already attained the standard. Id. This
interpretation was also set forth in the
Calcagni Memo.
As discussed above, EPA previously
approved Florida’s nonattainment SIP
for the Hillsborough County Area. See
82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017). Among other
things, the nonattainment SIP for the
Area satisfied the section 172(c)(1)
requirements for RACT/RACM;
172(c)(2) requirements related to RFP;
172(c)(3) requirements for a
comprehensive and accurate emissions
inventory; 172(c)(6) requirements for
enforceable control measures necessary
to provide attainment of the NAAQS by
the attainment date; and section
172(c)(9) requirements for contingency
measures.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5)
requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
EPA has a longstanding interpretation
that because NNSR is replaced by PSD
upon redesignation, nonattainment
areas seeking redesignation to
attainment need not have a fully
approved part D NNSR program in order
to be redesignated. See memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
dated October 14, 1994, entitled ‘‘Part D
New Source Review Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Florida currently has a
fully-approved PSD and part D NNSR
program in place in Chapters 62–204,
62–210, and 62–212 of the Florida
Administrative Code. Florida’s PSD
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
program will become effective in the
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA
believes that the Florida’s SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Finally, Section 172(c)(8) allows a
state to use equivalent modeling,
emission inventory, and planning
procedures if such use is requested by
the state and approved by EPA. Florida
has not requested the use of equivalent
techniques under section 172(c)(8).
As mentioned above, EPA fully
approved Florida’s April 3, 2015,
nonattainment SIP for the Hillsborough
County Area, including the model-based
attainment demonstration, and
determined that the SIP submission met
the applicable nonattainment planning
requirements of sections 172 and 191–
192 of the CAA demonstrating
attainment of the SO2 standard by the
statutory deadline. This approval
included the specific SO2 emissions
caps and compliance monitoring
established for the two SO2 point
sources impacting the Hillsborough
County Area (Mosaic and Big Bend) and
included in the 2015 SIP revision.
b. Subpart 1 Section 176—Conformity
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded, or
approved under title 23 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally
supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation,
enforcement, and enforceability that
EPA promulgated pursuant to its
authority under the CAA.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements 23 as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
23 CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emission budgets that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this
interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995). Furthermore,
due to the relatively small, and
decreasing, amounts of sulfur in
gasoline and on-road diesel fuel, EPA’s
transportation conformity rules provide
that they do not apply to SO2 unless
either the EPA Regional Administrator
or the director of the state air agency has
found that transportation-related
emissions of SO2 as a precursor are a
significant contributor to a SO2 or fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
problem, or if the SIP has established an
approved or adequate budget for such
emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment, or maintenance strategy. See
40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v); SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance. Neither
of these conditions have been met;
therefore, EPA’s transportation
conformity rules do not apply to SO2 for
the Area. For these reasons, EPA
proposes to find that Florida has
satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation of the
Hillsborough County Area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. The Hillsborough County Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Florida SIP for the Hillsborough County
Area under section 110(k) of the CAA
for purposes of redesignation. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals in approving
a redesignation request (see Calcagni
Memorandum at p. 3, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3D 984, 989–90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any
additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action.
See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and
citations therein. As mentioned above,
EPA fully approved the State’s
nonattainment SIP and approved
Florida’s SIP revisions related to the
section 110 requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the
interstate transport elements at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 82 FR 30749 (July
24 See Final Technical Support Document, July
2013, Florida First Round of Nonattainment Area
Designations for the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS,
Prepared by EPA Region 4. This document is
available at Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0233–
0307.
25 FDEP modeled actual emissions at the time of
area designations which revealed contributing
impacts throughout the nonattainment area due to
emissions from Big Bend. See 82 FR 30749 (July 3,
2017) and Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0623.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
37181
3, 2017) and 81 FR 67179 (September
30, 2016), respectively.
As discussed above, EPA believes that
the section 110 elements that are neither
connected with nonattainment plan
submissions nor linked to an area’s
nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
Criterion (3)—The air quality
improvement in the Hillsborough
County Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIP and applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations and other permanent
and enforceable reductions.
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the air quality
improvement in the area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, applicable
Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to
determine that Florida has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the
Hillsborough County Area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in SO2 emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, including
the SO2 control measures at Mosaic and
Big Bend incorporated therein.
When EPA designated the
Hillsborough County Area as a
nonattainment area for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that
operations at Mosaic were the primary
cause of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
violations in the Area. See 78 FR
47191.24 However, Florida included the
nearby Big Bend power plant in its
model-based attainment demonstration
because it determined that Big Bend was
also a significant contributor to elevated
concentrations within the Area.25
Florida’s April 3, 2015, nonattainment
SIP revision was based on this
determination and successfully reduced
ambient concentrations below the 1hour SO2 NAAQS by only requiring
emissions reductions at Mosaic and Big
Bend.
Mosaic received an air construction
permit 26 on January 15, 2015, from
FDEP requiring Mosaic to construct and
implement SO2 emission control
measures and limitations, according to a
specific compliance schedule, necessary
to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable. Mosaic
produces fertilizers, sulfuric acid,
phosphoric acid, and fluoridation
ingredients and emits SO2 from three
main emissions units—sulfuric acid
plants (SAPs) Nos. 7 (EU 004), 8 (EU
005) and 9 (EU 006). See 82 FR 30749
(July 3, 2017). The air construction
permit authorized Mosaic to: Replace
the vanadium catalyst (used to convert
SO2 to sulfuric trioxide) for each SAP
(Nos. 7, 8, and 9) with a more efficient
catalyst for improved performance; 27
increase the stack height at each SAP; 28
eliminate the use of fuel oil at the plant
except during periods of natural gas
curtailment or disruption; and comply
with specific SO2 emissions caps for
two-unit (550 lb/hr) and three-unit (575
lb/hr) operating scenarios based on 24hour block averages as determined by
continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) data.29 The new catalyst
replacement converts more SO2 for
process purposes, allowing Mosaic to
meet more stringent emissions limits for
these units. Allowable SO2 emissions
(from SAPs 7–9 combined) were
estimated to be reduced from 1,140 lb/
hr (based on total individual unit
emission limits) to a maximum of 575
lb/hr, representing at least a 50 percent
allowable emissions decrease. The stack
heights for all three sulfuric acid plants
were increased from 45.7 to 65 meters
(213.5 feet); thus, the new heights are
fully creditable in accordance with
EPA’s stack height regulations. EPA
incorporated these new emissions
limits, operating parameters,
compliance monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements into the Florida SIP on
July 3, 2017, making them permanent
and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749 (July
3, 2017). Florida’s redesignation request
indicates that the control strategies were
fully implemented at the Mosaic facility
in November 2017.
26 See Air Construction Permit (No. 0570008–
080–AC) issued by FDEP on January 15, 2015,
located in the docket for this proposed action.
27 Improvements in catalyst efficiency allow the
units to meet the multi-unit caps incorporated into
the Florida SIP by converting more SO2 emissions
formed during the manufacturing process to
sulfuric acid, improving the efficiency of the
manufacturing process, and reducing SO2
emissions.
28 A stack height increase can result in greater
plume dispersion across an area, minimizing
stagnation and local impacts from higher
concentrations, primarily due to the avoidance of
building downwash effects. See EPA’s June 1985
guidance document, ‘‘Guideline for Determination
of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the Stack Height
Regulations),’’ which can be found at: https://
www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/gep.pdf.
29 SAPs 7, 8, and 9 are also subject to the existing,
individual SO2 emission limits that were previously
adopted into Florida’s SIP (including SAP 7—400
lbs/hr, 24-hour average; SAP 8—315 lbs/hr, 24-hour
average; SAP 9—425 lbs/hr, 24-hour average).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
37182
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—MOSAIC FACILITY SO2 SOURCE CHANGES
SO2 emission limit
(lb/hr) *
Source
Previous
Individual
SAP 7 ..............
400
400
SAP 8 ..............
SAP 9 ..............
315
425
315
425
No. 6 AP Plant
40.2
No. 5 Granulation Plant.
No. 1 AFI Plant
No. 2 AFI plant
Auxiliary Boiler
20.1
Stack height
(m)
2-unit
3-unit
Any two units cannot exceed
550 combined.
....................................................
....................................................
Combined emissions cannot exceed 575.
....................................................
....................................................
Mosaic was required to cease burning of fuel oil at all units. This essentially
eliminated SO2 emissions from these five units.
45.7
65.0
45.7
45.7
65.0
65.0
No changes.
45.0
45.0
65.3
* All previous and new SO2 emission limits are 24-hour block averages.
For Big Bend, FDEP issued Permit No.
0570039–074–AC on February 26, 2015,
requiring the facility to comply with a
SO2 emissions cap of 3,162 lb/hr based
on a 30-day rolling average for all four
units as determined by CEMS data.30
This involved replacing all existing No.
2 fuel igniters and associated equipment
to allow all four units to fire natural gas
during startup, shutdown, and flame
stabilization. These enhancements
allowed Big Bend to meet the new
combined unit emissions cap beginning
June 1, 2016. Big Bend’s combined
allowable SO2 emissions were reduced
from 6,587.6 lb/hr (based on total
individual unit emission limits) to 3,162
lb/hr, representing a 52 percent decrease
in allowable emissions. EPA
incorporated the emissions cap,
operating parameters, compliance
monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements into the Florida
SIP on July 3, 2017, making them
permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR
30749 (July 3, 2017). Florida’s
redesignation request indicates that the
control strategies were fully
implemented at Big Bend in early 2016.
FDEP incorporated the permit
conditions into Big Bend’s title V
operating permit (No. 0570039–110–
AV) 31 on November 7, 2017.
The nonattainment SIP submittal
estimated base year 2011 SO2 emissions
from Big Bend of 9,105.93 tons and from
Mosaic of 3,034.06 tons. Big Bend’s
previous allowable limit was 29,033.79
tons per year. Mosaic’s previous
allowable limit was 4,993.2 tons per
year. The attainment year maximum
allowable emissions are 2,518.5 and
13,866 tons per year for Mosaic and Big
Bend, respectively, a reduction of
approximately 50 percent. Actual SO2
emissions from Mosaic and Big Bend
decreased by 7,253 tons (approximately
54 percent) from 2014 to 2017 32 which
corresponds with the overall downward
trend in monitored daily maximum 1hour ambient SO2 concentrations 33
(with no values measured above the
standard in 2017). The air quality
improvement in the Hillsborough
County Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in SO2 emissions
resulting from these control measures
incorporated into the SIP.
As discussed above, Florida issued a
revised permit to Big Bend (Permit No.
0570039–120–AC) that restricts EUs 1
and 2 to only burning natural gas;
reduces the four-unit SO2 cap from
3,162 lb/hr to 2,156 lb/hr (each on a 30day average); and amends the method of
compliance for the revised four-unit
cap. Table 4 summarizes the changes in
the SO2 emissions limits at Big Bend.
TABLE 4—BIG BEND SO2 EMISSIONS LIMIT CHANGES
SO2 emissions limit
(lb/hr) *
Source
Permit No. 0570039–074–AC
(effective June 1, 2016)
Previous
FFSG Unit 1 ...........
1,009.25
FFSG Unit 2 ...........
FFSG Unit 3 ...........
FFSG Unit 4 ...........
999.00
1,028.75
3,550.60
Permit No. 0570039–120–AC
(effective December 14, 2018)
Four-unit emissions cap of 3,162 (originally 6,587.6
total).
Four-unit emissions cap of 2,165.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* All SO2 emission limits are 30-day rolling averages.
The revised four-unit emissions cap of
2,165 lb/hr proposed for incorporation
into the SIP represents a nearly 32
percent reduction from the SIPapproved emissions cap. This lowered
emissions cap will become permanent
and enforceable if EPA incorporates it
into the SIP.
Criterion (4)—The Hillsborough
County Area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section
175A of the CAA.
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has a
30 See Air Construction Permit 0570039–074–AC
issued by FDEP on February 26, 2015, located in
the docket for this proposed action.
31 See Title V operating permit 0570039–110–AV
issued by FDEP on November 7, 2017, located in
the docket for this proposed action.
32 See Figure 5 in Florida’s June 7, 2018,
submission.
33 See Figure 2 in Florida’s June 7, 2018,
submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
fully approved maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In
conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Hillsborough County
Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, Florida submitted a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA is
proposing to determine that this
maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section
175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the state must
submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 2010 1-hour SO2 violations.
The Calcagni Memorandum provides
further guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan, explaining that a
maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions
inventory; maintenance demonstration;
monitoring; verification of continued
attainment; and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below, EPA is
proposing to determine that Florida’s
maintenance plan includes all the
necessary components and is thus
proposing to approve it as a revision to
the Florida SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory identifies a
level of emissions in the Area that is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. In its
maintenance plan, Florida used 2015
actual emissions data to represent the
attainment emissions inventory. As
identified above, the 2015–2017 design
value at the East Bay monitor was below
the NAAQS and there has not been a
monitored violation of the SO2 NAAQS
at the monitor since 2014. SO2
emissions data from the Mosaic, Big
37183
Bend, Ajax, and Harsco facilities,34 as
included in Florida’s required 2015
annual operating reports for all sources,
are presented in Table 5. Although Big
Bend is located outside of the Area,
Florida included it in its model-based
attainment demonstration because it
determined that it was a significant
contributor to elevated concentrations
within the Area. The complete
attainment emissions inventory for the
Area and relevant nearby stationary
sources (i.e., Big Bend) is presented in
Table 6. Florida based area and nonroad emissions for the Area on 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data
for Hillsborough County because the
State is only required to develop these
inventories on a triennial period in
accordance with the NEI and subpart A
to 40 CFR part 51. The 2014 emissions
for each category were projected to 2015
based on the increase in the
Hillsborough County population from
2014 to 2015, and then allocated to the
Area based on the Area’s fraction of
land area within the county. The State
estimated on-road emissions for the
Area with MOVES2014a, and similarly
allocated to the Area based on the
Area’s fraction of land area within the
county.
TABLE 5—2015 SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR BIG BEND, MOSAIC, AJAX, AND HARSCO FACILITIES
EU ID
2015 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Unit description
Big Bend Facility SO2 Emissions
1 ..........................................
2 ..........................................
3 ..........................................
4 ..........................................
41 ........................................
42 ........................................
43 ........................................
44 ........................................
45 ........................................
51 ........................................
53 ........................................
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Unit No. 1 ..................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Unit No. 2 ..................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Unit No. 3 ..................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generator Unit No. 4 ..................................................................................
SCCT 4A: PWPS FT8–3 SwiftPac CT/Gen Peaking Unit .................................................................
SCCT 4B: PWPS FT8–3 SwiftPac CT/Gen Peaking Unit .................................................................
SCCT Black Start Emergency Engine (1,495 HP) .............................................................................
Emergency Diesel Generator (1,046 HP) ..........................................................................................
Emergency Diesel Generator and Fire Pump Diesel Engine ............................................................
Process Heaters (2–6 MMBtu/hour) ...................................................................................................
Units 1 & 2 Emergency Diesel Generator (197 HP) ..........................................................................
1804.89
1324.81
1819.60
2366.10
0.01
0.01
0.0004
0.0003
0.0003
0.0007
0.00005
Total ............................
.............................................................................................................................................................
7315.42
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Mosaic Facility SO2 Emissions
4 ..........................................
5 ..........................................
6 ..........................................
7 ..........................................
55 ........................................
63 ........................................
66 ........................................
67 ........................................
68 ........................................
74 ........................................
111 ......................................
No. 7 Sulfuric Acid Plant ....................................................................................................................
No. 8 Sulfuric Acid Plant ....................................................................................................................
No. 9 Sulfuric Acid Plant ....................................................................................................................
No. 6 AP Plant ....................................................................................................................................
No. 5 AP Plant ....................................................................................................................................
Tank Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for molten sulfur storage w/scrubber .............................................................
Sulfur Pit #7, Molten Storage/Handling System .................................................................................
Sulfur Pit #8, Molten Storage/Handling System .................................................................................
Sulfur Pit #9, Molten Storage/Handling System .................................................................................
Truck Loading Station for Molten Sulfur w/common scrubber ...........................................................
Existing Emergency Stationary RICE < or equal to 500 HP .............................................................
34 Ajax and Harsco are two smaller point sources
within the Area. See footnote 1 for additional
information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
668.33
532.19
529.11
0.02
0.04
0
0.02
0.02
0.02
0
0.13
37184
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—2015 SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR BIG BEND, MOSAIC, AJAX, AND HARSCO FACILITIES—Continued
2015 SO2
emissions
(tons)
EU ID
Unit description
112 ......................................
113 ......................................
Auxiliary Boiler ....................................................................................................................................
Non-Emergency CI ICE ......................................................................................................................
0.002
3.44
Total ............................
.............................................................................................................................................................
1733.32
Ajax Facility SO2 Emissions
5 ..........................................
6 ..........................................
Diesel Engine and Power Generator for RAP Crusher ......................................................................
Drum Mix Asphalt Plant (400TPH) .....................................................................................................
0.05
0.25
Total ............................
.............................................................................................................................................................
0.30
Harsco Facility SO2 Emissions
1 ..........................................
Total ............................
Total All Point
Sources.
Fluid Bed Slag Dryer ..........................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................
0.004
0.004
.............................................................................................................................................................
9,049.05
TABLE 6—2015 ATTAINMENT EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AREA
Source Type
Point
Area
Non-Road
On-Road
Total
2015 SO2 Emissions (tons) .................................................
9,049.05
8.80
0.16
1.86
9,059.87
For additional information regarding
the development of the attainment year
inventory, please see Appendix D to
Florida’s June 7, 2018, submittal.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
Maintenance of the SO2 standard is
demonstrated either by showing that
future emissions will not exceed the
level of the attainment emissions
inventory year or by modeling to show
that the future mix of sources and
emission rates will not cause a violation
of the NAAQS.
To evaluate maintenance through
2032 and satisfy the 10-year interval
required in CAA section 175A, Florida
prepared projected emissions
inventories for 2020–2032. The
emissions inventories are composed of
the following general source categories:
point, area, non-road mobile, and onroad mobile. The emissions inventories
were developed consistent with EPA
guidance and are summarized in Table
7. Florida compared the projected
emissions for the final year of the
maintenance plan (2032) to the
attainment emissions inventory year
(2015) and compared interim years to
the attainment emissions inventory year
to demonstrate continued maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. For
additional information regarding the
development of the projected
inventories, please see Appendix D to
Florida’s June 7, 2018, SIP submittal.
TABLE 7—PROJECTED FUTURE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE AREA
Projected
2020 SO2
emissions
(tons)
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Source type
Projected
2023 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2026 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2029 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2032 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Point .....................................................................................
Area ......................................................................................
Non-road ..............................................................................
On-road ................................................................................
9,049.05
9.53
0.18
0.74
9,049.05
10.01
0.19
0.71
9,049.05
10.47
0.20
0.69
9,049.05
10.91
0.20
0.67
9,049.05
11.31
0.21
0.66
Total ..............................................................................
9,059.49
9,059.95
9,060.40
9,060.83
9,061.23
In situations where local emissions
are the primary contributor to
nonattainment, such as the Hillsborough
County Area, if the future projected
emissions in the nonattainment area
remain at or below the baseline
emissions in the nonattainment area,
then the related ambient air quality
standards should not be exceeded in the
future. Florida has projected emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
as described previously, and these
projections indicate that emissions in
the Hillsborough County Area will
remain at nearly the same levels as
those in the attainment year inventory
for the duration of the maintenance
plan. While these projections include a
small increase in area source and nonroad emissions from 2020 to 2032 (1.81
tons), the increase is negligible when
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compared to the total emissions
inventory, and EPA does not believe
that this projected increase should cause
an exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS
through 2032. This belief is supported
by the fact that Florida does not
anticipate any future development
within the Area that could potentially
increase SO2 emissions and the fact that
any increases in actual emissions from
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Mosaic or Big Bend are required to
remain below the modeled emissions
that demonstrate attainment for the 1hour SO2 NAAQS. Furthermore, any
potential future SO2 emissions sources
that may locate in or near the Area
would be required to comply with the
FDEP’s approved NSR permitting
programs to ensure that the Area will
continue to meet the NAAQS. EPA also
notes that the natural gas fuel
requirement for EUs 1 and 2 at Big Bend
and the reduced four-unit SO2 cap
proposed for incorporation into the SIP
are expected to further reduce SO2
emissions beyond the levels projected in
Table 7.
As discussed in the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, an
approved attainment plan that relies on
air quality dispersion modeling using
maximum allowable emissions, such as
Florida’s attainment plan for the Area,
can generally be expected to
demonstrate that the standard will be
maintained for the requisite 10 years
and beyond without regard to any
changes in operation rate of the
pertinent sources that do not involve
increases in maximum allowable
emissions.35 EPA believes that the Area
will continue to maintain the standard
at least through the year 2032 because
the air quality modeling in the approved
attainment plan showed that the Area
would attain the standard based on the
maximum allowable emissions limits at
Mosaic and Big Bend that are
incorporated into the SIP, these sources
have fully implemented these
permanent and enforceable measures,
and the emissions reductions from these
measures are reflected in the attaining
design values for the Area. As discussed
above, EPA believes that the modeling
in the attainment plan using the fourunit SO2 cap of 3,162 lb/hr at Big Bend
is more conservative (in relation to a
demonstration relying on the lowered
cap) and is still valid for demonstrating
attainment in the Area.
d. Monitoring Network
The East Bay monitor (12–057–0109)
is the only SO2 monitor located within
the Hillsborough County Area, and the
2010 1-hour SO2 nonattainment
designation was based on data collected
from 2009–2011 at this monitor. In its
maintenance plan, Florida has
committed to continue operating an
appropriate SO2 monitoring network,
consult with EPA prior to making any
changes to the existing network, and
continue to quality assure the
monitoring data in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. Therefore, Florida has
35 See
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.67.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
addressed the requirement for
monitoring. FDEP’s monitoring network
plan was submitted on June 28, 2018,
and approved by EPA on October 22,
2018.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of Florida, through FDEP,
has the legal authority to enforce and
implement all measures necessary to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes,
authorizes the Department to ‘‘exercise
the duties, powers, and responsibilities
required of the state under the federal
Clean Air Act. This includes
implementing and enforcing all
measures necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. In addition, FDEP
will use emissions data submitted by
Mosaic and Big Bend through annual
operating reports to verify continued
compliance with the permitted
emissions rates that were shown
through the modeling demonstration in
the attainment plan to be sufficient to
provide for maintenance of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS throughout the Area.
Any increases in actual emissions from
Mosaic or Big Bend must remain below
their permitted levels. Furthermore, any
potential future SO2 emissions sources
that may locate in or near the Area
would be required to comply with
FDEP’s approved NSR permitting
programs to ensure that the Area will
continue to meet the NAAQS. In
addition to assuring continued
attainment in this manner, FDEP will
verify continued attainment through
operation of the monitoring network.
f. Contingency Measures in the
Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
The maintenance plan should identify
the contingency measures to be adopted,
a schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation, and a time limit
for action by the state. In cases where
attainment revolves around compliance
of a single source or a small set of
sources with emissions limits shown to
provide for attainment, EPA interprets
‘‘contingency measures’’ to mean that
the state agency has a comprehensive
program to identify sources of violations
of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake
aggressive follow-up for compliance and
enforcement, including expedited
procedures for establishing enforceable
consent agreement pending the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37185
adoption of revised SIPs.36 A state
should also identify specific indicators
to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that a state
will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment
in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan included in the
maintenance plan contains triggers to
determine when contingency measures
are needed and what kind of measures
should be used. Upon notification by
the FDEP Office of Air Monitoring that
the East Bay monitor has registered SO2
levels in excess of the standard for a
fourth time during a calendar year,
FDEP will notify Mosaic and Big Bend
of the occurrence of the fourth high
exceedance. Upon notification by FDEP
of a confirmed fourth high
exceedance,37 Mosaic and Big Bend
will, without any further action by
FDEP or EPA, undertake a full system
audit of all emissions units subject to
control under the attainment plan.
Within 10 days of notification of the
confirmed fourth high exceedance, each
source will independently submit a
written system audit report to FDEP
summarizing all operating parameters of
all emissions units for four 10-day
periods up to and including the dates of
the exceedances together with
recommended provisional SO2 emission
control strategies for each affected unit
and evidence that these control
strategies have been deployed, as
appropriate. Upon receipt of the abovementioned reports, FDEP will then
begin a 30-day evaluation of these
reports to determine the cause of the
exceedances, followed by a 30-day
consultation period with the sources to
develop and implement appropriate
operational changes. At the end of the
consultation period, FDEP will mandate
operational changes identified by the
written system audit to prevent any
future violation of the NAAQS. Any
necessary changes would be
implemented as soon as practicable,
with at least one implemented within
18–24 months of the monitored
violation, in order to bring the Area into
attainment as expeditiously as possible.
These changes could include, but would
not be limited to:
36 See
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at
37 Confirmation of a fourth high exceedance
the SO2 NAAQS would be made after quality
assurance activities are completed, but not
necessarily with FDEP-certified data.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
p.69.
over
37186
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• Fuel switching to reduce or
eliminate the use of sulfur-containing
fuels; and
• physical or operational reduction of
production capacity, as appropriate.
If a permit modification is necessary,
the State would issue a final permit in
accordance to Sections 120 and 403 of
the Florida Statutes. Subsequently,
Florida would submit any relevant
permit change to EPA as a sourcespecific SIP revision to make the change
permanent and enforceable. In addition
to including these contingency
measures in the maintenance plan,
Florida also stated that all existing
control measures will remain in effect
after redesignation.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that
the maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of
a maintenance plan: The attainment
emissions inventory; maintenance
demonstration; monitoring; verification
of continued attainment; and a
contingency plan. Therefore, EPA
proposes to determine that the
maintenance plan for the Area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and proposes to incorporate the
maintenance plan into the Florida SIP.
VII. What is the effect of EPA’s
proposed actions?
Approval of Florida’s redesignation
request would change the designation of
the portion of Hillsborough County that
is within the Hillsborough County Area,
as found at 40 CFR part 81, section
81.310, from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Approval of Florida’s
associated SIP revision would also
incorporate a plan for maintaining the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
Hillsborough County Area through 2032
into the SIP. Incorporation of the Big
Bend permit conditions discussed above
from Permit No. 0570039–120–AC into
the SIP would make them permanent
and federally enforceable.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
EPA is proposing to include in a final
EPA rule regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into Florida’s SIP the
following conditions from Permit No.
0570039–120–AC issued by FDEP to Big
Bend with an effective date of December
14, 2018: (1) Section 2, Condition 4; (2)
the ‘‘SO2 Emissions Cap’’ provision
from Section 3, Condition 4; 38 (3) the
38 In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida
identifies this provision as ‘‘Section 3, Subsection
B, Specific Condition 2’’; however, it is contained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
‘‘SO2 CEMS’’ provision from Section 3,
Condition 4; 39 and (4) the ‘‘Methods of
Operation’’ for Units 1 and 2 provision
from Section 3, Condition 6.40
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and at EPA Region 4 office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
IX. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take four separate
but related actions regarding the
redesignation request and associated SIP
revision for the Hillsborough County
Area.
First, EPA is proposing to determine
that the Area attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by its attainment date of
October 4, 2018. This determination is
being proposed in accordance with
section 179(c)(1) of the CAA.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve
the maintenance plan for the Area and
to incorporate it into the SIP. As
described above, the maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area will
continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS through 2032.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida’s request for redesignation of the
Area from nonattainment to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Fourth, EPA is proposing to
incorporate into the SIP the
aforementioned permitting conditions
applicable to Big Bend, including a
condition that lowers the SO2 emissions
cap by approximately 32 percent and a
condition that restricts the fuel use at
two electric generating units to natural
gas.
If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request for the
Hillsborough County Area would
change the official designation of the
portion of Hillsborough County, Florida,
encompassed by the polygon with the
vertices using UTM coordinates in UTM
zone 17 with datum NAD83 as follows:
(1) Vertices-UTM Easting (m) 358581,
under the heading ‘‘4. Permit Being Modified:
Permit No. 0570039–096–AC’’ in Section 3 of
Permit No. 0570039–120–AC. See Section V of this
notice for additional information.
39 In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida
identifies this provision as ‘‘Section 3, Subsection
B, Specific Condition 3; however, it is contained
under the heading ‘‘4. Permit Being Modified:
Permit No. 0570039–096–AC’’ in Section 3 of
Permit No. 0570039–120–AC. See Section V of this
notice for additional information.
40 In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida
identifies this provision as ‘‘Section 3, Subsection
A, Specific Condition 3a; however, it is contained
under the heading ‘‘6. Permits Being Modified:
Permit Nos. 0570039–066–AC & 109–AC’’ in
Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039–120–AC. See
Section V of this notice for additional information.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
UTM Northing 3076066; (2) verticesUTM Easting (m) 355673, UTM
Northing 3079275; (3) UTM Easting (m)
360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4)
vertices-UTM Easting (m) 366850, UTM
Northing 3086692; (5) vertices-UTM
Easting (m) 368364, UTM Northing
3083760; and (6) vertices-UTM Easting
(m) 365708, UTM Northing 3079121, as
found at 40 CFR part 81, from
nonattainment to attainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 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, these proposed
actions merely propose to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because these actions are not
significant regulatory actions under
Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose information
collection burdens under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandates or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Will not have disproportionate
human health or environmental effects
under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
These proposed actions do not apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, these proposed actions do not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping, Sulfur
dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 18, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–16070 Filed 7–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0352; FRL–9997–35–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval and Air Quality
Designation; New Hampshire;
Redesignation of the Central New
Hampshire Sulfur Dioxide
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:41 Jul 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the maintenance plan and redesignation
request submitted by the State of New
Hampshire for the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area for the
2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). This nonattainment area
consists of portions of Hillsborough
County, Merrimack County, and
Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
The primary emission source in the
nonattainment area is now subject to
federally-enforceable emission control
standards, and air quality in the area
now meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2019–0352 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
biton.leiran@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://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37187
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leiran Biton, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite
100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109–3912, tel. (617) 918–1267, email
biton.leiran@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Redesignation Requirements
III. Determination of Attainment
IV. New Hampshire’s Approved State
Implementation Plan
V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission
Reductions
VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section
110 and Part D
VII. Maintenance Plan
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June
22, 2010), EPA promulgated a new 1hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts
per billion (ppb), which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour concentrations does not exceed 75
ppb, as determined in accordance with
appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. On
August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA
designated a first set of 29 areas of the
country as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area within
the State of New Hampshire. These
‘‘round one’’ area designations were
effective October 4, 2013. In that action,
the Central New Hampshire area was
designated nonattainment for the SO2
NAAQS based on data collected at the
Pembroke, New Hampshire ambient air
quality monitoring station in calendar
years 2009 through 2011. The Central
New Hampshire nonattainment area is
comprised of 14 municipalities in
portions of three different counties in
New Hampshire. These cities and
towns, and the counties in which they
are located, are listed in Table 1. All
other areas in the State were designated
as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the ‘‘round 3’’ area
designations on January 9, 2018. The
Central New Hampshire nonattainment
area contains the electric generating
source Merrimack Station, currently
owned and operated by GSP Merrimack
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37173-37187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0552; FRL-9997-32-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Redesignation of
the Hillsborough County 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a letter dated June 7, 2018, the State of Florida, through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), submitted a
request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
the Hillsborough County sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment
area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Hillsborough County Area'' or
``Area'') to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) and to
approve an accompanying State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing a maintenance plan for the Area. The submittal was received
by EPA on June 12, 2018. Through a letter dated April 16, 2019, FDEP
submitted a revision to the June 7, 2018, redesignation request and SIP
revision asking EPA to incorporate certain conditions into the SIP from
a recent permit revision applicable to the Tampa Electric Company--Big
Bend Station (Big Bend) power plant. The submission was received by EPA
on April 25, 2019. EPA is proposing to determine that the Hillsborough
County Area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018; to approve the SIP
revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard and to incorporate the maintenance
plan into the SIP; to redesignate the Hillsborough County Area to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and to incorporate
into the SIP certain permitting conditions applicable to Big Bend,
including a condition that lowers the SO2 emissions cap and
a condition that restricts fuel use at two electric generating units to
natural gas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0552 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez may be
reached by phone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following four separate but related
actions: (1) To determine that the Hillsborough County Area attained
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date
of October 4, 2018; (2) to approve Florida's maintenance plan for
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Area and
incorporate it into the SIP; (3) to redesignate the Hillsborough County
Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and (4)
incorporate certain revised permitting conditions applicable to Big
Bend into the SIP, including a condition that lowers the SO2
emissions cap and a condition that limits fuel use to natural gas at
two electric generating units. The Hillsborough County Area is
comprised of the portion of Hillsborough County encompassed by the
polygon with the vertices using Universal Traverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83 as follows: (1) Vertices-
UTM Easting (m) 358581, UTM Northing 3076066; (2) vertices-UTM Easting
(m) 355673, UTM Northing 3079275; (3) UTM Easting (m) 360300, UTM
Northing 3086380; (4) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 366850, UTM Northing
3086692; (5) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 368364, UTM Northing 3083760; and
(6) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 365708, UTM Northing 3079121. There is one
major point source of SO2 emissions within the Hillsborough
County Area--Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Riverview facility (Mosaic).\1\ Big
Bend is located just outside of the Area and is the largest source of
SO2 within 25 km outside of the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two smaller point sources within the Area--Ajax
Paving Industries, Inc. Plant No. 6 (Ajax) and Harsco Minerals
(Harsco). Cumulative SO2 emissions for these sources were
less than 6 tons and 1 ton according to Florida's annual operating
report for 2011 and 2015, respectively. See Table 5 below and
Appendix D in the June 7, 2018, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to determine that the Hillsborough County Area
attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its applicable
attainment date of October 4, 2018. EPA is also proposing to approve
Florida's SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the
Hillsborough County Area in accordance with the requirements of section
175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The maintenance plan submitted
with Florida's request for redesignation is intended to help keep the
Hillsborough County Area in attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS through the year 2032.
EPA is also proposing to determine that the Hillsborough County
Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve a
request to change the designation of the portion of Hillsborough County
that is designated nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
Finally, EPA is proposing to incorporate certain revised permitting
conditions applicable to Big Bend into the Florida SIP.
II. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Under EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than
[[Page 37174]]
or equal to 75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix T). See 40 CFR 50.17. Ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year
meets data completeness requirements when all four quarters are
complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the
sampling days for each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has
complete data if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which have
been approved for exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS. EPA designated the Area as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, effective October 4, 2013, using 2009-2011
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air quality data. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). Under the CAA, nonattainment areas must
attain this NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but not later than
five years after the October 4, 2013, effective date of the
designation. See CAA section 192(a). Therefore, the Hillsborough County
Area's applicable attainment date was no later than October 4, 2018.
EPA's 2010 SO2 nonattainment designation for the Area
triggered an obligation for Florida to develop a nonattainment SIP
revision addressing certain requirements under CAA title I, part D,
subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1'') and to submit that SIP revision
to EPA in accordance with the deadlines in title I, part D, subpart 5
(hereinafter ``Subpart 5''). Subpart 1 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM), requires reasonable
further progress (RFP), includes base-year and attainment-year
emissions inventories, a SIP-approved nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program that accounts for growth in the area,
enforceable emissions limitations and other such control measures, and
provides for the implementation of contingency measures. This SIP
revision was due within 18 months following the October 4, 2013,
effective date of designation (i.e., April 4, 2015). See CAA section
191(a). Florida submitted a nonattainment SIP revision to EPA on April
3, 2015.
On July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749), EPA approved Florida's April 3,
2015, SO2 nonattainment SIP revision. This SIP revision
provided a modeled attainment demonstration and satisfied the required
nonattainment planning requirements mentioned above for the
Hillsborough County Area. The revision included a base year emissions
inventory, a modeling demonstration of attainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, RACM/Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT), an RFP plan, NNSR permitting program, and contingency measures
for the Hillsborough County Area. As discussed in Sections V and VI,
below, the nonattainment SIP revision included permit conditions to
reduce SO2 emissions at Mosaic and Big Bend.
As part of that action, EPA incorporated into the Florida SIP
specified SO2 emissions caps, compliance monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for emission units at Mosaic
(Permit No. 0570008-080-AC, issued on January 15, 2015) and Big Bend
(Permit No. 0570039-074-AC, issued on February 26, 2015). Florida based
its modeled attainment demonstration, submitted with its April 3, 2015,
nonattainment SIP revision, on these conditions. Big Bend has four
emission units (EUs 1 through 4), and Big Bend's permit placed an
SO2 emissions cap on all four units at 3,162 lb/hr on a 30-
day boiler operating day average. On December 14, 2018, Florida issued
a final air construction permit to Big Bend (Permit No. 0570039-120-AC)
that, among other things, restricts two units to the use of natural
gas; lowers the four-unit emissions cap from 3,162 lb/hr to 2,156 lb/
hr; and modifies monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for EUs 1
and 2.\3\ Florida's April 19, 2019, submittal requests that EPA
incorporate into the Florida SIP certain permit conditions established
in Permit No. 0570039-120-AC. Some of the identified conditions replace
specific conditions from Permit No. 0570039-074-AC that EPA approved
into the SIP for purposes demonstrating attainment of the
SO2 standard pursuant to the nonattainment requirements of
sections 172, 191, and 192 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Florida incorporated the conditions applicable to Big Bend
from Permit No. 0570039-120-AC into the facility's Title V operating
permit on February 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3)
the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April
28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
2. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
3. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
4. ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, April 23, 2014
(hereinafter referred to as the ``SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance'').
EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance discusses the CAA
requirements that air agencies need to address when implementing the
2010
[[Page 37175]]
SO2 NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment for the
standard. The guidance includes recommendations for air agencies to
consider as they develop SIPs to satisfy the requirements of sections
110, 172, 175A, 191, and 192 of the CAA to show future attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, the
SO2 nonattainment guidance provides recommendations for air
agencies to consider as they develop redesignation requests and
maintenance plans to satisfy the requirements of sections 107(d)(3)(E)
and 175A. If there are no air quality monitors located in the affected
area, or there are air quality monitors located in the area but
analyses show that none of the monitors are located in the area of
maximum concentration,\4\ then air quality dispersion modeling will
generally be needed to estimate SO2 concentrations in the
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See section VIII.A of the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
Through a letter dated June 7, 2018, FDEP submitted a request for
EPA to redesignate the Hillsborough County Area to attainment for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and an associated SIP revision
containing a maintenance plan. Through a letter dated April 16, 2019,
FDEP submitted a revision to the June 7, 2018, redesignation request
and SIP revision asking EPA to incorporate certain conditions into the
SIP from a recent permit revision applicable to Big Bend. EPA's
evaluation indicates that the Hillsborough County Area meets the
requirements for redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E),
including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the
CAA. As a result of this evaluation, EPA is proposing to determine that
the Area has attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its
attainment date of October 4, 2018, in accordance with section
179(c)(1) of the CAA, based upon air quality dispersion modeling
analyses.\5\ EPA is also proposing to approve Florida's maintenance
plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Area
and incorporate it into the SIP, to redesignate the Hillsborough County
Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and to
incorporate certain conditions from the revised Big Bend permit into
the SIP because these conditions further reduce SO2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 179(c)(1) reads as follows: ``As expeditiously as
practicable after the applicable attainment date for any
nonattainment area, but not later than 6 months after such date, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's air quality as of
the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that
date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Operational Changes to Big Bend's Emission Units
Florida's June 7, 2018, redesignation request and maintenance plan
for the Hillsborough County Area relies upon the State's model-based
attainment demonstration from its April 3, 2015, SO2
attainment SIP which EPA approved on July 3, 2017. EPA's approval
action incorporated into the Florida SIP a four-unit emissions cap of
3,162 lb/hr on a 30-day boiler operating day average and certain
compliance monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting parameters from
Permit No. 0570039-074-AC. Florida modeled the Big Bend emissions cap
along with the Mosaic SO2 emissions cap (and other Mosaic
permit conditions) to demonstrate attainment of the standard by the
attainment date. Florida established the Big Bend emissions cap to
demonstrate attainment of the SO2 standard based on a worst-
case operating scenario considering the physical design, heat input,
and emissions variability of each unit at Big Bend. To demonstrate
compliance with the four-unit cap, Permit No. 0570039-074-AC required
each unit to monitor SO2 emissions with a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS). The SO2 emissions cap
specified in that permit and the Mosaic permit conditions were the
basis for the model-based attainment demonstration in Florida's 2015
nonattainment SIP.
On December 14, 2018, Florida issued a revised air construction
permit (Permit No. 0570039-120-AC) to Big Bend that lowers the four-
unit emissions cap from 3,162 lb/hr to 2,156 lb/hr; restricts EUs 1 and
2 to only burn natural gas; and since the amount of sulfur in natural
gas is negligible, authorizes the removal of the SO2 CEMS
for EUs 1 and 2 and requires monitoring for these two units in
accordance with the calculation method allowed for gas-fired acid rain
units in 40 CFR part 75 to demonstrate compliance with the lowered
emissions cap.\6\ EUs 1 and 2 share a stack and a flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) system to control SO2. Permit No.
0570039-074-AC required certified CEMS as the method of SO2
emissions monitoring and compliance for EUs 1 and 2. However, with the
restriction on EUs 1 and 2 to burn natural gas in the revised permit,
the new method of monitoring and compliance for EUs 1 and 2 utilizes
the protocol in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D to determine the hourly
SO2 emission rate from each unit. EUs 3 and 4 continue to
certify compliance with the emissions cap through use of CEMS.
Therefore, Big Bend will demonstrate compliance of the lowered four-
unit emissions cap through a combination of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D
(EUs 1 and 2) and SO2 CEMS data (EUs 3 and 4). As required
by 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, section 2.1, Big Bend will measure and
record the hourly flow rate of natural gas combusted by EUs 1 and 2
with an in-line fuel flowmeter. The pounds-per-hour SO2
emission rates for each of these two units will then be calculated by
using the equation provided in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, section
3.3.1, along with the measured hourly natural gas flow rate to each
unit and the vendor certified sulfur content of the combusted natural
gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The permit also authorizes additional changes not applicable
to this proposed action, including removal of all coal and solid
fuels from the list of permitted fuels for EUs 1 and 2 so that the
units are no longer subject to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units in Subpart UUUUU in Title 40, Part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63) (also called the Mercury and
Air Toxic Standards (MATS) rule). EUs 008, 015, and 016 will be
removed because the units are not necessary for natural gas firing
operations. Additionally, this permit authorizes relocation of the
existing monitoring points for the nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,
and ammonia CEMS from the common stack for EUs 1 and 2 to the common
inlet duct of the flue gas desulfurization system for these two
units. This permit also removes other monitoring requirements for
other pollutants and removes the MATS conditions that are no longer
applicable because the permit exempts EUs 1 and 2 from MATS
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's April 16, 2019, submittal requests that EPA incorporate
into the SIP certain conditions from Permit No. 0570039-120-AC. As
noted below, some of these conditions replace conditions that EPA
incorporated into the SIP from Permit No. 0570039-074-AC in the
Agency's July 3, 2017 action approving the State's nonattainment SIP.
The conditions identified for incorporation into the SIP from Permit
No. 0570039-120-AC are: (1) Section 2, Condition 4 (new)--describing
the 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D monitoring methodology and compliance
requirements for EUs 1 and 2; \7\ (2) the ``SO2 Emissions
Cap'' provision from Section 3, Condition 4 (replacement)--setting a
four-unit emissions cap of 2,156 lb/hr averaged over a 30-day boiler
operating day, requiring that EUs
[[Page 37176]]
1 and 2 demonstrate compliance with the cap by monitoring natural gas
fuel flow and following the procedures in Appendix D to 40 CFR 75 to
determine SO2 mass emissions, and requiring that EUs 3 and 4
demonstrate compliance with the cap through CEMS; \8\ (3) the
``SO2 CEMS'' provision from Section 3, Condition 4
(replacement)--requiring EUs 3 and 4 to use CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the cap and to meet the quality assurance and quality
control requirements outlined in the facility's title V permit; \9\ and
(4) the ``Methods of Operation'' for Units 1 and 2 provision from
Section 3, Condition 6 (new)--restricting EUs 1 and 2 to burning only
natural gas from a federally regulated pipeline.\10\ As discussed in
section VI of this notice, Florida's April 19, 2019, submittal provides
even more air quality protection than the model-based attainment plan
approved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The permit condition states that the permittee shall keep a
daily log of natural gas combusted at Units 1 and 2 and shall record
the sulfur content of the natural gas as provided by the fuel
supplier. The SO2 mass emissions calculated by following
procedures in Appendix D of 40 CFR 75 shall be averaged on a 30-
boiler operating day basis to demonstrate the contribution of Units
1 and 2 to the 4-unit SO2 cap. [Rule 62-4.070(3), F.A.C.
and Application No. 0570039-120-AC].
\8\ This permit condition states that the combined emissions of
SO2 from all four-fossil fuel fired steam generating
units (EU 001-EU 004, combined) shall not exceed 2,156 lb/hour based
on a 30-boiler operating day rolling average. Units 1 and 2 shall
demonstrate compliance with the cap by monitoring the natural gas
fuel flow and following procedures in Appendix D of 40 CFR part 75
to determine SO2 mass emissions. For Units 3 and 4,
compliance with this SO2 emissions cap shall be
demonstrated by data collected from the existing SO2
CEMS. The new emissions cap applies at all times when these units
are operating including periods of startup and shutdown. [Rules 62-
4.070(1) and (3), and 62-4.080(1), F.A.C.; Hillsborough County
SO2 Maintenance SIP; and Application No. 0570039-120-AC].
In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida identifies this provision
as ``Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 2''; however, it is
contained under the heading ``4. Permit Being Modified: Permit No.
0570039-096-AC'' in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039-120-AC.
\9\ This permit condition states that the permittee shall use
existing SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate continuous
compliance for Units 3 and 4 with the SO2 emissions cap
specified in Condition 2. The existing SO2 CEMS shall
continue to meet and follow the quality assurance and quality
control requirements outline in the facility's Title V air operation
permit. [Rules 62-4.070(1) and (3), and 62-4.080(1), F.A.C.;
SO2 Attainment SIP; and Application No. 0570039-120-AC].
In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida identifies this provision
as ``Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 3; however, it is
contained under the heading ``4. Permit Being Modified: Permit No.
0570039-096-AC'' in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039-120-AC.
\10\ This permit condition states that Big Ben Units 1 and 2
shall fire only natural gas from a federally regulated pipeline. No
solid fuels shall be burned in these units. In its April 16, 2019
submittal, Florida identifies this provision as ``Section 3,
Subsection A, Specific Condition 3a''; however, it is contained
under the heading ``6. Permits Being Modified: Permit Nos. 0570039-
066-AC & 109-AC'' in Section 3 of Permit No. 0570039-120-AC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and SIP
revision?
The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Hillsborough
County Area in the following paragraphs.
Criterion (1)--The Administrator determines that the area has
attained the NAAQS.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). As discussed in section VIII.A of
the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, there are generally two
components needed to support an attainment determination for
SO2, which should be considered interdependently.\11\ The
first component relies on air quality monitoring data. For
SO2, any available monitoring data would need to indicate
that all monitors in the affected area are meeting the standard as
stated in 40 CFR 50.17 using data analysis procedures specified in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix T. The second component relies on air quality
modeling data. If there are no air quality monitors located in the
affected area, or there are air quality monitors located in the area,
but analyses show that none of the monitors are located in the area of
maximum concentration,\12\ then air quality dispersion modeling will
generally be needed to estimate SO2 concentrations in the
area. Such dispersion modeling should be conducted to estimate
SO2 concentrations throughout the nonattainment area using
actual emissions and meteorological information for the most recent
three calendar years. However, EPA may also make determinations of
attainment based on the modeling from the attainment demonstration for
the applicable SIP for the affected area, eliminating the need for
separate actuals-based modeling to support the determination that an
area is currently attaining. If the air agency has previously submitted
a modeled attainment demonstration using allowable emissions, no
further modeling is needed as long as the source characteristics are
still reasonably represented and so long as emissions are at or below
allowable levels. Where both monitoring and modeling information is
available, such as the case with the Hillsborough County Area, EPA will
consider both types of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ SO2 is primarily a localized, source-specific
pollutant, and therefore, SO2 control measures are, by
definition, based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary to
attain the NAAQS.
\12\ See section VIII.A of the SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's pre- and post-modification attainment demonstration
modeling indicates that the only ambient SO2 monitor in the
Area--the East Bay monitor (AQS ID: 12-057-0109)--is not cited in the
area of maximum concentration for both Mosaic and Big Bend, and
therefore, the clean monitoring data at the monitor does not on its own
demonstrate that the Area is currently attaining the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. For that reason, EPA's proposed approval of
Florida's redesignation and maintenance plan SIP for the Hillsborough
County Area is based on the modeled attainment demonstration that
includes permanent and enforceable SO2 controls and
emissions limits at Mosaic and Big Bend showing attainment of the 2010
SO2 standard by the statutory deadline. EPA approved the
attainment demonstration for the Area on July 3, 2017, and incorporated
the new allowable emission rates and control measures into the SIP,
making them permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749. Florida's
redesignation request indicates that the control strategies were fully
implemented at Mosaic in November 2017 and at Big Bend in early 2016
(i.e., these sources are emitting SO2 at or below the SIP-
approved allowable emission levels). The revised conditions in Permit
No. 0570039-120-AC applicable to Big Bend became effective on December
14, 2018. If EPA approves these revised permit conditions into the SIP,
they will become permanent and enforceable measures. As discussed
below, EPA proposes to find that these permit revisions continue to
assure attainment because, among other things, they reduce the
SO2 emissions cap by approximately 32 percent. Details
regarding the control strategies and emissions reductions are provided
in the Criterion (3) section of this notice. Details regarding the
modeling analysis are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Florida's EPA-Approved Modeling Analysis
Florida's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Modeling Guidance) \13\ and the
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance and was prepared using EPA's
preferred dispersion modeling system--the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)--
consisting of the AERMOD (version 14134) \14\ model and multiple data
input
[[Page 37177]]
preprocessors as described below. FDEP used regulatory default options
and the rural land use designation in the AERMOD modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (EPA's Guideline on Air
Quality Models) (January 17, 2017) located at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/AppendixW_2017.pdf.
\14\ Version 14134 of the AERMOD Modeling System was the current
EPA-recommended regulatory version at the time the modeling was
performed in 2014-2015, and therefore was appropriate for the
modeling analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-processors AERMET (version 14134) and AERMINUTE were used
to process five years (i.e., 2008-2012) of 1-minute meteorological data
from the Tampa National Weather Service Office (NWS) at the Tampa
International Airport, Tampa, Florida, surface level site, based on
FDEP's land use classifications, in combination with twice daily upper-
air meteorological information from the same site. The Tampa
International Airport is located approximately 20 km northwest from the
Hillsborough Area.
The AERMOD pre-processor AERMAP (version 11103) was used to
generate terrain inputs for the receptors, based on a digital elevation
mapping database from the National Elevation Dataset developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey. FDEP used AERSURFACE to generate direction-
specific land-use surface characteristics for the modeling.
The stack heights used in the modeling meet the Good Engineering
Practice stack height criteria and the Building Profile Input Program
for Plume Rise Model Enhancements was used to generate direction-
specific building downwash parameters. FDEP developed a Cartesian
receptor grid across the entire Area (extending up to 8.5 km from the
monitor), with 100 meter spacing in ambient air to ensure that maximum
concentrations are captured in the analysis.
FDEP selected a background SO2 concentration based on
local SO2 monitoring data from the East Bay monitor for the
period January 2012 to December 2013. This background concentration
from the nearby ambient air monitor is used to account for
SO2 impacts from all sources that are not specifically
included in the AERMOD modeling analysis. The ambient monitoring data
was obtained from the Florida Air Monitoring and Assessment System. Due
to its close proximity to Mosaic and Big Bend, monitored concentrations
at this station are strongly influenced by emissions from both
facilities. As a result, and as allowed by EPA's Modeling Guideline,
the data was filtered to remove measurements where the wind direction
could transport pollutants from Mosaic and Big Bend to the monitor.
More specifically, the data was filtered to remove measurements where
hourly wind directions were between 275[deg] to 4[deg] or 153[deg] to
241[deg].
EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance provides a
procedure for establishing longer-term averaging times for
SO2 emission limits (up to a 30-day rolling averaging
time).\15\ In approving Florida's 2015 attainment demonstration, EPA
concluded that FDEP completed this analysis for both Mosaic and Big
Bend to derive a SIP emission limit with a block 24-hour longer-term
averaging time and a rolling 30-day longer-term averaging time,
respectively, that are comparatively stringent to the 1-hour limit. For
more details, see Florida's April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP submittal
and EPA's final approval. See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ FDEP followed EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance on procedures for establishing emissions limits with
averaging periods longer than 1 hour.
\16\ Florida's nonattainment SIP submittal is located in Docket
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of Florida's attainment modeling are summarized in
Table 1. Table 1 presents the results from the six sets of AERMOD
modeling runs that were performed. The six modeling runs were the
result of using an uncontrolled, or pre-modification, scenario and five
different controlled, or post-modification, scenarios to account for
possible control strategies that involved two-unit and three-unit
emissions caps at Mosaic, in addition to individual emissions caps. The
model also included the 3,162 lbs/hr emissions cap at Big Bend. The
four Big Bend units were modeled at constant emissions rates derived by
distributing the emissions cap based on the relative maximum allowable
heat input for each unit. Maximum allowable permitted emissions caps
were used for the modeling demonstration. These emissions limits and
other control measures were established in construction permits issued
by FDEP. EPA incorporated the permit conditions necessary to
demonstrate modeled attainment into the Florida SIP via the approved
attainment plan making them permanent and enforceable. Florida
incorporated the conditions applicable to Big Bend from Permit No.
0570039-074-AC into the facility's Title V operating permit \17\ and
will incorporate the conditions for Mosaic into the next Title V
revision for that facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Title V Operating Permit No. 0570039-110-AV issued by
FDEP on November 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, Florida's modeling presents five post-control
modeling runs, summarized in Table 1, which were used by FDEP to
identify the worst possible scenario of emissions distributions between
Mosaic's three sulfuric acid Emissions Units (EUs) 004-006. FDEP began
by evaluating maximum sulfuric acid production rates and catalyst
limitations, which resulted in a total SO2 emissions cap of
600 pounds per hour (lb/hr) for Mosaic EUs 004-006. This overall cap
was then scaled to a 24-hour limit, maintaining comparative stringency
with the 1-hour limit, following the procedures in the SO2
Nonattainment Guidance. The 24-hour emissions rate resulting from this
procedure is 577.8 lb/hr. FDEP rounded down the limit for an additional
buffer for the maximum modeled impact, resulting in a 24-hour limit of
575 lb/hr. FDEP then back-calculated to a 1-hour critical emission
value (CEV) emissions cap of 597 lb/hr. This three-unit emissions cap
was then modeled in several configurations to mimic variability in
emissions possible under the scenario of all three units operating
simultaneously. The different configurations were determined by
apportioning the emissions cap (597 lb/hr) based on each unit emitting
at its individual emissions limit with the remainder of the cap
distributed to the other two units based on their relative production
capacities. The highest impact is presented in Table 1 as the three-
unit emissions cap scenario.
FDEP also evaluated two-unit emissions caps, which assumed that
only two of the three units were operating. The six possible two-unit
operating scenarios were evaluated in turn by modeling each unit
operating at its individual emission limit, while the remainder of the
597 lb/hr cap was distributed to the other operating unit. The highest
modeled impact is presented in Table 2 as the two-unit operating
scenario. For the three remaining scenarios, each sulfuric acid plant
was assumed to operate alone at its individual emissions cap. For all
of the modeling scenarios, the four Big Bend units were modeled at
constant emissions rates derived by distributing the 1-hour CEV
emissions cap \18\ based on the relative maximum allowable heat input
for each unit. The results for each of these scenarios are also
presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the maximum 1-hour average
across all five years of meteorological data (2008-2012) is less than
or equal to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb for the five
post-control AERMOD modeling
[[Page 37178]]
runs. For more details, see Florida's April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The details of Florida's procedures for developing the 1-
hour CEV and longer-term average emissions limits are provided in
its April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP submittal.
Table 1--Maximum Modeled SO2 Impacts in the Hillsborough Area, Micrograms per Cubic Meter
[ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum predicted impact
Model scenario Averaging time ------------------------------------ Background Total SO2 NAAQS
Mosaic Big Bend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-modification................. 1-hour................ 425.50 (162.4) 0.82 (0.31) 20.40 (7.8) 446.72 (170.5) 196.4 (75)
Three-unit....................... 1-hour................ 118.90 (45.4) 55.90 (21.3) 21.44 (8.2) 196.24 (74.9)
Two-unit......................... 1-hour................ 123.59 (47.2) 52.22 (19.9) 18.83 (7.2) 194.65 (74.3)
EU 004 only...................... 1-hour................ 0.33 (0.12) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.43 (71.9)
EU 005 only...................... 1-hour................ 0.25 (0.10) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.35 (71.9)
EU 006 only...................... 1-hour................ 0.33 (0.12) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.43 (71.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-control analysis resulted in a predicted impact of 170.5
ppb. The post-control analysis resulted in a worst-case predicted
impact of 74.9 ppb in the three-unit operating scenario. EPA determined
that the modeling results indicate sufficient reductions in air quality
impact with the implementation of the post-construction control plan
for Mosaic and Big Bend. The control measures that have been
implemented at the Mosaic and Big Bend are outlined in the Criterion
(3) section of this notice. The collective emission limit and related
compliance parameters have been incorporated into the SIP, making them
permanent and federally enforceable. More details on the pre-
construction and post-construction operations at the facilities are
included in Florida's nonattainment SIP submission and in EPA's
rulemaking on that submittal.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017) (final rule), 81 FR 57522
(August 23, 2016) (proposed rule), and Florida's SIP submittal
located in Docket EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 3, 2017, EPA approved the modeled attainment demonstration
described above and concluded that it is consistent with CAA
requirements, EPA's Modeling Guideline, and EPA's guidance for
SO2 attainment demonstration modeling. Florida's
redesignation request indicates that the control strategies were fully
implemented at Mosaic in November 2017 and at Big Bend in early 2016,
meaning that emissions are at or below the levels modeled in Florida's
attainment plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that air quality
modeling supports the conclusion that the Area has attained the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS and attained the standard by the applicable
deadline.
Effect of the Big Bend Permit Revisions on Florida's EPA-Approved
Modeling Analysis
As discussed above, since the time that EPA approved Florida's
attainment demonstration modeling on July 3, 2017, Florida issued a
revised permit to Big Bend that restricts EUs 1 and 2 to only burning
natural gas; reduces the four-unit SO2 cap from 3,162 lb/hr
to 2,156 lb/hr (each on a 30-day average basis); and amends the method
for demonstrating compliance with the four-unit cap. Florida's April
19, 2019, submittal revises its pending June 7, 2018, redesignation
request and associated SIP revision for the Hillsborough County Area by
asking EPA to incorporate the aforementioned permit conditions into the
SIP. Florida's 2019 submittal states that its model-based attainment
demonstration (described above) is still valid for demonstrating
attainment in the Area. Florida's conclusion is based on the
approximate 32 percent reduction in the four-unit cap and the change in
stack parameters for the stack shared by EUs 1 and 2 due to the switch
to natural gas. According to the State, the plume flowrate, exit
velocity, and temperature for the stack shared by EUs 1 and 2 have all
increased. Florida's submittal also asserts that a faster flowrate and
velocity leaving the stack will lead to increased plume rise and that
the warmer temperatures will also increase plume rise. With increased
plume rise, pollutants will be able to disperse more before reaching
the ground and will lead to lower pollutant concentrations at the
surface. Therefore, Florida believes that the new stack parameters for
the shared stack of EUs 1 and 2, along with the reduced SO2
emissions cap, would lead to lower modeled concentrations.
Florida's submittal also notes that the stack parameters for EUs 3
and 4 have not changed from the values used in the modeling
demonstration. The stack configuration for EUs 1 through 4, which have
stack heights of 150 meters, are spaced less than 120 meters apart and
are over 2 kilometers (km) from the Area, which according to the State,
leads to the stacks behaving as a single, distant point source for
receptors within the Area. The submittal also asserts that any
potential emissions scenario with the revised cap would be expected to
lead to decreased modeled concentrations due to the overall decrease in
emissions from the four EUs due to the revised four-unit SO2
cap.
EPA proposes to agree with Florida's assessment and conclusion
regarding the effect of the revised Big Bend permit conditions on the
State's model-based attainment demonstration. EPA believes that
Florida's modeling, which showed that Big Bend's maximum impact was 87%
of the NAAQS at 170.84 [mu]g/m\3\ (see Table 1) and demonstrated
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS using a four-unit
SO2 cap of 3,162 lb/hr, is more conservative (in relation to
a demonstration relying on the lowered cap) and is still valid for
demonstrating attainment in the Area.
Monitoring Data
For SO2, a location may be considered to be attaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS if it meets the NAAQS as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.17 and Appendix T of part 50,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. Specifically, to attain the NAAQS at each
monitoring site, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
(fourth highest value) of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations measured
at each monitor within an area must be less than or equal to 75 ppb.
The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The
monitors should have remained at the same
[[Page 37179]]
location for the duration of the monitoring period required for
demonstrating attainment.
As discussed above, FDEP currently operates one ambient
SO2 monitor in the Area, the East Bay monitor. This monitor
is located approximately 1 km southeast of Mosaic and 7 km north of Big
Bend. The original nonattainment designation was based on the 2009-2011
design value of 103 ppb at this monitor. As shown in Table 2, the
design values at this monitor have decreased steadily since 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The 2017 data is available at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
\21\ The East Bay monitor did not collect a valid 2016-2018
design value due to incomplete data in 2018.
Table 2--Hillsborough County Area SO2 Monitored Design Values
[ppb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
Monitoring station (AQS site design design design design design 2016-2018 design
ID) value value value value value \20\ value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Bay (12-057-0109)....... 93 ppb 79 ppb 66 ppb 66 ppb 60 ppb Incomplete.\21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the
2015-2017 period, the most recent 3-year period with complete data, are
attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with a design value of
60 ppb. This design value is approximately 43 percent lower than the
2009-2011 design value and 40 percent lower than the NAAQS. Although
the 2016-2018 design value is invalid due to incomplete data in 2018,
EPA has no reason to believe that the 2016-2018 design value would have
been above the NAAQS if the monitor had complete data for 2018 given
the downward trend in emissions shown in Table 2 and a 2015-2017 design
value that is 40 percent lower than the NAAQS. Furthermore, since 2013,
the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration has remained below the standard, and there have been no
1-hour values recorded above the level of the standard since late 2016.
EPA believes that the significant decrease in SO2
concentrations is due to the permanent and enforceable control measures
at Mosaic and Big Bend. Thus, the monitoring data also support the
conclusion that the Area has attained the standard.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Area has attained the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on the modeling analysis discussed
above which is not contradicted by monitoring data. Preliminary
monitoring data for the Area for 2019 indicates that the Area continues
to attain the standard and has not measured any exceedances of the 1-
hour SO2 standard.\22\ If, before EPA takes final action,
monitoring data or other evidence causes EPA to conclude that the Area
is not continuing to meet the standard, EPA will not go forward with
the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, Florida has
committed to continue monitoring ambient SO2 concentrations
in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Any future changes to
the state or local air monitoring station network in the Area will be
submitted to EPA for approval in Florida's annual ambient air
monitoring network plan, as required by 40 CFR 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Preliminary 2019 data is available at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion (2)--The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); and Criterion
(5)--Florida has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully-approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA
proposes to find that Florida has met all applicable SIP requirements
for the Hillsborough County Area under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA
proposes to find that the Florida SIP satisfies the criterion that it
meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under
part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making
these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved
under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
A. The Hillsborough County Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements
Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
1. General SIP Requirements
General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include,
but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing;
provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source
permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C
requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (NNSR permit
programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation
and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing
a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the
designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that the CAA's interstate
[[Page 37180]]
transport requirements should be construed to be applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA interprets the other section 110(a)(2) elements
that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor
linked with an area's attainment status not to be ``applicable''
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The
section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular
area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is
consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as
well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida,
final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR
37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). Nonetheless, EPA has
approved Florida's SIP revisions related to the section 110
requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of
the interstate transport elements at section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 81
FR 67179 (September 30, 2016).
2. Title I, Part D, Applicable SIP Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D, comprised of CAA sections 171-179B, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment
areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the
SO2 NAAQS were designated under Subpart 1 of the CAA in
accordance with the deadlines in Subpart 5. For purposes of evaluating
this redesignation request, the applicable Subpart 1 SIP requirements
are contained in section 172(c)(1)-(9), section 176, and sections 191
and 192. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
sections 172(c) can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation
of Title I. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
a. Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
Section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other
requirements. As discussed in section V.A, above, EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the attainment-related nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564
(April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the
Calcagni Memo.
As discussed above, EPA previously approved Florida's nonattainment
SIP for the Hillsborough County Area. See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017).
Among other things, the nonattainment SIP for the Area satisfied the
section 172(c)(1) requirements for RACT/RACM; 172(c)(2) requirements
related to RFP; 172(c)(3) requirements for a comprehensive and accurate
emissions inventory; 172(c)(6) requirements for enforceable control
measures necessary to provide attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment
date; and section 172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has a longstanding
interpretation that because NNSR is replaced by PSD upon redesignation,
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment need not have a
fully approved part D NNSR program in order to be redesignated. See
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.''
Florida currently has a fully-approved PSD and part D NNSR program in
place in Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the Florida
Administrative Code. Florida's PSD program will become effective in the
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that the
Florida's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable
for purposes of redesignation.
Finally, Section 172(c)(8) allows a state to use equivalent
modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures if such use is
requested by the state and approved by EPA. Florida has not requested
the use of equivalent techniques under section 172(c)(8).
As mentioned above, EPA fully approved Florida's April 3, 2015,
nonattainment SIP for the Hillsborough County Area, including the
model-based attainment demonstration, and determined that the SIP
submission met the applicable nonattainment planning requirements of
sections 172 and 191-192 of the CAA demonstrating attainment of the
SO2 standard by the statutory deadline. This approval
included the specific SO2 emissions caps and compliance
monitoring established for the two SO2 point sources
impacting the Hillsborough County Area (Mosaic and Big Bend) and
included in the 2015 SIP revision.
b. Subpart 1 Section 176--Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability
that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements \23\ as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because
[[Page 37181]]
state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and
federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation)
(6th Cir. 2001); 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). Furthermore, due to
the relatively small, and decreasing, amounts of sulfur in gasoline and
on-road diesel fuel, EPA's transportation conformity rules provide that
they do not apply to SO2 unless either the EPA Regional
Administrator or the director of the state air agency has found that
transportation-related emissions of SO2 as a precursor are a
significant contributor to a SO2 or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment problem, or if the SIP has established
an approved or adequate budget for such emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment, or maintenance strategy. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v);
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. Neither of these conditions
have been met; therefore, EPA's transportation conformity rules do not
apply to SO2 for the Area. For these reasons, EPA proposes
to find that Florida has satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation of the Hillsborough County Area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emission
budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Hillsborough County Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Florida SIP for the
Hillsborough County Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes
of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3, Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3D 984, 989-90 (6th Cir.
1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve
in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12,
2003) and citations therein. As mentioned above, EPA fully approved the
State's nonattainment SIP and approved Florida's SIP revisions related
to the section 110 requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with
the exception of the interstate transport elements at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017) and 81 FR 67179
(September 30, 2016), respectively.
As discussed above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that
are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to
an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
Criterion (3)--The air quality improvement in the Hillsborough
County Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air
pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA proposes to determine that Florida
has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the
Hillsborough County Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions
in SO2 emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
including the SO2 control measures at Mosaic and Big Bend
incorporated therein.
When EPA designated the Hillsborough County Area as a nonattainment
area for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that
operations at Mosaic were the primary cause of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS violations in the Area. See 78 FR 47191.\24\
However, Florida included the nearby Big Bend power plant in its model-
based attainment demonstration because it determined that Big Bend was
also a significant contributor to elevated concentrations within the
Area.\25\ Florida's April 3, 2015, nonattainment SIP revision was based
on this determination and successfully reduced ambient concentrations
below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by only requiring emissions
reductions at Mosaic and Big Bend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Final Technical Support Document, July 2013, Florida
First Round of Nonattainment Area Designations for the 2010
SO2 Primary NAAQS, Prepared by EPA Region 4. This
document is available at Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233-0307.
\25\ FDEP modeled actual emissions at the time of area
designations which revealed contributing impacts throughout the
nonattainment area due to emissions from Big Bend. See 82 FR 30749
(July 3, 2017) and Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic received an air construction permit \26\ on January 15,
2015, from FDEP requiring Mosaic to construct and implement
SO2 emission control measures and limitations, according to
a specific compliance schedule, necessary to ensure attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Mosaic produces
fertilizers, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and fluoridation
ingredients and emits SO2 from three main emissions units--
sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) Nos. 7 (EU 004), 8 (EU 005) and 9 (EU 006).
See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017). The air construction permit authorized
Mosaic to: Replace the vanadium catalyst (used to convert
SO2 to sulfuric trioxide) for each SAP (Nos. 7, 8, and 9)
with a more efficient catalyst for improved performance; \27\ increase
the stack height at each SAP; \28\ eliminate the use of fuel oil at the
plant except during periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption;
and comply with specific SO2 emissions caps for two-unit
(550 lb/hr) and three-unit (575 lb/hr) operating scenarios based on 24-
hour block averages as determined by continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) data.\29\ The new catalyst replacement converts more
SO2 for process purposes, allowing Mosaic to meet more
stringent emissions limits for these units. Allowable SO2
emissions (from SAPs 7-9 combined) were estimated to be reduced from
1,140 lb/hr (based on total individual unit emission limits) to a
maximum of 575 lb/hr, representing at least a 50 percent allowable
emissions decrease. The stack heights for all three sulfuric acid
plants were increased from 45.7 to 65 meters (213.5 feet); thus, the
new heights are fully creditable in accordance with EPA's stack height
regulations. EPA incorporated these new emissions limits, operating
parameters, compliance monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements into the Florida SIP on July 3, 2017, making them
permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017). Florida's
redesignation request indicates that the control strategies were fully
implemented at the Mosaic facility in November 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Air Construction Permit (No. 0570008-080-AC) issued by
FDEP on January 15, 2015, located in the docket for this proposed
action.
\27\ Improvements in catalyst efficiency allow the units to meet
the multi-unit caps incorporated into the Florida SIP by converting
more SO2 emissions formed during the manufacturing
process to sulfuric acid, improving the efficiency of the
manufacturing process, and reducing SO2 emissions.
\28\ A stack height increase can result in greater plume
dispersion across an area, minimizing stagnation and local impacts
from higher concentrations, primarily due to the avoidance of
building downwash effects. See EPA's June 1985 guidance document,
``Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack
Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Height
Regulations),'' which can be found at: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/gep.pdf.
\29\ SAPs 7, 8, and 9 are also subject to the existing,
individual SO2 emission limits that were previously
adopted into Florida's SIP (including SAP 7--400 lbs/hr, 24-hour
average; SAP 8--315 lbs/hr, 24-hour average; SAP 9--425 lbs/hr, 24-
hour average).
[[Page 37182]]
Table 3--Mosaic Facility SO2 Source Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission limit (lb/hr) * Stack height (m)
Source --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous Individual 2-unit 3-unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP 7.................................... 400 400 Any two units cannot exceed Combined emissions cannot 45.7 65.0
550 combined. exceed 575.
SAP 8.................................... 315 315 ............................ ........................... 45.7 65.0
SAP 9.................................... 425 425 ............................ ........................... 45.7 65.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 6 AP Plant........................... 40.2 Mosaic was required to cease burning of fuel oil at all units. This
essentially eliminated SO2 emissions from these five units.
No changes.
No. 5 Granulation Plant.................. 20.1
No. 1 AFI Plant.......................... 45.0
No. 2 AFI plant.......................... 45.0
Auxiliary Boiler......................... 65.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All previous and new SO2 emission limits are 24-hour block averages.
For Big Bend, FDEP issued Permit No. 0570039-074-AC on February 26,
2015, requiring the facility to comply with a SO2 emissions
cap of 3,162 lb/hr based on a 30-day rolling average for all four units
as determined by CEMS data.\30\ This involved replacing all existing
No. 2 fuel igniters and associated equipment to allow all four units to
fire natural gas during startup, shutdown, and flame stabilization.
These enhancements allowed Big Bend to meet the new combined unit
emissions cap beginning June 1, 2016. Big Bend's combined allowable
SO2 emissions were reduced from 6,587.6 lb/hr (based on
total individual unit emission limits) to 3,162 lb/hr, representing a
52 percent decrease in allowable emissions. EPA incorporated the
emissions cap, operating parameters, compliance monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements into the Florida SIP on July
3, 2017, making them permanent and enforceable. See 82 FR 30749 (July
3, 2017). Florida's redesignation request indicates that the control
strategies were fully implemented at Big Bend in early 2016. FDEP
incorporated the permit conditions into Big Bend's title V operating
permit (No. 0570039-110-AV) \31\ on November 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Air Construction Permit 0570039-074-AC issued by FDEP
on February 26, 2015, located in the docket for this proposed
action.
\31\ See Title V operating permit 0570039-110-AV issued by FDEP
on November 7, 2017, located in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nonattainment SIP submittal estimated base year 2011
SO2 emissions from Big Bend of 9,105.93 tons and from Mosaic
of 3,034.06 tons. Big Bend's previous allowable limit was 29,033.79
tons per year. Mosaic's previous allowable limit was 4,993.2 tons per
year. The attainment year maximum allowable emissions are 2,518.5 and
13,866 tons per year for Mosaic and Big Bend, respectively, a reduction
of approximately 50 percent. Actual SO2 emissions from
Mosaic and Big Bend decreased by 7,253 tons (approximately 54 percent)
from 2014 to 2017 \32\ which corresponds with the overall downward
trend in monitored daily maximum 1-hour ambient SO2
concentrations \33\ (with no values measured above the standard in
2017). The air quality improvement in the Hillsborough County Area is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in SO2 emissions
resulting from these control measures incorporated into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Figure 5 in Florida's June 7, 2018, submission.
\33\ See Figure 2 in Florida's June 7, 2018, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, Florida issued a revised permit to Big Bend
(Permit No. 0570039-120-AC) that restricts EUs 1 and 2 to only burning
natural gas; reduces the four-unit SO2 cap from 3,162 lb/hr
to 2,156 lb/hr (each on a 30-day average); and amends the method of
compliance for the revised four-unit cap. Table 4 summarizes the
changes in the SO2 emissions limits at Big Bend.
Table 4--Big Bend SO2 Emissions Limit Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions limit (lb/hr) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Permit No. 0570039-120-AC
Previous Permit No. 0570039-074-AC (effective December 14,
(effective June 1, 2016) 2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFSG Unit 1.......................... 1,009.25 Four-unit emissions cap of Four-unit emissions cap of
3,162 (originally 6,587.6 2,165.
total).
FFSG Unit 2.......................... 999.00
FFSG Unit 3.......................... 1,028.75
FFSG Unit 4.......................... 3,550.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All SO2 emission limits are 30-day rolling averages.
The revised four-unit emissions cap of 2,165 lb/hr proposed for
incorporation into the SIP represents a nearly 32 percent reduction
from the SIP-approved emissions cap. This lowered emissions cap will
become permanent and enforceable if EPA incorporates it into the SIP.
Criterion (4)--The Hillsborough County Area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a
[[Page 37183]]
fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Hillsborough County Area to attainment for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, Florida submitted a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment.
EPA is proposing to determine that this maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future 2010 1-hour SO2 violations. The Calcagni
Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance
plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions inventory; maintenance
demonstration; monitoring; verification of continued attainment; and a
contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA is proposing to
determine that Florida's maintenance plan includes all the necessary
components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the
Florida SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area
that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. In its maintenance plan,
Florida used 2015 actual emissions data to represent the attainment
emissions inventory. As identified above, the 2015-2017 design value at
the East Bay monitor was below the NAAQS and there has not been a
monitored violation of the SO2 NAAQS at the monitor since
2014. SO2 emissions data from the Mosaic, Big Bend, Ajax,
and Harsco facilities,\34\ as included in Florida's required 2015
annual operating reports for all sources, are presented in Table 5.
Although Big Bend is located outside of the Area, Florida included it
in its model-based attainment demonstration because it determined that
it was a significant contributor to elevated concentrations within the
Area. The complete attainment emissions inventory for the Area and
relevant nearby stationary sources (i.e., Big Bend) is presented in
Table 6. Florida based area and non-road emissions for the Area on 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data for Hillsborough County because
the State is only required to develop these inventories on a triennial
period in accordance with the NEI and subpart A to 40 CFR part 51. The
2014 emissions for each category were projected to 2015 based on the
increase in the Hillsborough County population from 2014 to 2015, and
then allocated to the Area based on the Area's fraction of land area
within the county. The State estimated on-road emissions for the Area
with MOVES2014a, and similarly allocated to the Area based on the
Area's fraction of land area within the county.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Ajax and Harsco are two smaller point sources within the
Area. See footnote 1 for additional information.
Table 5--2015 SO2 Emissions Inventory for Big Bend, Mosaic, Ajax, and
Harsco Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 SO2
EU ID Unit description emissions
(tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend Facility SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Fossil Fuel Fired 1804.89
Steam Generator
Unit No. 1.
2................................. Fossil Fuel Fired 1324.81
Steam Generator
Unit No. 2.
3................................. Fossil Fuel Fired 1819.60
Steam Generator
Unit No. 3.
4................................. Fossil Fuel Fired 2366.10
Steam Generator
Unit No. 4.
41................................ SCCT 4A: PWPS FT8-3 0.01
SwiftPac CT/Gen
Peaking Unit.
42................................ SCCT 4B: PWPS FT8-3 0.01
SwiftPac CT/Gen
Peaking Unit.
43................................ SCCT Black Start 0.0004
Emergency Engine
(1,495 HP).
44................................ Emergency Diesel 0.0003
Generator (1,046
HP).
45................................ Emergency Diesel 0.0003
Generator and Fire
Pump Diesel Engine.
51................................ Process Heaters (2-6 0.0007
MMBtu/hour).
53................................ Units 1 & 2 0.00005
Emergency Diesel
Generator (197 HP).
-------------------------------------
Total......................... .................... 7315.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic Facility SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4................................. No. 7 Sulfuric Acid 668.33
Plant.
5................................. No. 8 Sulfuric Acid 532.19
Plant.
6................................. No. 9 Sulfuric Acid 529.11
Plant.
7................................. No. 6 AP Plant...... 0.02
55................................ No. 5 AP Plant...... 0.04
63................................ Tank Nos. 1, 2, and 0
3 for molten sulfur
storage w/scrubber.
66................................ Sulfur Pit #7, 0.02
Molten Storage/
Handling System.
67................................ Sulfur Pit #8, 0.02
Molten Storage/
Handling System.
68................................ Sulfur Pit #9, 0.02
Molten Storage/
Handling System.
74................................ Truck Loading 0
Station for Molten
Sulfur w/common
scrubber.
111............................... Existing Emergency 0.13
Stationary RICE <
or equal to 500 HP.
[[Page 37184]]
112............................... Auxiliary Boiler.... 0.002
113............................... Non-Emergency CI ICE 3.44
---------------
Total......................... .................... 1733.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ajax Facility SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................................. Diesel Engine and 0.05
Power Generator for
RAP Crusher.
6................................. Drum Mix Asphalt 0.25
Plant (400TPH).
---------------
Total......................... .................... 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Facility SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Fluid Bed Slag Dryer 0.004
Total......................... .................... 0.004
---------------
Total All Point Sources... .................... 9,049.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--2015 Attainment Emissions Inventory for the Hillsborough County Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Type Point Area Non-Road On-Road Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 SO2 Emissions (tons).......................................... 9,049.05 8.80 0.16 1.86 9,059.87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional information regarding the development of the
attainment year inventory, please see Appendix D to Florida's June 7,
2018, submittal.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
Maintenance of the SO2 standard is demonstrated either
by showing that future emissions will not exceed the level of the
attainment emissions inventory year or by modeling to show that the
future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS.
To evaluate maintenance through 2032 and satisfy the 10-year
interval required in CAA section 175A, Florida prepared projected
emissions inventories for 2020-2032. The emissions inventories are
composed of the following general source categories: point, area, non-
road mobile, and on-road mobile. The emissions inventories were
developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Table 7.
Florida compared the projected emissions for the final year of the
maintenance plan (2032) to the attainment emissions inventory year
(2015) and compared interim years to the attainment emissions inventory
year to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard. For additional information regarding the
development of the projected inventories, please see Appendix D to
Florida's June 7, 2018, SIP submittal.
Table 7--Projected Future Emissions Inventories for the Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2020 SO2 2023 SO2 2026 SO2 2029 SO2 2032 SO2
Source type emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................... 9,049.05 9,049.05 9,049.05 9,049.05 9,049.05
Area............................ 9.53 10.01 10.47 10.91 11.31
Non-road........................ 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21
On-road......................... 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.66
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 9,059.49 9,059.95 9,060.40 9,060.83 9,061.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to
nonattainment, such as the Hillsborough County Area, if the future
projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the
baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the related ambient
air quality standards should not be exceeded in the future. Florida has
projected emissions as described previously, and these projections
indicate that emissions in the Hillsborough County Area will remain at
nearly the same levels as those in the attainment year inventory for
the duration of the maintenance plan. While these projections include a
small increase in area source and non-road emissions from 2020 to 2032
(1.81 tons), the increase is negligible when compared to the total
emissions inventory, and EPA does not believe that this projected
increase should cause an exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS through
2032. This belief is supported by the fact that Florida does not
anticipate any future development within the Area that could
potentially increase SO2 emissions and the fact that any
increases in actual emissions from
[[Page 37185]]
Mosaic or Big Bend are required to remain below the modeled emissions
that demonstrate attainment for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Furthermore, any potential future SO2 emissions sources that
may locate in or near the Area would be required to comply with the
FDEP's approved NSR permitting programs to ensure that the Area will
continue to meet the NAAQS. EPA also notes that the natural gas fuel
requirement for EUs 1 and 2 at Big Bend and the reduced four-unit
SO2 cap proposed for incorporation into the SIP are expected
to further reduce SO2 emissions beyond the levels projected
in Table 7.
As discussed in the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, an
approved attainment plan that relies on air quality dispersion modeling
using maximum allowable emissions, such as Florida's attainment plan
for the Area, can generally be expected to demonstrate that the
standard will be maintained for the requisite 10 years and beyond
without regard to any changes in operation rate of the pertinent
sources that do not involve increases in maximum allowable
emissions.\35\ EPA believes that the Area will continue to maintain the
standard at least through the year 2032 because the air quality
modeling in the approved attainment plan showed that the Area would
attain the standard based on the maximum allowable emissions limits at
Mosaic and Big Bend that are incorporated into the SIP, these sources
have fully implemented these permanent and enforceable measures, and
the emissions reductions from these measures are reflected in the
attaining design values for the Area. As discussed above, EPA believes
that the modeling in the attainment plan using the four-unit
SO2 cap of 3,162 lb/hr at Big Bend is more conservative (in
relation to a demonstration relying on the lowered cap) and is still
valid for demonstrating attainment in the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Monitoring Network
The East Bay monitor (12-057-0109) is the only SO2
monitor located within the Hillsborough County Area, and the 2010 1-
hour SO2 nonattainment designation was based on data
collected from 2009-2011 at this monitor. In its maintenance plan,
Florida has committed to continue operating an appropriate
SO2 monitoring network, consult with EPA prior to making any
changes to the existing network, and continue to quality assure the
monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Therefore, Florida
has addressed the requirement for monitoring. FDEP's monitoring network
plan was submitted on June 28, 2018, and approved by EPA on October 22,
2018.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of Florida, through FDEP, has the legal authority to
enforce and implement all measures necessary to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department
to ``exercise the duties, powers, and responsibilities required of the
state under the federal Clean Air Act. This includes implementing and
enforcing all measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In
addition, FDEP will use emissions data submitted by Mosaic and Big Bend
through annual operating reports to verify continued compliance with
the permitted emissions rates that were shown through the modeling
demonstration in the attainment plan to be sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS throughout the
Area. Any increases in actual emissions from Mosaic or Big Bend must
remain below their permitted levels. Furthermore, any potential future
SO2 emissions sources that may locate in or near the Area
would be required to comply with FDEP's approved NSR permitting
programs to ensure that the Area will continue to meet the NAAQS. In
addition to assuring continued attainment in this manner, FDEP will
verify continued attainment through operation of the monitoring
network.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. In cases
where attainment revolves around compliance of a single source or a
small set of sources with emissions limits shown to provide for
attainment, EPA interprets ``contingency measures'' to mean that the
state agency has a comprehensive program to identify sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake aggressive
follow-up for compliance and enforcement, including expedited
procedures for establishing enforceable consent agreement pending the
adoption of revised SIPs.\36\ A state should also identify specific
indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need
to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that
a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan included in the maintenance plan contains
triggers to determine when contingency measures are needed and what
kind of measures should be used. Upon notification by the FDEP Office
of Air Monitoring that the East Bay monitor has registered
SO2 levels in excess of the standard for a fourth time
during a calendar year, FDEP will notify Mosaic and Big Bend of the
occurrence of the fourth high exceedance. Upon notification by FDEP of
a confirmed fourth high exceedance,\37\ Mosaic and Big Bend will,
without any further action by FDEP or EPA, undertake a full system
audit of all emissions units subject to control under the attainment
plan. Within 10 days of notification of the confirmed fourth high
exceedance, each source will independently submit a written system
audit report to FDEP summarizing all operating parameters of all
emissions units for four 10-day periods up to and including the dates
of the exceedances together with recommended provisional SO2
emission control strategies for each affected unit and evidence that
these control strategies have been deployed, as appropriate. Upon
receipt of the above-mentioned reports, FDEP will then begin a 30-day
evaluation of these reports to determine the cause of the exceedances,
followed by a 30-day consultation period with the sources to develop
and implement appropriate operational changes. At the end of the
consultation period, FDEP will mandate operational changes identified
by the written system audit to prevent any future violation of the
NAAQS. Any necessary changes would be implemented as soon as
practicable, with at least one implemented within 18-24 months of the
monitored violation, in order to bring the Area into attainment as
expeditiously as possible. These changes could include, but would not
be limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Confirmation of a fourth high exceedance over the
SO2 NAAQS would be made after quality assurance
activities are completed, but not necessarily with FDEP-certified
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37186]]
Fuel switching to reduce or eliminate the use of sulfur-
containing fuels; and
physical or operational reduction of production capacity,
as appropriate.
If a permit modification is necessary, the State would issue a
final permit in accordance to Sections 120 and 403 of the Florida
Statutes. Subsequently, Florida would submit any relevant permit change
to EPA as a source-specific SIP revision to make the change permanent
and enforceable. In addition to including these contingency measures in
the maintenance plan, Florida also stated that all existing control
measures will remain in effect after redesignation.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that the maintenance plan
adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan:
The attainment emissions inventory; maintenance demonstration;
monitoring; verification of continued attainment; and a contingency
plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the maintenance plan
for the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and
proposes to incorporate the maintenance plan into the Florida SIP.
VII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
Approval of Florida's redesignation request would change the
designation of the portion of Hillsborough County that is within the
Hillsborough County Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, section 81.310,
from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Approval of Florida's associated SIP revision would also
incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in the Hillsborough County Area through 2032 into the SIP.
Incorporation of the Big Bend permit conditions discussed above from
Permit No. 0570039-120-AC into the SIP would make them permanent and
federally enforceable.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into Florida's SIP the following conditions from Permit No.
0570039-120-AC issued by FDEP to Big Bend with an effective date of
December 14, 2018: (1) Section 2, Condition 4; (2) the ``SO2
Emissions Cap'' provision from Section 3, Condition 4; \38\ (3) the
``SO2 CEMS'' provision from Section 3, Condition 4; \39\ and
(4) the ``Methods of Operation'' for Units 1 and 2 provision from
Section 3, Condition 6.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida identifies this
provision as ``Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 2'';
however, it is contained under the heading ``4. Permit Being
Modified: Permit No. 0570039-096-AC'' in Section 3 of Permit No.
0570039-120-AC. See Section V of this notice for additional
information.
\39\ In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida identifies this
provision as ``Section 3, Subsection B, Specific Condition 3;
however, it is contained under the heading ``4. Permit Being
Modified: Permit No. 0570039-096-AC'' in Section 3 of Permit No.
0570039-120-AC. See Section V of this notice for additional
information.
\40\ In its April 16, 2019 submittal, Florida identifies this
provision as ``Section 3, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3a;
however, it is contained under the heading ``6. Permits Being
Modified: Permit Nos. 0570039-066-AC & 109-AC'' in Section 3 of
Permit No. 0570039-120-AC. See Section V of this notice for
additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 4 office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).
IX. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take four separate but related actions
regarding the redesignation request and associated SIP revision for the
Hillsborough County Area.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Area attained the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by its attainment date of October 4,
2018. This determination is being proposed in accordance with section
179(c)(1) of the CAA.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Area and to incorporate it into the SIP. As described above, the
maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS through 2032.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's request for
redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Fourth, EPA is proposing to incorporate into the SIP the
aforementioned permitting conditions applicable to Big Bend, including
a condition that lowers the SO2 emissions cap by
approximately 32 percent and a condition that restricts the fuel use at
two electric generating units to natural gas.
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request for the
Hillsborough County Area would change the official designation of the
portion of Hillsborough County, Florida, encompassed by the polygon
with the vertices using UTM coordinates in UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83
as follows: (1) Vertices-UTM Easting (m) 358581, UTM Northing 3076066;
(2) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 355673, UTM Northing 3079275; (3) UTM
Easting (m) 360300, UTM Northing 3086380; (4) vertices-UTM Easting (m)
366850, UTM Northing 3086692; (5) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 368364, UTM
Northing 3083760; and (6) vertices-UTM Easting (m) 365708, UTM Northing
3079121, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because these actions are not significant
regulatory actions under Executive Order 12866;
Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
[[Page 37187]]
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are 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
Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
These proposed actions do not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, these
proposed actions do not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping,
Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 18, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-16070 Filed 7-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
