Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 38898-38905 [2019-17000]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38898
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
described in more detail in the TSD. In
addition, Arkansas has a SIP-approved
minor NSR permit program addressing
small emission sources of SO2. The
permitting regulations contained within
these programs are designed to ensure
that emissions from these activities will
not interfere with maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas or any other
state.
EPA proposes to determine that
Arkansas’ March 24, 2017 SIP submittal
satisfies the requirements of Prong 2 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
determination is based on the following
considerations:
• Statewide SO2 emissions from 2000
to 2017 in Arkansas have declined
significantly and are expected to
continue to decline, tending to reduce
background concentrations in
neighboring states;
• Current Arkansas statutes and SIPapproved measures and federal
emissions control programs adequately
control SO2 emissions from sources
within Arkansas;
• Arkansas’ SIP-approved PSD and
minor source NSR permit programs will
address future new and modified SO2
sources above major and minor
permitting thresholds;
• Current 2015–2017 DVs for Air
Quality System (AQS) 9 SO2 monitors
both in Arkansas within 50 km of
another state’s border and in
neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee)
within 50 km of Arkansas’ border are
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
• Available modeling for DRR sources
within 50 km of Arkansas’ border both
within the State and in neighboring
states demonstrates that Arkansas’ larger
point sources of SO2 do not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
Based on the analysis provided by
Arkansas in its SIP submittal, EPA’s
summary of its evaluation, and EPA’s
supplemental Prong 2 analysis given in
the Technical Support Document (TSD)
for this action, EPA proposes to find
that sources within Arkansas will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
9 The Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient
air pollution data collected by EPA, state, local, and
tribal air pollution control agencies from over
thousands of monitors. AQS also contains
meteorological data, descriptive information about
each monitoring station (including its geographic
location and its operator), and data quality
assurance/quality control information. AQS data is
used to assess air quality, assist in attainment/nonattainment designations, evaluate State
Implementation Plans for non-attainment areas,
perform modeling for permit review analysis, and
prepare reports for congress as mandated by the
Clean Air Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
remaining portions of the Arkansas’
March 24, 2017 SIP submittal
addressing interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as these
portions meet the requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based
on the EPA’s analysis of the state’s
submittal and the factors described in
this document and the TSD, EPA
proposes to determine Arkansas’ SIP
contains adequate provisions to ensure
that air emissions within Arkansas will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule,
addressing Arkansas’ interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 1, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–16936 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2019–0353; FRL–9997–89–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts;
Transport Element for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts addressing the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport
SIP requirements, referred to as the good
neighbor provision, for the 2010 sulfur
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). This
submission addresses the interstate
transport requirements of the CAA that
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the SIP contain adequate provisions
prohibiting air emissions from
Massachusetts from having certain
adverse air quality effects in other
states. In this action, the EPA is
proposing to approve this portion of the
infrastructure SIP submission that
certifies that the Massachusetts SIP
contain adequate provisions to ensure
that air emissions in the Commonwealth
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2019–0353 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
hubbard.elizabeth@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, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact 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. The
EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Hubbard, Air Quality Branch,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suit 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109—3912, tel. (617) 918–1614, email
hubbard.elizabeth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. Massachusetts’s Submission and the
EPA’s Analysis
A. Massachusetts’s Analysis
B. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation—
Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
C. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation—
Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established
a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.1 Whenever the EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to
make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ These submissions
must meet the various requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable.
Due to ambiguity in some of the
language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the
EPA believes that it is appropriate to
interpret these provisions in the specific
context of acting on infrastructure SIP
submissions. The EPA has previously
provided comprehensive guidance on
the application of these provisions
through a guidance document for
infrastructure SIP submissions and
through regional actions on
infrastructure submissions.2 Unless
otherwise noted below, we are following
that existing approach in acting on this
submission. In addition, in the context
1 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
EPA explains and elaborates on these
ambiguities and its approach to address them in its
September 13, 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance
(available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/
urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_
Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_
FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous
agency actions, including the EPA’s prior action on
Massachusetts’s infrastructure SIP to address the
1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and
2010 SO2 NAAQS (see 81 FR 93627, December 21,
2016).
2 The
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38899
of acting on such infrastructure
submissions, the EPA evaluates the
submitting state’s SIP for facial
compliance with statutory and
regulatory requirements, not for the
state’s implementation of its SIP.3 The
EPA has other authority to address any
issues concerning a state’s
implementation of the rules,
regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP. One of these
applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to
prohibit certain adverse air quality
effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four
distinct components, commonly
referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be
addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions that prohibit any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and
from interfering with maintenance of
the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II),
require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions that prohibit emissions
activity in one state from interfering
with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in
another state (prong 3) or from
interfering with measures to protect
visibility in another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the February 9, 2018
Massachusetts submission, which
certifies that the Commonwealth’s
infrastructure SIP contains adequate
provisions related to prong 1 and prong
2, i.e., to ensure that air emissions in the
Commonwealth will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. All other
applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
have been addressed in a separate
rulemaking.4
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010
SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a
similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and
the precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
3 See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
decision in Montana Environmental Information
Center v. EPA, No. 16–71933 (Aug. 30, 2018).
4 See the EPA’s final action on other elements of
Massachusetts’s SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 81
FR 93627 (December 21, 2016).
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
38900
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the
transport of PM2.5 or ozone because SO2
emissions sources usually do not have
long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 1-hour NAAQS is
more analogous to the transport of Pb
relative to the Pb NAAQS in that
emissions of SO2 typically result in 1hour pollutant impacts of possible
concern only near the emissions source.
However, ambient 1-hour
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as
quickly with distance from the source as
do 3-month average concentrations of
Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles
and because SO2 typically has a higher
emissions release height than Pb.
Emitted SO2 has wider ranging impacts
than emitted Pb, but it does not have
such wide-ranging impacts that
treatment in a manner similar to ozone
or PM2.5 would be appropriate.
Accordingly, while the approaches that
the EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5
transport are too regionally focused, the
approach for Pb transport is too tightly
circumscribed to the source. SO2
transport is therefore a unique case and
requires a different approach.
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on
a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an
emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties
of SO2, the EPA selected the ‘‘urban
scale’’—a spatial scale with dimensions
from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point
sources—given the usefulness of that
range in assessing trends in both areawide air quality and the effectiveness of
large-scale pollution control strategies at
such point sources.5 Furthermore, the
American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the
EPA’s preferred modeling platform for
regulatory purposes for near-field
dispersion of emissions for distances up
to 50 km (Appendix W to 40 CFR part
51). As such, the EPA utilized an
assessment up to 50 km from point
sources in order to assess trends in areawide air quality that might impact
downwind states.
5 For the definition of spatial scales for SO ,
2
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4
(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
discussion on how the EPA is applying these
definitions with respect to interstate transport of
SO2, see the EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, and 21354 (May
8, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
As discussed in Section III of this
proposed action, the EPA first reviewed
Massachusetts’s analysis to assess how
the Commonwealth evaluated the
transport of SO2 to other states, the
types of information the Commonwealth
used in the analysis, and the
conclusions drawn by the
Commonwealth. The EPA then
conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, including review of the
Massachusetts submission and other
available information, including
ambient air quality data, data from SO2
emission sources, and emission trends
within the Commonwealth and
neighboring states to which it could
potentially contribute or interfere.
III. Massachusetts’s Submission and the
EPA’s Analysis
In this section, we provide an
overview of Massachusetts’s 2010 SO2
transport analysis included in its
February 9, 2018 submission that
addresses the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as the EPA’s
evaluation of prongs 1 and 2.
A. Massachusetts’s Analysis
Massachusetts conducted a weight of
evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from Massachusetts
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring and downwind states.
Massachusetts evaluated air monitoring
data from ambient air monitoring
stations in Massachusetts, as well in
neighboring and downwind states.
Massachusetts assessed whether SO2
emissions from sources located within
50 km of Massachusetts’s borders may
have contributed significantly to
nonattainment or interfered with
maintenance in neighboring and
downwind states. Massachusetts’s
analysis included source-specific SO2
emissions data from Massachusetts
sources located within 50 km of
Massachusetts’s border and having SO2
emissions over 100 tons per year (tpy).
Massachusetts included the most recent
stationary source SO2 emissions data,
which was from 2015. These sources
included: Brayton Point Energy LLC
(1446 tpy SO2, located 2 km from the
Rhode Island border), which shutdown
in 2017; Mystic Station (729 tpy SO2,
located 39 km from the New Hampshire
border); Solutia Inc (523 tpy SO2,
located 13 km from the Connecticut
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
border), which permanently switched
from coal to natural gas in 2016; NRG
Canal LLC (492 tpy SO2, located 53 km
to Rhode Island border); Wheelabrator
Millbury Inc (224 tpy SO2, located 20
km from the Connecticut border);
SEMASS Partnership (192 tpy SO2,
located 32 km to the Rhode Island
border); and Veolia Energy Boston Inc
(117 tpy SO2, located 43 km from the
New Hampshire border).
The largest SO2 point source in
Massachusetts, Brayton Point Energy
LLC, permanently ceased operations in
2017. Massachusetts noted that SO2
emissions have declined in the last 15
years, and that SO2 levels at all monitors
in the Commonwealth are below the 75
ppb SO2 NAAQS. The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) certifies that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring state.
B. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation—
Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
The EPA has analyzed the ambient air
quality data, data from SO2 emission
sources, distance from neighboring
states, and emissions trends in
Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, i.e., Connecticut,
Maine, New Hampshire, New York,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.6 Based on
that analysis and discussed in greater
detail below, the EPA proposes to find
that Massachusetts’s SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1
for the 2010 NAAQS, and Massachusetts
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
Table 1 includes the most recent air
quality design value for each active SO2
monitor in Massachusetts or in a
neighboring or downwind state within
50 km of the Massachusetts border.
These monitors were reviewed to see if
there are any sites that show elevated
SO2 concentrations which may warrant
further investigation with respect to
interstate transport of SO2 from
Massachusetts emission sources near
any given monitor.
6 For this analysis, though Maine does not share
a border with Massachusetts, the EPA is analyzing
SO2 transport impacts of Massachusetts sources on
ambient air in Maine, because Maine is located
approximately 24 km from Massachusetts at its
nearest point.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
38901
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SO2 MONITOR VALUES IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NEIGHBORING AND DOWNWIND STATES
State/city or town
Site ID
Connecticut/Cornwall ...................................................................................................................
Massachusetts/Fall River .............................................................................................................
Massachusetts/Ware ...................................................................................................................
Massachusetts/Boston .................................................................................................................
Massachusetts/Boston .................................................................................................................
Massachusetts/Worcester ............................................................................................................
New Hampshire/Peterborough ....................................................................................................
New Hampshire/Suncook ............................................................................................................
New Hampshire/Portsmouth ........................................................................................................
New Hampshire/Londonderry ......................................................................................................
New York/Loudonville ..................................................................................................................
New York/Millbrook ......................................................................................................................
Rhode Island/East Providence ....................................................................................................
Distance to
Massachusetts
border
(km) *
09–005–0005
25–005–1004
25–015–4002
25–025–0002
25–025–0042
25–027–0023
33–011–5001
33–013–1006
33–015–0014
33–015–0018
36–001–0012
36–027–0007
44–007–1010
2016–2018
design value
(ppb)†
25
2
31
41
43
26
18
46
24
17
41
36
2
2
7
3
3
4
4
2
14
13
3
3
2
3
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
† Data retrieved from the EPA’s https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report on July 24, 2019.
As seen in the Table 1, there are no
violating monitored design values in
Massachusetts or neighboring or
downwind states. The data presented in
Table 1 show that Massachusetts’s
network of SO2 monitors with data
sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values that monitored 1-hour
SO2 levels in Massachusetts range
between 4% and 10% of the 75 ppb
level of the NAAQS. As shown above,
all five Massachusetts SO2 monitors are
located within 50 km of a neighboring
state’s border. Seven monitors with data
sufficient to calculate a design value for
the 2016–2018 period in neighboring or
downwind states are located within 50
km of the Massachusetts border, and
these monitors recorded SO2 design
values ranging between 2% and 19% of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air
quality data do not, by themselves,
indicate any particular location that
would warrant further investigation
with respect to SO2 emission sources
that might significantly contribute to
nonattainment in neighboring states.
However, the monitoring network is not
necessarily designed to find all
locations of high SO2 concentrations.
Therefore, this observation indicates an
absence of evidence of impact at
monitored locations, but is not
sufficient evidence by itself of an
absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring and downwind states.
Given this, the EPA has also conducted
a source-oriented analysis.
As mentioned previously, the EPA
finds that it is appropriate to examine
the impacts of emissions from stationary
sources in Massachusetts in distances
ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the
source. The EPA assessed point sources
up to 50 km from state borders to
evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations
in area-wide air quality. The list of
sources with 2015 emissions equal to or
greater than 100 tpy 7 SO2 within 50 km
from Massachusetts borders is shown in
Table 2, based on Massachusetts’s
submission. The EPA has also included
2017 SO2 emissions for those sources in
the table, which were collected from
MassDEP and transmitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).
TABLE 2—MASSACHUSETTS SO2 SOURCES GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING AND DOWNWIND STATES
2015 SO2
emissions
(tons)
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Massachusetts source
Distance to
Massachusetts
border
(km)
2017 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Brayton Point Energy LLC (shut
down in May 2017).
1,446
552
2
Mystic Station ....................................
729
354
39
SEMASS Partnership ........................
192
301
32
Solutia Inc (ceased burning coal as
of December 2016).
Veolia Energy Boston Inc .................
523
0
13
117
0
43
7 Massachusetts limited its analysis to
Massachusetts sources of SO2 emitting at least 100
tpy in 2015. We agree with Massachusetts’s choice
to limit its analysis in this way, because in the
absence of special factors, for example the presence
of a nearby larger source or unusual factors,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Distance (km)
to nearest neighboring state SO2
source emitting over 100 tons in
2017
150 (Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) Schiller Station—
Portsmouth, New Hampshire).
82 (PSNH Schiller Station—Portsmouth, New Hampshire).
140 (PSNH Schiller Station—Portsmouth, New Hampshire).
104 (Monadnock Paper Mills Inc—
Bennington, New Hampshire).
85 (PSNH Schiller Station—Portsmouth, New Hampshire).
Massachusetts sources emitting less than 100 tpy
can appropriately be assumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the
NAAQS. The EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh
Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy SO2, with the next highest
source (Wheelabrator Saugus Inc) emitting 54 tpy
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2017 emissions (tons) for
the nearest
neighboring or
downwind
state source
emitting over
100 tons *
263
263
263
101
263
SO2. Ardagh Glass Inc. has permanently ceased
operations as of September 26, 2018. Given these
facts, the EPA finds MassDEP’s analysis of SO2
sources above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2
transport impacts to neighboring and downwind
states.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
38902
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—MASSACHUSETTS SO2 SOURCES GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING AND DOWNWIND STATES—
Continued
2017 SO2
emissions
(tons)
2015 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Massachusetts source
Wheelabrator Millbury Inc .................
224
Distance to
Massachusetts
border
(km)
187
20
Distance (km)
to nearest neighboring state SO2
source emitting over 100 tons in
2017
88 (PSNH Schiller Station—Portsmouth, New Hampshire).
2017 emissions (tons) for
the nearest
neighboring or
downwind
state source
emitting over
100 tons *
263
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Emissions data were obtained using the EPA’s 2017 NEI Draft.
Table 2 shows the distance from each
Massachusetts source emitting at least
100 tpy SO2 in 2015 to the nearest outof-state source emitting at least 100 tpy
of SO2 in 2017. As shown, six facilities
in Massachusetts are within 50 km of
the border with another state and are at
a distance of 82 km or greater from the
nearest out-of-state SO2 source emitting
over 100 tpy. The nearest SO2 source
emitting greater than 100 tpy in
Massachusetts to a neighboring state,
Brayton Point Energy LLC (2 km from
Rhode Island), permanently ceased
operations on May 31, 2017. Solutia Inc
(13 km from Connecticut) converted its
coal-fired unit to natural gas in 2016
and is no longer permitted to burn fuels
that would result in emissions equal to
or greater than 100 tpy. The EPA has
reviewed the data Massachusetts
submitted and agrees with the
determination that the closure of
Brayton Point Energy LLC and fuel
switching at Solutia Inc have
significantly lowered SO2 emissions in
Massachusetts and are not having
downwind impacts in violation of
prongs 1 and 2.
For the remaining active
Massachusetts point sources emitting
over 100 tpy of SO2, i.e., Mystic Station,
SEMASS Partnership, Veolia Energy
Boston Inc, and Wheelabrator Millbury
Inc, the nearest SO2 source in a
neighboring state is PSNH Schiller
Station in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
The EPA has assessed potential SO2
impacts from Massachusetts sources on
the New Hampshire area with SO2
sources near the Massachusetts border,
specifically the Portsmouth, New
Hampshire area and the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area, by
examining monitoring and modeling
information. These assessments are
presented as follows for the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area and the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire area.
First, the EPA assessed information
presented by Massachusetts regarding
the State’s impacts in the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Massachusetts reviewed potential SO2
impacts on the Central New Hampshire
area, which includes parts of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and
Rockingham counties, and was
designated as a nonattainment area for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 5,
2013. The nonattainment designation
was related to a monitored violation of
the NAAQS at a monitoring station in
Pembroke, New Hampshire and caused
primarily by SO2 emissions from nearby
Merrimack Generating Station in Bow,
New Hampshire.8 The Merrimack
Generating Station facility installed an
emissions control system in response to
a New Hampshire requirement, and the
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NH DES)
established stringent emissions limits
and other conditions for the facility on
September 1, 2016. New Hampshire
submitted an attainment plan for the
Central New Hampshire area on January
31, 2017, which relied mainly on the
emissions limits and other conditions
established for the facility, and the EPA
approved that plan on June 5, 2018.9
New Hampshire’s attainment plan and
demonstration relies on air dispersion
modeling of the 1-hour critical emission
value shown to be equivalent to the
federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating
day allowable emissions limit for the
Merrimack Generating Station, in
addition to monitored background
concentrations. These measured
background concentrations account for
contributions from Massachusetts. The
New Hampshire modeling analysis
demonstrated that allowable emissions
from Merrimack Generating Station, in
addition to the background levels, will
not cause a violation of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. The attainment plan did not
require any reductions from
8 40 CFR part 81 Air Quality Designations for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (78 FR 47191,
August 5, 2013).
9 See the EPA’s final action on the Central New
Hampshire Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR 25922 (June 5, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Massachusetts sources, and relied solely
on controls and limits at Merrimack
Generating Station to address the
nonattainment. Therefore, the EPA
concludes that sources in Massachusetts
do not contribute significantly to SO2
nonattainment in the Central New
Hampshire area.10
Second, the EPA has assessed
information, including both monitoring
and modeling information, for the area
around Portsmouth, New Hampshire
during the third round of SO2
designations.11 For monitoring
information, the EPA reviewed available
monitoring data in the Portsmouth, New
Hampshire area. There is one SO2
monitor (Site ID 33–015–0014—See
Table 1) in the area, located 4 km
southeast of PSNH Schiller Station. As
shown, this monitor recorded a design
value of 13 ppb from 2016–2018. This
design value indicates that SO2 levels
are low (17% of the NAAQS) in areas
of Portsmouth. An additional monitor
sited at Sawgrass Lane in Eliot, Maine
(Site ID 23–031–0009), was located 1.1
miles to the northeast of PSNH Schiller
Station and collected ambient SO2 data
from October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016.
The maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration observed from this
monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the
direction of PSNH Schiller Station and
the power plant was operating at nearmaximum capacity.12 While the
10 On July 31, 2019, the EPA published a proposal
to formally redesignate the Central New Hampshire
SO2 Nonattainment Area to attainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS (84 FR 37187).
11 A full assessment of New Hampshire’s
modeling for the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area
is provided in the technical support document for
the EPA’s intended Round 3 air quality
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR
41903, September 5, 2017).
12 The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an
area expected to experience peak SO2 impacts from
PSNH Schiller Station based on modeling
information submitted by the Town of Eliot.
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass
Lane monitoring study are described in the report,
‘‘Review of 2014–2016 Eliot, Maine Air Quality
Monitoring Study,’’ EPA, the Maine Department of
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Portsmouth SO2 monitor is not sited to
determine maximum impacts from
PSNH Schiller Station, the Sawgrass
Lane monitor measured combined
impacts from PSNH Schiller Station and
background concentrations for the area
that generally include contributions
from sources emitting upwind in
Massachusetts. Additionally,
Massachusetts noted air quality
modeling by the State of New
Hampshire. New Hampshire’s air
quality modeling indicates that
allowable emissions from PSNH Schiller
Station combined with background
levels that include contributions from
sources emitting SO2 in Massachusetts
will not cause a violation of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.13 The EPA has previously
evaluated that modeling and agrees that
the modeling supports Massachusetts’s
conclusion. Therefore, the EPA
concludes that sources in Massachusetts
would not contribute significantly to
SO2 nonattainment in the Portsmouth,
New Hampshire area.
The EPA also reviewed sources in
neighboring and downwind states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and
located within 50 km of the
Massachusetts border (see Table 3). This
is because elevated SO2 levels, to which
an SO2 source in Massachusetts may
contribute, are most likely to be found
38903
near such sources. Massachusetts based
its analysis on 2015 SO2 emissions, and
the EPA has included updated 2017
emissions as part of the weight of
evidence analysis. As shown in Table 3,
the shortest distance between a source
emitting at least 100 tpy SO2 in
Massachusetts and one in another state
is 82 km. Given the localized range of
potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, this
indicates that there are no additional
locations in neighboring and downwind
states that would warrant further
investigation with respect to
Massachusetts SO2 emission sources
that might contribute to problems with
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
TABLE 3—NEIGHBORING AND DOWNWIND STATE SO2 SOURCES GREATER THAN 100 TPY AND WITHIN 50 KM OF
MASSACHUSETTS
2015 SO2
emissions
(tons) *
Source
Lafarge North America—Ravena
(Ravena, New York).
Monadnock
Paper
Mills
Inc
(Bennington, New Hampshire).
Norlite Corp (Cohoes, New York) .....
Northeast
Solite
Corporation
(Glasco, New York).
PSNH—Merrimack Station (Bow,
New Hampshire).
PSNH—Newington
Station
(Newington, New Hampshire).
PSNH—Schiller Station (Portsmouth,
New Hampshire).
Distance to
Massachusetts
border
(km)
2017 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Distance to nearest Massachusetts
SO2 source greater than 100 tpy
(km)
Massachusetts
source 2015
emissions
(tons)
4,806
63
36
107 (Solutia Inc—Springfield) ..........
523
† 80
101
36
224
†† 117
†† 222
60
303
34
39
88 (Wheelabrator Millbury Inc—
Millbury).
117 (Solutia Inc—Springfield) ..........
121 (Solutia Inc—Springfield) ..........
523
523
636
144
49
90 (Mystic Station—Everett) ............
729
294
41
25
82 (Mystic Station—Everett) ............
729
858
263
26
82 (Mystic Station—Everett) ............
729
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* Data retrieved, unless otherwise noted, by the EPA from its Emissions Inventory System gateway, available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway, on July 22, 2019 for 2015 emissions as submitted by MassDEP, New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), and Connecticut Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection.
† Emissions data reported by NHDES.
†† Emissions data reported by NYDEC.
The EPA also assessed previous
modeling information available for the
Lafarge North America—Ravena facility
in Ravena, New York. This modeling
information was available based on the
technical support document for the
EPA’s intended Round 3 air quality
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017). The
Lafarge North America—Ravena facility
had its kiln replaced in 2016, resulting
in considerably lower emissions than
those emitted prior to the kiln
replacement. The Lafarge North
America—Ravena facility was modeled
using new allowable emissions rather
than previous actual emissions and the
modeling indicated the area around the
facility would not violate the NAAQS.
New York’s modeling, which the EPA
found accurately characterized air
quality in the area of analysis, included
monitored background concentrations
for the area. Based on this information,
the EPA concludes that combined
impacts from Lafarge North America—
Ravena and background levels will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS.
Massachusetts asserted that because
there are no large sources of SO2
emissions that significantly affect any
neighboring state, and because
monitored SO2 levels in Massachusetts
and adjacent states are substantially
below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, sources in
Massachusetts do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment areas in any
neighboring states. The EPA agrees with
this conclusion.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 1, the EPA reviewed ambient SO2
monitoring data and SO2 emission
Environmental Protection, and NH DES (September
2016).
13 See EPA’s final action of New Hampshire’s SIP
revision at 83 FR 64470 (December 17, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sources both within Massachusetts and
in neighboring and downwind states.
Based on this analysis, the EPA
proposes to determine that
Massachusetts will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
C. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation—
Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS
The EPA has reviewed available
information on SO2 air quality and
emission trends to evaluate the
Commonwealth’s conclusion that
Massachusetts will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states.
The EPA interprets CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to require an
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
38904
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of the potential impact of a
state’s emissions on areas that are
currently measuring clean data, but that
may have issues maintaining that air
quality, rather than only former
nonattainment areas (and thus current
maintenance areas). Therefore, in
addition to the analysis presented by
Massachusetts, the EPA has also
reviewed additional information on SO2
air quality and emission trends to
evaluate the Commonwealth’s
conclusion that Massachusetts will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This
evaluation builds on the analysis
regarding significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically,
because of the low monitored ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Massachusetts
and neighboring and downwind states,
the EPA is proposing to find that SO2
levels in neighboring states near the
Massachusetts border do not indicate
any inability to maintain the SO2
NAAQS that could be attributed in part
to sources in Massachusetts.
As shown in Table 1 in section III.B.
of this notice, the EPA reviewed 2016–
2018 SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors with data sufficient to produce
valid 1-hour SO2 design values in
Massachusetts and neighboring states.
There are no violating monitored design
values in Massachusetts or neighboring
or downwind states.
Table 4 shows emission trends for
Massachusetts along with neighboring
and downwind states (Connecticut,
Maine, New Hampshire, New York,
Rhode Island, and Vermont).
TABLE 4—STATEWIDE SO2 DATA (tpy) FOR MASSACHUSETTS AND NEIGHBORING AND DOWNWIND STATES
State
2000
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Massachusetts .....................................................................
Connecticut ..........................................................................
Maine ...................................................................................
New Hampshire ...................................................................
New York .............................................................................
Rhode Island ........................................................................
Vermont ................................................................................
As shown in Table 4, the statewide
SO2 emissions from Massachusetts and
neighboring and downwind states have
decreased substantially over time, per
the EPA’s review of emissions trends
data for these states.14 From 2000 to
2017, total statewide SO2 emissions
decreased by the following proportions:
Massachusetts (93% decrease),
Connecticut (81% decrease), Maine
(82% decrease), New Hampshire (91%
decrease), New York (93% decrease),
Rhode Island (62% decrease), and
Vermont (84%). This trend of
decreasing SO2 emissions does not by
itself demonstrate that areas in
Massachusetts and neighboring states
will not have issues maintaining the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece
of this weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides further indication
(when considered alongside low
monitor values in neighboring states)
that such maintenance issues are
unlikely. This is because the geographic
scope of these reductions and their large
sizes strongly suggest that they are not
transient effects from reversible causes,
and thus these reductions suggest there
is very low likelihood that a strong
upward trend in emissions will occur
that might cause areas presently in
attainment to violate the NAAQS.
As noted in Massachusetts’s
submission, sources of SO2 emissions
will be addressed by Massachusetts’s
14 Additional emissions trends data are available
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
2005
208,146
60,309
57,906
68,768
543,868
8,976
9,438
139,937
34,638
32,397
63,634
386,568
7,356
7,038
SIP-approved SO2 control programs.
These programs include the low sulfur
fuel rule, emissions standards for power
plants, SO2 limits on municipal waste
combustors, and a statewide permitting
program. The low sulfur fuel rule
reduces the sulfur content of oil
combusted in stationary sources and
requires the use of low sulfur fuel for
large stationary engines and turbines
based on EPA requirements for diesel
fuel.15 Massachusetts notes in the
submission that sulfur emissions from
stationary sources will continue to
decrease over time due to MassDEP’s
fuel rule. The State’s Emissions
Standards for Power Plants regulation
establishes a facility-wide rolling 12month SO2 emissions rate of 3.0 pounds
per megawatt-hour and a monthly
average emissions rate of 6.0 pounds per
megawatt-hour.16 The State’s 310 CMR
7.08 regulations establish limits on
municipal waste combustors and
requires such facilities to establish
emission control plans and places limits
on SO2.17 MassDEP’s statewide
permitting program establishes a preconstruction Plan Approval for sources
that require Best Available Control
Technology for pollutants will be
emitted, including SO2, and ensures that
15 See the EPA’s final action of the regional haze
portions in Massachusetts’s SIP, at 78 FR 57487
(September 21, 2013).
16 Id.
17 See the EPA’s final action of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT) of nitrous
oxides in Massachusetts’s SIP, at 64 FR 48095,
September 13, 1999.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2010
2017
57,892
16,319
17,020
35,716
170,247
4,416
3,659
15,100
11,379
10,447
6,401
38,641
3,399
1,512
SO2 reduction,
2000–2017
(%)
93
81
82
91
93
62
84
projects requiring Plan Approvals will
limit SO2 emissions.18 These regulations
will help ensure that sulfur emissions
from stationary sources will continue to
decrease over time, and that new or
modified stationary sources in
Massachusetts will not cause
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 2, the EPA reviewed additional
information about emissions trends,
Massachusetts regulations that limit SO2
sources, and the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong
1. The EPA finds that the combination
of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, the distances between
cross-state SO2 sources, the downward
trend in SO2 emissions from
Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, and Massachusetts
regulations that limit SO2 sources
indicate no interference with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
from Massachusetts. Accordingly, the
EPA proposes to determine that
Massachusetts SO2 emissions sources
will not interfere with maintenance of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state,
per the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
18 See the EPA’s final action of the Massachusetts
‘‘U Restricted Emission Status’’ regulation into the
SIP, at 60 FR 17226, April 5, 1995. Massachusetts
has delegation of the Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program (See CFR 40
52.1165).
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Proposed Rules
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve
Massachusetts’s February 9, 2018
submission of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
meeting the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other
relevant matters. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
[FR Doc. 2019–17000 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0011; FRL–9997–
99–Region 3]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List: Partial
Deletion of the Novak Sanitary Landfill
Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 3 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the
groundwater portion of the Novak
Sanitary Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
located in South Whitehall Township,
Pennsylvania, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. The
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38905
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section
105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP),
have determined that all appropriate
response actions to address the
groundwater portion of the Site, other
than monitoring, operations and
maintenance and Five-Year Reviews
(FYRs), have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains only to
the groundwater portion of the Site. The
landfill and landfill gas components of
the Site will remain on the NPL and are
not being considered for deletion as part
of this action.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1989–0011, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
on-line instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, 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.
• Email: Remedial Project Manager:
arquines.rombel@epa.gov.
• Mail: Community Involvement
Coordinator: mandell.alexander@
epa.gov.
Rombel Arquines (3SD21), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38898-38905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353; FRL-9997-89-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
interstate transport SIP requirements, referred to as the good neighbor
provision, for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the CAA that
[[Page 38899]]
the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions from
Massachusetts from having certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of
the infrastructure SIP submission that certifies that the Massachusetts
SIP contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the
Commonwealth will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact 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. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hubbard, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suit 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1614, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis
A. Massachusetts's Analysis
B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
of the NAAQS
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ Whenever the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to
as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that
it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context
of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA has previously
provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions
through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and
through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\ Unless
otherwise noted below, we are following that existing approach in
acting on this submission. In addition, in the context of acting on
such infrastructure submissions, the EPA evaluates the submitting
state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA
has other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP. One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
\2\ The EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including the EPA's
prior action on Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP to address the
1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS (see 81 FR 93627, December 21, 2016).
\3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which
are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the February 9,
2018 Massachusetts submission, which certifies that the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP contains adequate provisions related to prong 1 and
prong 2, i.e., to ensure that air emissions in the Commonwealth will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS have been addressed in a separate rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the EPA's final action on other elements of
Massachusetts's SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 81 FR 93627
(December 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and the
precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
[[Page 38900]]
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the
transport of Pb relative to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of
SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant impacts of possible
concern only near the emissions source. However, ambient 1-hour
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with
distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb,
because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as
are Pb particles and because SO2 typically has a higher
emissions release height than Pb. Emitted SO2 has wider
ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging
impacts that treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5
would be appropriate. Accordingly, while the approaches that the EPA
has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally
focused, the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to
the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and
requires a different approach.
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on a 50 km-wide zone
because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA
selected the ``urban scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to
50 kilometers (km) from point sources--given the usefulness of that
range in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the
effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point
sources.\5\ Furthermore, the American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the EPA's
preferred modeling platform for regulatory purposes for near-field
dispersion of emissions for distances up to 50 km (Appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51). As such, the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from
point sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air quality that
might impact downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, and 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section III of this proposed action, the EPA first
reviewed Massachusetts's analysis to assess how the Commonwealth
evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of
information the Commonwealth used in the analysis, and the conclusions
drawn by the Commonwealth. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, including review of the Massachusetts submission and other
available information, including ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, and emission trends within the
Commonwealth and neighboring states to which it could potentially
contribute or interfere.
III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis
In this section, we provide an overview of Massachusetts's 2010
SO2 transport analysis included in its February 9, 2018
submission that addresses the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as the EPA's evaluation of prongs 1
and 2.
A. Massachusetts's Analysis
Massachusetts conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine
whether SO2 emissions from Massachusetts significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts
evaluated air monitoring data from ambient air monitoring stations in
Massachusetts, as well in neighboring and downwind states.
Massachusetts assessed whether SO2 emissions from sources
located within 50 km of Massachusetts's borders may have contributed
significantly to nonattainment or interfered with maintenance in
neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts's analysis included
source-specific SO2 emissions data from Massachusetts
sources located within 50 km of Massachusetts's border and having
SO2 emissions over 100 tons per year (tpy). Massachusetts
included the most recent stationary source SO2 emissions
data, which was from 2015. These sources included: Brayton Point Energy
LLC (1446 tpy SO2, located 2 km from the Rhode Island
border), which shutdown in 2017; Mystic Station (729 tpy
SO2, located 39 km from the New Hampshire border); Solutia
Inc (523 tpy SO2, located 13 km from the Connecticut
border), which permanently switched from coal to natural gas in 2016;
NRG Canal LLC (492 tpy SO2, located 53 km to Rhode Island
border); Wheelabrator Millbury Inc (224 tpy SO2, located 20
km from the Connecticut border); SEMASS Partnership (192 tpy
SO2, located 32 km to the Rhode Island border); and Veolia
Energy Boston Inc (117 tpy SO2, located 43 km from the New
Hampshire border).
The largest SO2 point source in Massachusetts, Brayton
Point Energy LLC, permanently ceased operations in 2017. Massachusetts
noted that SO2 emissions have declined in the last 15 years,
and that SO2 levels at all monitors in the Commonwealth are
below the 75 ppb SO2 NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) certifies that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
neighboring state.
B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
The EPA has analyzed the ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, distance from neighboring states, and
emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states,
i.e., Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.\6\ Based on that analysis and discussed in greater detail
below, the EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts's SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prong 1 for the 2010 NAAQS, and Massachusetts will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For this analysis, though Maine does not share a border with
Massachusetts, the EPA is analyzing SO2 transport impacts
of Massachusetts sources on ambient air in Maine, because Maine is
located approximately 24 km from Massachusetts at its nearest point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 includes the most recent air quality design value for each
active SO2 monitor in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or
downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border. These monitors
were reviewed to see if there are any sites that show elevated
SO2 concentrations which may warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from
Massachusetts emission sources near any given monitor.
[[Page 38901]]
Table 1--SO2 Monitor Values in Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to 2016-2018
State/city or town Site ID Massachusetts design value
border (km) * (ppb)[dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut/Cornwall............................................ 09-005-0005 25 2
Massachusetts/Fall River........................................ 25-005-1004 2 7
Massachusetts/Ware.............................................. 25-015-4002 31 3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................ 25-025-0002 41 3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................ 25-025-0042 43 4
Massachusetts/Worcester......................................... 25-027-0023 26 4
New Hampshire/Peterborough...................................... 33-011-5001 18 2
New Hampshire/Suncook........................................... 33-013-1006 46 14
New Hampshire/Portsmouth........................................ 33-015-0014 24 13
New Hampshire/Londonderry....................................... 33-015-0018 17 3
New York/Loudonville............................................ 36-001-0012 41 3
New York/Millbrook.............................................. 36-027-0007 36 2
Rhode Island/East Providence.................................... 44-007-1010 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
[dagger] Data retrieved from the EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report on July
24, 2019.
As seen in the Table 1, there are no violating monitored design
values in Massachusetts or neighboring or downwind states. The data
presented in Table 1 show that Massachusetts's network of
SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour
SO2 design values that monitored 1-hour SO2
levels in Massachusetts range between 4% and 10% of the 75 ppb level of
the NAAQS. As shown above, all five Massachusetts SO2
monitors are located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border.
Seven monitors with data sufficient to calculate a design value for the
2016-2018 period in neighboring or downwind states are located within
50 km of the Massachusetts border, and these monitors recorded
SO2 design values ranging between 2% and 19% of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by
themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring states.
However, the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all
locations of high SO2 concentrations. Therefore, this
observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at monitored
locations, but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of
impact at all locations in the neighboring and downwind states. Given
this, the EPA has also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
As mentioned previously, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in
Massachusetts in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the source.
The EPA assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to
evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality. The list of sources with 2015 emissions equal to or greater
than 100 tpy \7\ SO2 within 50 km from Massachusetts borders
is shown in Table 2, based on Massachusetts's submission. The EPA has
also included 2017 SO2 emissions for those sources in the
table, which were collected from MassDEP and transmitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Massachusetts limited its analysis to Massachusetts sources
of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy in 2015. We agree with
Massachusetts's choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in
the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby
larger source or unusual factors, Massachusetts sources emitting
less than 100 tpy can appropriately be assumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS. The
EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy
SO2, with the next highest source (Wheelabrator Saugus
Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh Glass Inc. has
permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given these
facts, the EPA finds MassDEP's analysis of SO2 sources
above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2 transport
impacts to neighboring and downwind states.
Table 2--Massachusetts SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 emissions
Distance (km) (tons) for the
to nearest nearest
2015 SO2 2017 SO2 Distance to neighboring neighboring or
Massachusetts source emissions emissions Massachusetts state SO2 source downwind state
(tons) (tons) border (km) emitting over source
100 tons in 2017 emitting over
100 tons *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brayton Point Energy LLC (shut 1,446 552 2 150 (Public 263
down in May 2017). Service of New
Hampshire
(PSNH) Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
Mystic Station................ 729 354 39 82 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
SEMASS Partnership............ 192 301 32 140 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
Solutia Inc (ceased burning 523 0 13 104 (Monadnock 101
coal as of December 2016). Paper Mills
Inc--Bennington
, New
Hampshire).
Veolia Energy Boston Inc...... 117 0 43 85 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
[[Page 38902]]
Wheelabrator Millbury Inc..... 224 187 20 88 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data were obtained using the EPA's 2017 NEI Draft.
Table 2 shows the distance from each Massachusetts source emitting
at least 100 tpy SO2 in 2015 to the nearest out-of-state
source emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017. As shown,
six facilities in Massachusetts are within 50 km of the border with
another state and are at a distance of 82 km or greater from the
nearest out-of-state SO2 source emitting over 100 tpy. The
nearest SO2 source emitting greater than 100 tpy in
Massachusetts to a neighboring state, Brayton Point Energy LLC (2 km
from Rhode Island), permanently ceased operations on May 31, 2017.
Solutia Inc (13 km from Connecticut) converted its coal-fired unit to
natural gas in 2016 and is no longer permitted to burn fuels that would
result in emissions equal to or greater than 100 tpy. The EPA has
reviewed the data Massachusetts submitted and agrees with the
determination that the closure of Brayton Point Energy LLC and fuel
switching at Solutia Inc have significantly lowered SO2
emissions in Massachusetts and are not having downwind impacts in
violation of prongs 1 and 2.
For the remaining active Massachusetts point sources emitting over
100 tpy of SO2, i.e., Mystic Station, SEMASS Partnership,
Veolia Energy Boston Inc, and Wheelabrator Millbury Inc, the nearest
SO2 source in a neighboring state is PSNH Schiller Station
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The EPA has assessed potential
SO2 impacts from Massachusetts sources on the New Hampshire
area with SO2 sources near the Massachusetts border,
specifically the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area and the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area, by examining monitoring and modeling
information. These assessments are presented as follows for the Central
New Hampshire nonattainment area and the Portsmouth, New Hampshire
area.
First, the EPA assessed information presented by Massachusetts
regarding the State's impacts in the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area. Massachusetts reviewed potential SO2
impacts on the Central New Hampshire area, which includes parts of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham counties, and was designated as
a nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 5,
2013. The nonattainment designation was related to a monitored
violation of the NAAQS at a monitoring station in Pembroke, New
Hampshire and caused primarily by SO2 emissions from nearby
Merrimack Generating Station in Bow, New Hampshire.\8\ The Merrimack
Generating Station facility installed an emissions control system in
response to a New Hampshire requirement, and the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) established stringent
emissions limits and other conditions for the facility on September 1,
2016. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the Central New
Hampshire area on January 31, 2017, which relied mainly on the
emissions limits and other conditions established for the facility, and
the EPA approved that plan on June 5, 2018.\9\ New Hampshire's
attainment plan and demonstration relies on air dispersion modeling of
the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent to the
federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions limit
for the Merrimack Generating Station, in addition to monitored
background concentrations. These measured background concentrations
account for contributions from Massachusetts. The New Hampshire
modeling analysis demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack
Generating Station, in addition to the background levels, will not
cause a violation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The attainment
plan did not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and
relied solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to
address the nonattainment. Therefore, the EPA concludes that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute significantly to SO2
nonattainment in the Central New Hampshire area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR part 81 Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013).
\9\ See the EPA's final action on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR
25922 (June 5, 2018).
\10\ On July 31, 2019, the EPA published a proposal to formally
redesignate the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment
Area to attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (84 FR 37187).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the EPA has assessed information, including both monitoring
and modeling information, for the area around Portsmouth, New Hampshire
during the third round of SO2 designations.\11\ For
monitoring information, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data in
the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area. There is one SO2 monitor
(Site ID 33-015-0014--See Table 1) in the area, located 4 km southeast
of PSNH Schiller Station. As shown, this monitor recorded a design
value of 13 ppb from 2016-2018. This design value indicates that
SO2 levels are low (17% of the NAAQS) in areas of
Portsmouth. An additional monitor sited at Sawgrass Lane in Eliot,
Maine (Site ID 23-031-0009), was located 1.1 miles to the northeast of
PSNH Schiller Station and collected ambient SO2 data from
October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the direction of PSNH Schiller Station and
the power plant was operating at near-maximum capacity.\12\ While the
[[Page 38903]]
Portsmouth SO2 monitor is not sited to determine maximum
impacts from PSNH Schiller Station, the Sawgrass Lane monitor measured
combined impacts from PSNH Schiller Station and background
concentrations for the area that generally include contributions from
sources emitting upwind in Massachusetts. Additionally, Massachusetts
noted air quality modeling by the State of New Hampshire. New
Hampshire's air quality modeling indicates that allowable emissions
from PSNH Schiller Station combined with background levels that include
contributions from sources emitting SO2 in Massachusetts
will not cause a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\13\ The
EPA has previously evaluated that modeling and agrees that the modeling
supports Massachusetts's conclusion. Therefore, the EPA concludes that
sources in Massachusetts would not contribute significantly to
SO2 nonattainment in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A full assessment of New Hampshire's modeling for the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire area is provided in the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017).
\12\ The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area expected to
experience peak SO2 impacts from PSNH Schiller Station
based on modeling information submitted by the Town of Eliot.
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass Lane monitoring
study are described in the report, ``Review of 2014-2016 Eliot,
Maine Air Quality Monitoring Study,'' EPA, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, and NH DES (September 2016).
\13\ See EPA's final action of New Hampshire's SIP revision at
83 FR 64470 (December 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed sources in neighboring and downwind states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Massachusetts border (see Table 3). This is because elevated
SO2 levels, to which an SO2 source in
Massachusetts may contribute, are most likely to be found near such
sources. Massachusetts based its analysis on 2015 SO2
emissions, and the EPA has included updated 2017 emissions as part of
the weight of evidence analysis. As shown in Table 3, the shortest
distance between a source emitting at least 100 tpy SO2 in
Massachusetts and one in another state is 82 km. Given the localized
range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, this indicates that
there are no additional locations in neighboring and downwind states
that would warrant further investigation with respect to Massachusetts
SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Table 3--Neighboring and Downwind State SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 tpy and Within 50 km of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to
nearest Massachusetts
2015 SO2 2017 SO2 Distance to Massachusetts source 2015
Source emissions emissions Massachusetts SO2 source emissions
(tons) * (tons) border (km) greater than 100 (tons)
tpy (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America--Ravena 4,806 63 36 107 (Solutia 523
(Ravena, New York). Inc--Springfiel
d).
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc [dagger] 80 101 36 88 (Wheelabrator 224
(Bennington, New Hampshire). Millbury Inc--
Millbury).
Norlite Corp (Cohoes, New [dagger][dagge 60 34 117 (Solutia 523
York). r] 117 Inc--Springfiel
d).
Northeast Solite Corporation [dagger][dagge 303 39 121 (Solutia 523
(Glasco, New York). r] 222 Inc--Springfiel
d).
PSNH--Merrimack Station (Bow, 636 144 49 90 (Mystic 729
New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
PSNH--Newington Station 294 41 25 82 (Mystic 729
(Newington, New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
PSNH--Schiller Station 858 263 26 82 (Mystic 729
(Portsmouth, New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data retrieved, unless otherwise noted, by the EPA from its Emissions Inventory System gateway, available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway, on July 22, 2019 for
2015 emissions as submitted by MassDEP, New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection.
[dagger] Emissions data reported by NHDES.
[dagger][dagger] Emissions data reported by NYDEC.
The EPA also assessed previous modeling information available for
the Lafarge North America--Ravena facility in Ravena, New York. This
modeling information was available based on the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017). The
Lafarge North America--Ravena facility had its kiln replaced in 2016,
resulting in considerably lower emissions than those emitted prior to
the kiln replacement. The Lafarge North America--Ravena facility was
modeled using new allowable emissions rather than previous actual
emissions and the modeling indicated the area around the facility would
not violate the NAAQS. New York's modeling, which the EPA found
accurately characterized air quality in the area of analysis, included
monitored background concentrations for the area. Based on this
information, the EPA concludes that combined impacts from Lafarge North
America--Ravena and background levels will not cause a violation of the
NAAQS.
Massachusetts asserted that because there are no large sources of
SO2 emissions that significantly affect any neighboring
state, and because monitored SO2 levels in Massachusetts and
adjacent states are substantially below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
sources in Massachusetts do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment areas in any neighboring states. The EPA agrees with this
conclusion.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, the EPA reviewed
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Massachusetts and in neighboring and downwind
states. Based on this analysis, the EPA proposes to determine that
Massachusetts will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion
that Massachusetts will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
The EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to
require an
[[Page 38904]]
evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that
are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment
areas (and thus current maintenance areas). Therefore, in addition to
the analysis presented by Massachusetts, the EPA has also reviewed
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission
trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion that Massachusetts
will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically,
because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2
in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the EPA is
proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near
the Massachusetts border do not indicate any inability to maintain the
SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in
Massachusetts.
As shown in Table 1 in section III.B. of this notice, the EPA
reviewed 2016-2018 SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values in Massachusetts and neighboring states. There are no
violating monitored design values in Massachusetts or neighboring or
downwind states.
Table 4 shows emission trends for Massachusetts along with
neighboring and downwind states (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island, and Vermont).
Table 4--Statewide SO2 Data (tpy) for Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
State 2000 2005 2010 2017 2000-2017 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts................... 208,146 139,937 57,892 15,100 93
Connecticut..................... 60,309 34,638 16,319 11,379 81
Maine........................... 57,906 32,397 17,020 10,447 82
New Hampshire................... 68,768 63,634 35,716 6,401 91
New York........................ 543,868 386,568 170,247 38,641 93
Rhode Island.................... 8,976 7,356 4,416 3,399 62
Vermont......................... 9,438 7,038 3,659 1,512 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4, the statewide SO2 emissions from
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states have decreased
substantially over time, per the EPA's review of emissions trends data
for these states.\14\ From 2000 to 2017, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by the following proportions: Massachusetts (93%
decrease), Connecticut (81% decrease), Maine (82% decrease), New
Hampshire (91% decrease), New York (93% decrease), Rhode Island (62%
decrease), and Vermont (84%). This trend of decreasing SO2
emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Massachusetts
and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope
of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they
are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these
reductions suggest there is very low likelihood that a strong upward
trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in
attainment to violate the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in Massachusetts's submission, sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Massachusetts's SIP-approved
SO2 control programs. These programs include the low sulfur
fuel rule, emissions standards for power plants, SO2 limits
on municipal waste combustors, and a statewide permitting program. The
low sulfur fuel rule reduces the sulfur content of oil combusted in
stationary sources and requires the use of low sulfur fuel for large
stationary engines and turbines based on EPA requirements for diesel
fuel.\15\ Massachusetts notes in the submission that sulfur emissions
from stationary sources will continue to decrease over time due to
MassDEP's fuel rule. The State's Emissions Standards for Power Plants
regulation establishes a facility-wide rolling 12-month SO2
emissions rate of 3.0 pounds per megawatt-hour and a monthly average
emissions rate of 6.0 pounds per megawatt-hour.\16\ The State's 310 CMR
7.08 regulations establish limits on municipal waste combustors and
requires such facilities to establish emission control plans and places
limits on SO2.\17\ MassDEP's statewide permitting program
establishes a pre-construction Plan Approval for sources that require
Best Available Control Technology for pollutants will be emitted,
including SO2, and ensures that projects requiring Plan
Approvals will limit SO2 emissions.\18\ These regulations
will help ensure that sulfur emissions from stationary sources will
continue to decrease over time, and that new or modified stationary
sources in Massachusetts will not cause exceedances of the
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See the EPA's final action of the regional haze portions in
Massachusetts's SIP, at 78 FR 57487 (September 21, 2013).
\16\ Id.
\17\ See the EPA's final action of the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) of nitrous oxides in Massachusetts's SIP,
at 64 FR 48095, September 13, 1999.
\18\ See the EPA's final action of the Massachusetts ``U
Restricted Emission Status'' regulation into the SIP, at 60 FR
17226, April 5, 1995. Massachusetts has delegation of the Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program (See CFR 40
52.1165).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA reviewed
additional information about emissions trends, Massachusetts
regulations that limit SO2 sources, and the technical
information considered for interstate transport prong 1. The EPA finds
that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, and Massachusetts regulations that limit
SO2 sources indicate no interference with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS from Massachusetts. Accordingly, the EPA
proposes to determine that Massachusetts SO2 emissions
sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
[[Page 38905]]
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts's February 9, 2018
submission of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-17000 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
