Air Plan Approval; MS; BART SIP and Regional Haze Progress Report, 47134-47151 [2020-16443]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47134
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Part Env-A 619.03 to satisfy 110(a)(2)(K)
and the PSD-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C),
and 110(a)(2)(J) of New Hampshire’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 and
2015 ozone NAAQS. If the State fails to
do so, this action will become a
disapproval one year from the date of
final approval. EPA will notify the State
by letter that this action has occurred.
At that time, this commitment will no
longer be a part of the approved New
Hampshire SIP. EPA subsequently will
publish a document in the Federal
Register notifying the public that the
conditional approval automatically
converted to a disapproval. If the State
meets its commitment, within the
applicable time frame, the conditionally
approved submission will remain a part
of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving the necessary
SIP revision. If EPA disapproves the
new submittal, the conditionally
approved section 110(a)(2)(K) and the
PSD-related requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C), and
110(a)(2)(J) of New Hampshire’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 and
2015 ozone NAAQS will also be
disapproved at that time. If EPA
approves the submittal, section
110(a)(2)(K) and the PSD-related
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), sub-element 2 of
110(a)(2)(C), and sub-element 3 of
110(a)(2)(J) of the state’s infrastructure
SIP the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS will be fully approved in their
entirety and will replace the
conditionally approved elements in the
SIP.
If EPA determines that it cannot issue
a final conditional approval or if the
conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval, such action will trigger
EPA’s authority to impose sanctions
under section 110(m) of the CAA at the
time EPA issues the final disapproval or
on the date the State fails to meet its
commitment. In the latter case, EPA will
notify the State by letter that the
conditional approval has been
converted to a disapproval and that
EPA’s sanctions authority has been
triggered. In addition, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
IV. 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, EPA’s role is to approve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 Orders12866 (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 (Public Law 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 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: July 17, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020–16011 Filed 8–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0447; FRL–10012–
92–Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; MS; BART SIP and
Regional Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, a draft
Mississippi State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision, submitted through a
letter dated April 23, 2020, addressing
best available retrofit technology
(BART) determinations for 14 electric
generating units (EGUs) (‘‘draft BART
SIP’’). These EGUs were initially
addressed in EPA’s prior limited
approval and limited disapproval
actions on Mississippi’s regional haze
SIP because of deficiencies arising from
the State’s reliance on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain
regional haze requirements. EPA
proposes to approve the draft BART SIP
and finds that it corrects the
deficiencies that led to the limited
approval and limited disapproval of the
State’s regional haze SIP; to withdraw
the limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIP; and to replace the prior
limited approval with a full approval of
the regional haze SIP as meeting all
regional haze requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the first
implementation period. In addition,
EPA is proposing to approve the State’s
first periodic report describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
the associated determination that the
State’s regional haze SIP is adequate to
meet these RPGs for the first
implementation period (‘‘Progress
Report’’). The State submitted the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
progress report as a SIP revision by
letter dated October 4, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2019–0447, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Notarianni or Gobeail
McKinley, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–
8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via
telephone at (404) 562–9031 or
electronic mail at notarianni.michele@
epa.gov. Ms. McKinley can be reached
via telephone at (404) 562–9230 or
electronic mail at mckinley.gobeail@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
completes its public comment process
and after EPA’s public comment process
has run, the state changes its final
submittal from the proposed submittal,
EPA evaluates those changes and
decides whether to publish another
NPRM in light of those changes or to
proceed to taking final action on its
proposed action and describe the state’s
changes in its final rulemaking action.
Any final rulemaking action by EPA
will occur only after the final submittal
has been adopted by the state and
formally provided to EPA.
In its previously submitted regional
haze SIP,2 the Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) relied
on CAIR 3 to meet BART requirements
for the 14 BART-eligible units, located
at seven facilities, formerly subject to
that trading program.4 Mississippi’s
newly submitted draft BART SIP
addresses BART for these EGUs in lieu
of relying on CAIR as an alternative to
BART. Because the draft BART SIP has
not yet completed the State’s public
notice-and-comment process,
Mississippi has requested that EPA
parallel process the SIP revision with
the State’s rulemaking proceedings.
Mississippi submitted the draft BART
SIP to EPA on April 23, 2020,5 and
noticed it for public comment on the
same date. The State’s public comment
period closed on May 23, 2020.
After Mississippi submits the final
BART SIP (including a response to all
public comments raised during the
State’s public participation process),
EPA will evaluate the submittal. If the
State changes the final submittal from
the draft BART SIP that EPA is
proposing to approve today, EPA will
evaluate those changes for significance.
If EPA finds any such changes to be
significant, then the Agency intends to
determine whether to re-propose based
on the revised submission or to proceed
to take final action on the BART SIP as
changed by the State.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Parallel Processing
Parallel processing refers to a process
that utilizes concurrent state and federal
proposed rulemaking actions. Generally,
the state submits a copy of the proposed
regulation or other revisions to EPA
before conducting its public hearing and
completing its public comment process
under state law. EPA reviews this
proposed state action and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
under federal law.1 If, after the state
1 Although not the case in this proposed
rulemaking, in some instances, EPA’s NPRM is
published in the Federal Register during the same
time frame that the state is holding its public
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
hearing and conducting its public comment
process. The state and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on both the
state action and federal action.
2 In this notice, EPA is using ‘‘regional haze SIP’’
and ‘‘regional haze plan’’ interchangeably.
3 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions in 27 eastern states (and the
District of Columbia), including Mississippi, that
contributed to downwind nonattainment or
interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) or the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS.
4 See 77 FR 38191 (June 27, 2012); 77 FR 33642
(June 7, 2012).
5 EPA received MDEQ’s April 23, 2020, draft
BART SIP on April 24, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47135
II. Background
A. Regional Haze and the Regional Haze
Plan
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX,
and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form PM2.5 which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment (i.e., light
scattering) reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects (including premature death,
heart attacks, irregular heartbeat,
aggravated asthma, decreased lung
function, and increased respiratory
symptoms) and mortality in humans
and contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range 6 in many Class I
areas 7 in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers (km), or about onehalf to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without anthropogenic
air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the
average visual range is less than 30 km,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35714,
35715 (July 1, 1999). CAA programs
6 Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against
the sky.
7 Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas
consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42
U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of
the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department
of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979); 40 CFR part 81
Subpart D. The extent of a mandatory Class I area
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as
park expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although
states and tribes may designate as Class I additional
areas which they consider visibility as an important
value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term
‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47136
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
have reduced emissions of haze-causing
pollution, lessening visibility
impairment and resulting in improved
average visual ranges.8
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in 156 national parks and wilderness
areas designated as mandatory Class I
federal areas. Congress added section
169B to the CAA in 1990 to address
regional haze issues, and EPA
subsequently promulgated the Regional
Haze Rule (RHR).9 The RHR established
a requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP which applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.10 Each jurisdiction was
required to submit a SIP addressing
regional haze requirements for the first
implementation period no later than
December 17, 2007.11
On September 22, 2008, Mississippi
submitted a SIP revision to address
regional haze in Class I areas impacted
by emissions from Mississippi and
subsequently amended that submittal on
May 9, 2011. As discussed further in
Section II.B.2, EPA finalized a limited
approval and a limited disapproval of
the Mississippi regional haze SIP in
June 2012 because of deficiencies 12 in
the regional haze SIP arising from the
State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements, including
BART.
B. BART
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
8 An interactive ‘‘story map’’ depicting efforts and
recent progress by EPA and states to improve
visibility at national parks and wilderness areas is
available at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
9 See 64 FR 35713 (July 1, 1990).
10 40 CFR 51.300(b).
11 40 CFR 51.308(b).
12 The deficiencies resulting from Mississippi’s
reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART relate to those
BART determinations and to the use of those
determinations as an element of the required longterm strategy for achieving RPGs. Mississippi’s
reliance on CAIR did not affect its reasonable
progress control analysis because the State
determined in its regional haze SIP that no controls
were necessary for reasonable progress given the
areas of influence and consultation with
neighboring states. See 77 FR 11879, 11888
(February 28, 2012) for further information on the
reasonable progress evaluation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology’’ as
determined by the state. On July 6,
2005, EPA published the Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40
CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states
in the BART evaluation process. Under
the RHR and the BART Guidelines, the
BART evaluation process consists of
three steps: (1) An identification of all
BART-eligible sources, (2) an
assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART,
and (3) a determination of the BART
controls.13 States must conduct BART
determinations for all ‘‘BART-eligible’’
sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area,
or in the alternative, adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than
BART. In making a BART determination
for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
plant with a total generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts, a state must
use the approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is generally
encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in other aspects.
In the first step of the BART
evaluation process, states are required to
identify all the BART-eligible sources
within their boundaries by utilizing the
three eligibility criteria in the Act and
the RHR: (1) One or more emission units
at the facility fit within one of the 26
categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s)
began operation on or after August 6,
1962, and was in existence on August 6,
1977; and (3) the potential emissions of
any visibility-impairing pollutant from
the units exceed 250 tons per year
(tpy).14 With respect to the third
criterion, states must address all
visibility-impairing pollutants emitted
by a BART-eligible source, which is the
collection of emissions units whose
potential to emit for a visibilityimpairing pollutant is greater than 250
tpy. The most significant visibility13 See
40 CFR 51.308(e); BART Guidelines, I.F.
CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), (g)(7); 40 CFR
51.301 (definition of ‘‘Existing stationary facility’’);
see also BART Guidelines, II.
14 See
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
particulate matter (PM).15 States should
use their best judgment in determining
whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.16 Sources that
meet all three criteria are BART-eligible.
The second phase of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
i.e., those sources that are subject to
BART. Section III of the BART
Guidelines allows states to exempt
BART-eligible sources from further
BART review (i.e., deem them not
subject to BART) via modeling and
emissions analyses demonstrating that
the sources may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in any Class I area.
For such sources, a state need not make
a BART determination.
For states using modeling to
determine whether single sources are
subject to BART, the BART Guidelines
note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether
the impact of a single source is
sufficient to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at a Class I area.17
Under the BART Guidelines, states may
select an exemption threshold value for
their BART modeling below which a
BART-eligible source would not be
expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area.
The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emissions sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Generally, the exemption
threshold set by the state should not be
higher than 0.5 deciview (dv).18 States
15 See
70 FR 39160.
BART Guidelines, II.A.3, III.A.2.
17 See BART Guidelines, III.A.3 (‘‘Option 1:
Individual Source Attribution Approach
(Dispersion Modeling)’’).
18 A dv is the unit of measurement on the dv
index scale for quantifying in a standard manner
human perceptions of visibility. See 40 CFR 51.301.
The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] single source
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or
more should be considered to ‘cause’ visibility
impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines also state that
‘‘the appropriate threshold for determining whether
a source ‘contributes to visibility impairment’ may
reasonably differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general
matter, any threshold that you use for determining
whether a source ‘contributes’ to visibility
16 See
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
are also free to use a lower threshold if,
for instance, they conclude that the
location of a large number of BARTeligible sources in proximity of a Class
I area justifies this approach.
Once a state has determined which
sources are subject to BART, the state
must determine BART for these sources
in the third and final step of the BART
evaluation process. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of
the CAA requires that states consider
the following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor, but must reasonably consider all
five factors.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emissions limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. See CAA section
169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source. See CAA
section 110(a)(2).
2. Draft BART SIP
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
a. Relationship to EPA’s Transport Rules
Like many other states formerly
subject to CAIR, Mississippi had relied
on CAIR in its regional haze SIP to meet
certain requirements of EPA’s RHR,
including BART requirements for
emissions of SO2 and NOX from its
BART-eligible EGUs in the State.19 This
reliance was consistent with EPA’s
regulations at the time that Mississippi
developed its regional haze SIP. See 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). However, in
2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) invalidated CAIR,
impairment should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews.’’ See BART Guidelines, III.A.1.
19 In addition to relying on CAIR to satisfy BART
SO2 and NOX requirements, these sources also
modeled their coars PM (PM10) emissions and
found that those emissions do not contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class 1 area. See 77 FR
11890.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
although it ultimately remanded the
rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve
the environmental benefits CAIR
provided. See North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
promulgated the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR
and issued Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in
CSAPR-subject states.20 Although
Mississippi was covered under CAIR’s
annual NOX and SO2 trading programs,
only CSAPR’s ozone-season NOX
program applied to the State. See 40
CFR 52.1284.21 Implementation of
CSAPR was scheduled to begin on
January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would
have superseded the CAIR program.
However, numerous parties filed
petitions for review of CSAPR, and at
the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued
an order staying CSAPR pending
resolution of the petitions and directing
EPA to continue to administer CAIR.
Order of December 30, 2011, in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302. EPA ultimately
began implementation of CSAPR on
January 1, 2015.22
During this same timeframe, EPA also
finalized a limited approval and a
limited disapproval of the Mississippi
regional haze SIP in June 2012 because
of deficiencies in the regional haze SIP
arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR
as an alternative to BART for the State’s
BART-eligible EGUs.23 See 77 FR 38191
(June 27, 2012) (limited approval); 77
FR 33642 (June 7, 2012) (limited
disapproval). In the limited disapproval
action, EPA did not subject Mississippi
to a FIP. Mississippi had requested that
EPA not issue a FIP and instead provide
the State with additional time to correct
the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP
through a SIP revision.24
Accordingly, Mississippi began
working on a new SIP submission to
address the limited disapproval of the
State’s regional haze SIP and the change
from CAIR and CSAPR. One important
20 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO
2
and NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the
Eastern United States that significantly contribute
to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
21 See also 76 FR 48208 (Mississippi FIP for 1997
ozone NAAQS); 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016)
(Mississippi FIP for 2008 ozone 8-hour ozone
NAAQS).
22 See 79 FR 71663.
23 The State’s analysis of reasonable progress
controls was not dependent on CAIR, and thus not
affected by CAIR’s invalidation. See 77 FR 11879,
11888 (February 28, 2012) (finding no controls were
necessary for reasonable progress given the areas of
influence and consultation with neighboring states).
24 See 77 FR 33654.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47137
impact of the transition from CAIR to
CSAPR was that Mississippi previously
relied on CAIR as an alternative to
BART for both SO2 and NOX because it
participated in trading programs for
both pollutants under CAIR; however,
because Mississippi is only part of the
CSAPR seasonal NOX program (and not
part of the SO2 program), it could not
rely on CSAPR to satisfy BART for SO2.
Thus, the State worked with the BARTeligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR
to determine how these facilities would
now address BART.25 These 14 BARTeligible units are located at the
following seven facilities:
• Cooperative Energy 26—Plant
Moselle (Plant Moselle);
• Cooperative Energy—R. D. Morrow
Sr. Generating Plant (Plant Morrow);
• Entergy Mississippi, Inc.—Baxter
Wilson Plant (Baxter Wilson);
• Entergy Mississippi, Inc.—Gerald
Andrus Plant (Gerald Andrus);
• Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Chevron (Plant Chevron);
• Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Daniel (Plant Daniel); and
• Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Watson (Plant Watson).
As explained further in Section III of
this notice, the draft BART SIP proposes
to find that these 14 BART-eligible
EGUs are exempt from BART because
visibility modeling and/or supplemental
analyses demonstrate that they are not
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area.
b. Pollutants Addressed
As described earlier, the BART
Guidelines direct states to address SO2,
NOX, and direct PM (including both
PM10 and PM2.5) emissions as visibilityimpairing pollutants, and to exercise
judgment in determining whether VOC
or NH3 emissions from a source impair
visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160.
Mississippi had previously determined
that VOC from anthropogenic sources
and NH3 from point sources are not
significant visibility-impairing
pollutants in Mississippi for the first
implementation period. The State
continues to rely on these findings in its
draft BART SIP. EPA previously
approved these findings in our earlier
limited approval, and the Agency is not
25 EPA previously approved the State’s
identification of BART-eligible sources in its
limited approval action. EPA is not reexamining
these BART-eligibility findings in this rulemaking,
and any comments on this issue are beyond the
scope of this notice.
26 Cooperative Energy was formerly known as
South Mississippi Electric Power Association.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47138
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
reexamining this issue in this
rulemaking.27
c. Dispersion Modeling Methodology
Consistent with the BART Guidelines,
Mississippi requested that each of its
seven BART-eligible facilities formerly
subject to CAIR develop and submit
dispersion modeling to assess the extent
of their contribution to visibility
impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
The BART Guidelines allow states to
use the CALPUFF 28 modeling system
(CALPUFF) or another appropriate
model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area,
and therefore, to determine whether an
individual source may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas
(i.e., whether it is subject to BART). The
BART Guidelines also recommend that
states develop a modeling protocol for
making individual source attributions.
The VISTAS states, including
Mississippi, developed a ‘‘Protocol for
the Application of CALPUFF for BART
Analyses’’ (VISTAS BART Modeling
Protocol).29 Mississippi, in coordination
with VISTAS, used this modeling
protocol to apply CALPUFF to
determine whether individual sources
in Mississippi were subject to or exempt
from BART. EPA previously approved
the use of this modeling methodology
by Mississippi,30 and the Agency
believes that the continued use of this
modeling methodology in the draft
BART SIP remains appropriate.
d. Contribution Threshold
In its prior regional haze submissions,
MDEQ used a contribution threshold of
0.5 dv for determining which BARTeligible units (including the 14 units
addressed by the draft BART SIP) are
subject to BART. EPA previously
approved the use of this 0.5 dv BART
contribution threshold, and the Agency
is not reexamining this issue in this
rulemaking.31
C. Progress Report Requirements
The RHR requires each state to submit
progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each mandatory
Class I area within the state and for each
Class I area outside the state which may
be affected by emissions from within the
state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h)
require a state to submit, at the same
time as each progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing regional haze plan. The
first progress report is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional
haze plan and must be submitted as a
SIP revision. Mississippi submitted its
progress report for the first
implementation period to EPA on
October 4, 2018.
III. Summary and EPA’s Evaluation of
Mississippi’s BART SIP
A. Summary of Mississippi’s BART SIP
The draft BART SIP sets forth MDEQ’s
subject-to-BART determinations for the
BART-eligible sources formerly subject
to CAIR, and finds that none of these
sources is subject to BART. Table 1
identifies these BART-eligible sources,
the highest modeled impact at the Class
I area nearest each source,32 and the
State’s determination regarding whether
the sources are subject to BART.
TABLE 1—MISSISSIPPI EGUS SUBJECT-TO-BART MODELING
Facility name
BART-eligible
units
Baxter Wilson ..............
Gerald Andrus .............
Plant Chevron .............
Plant Daniel .................
Plant Morrow ...............
Plant Moselle ..............
Plant Watson ...............
1, 2
1
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2
1, 2
3
4, 5
Maximum 24hour 98th
percentile
visibility
impact 33 (dv)
Nearest Class I Area
Breton Wilderness Area (Breton) (LA) ...............................
Caney Creek Wilderness Area (Caney Creek) (AR) .........
Breton (LA) .........................................................................
Breton (LA) .........................................................................
Breton (LA) .........................................................................
Breton (LA) .........................................................................
Breton (LA) .........................................................................
0.49*
0.15*
0.27
0.39
N/A**
0.05
0.44
Subject to BART?
No.
No.
No.
No.
N/A**.
No.
No.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* These visibility impacts for Baxter Wilson and Gerald Andrus are based on burning natural gas only as these facilities have removed the ability to burn fuel oil at Unit 1 for each facility. In addition, as explained further below, the visibility impact for Baxter Wilson was modeled based on
emissions from both Unit 1 and Unit 2, but Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson has since been removed.
** ‘‘N/A’’ indicates that there is no visibility impact from Plant Morrow Units 1 and 2 because these BART-eligible units were removed from
service.
27 See 77 FR 11887–88 (discussing analysis by the
State and the Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)).
28 EPA’s reference to CALPUFF encompasses the
entire CALPUFF modeling system, which includes
the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST models
and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions
of CALMET, CALPOST, etc. which may not be
compatible with previous versions (e.g., the output
from a newer version of CALMET may not be
compatible with an older version of CALPUFF). The
different versions of the CALPUFF modeling system
are available from the model developer at: https://
www.src.com/calpuff/download/download.htm.
29 The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol,
December 22, 2005, Revision 3.2 (August 31, 2006),
is included in Appendix L.8 of the BART SIP.
30 See 77 FR 11888–89.
31 The factors supporting the Agency’s original
approval of the 0.5 dv BART contribution threshold
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
have not changed. See 77 FR 11889 (Feb. 28, 2012).
In fact, there are now fewer BART-eligible sources
(due to the removal of all BART-eligible units at
Plant Morrow and Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson) and less
visibility-impairing pollutants emitted from BARTeligible sources than existed in the record at the
time of EPA’s earlier limited approval (due to SO2
scrubbers installed at Plant Daniel and removal of
fuel oil burning capabilities for Unit 1 at Gerald
Andrus and Unit 1 at Baxter Wilson). These
changes are discussed further in Section III of this
notice.
32 MDEQ followed the VISTAS BART Modeling
protocol which specifies that BART exemption
modeling should be performed for Class I areas
located within 300 km of each BART-eligible
source. The Class I areas listed in Table 1 are the
only Class I areas located within 300 km of each
BART-eligible source with the exception of Baxter
Wilson, which has no Class I areas within 300 km
and is located 310 km from Breton.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33 EPA’s BART Guidelines recommend comparing
visibility improvements between control options
using the 98th percentile of 24-hour delta dv, which
is equivalent to the facility’s 8th highest visibility
impact day. See 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005). The
98th percentile is recommended rather than the
maximum value to allow for uncertainty in the
modeled impacts and to avoid undue influence
from unusual meteorological conditions. The
‘‘delta’’ refers to the difference between total dv
impact from the facility plus natural background,
and dv of natural background alone, so ‘‘delta
deciviews’’ is the estimate of the facility’s impact
relative to natural visibility conditions. The
VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol interprets EPA’s
recommended use of the 98th percentile value as
the highest of the three annual 98th percentile
values at a particular Class I area or the 22nd
highest value in the combined 3-year period,
whichever is more conservative (p.14).
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The original modeling for each of
these plants was generally performed in
the early 2010s, using data from an
earlier period (e.g., 2001–03 or 2003–05)
and earlier versions of the CALPUFF
model. For four facilities (Baxter
Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron,
and Plant Moselle), the State
supplemented the original modeling
with new analyses of emissions changes
for SO2, NOX, and PM10 34 since the
BART baseline period. For each plant,
recent emissions have either remained
roughly equivalent to or decreased
relative to the baseline period modeled.
Accordingly, the State concluded that
the prior modeling results remain valid
for determining whether the sources are
subject to BART.35
For Plant Daniel and Plant Watson,
the sources conducted updated
modeling with recent emissions data
and the current version of CALPUFF.
Finally, Plant Morrow’s BART-eligible
units are permanently retired, and thus
there is no need to determine whether
this source is subject to BART.
The following subsections discuss in
more detail MDEQ’s assessment of the
BART exemption modeling for each of
the seven facilities.
1. Mississippi Power Company—
Chevron Cogenerating Plant Units 1, 2,
3, and 4
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron,
located in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and
owned and operated by Mississippi
Power Company, have been identified
by MDEQ as BART-eligible. Plant
Chevron is located approximately 48 km
north of Breton. Plant Chevron is an
electric generating facility with four gasfired combined cycle turbines. All four
units each have the potential to emit
more than 250 tpy of NOX emissions.
Plant Chevron performed CALPUFF
modeling in 2011 on these four units
utilizing CALPUFF version 5.754 Level
060202. The modeling analysis
predicted a maximum annual 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.27 dv over the three years
modeled on Breton, and a 22nd highest
day’s visibility impact over all three
years of 0.24 dv.
As explained previously, because the
original modeling was conducted years
ago, MDEQ also performed a
supplemental emissions analysis for this
facility. MDEQ compared more current
(2016–2018) SO2, NOX, and PM10
emissions values from annual emissions
reports submitted by Plant Chevron
with the 2003–2005 baseline emissions
values and showed that recent
emissions have remained roughly
equivalent to or decreased relative to the
baseline period modeled. Therefore,
MDEQ concluded that it is not
necessary to remodel using recent
emissions. Table 2 compares the
maximum 24-hour emissions rates for
2003–2005 that were modeled in 2011
47139
against updated maximum 24-hour
emissions rates for 2016–2018. The
State found that: (1) The maximum SO2
emissions rates from all four units
combined were slightly higher, but still
quite low, in the updated period
compared to the baseline period
(approximately 8 pounds per hour (lb/
hr) vs 4 lb/hr); (2) the maximum NOX
emissions rates from all four units
combined were significantly lower in
the updated period compared to the
baseline period (approximately 420 lb/
hr vs 558 lb/hr); and (3) the maximum
PM10 emissions rates from all four units
combined were approximately the same
(9 lb/hr). The 2011 CALPUFF modeling
found that most of the visibility impact
from this facility was from nitrates, so
the recent decrease in NOX emissions
would suggest a corresponding decrease
in visibility impact on Breton.
In addition, Table 3 compares the
annual 2003–2005 baseline emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 to 2016–2018
annual emissions. Annual emissions are
not an input into CALPUFF modeling,
but MDEQ elected to consider them.
The annual emissions comparison
provides a general indication of overall
trends in emissions between the
baseline period that was used in the
2011 modeling and more recent
emissions. The annual emissions of
NOX and SO2 are higher in the 2016–
2018 period and PM10 emissions are
lower.
TABLE 2—PLANT CHEVRON MODELED (2003–2005) AND 2016–2018 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EMISSIONS RATES
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2003–2005)
Emission unit
SO2
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2
3
4
NOX
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2016–2018)
PM10
SO2
NOX
PM10
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
0.75
0.78
1.00
0.98
119.58
122.64
159.23
156.84
1.90
1.95
2.55
2.50
0.17
0.17
4.11
3.66
90.91
88.84
119.64
120.56
1.88
1.83
2.47
2.49
Total ..................................................
3.51
558.29
8.90
8.11
419.95
8.67
TABLE 3—PLANT CHEVRON BASELINE (2001–2003) AND CURRENT (2016–2018) PERIOD ANNUAL EMISSIONS
COMPARISON
Combined annual emission
(tons) units 1–4
Year
SO2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2001 .............................................................................................................................................
33 EPA’s BART Guidelines recommend comparing
visibility improvements between control options
using the 98th percentile of 24-hour delta dv, which
is equivalent to the facility’s 8th highest visibility
impact day. See 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005). The
98th percentile is recommended rather than the
maximum value to allow for uncertainty in the
modeled impacts and to avoid undue influence
from unusual meteorological conditions. The
‘‘delta’’ refers to the difference between total dv
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
impact from the facility plus natural background,
and dv of natural background alone, so ‘‘delta
deciviews’’ is the estimate of the facility’s impact
relative to natural visibility conditions. The
VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol interprets EPA’s
recommended use of the 98th percentile value as
the highest of the three annual 98th percentile
values at a particular Class I area or the 22nd
highest value in the combined 3-year period,
whichever is more conservative (p.14).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
1.61
1,238.26
PM10
66.14
34 PM
10 includes PM2.5, thus, MDEQ evaluated
PM10 emissions data in the supplemental emissions
analyses in the draft BART SIP.
35 In addition, as further explained in Section
III.B.2, EPA has also evaluated the potential impacts
of updates to the CALPUFF model, and found that
such updates are unlikely to result in significantly
different visibility impacts.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47140
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—PLANT CHEVRON BASELINE (2001–2003) AND CURRENT (2016–2018) PERIOD ANNUAL EMISSIONS
COMPARISON—Continued
Combined annual emission
(tons) units 1–4
Year
SO2
2002
2003
2016
2017
2018
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
In sum, MDEQ concluded that Plant
Chevron Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not
subject to BART, and thus, no further
BART analysis is required because Plant
Chevron’s 2011 modeling found that its
visibility impact was 0.27 dv which is
significantly less than 0.5 dv, and there
have been no significant increases in
SO2, NOX, or PM10 emissions since the
modeled baseline period. Specifically,
there have been no significant increases
in the maximum 24-hour SO2 nor PM10
emissions rates, and the maximum 24hour NOX emissions rates have
declined.
3. Entergy Mississippi Inc.—Baxter
Wilson Plant Units 1 and 2
Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel, located
in Escatawpa, Mississippi, and owned
and operated by Mississippi Power
Company, have been identified by
MDEQ as BART-eligible. Plant Daniel is
approximately 63 km northeast of
Breton. Plant Daniel is an electric
generating facility with two coal-fired
steam EGUs. Each of the units have the
potential to emit over 250 tpy of SO2,
NOX, and PM10. Plant Daniel controls
SO2 emissions from these units through
scrubbers (i.e., wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems) installed
to comply with EPA’s Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS).36 Scrubber
operation began in September 2015.
Mississippi Power Company performed
updated CALPUFF modeling on Units 1
and 2 using recent emissions data (i.e.,
from September 2015-August 2018) and
the current EPA-approved version of
CALPUFF. The modeling analysis
predicted a maximum annual 98th
Units 1 and 2 at Baxter Wilson,
located in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and
owned and operated by Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., have been identified
by MDEQ as BART-eligible. Baxter
Wilson is located approximately 310 km
northwest of Breton. Baxter Wilson is an
electric generating facility that currently
has one natural gas-fired unit (Unit 1).
The initial CALPUFF modeling was
performed in 2012 with CALPUFF
version 5.8 Level 070623. The modeling
used the maximum 24-hour emissions
rates over the three-year baseline period
of 2001–2003 assuming that both Units
1 and 2 fired only natural gas. This
modeling indicated a maximum 98th
percentile 24-hour impact of 0.49 dv
over the three years modeled and a 22nd
highest day’s visibility impact over all
three years of 0.39 dv, both of which are
below the contribution threshold of 0.5
dv.
Since the modeling was performed,
the facility has undergone changes. Unit
1 at Baxter Wilson originally was a dual
fuel oil and gas-fired unit, but the fuel
oil tanks have been rendered unusable,
36 See June 15, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA
Region 4 that includes an October 30, 2015 title V
permit renewal application addendum for Plant
Daniel addressing MATS requirements. These
documents are included in the docket for this
proposed action.
37 See May 27, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA
Region 4 that includes a September 8, 2019, letter
providing an update on the removal of fuel oil
capabilities at Gerald Andrus and Baxter Wilson.
These documents are included in the docket for this
proposed action.
2. Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Victor J Daniel Units 1 and 2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.39 dv over the three years
modeled, and a 22nd highest day’s
visibility impact over all three years of
0.33 dv. MDEQ concluded that Plant
Daniel’s Units 1 and 2 are not subject to
BART, and thus, no further BART
analysis is required because the 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.39 dv is below the State’s
0.5 dv contribution threshold for BART.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
1.55
1.44
8.01
7.77
5.76
1,181.77
1,264.50
1,430.36
1,274.89
1,240.95
PM10
62.59
67.65
29.50
26.30
26.11
and the capability to burn fuel oil is in
the process of being removed.37 Unit 2,
the larger unit, permanently retired
thereby reducing SO2, NOX, and PM
emissions from the plant.38 Given these
changes and the fact that the original
modeling was conducted years ago,
MDEQ also performed a supplemental
emissions analysis for this facility.
MDEQ compared more current (2016–
2018) SO2, NOX, and PM10 emissions
values from annual emissions reports
submitted by Baxter Wilson with the
2001–2003 baseline emissions values
and showed that recent emissions have
remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period
modeled. Therefore, MDEQ concluded
that it is not necessary to remodel using
recent emissions. Table 4 compares the
maximum 24-hour emissions rates for
2001–2003 that were modeled with
updated rates for 2016–2018. Because
the facility can no longer burn fuel oil,
all emissions values in Table 4 reflect
the burning of natural gas. The State
found that the combined current
emissions rates from Units 1 and 2 have
decreased considerably relative to the
baseline values modeled for SO2, NOX,
and PM10 because Unit 2 has shut down.
In particular, current NOX emissions
rates are approximately one-fifth of the
modeled emissions rates.
In addition, Table 5 compares the
annual baseline emissions of 2001–2003
to 2016–2018 annual emissions. Table 5
reflects annual emissions from burning
both natural gas and fuel oil. MDEQ
concludes that the current annual
emissions are much less than the
baseline emissions for all pollutants.
38 Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson was decommissioned
in June 2018. A copy of the Acid Rain and CSAPR
Trading Programs Retired Unit Exemption Form is
located in Appendix L.7.2 of the draft BART SIP.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
47141
TABLE 4—BAXTER WILSON MODELED 2001–2003 AND 2016–2018 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EMISSIONS RATES—NATURAL
GAS ONLY
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2001–2003)
Emission unit
NOX
SO2
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2016–2018)
PM10
SO2
NOX
PM10
Unit 1 ........................................................
Unit 2 ........................................................
2.71
2.40
2,030
4,674
35.69
49.77
3.67
0
1,337
0
36.17
0
Total ..................................................
5.11
6,704
85.46
3.67
1,337
36.17
TABLE 5—BAXTER WILSON BASELINE (2001–2003) AND CURRENT (2016–2018) PERIOD ANNUAL EMISSIONS
COMPARISON—NATURAL GAS AND FUEL OIL
Combined annual emission
(tons)
Year
2001
2002
2003
2016
2017
2018
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
MDEQ concluded that Baxter Wilson
is not subject to BART, and no further
BART analysis is required because the
maximum 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.49 dv is
below the State’s 0.5 dv contribution
threshold for BART, and recent
maximum 24-hour emissions rates and
annual emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM
have declined since the 2001–2003
modeled baseline period.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Entergy Mississippi Inc.—Gerald
Andrus Plant Unit 1
Gerald Andrus Unit 1, located in
Greenville, Mississippi, and owned and
operated by Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
has been identified by MDEQ as BARTeligible. Gerald Andrus is located
approximately 290 km east of Caney
Creek. Gerald Andrus is an electric
generating facility that currently has one
natural gas-fired unit (Unit 1). The
initial CALPUFF modeling performed in
2012 for Unit 1 using CALPUFF Version
5.8 Level 070623 was based on Unit 1
only firing natural gas. This modeling
39 See May 27, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA
Region 4 with a September 8, 2019, letter providing
an update on the removal of fuel oil capabilities at
Gerald Andrus and Baxter Wilson. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
demonstrated a maximum 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact over the three years modeled of
0.15 dv and a 22nd highest day’s
visibility impact over all three years of
0.12 dv based on burning natural gas.
As with Baxter Wilson, the facility
has undergone changes since the
original modeling. Namely, Unit 1 at
Gerald Andrus originally was a dual
fuel oil- and gas-fired unit. As of April
23, 2020, Gerald Andrus removed the
capability to utilize fuel oil.39 Given this
change and the fact that the original
modeling was conducted years ago,
MDEQ also performed a supplemental
emissions analysis for this facility.
MDEQ compared more current (2016–
2018) SO2, NOX, and PM10 emissions
values from annual emissions reports
submitted by Gerald Andrus with the
2001–2003 baseline emissions values
and showed that recent emissions have
remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period
modeled. Therefore, MDEQ concluded
SO2
NOX
34,117.18
8.34
1.99
2.49
2.65
3.08
14,274.82
6,375.26
1,325.02
1,550.71
794.41
1,111.63
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2,796.09
102.94
24.51
25.19
25.06
34.08
that it is not necessary to remodel using
recent emissions. The comparison of
2001–2003 modeled maximum 24-hour
emissions rates to updated 2016–2018
maximum 24-hour emissions rates of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 is shown in Table
6. Because the facility has removed the
ability to burn fuel oil, all emissions
values in Table 6 reflect the burning of
natural gas. The State’s evaluation
found that the maximum 24-hour SO2
emissions rates from 2016–2018 were
essentially the same as the modeled
value (approximately 3.8 lb/hr vs. 3.7
lb/hr), and that recent maximum 24hour PM10 and NOX emissions rates
were less than the modeled emissions
rates. In addition, Table 7 compares the
annual 2001–2003 baseline emissions to
2016–2018 annual emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM10. Table 7 reflects annual
emissions from burning both natural gas
and fuel oil. MDEQ concluded that the
current annual emissions are much less
than the baseline emissions for all
pollutants.
documents are included in the docket for this
proposed action.
PO 00000
PM10
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47142
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—GERALD ANDRUS MODELED 2001–2003 AND 2016–2018 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EMISSIONS RATES—NATURAL
GAS ONLY
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2001–2003)
Emission unit
NOX
SO2
Unit 1 ........................................................
3.66
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates
(lb/hr) (2016–2018)
PM10
3,971
SO2
54.2
NOX
3.83
PM10
1,813
47.13
TABLE 7—GERALD ANDRUS BASELINE (2001–2003) AND CURRENT (2016–2018) PERIOD ANNUAL EMISSIONS
COMPARISON—NATURAL GAS AND FUEL OIL
Combined annual emission
(tons)
Year
SO2
2001
2002
2003
2016
2017
2018
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
MDEQ concluded that Gerald Andrus
is not subject to BART, and no further
BART analysis is required because the
98th percentile 24-hour average
visibility impact of 0.15 dv is well
below the State’s 0.5 dv threshold
contribution for BART, 2016–2018
annual emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM
have declined from 2001–2003 levels,
and the maximum 24-hour emissions
rates of SO2, NOX, and PM10 have
remained equivalent to (SO2) or lower
than (NOX and PM10) those in the 2001–
2003 modeled baseline period.
5. Cooperative Energy—R. D. Morrow
Sr. Generating Plant Units 1 and 2
Plant Morrow Units 1 and 2, located
in Purvis, Mississippi, and owned and
operated by Cooperative Energy, were
previously identified by MDEQ as
BART-eligible. Plant Morrow is located
approximately 138 km from Breton. On
November 17, 2018, Units 1 and 2 were
permanently retired.40 MDEQ
concluded that there are no other units
at Plant Morrow that are BART-eligible,
and therefore, the facility has no further
BART obligations.
6. Cooperative Energy—Plant Moselle
Unit 3
Plant Moselle Unit 3, located in
Moselle, Mississippi, and owned and
operated by Cooperative Energy, has
been identified by MDEQ as BARTeligible. Plant Moselle is located
approximately 170 km north of Breton.
Plant Moselle is an electric generating
facility that currently has one natural
gas-fired unit (Unit 3). Plant Moselle
conducted CALPUFF modeling for Unit
3 in 2011 using CALPUFF Version 5.8
Level 070623. The modeling analysis
demonstrated a maximum 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact over the three years modeled of
0.05 dv, and a 22nd highest day’s
visibility impact over all three years of
0.042 dv.
Given that the original modeling was
conducted years ago, MDEQ also
performed a supplemental emissions
analysis for this facility. MDEQ
compared more current (2016–2018)
NOX
32,725.12
8.44
12,568.21
2.22
1.53
3.15
PM10
8,417.70
4,809.19
6,626.94
763.67
436.82
1,138.78
2,108.27
103.72
1,096.43
26.36
17.26
36.39
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emissions values
from annual emissions reports
submitted by Plant Moselle with the
2001–2003 baseline emissions values
and showed that recent emissions have
remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period
modeled. Therefore, MDEQ concluded
that it is not necessary to remodel using
recent emissions. The comparison of
modeled 2001–2003 maximum 24-hour
emissions rates of SO2, NOX, and PM10
to updated 2016–2018 maximum 24hour emissions rates is shown in Table
8. The State’s evaluation found that the
2016–2018 maximum 24-hour SO2
emissions rate was equivalent to the
modeled value (0.25 lb/hr vs. 0.24 lb/
hr). MDEQ notes maximum 24-hour
average NOX and PM10 emissions rates
from 2016–2018 are less than the
modeled emissions rates. In addition,
Table 9 compares the annual 2001–2003
baseline emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM10 to 2016–2018 annual emissions.
MDEQ concluded that the 2016–2018
annual emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10
are less than the baseline emissions.
TABLE 8—PLANT MOSELLE MODELED 2001–2003 AND 2016–2018 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR EMISSIONS RATES
Maximum 24-hour emissions
rates emissions
(lb/hr) (2001–2003)
Emissions period
(date)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2
Unit 3 ........................................................
NOX
0.24
Maximum 24-hour emissions
rates emissions (lb/hr) (2016–2018)
SO2
PM10
245.25
6.50
NOX
0.25
40 A copy of the Acid Rain and CSAPR Trading
Programs Retired Unit Exemption Form is located
in Appendix L.4.2 of the draft BART SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
217.25
PM10
3.21
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
47143
TABLE 9—PLANT MOSELLE BASELINE (2001–2003) AND CURRENT (2016–2018) PERIOD ANNUAL EMISSIONS
COMPARISON
Annual emissions
(tons)
Year
SO2
2001
2002
2003
2016
2017
2018
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
MDEQ concluded that Plant Moselle
is not subject to BART, and no further
BART analysis is required because the
98th percentile 24-hour average
visibility impact of 0.05 dv is well
below the State’s 0.5 dv contribution
threshold for BART, 2016–2018 annual
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 have
declined from 2001–2003 levels, and
maximum 24-hour emissions rates of
SO2, NOX and PM10 have remained
equivalent to (SO2) or declined (NOX
and PM10) since the 2001–2003 baseline
period modeled.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Watson Units 4 and 5
Plant Watson Units 4 and 5, located
in Gulfport, Mississippi, and owned and
operated by Mississippi Power
Company, have been identified by
MDEQ as being BART-eligible. Plant
Watson is 45 km from Breton. Plant
Watson is an electric generating facility
that has two natural-gas fired units
(Units 4 and 5). These units were
previously capable of firing coal and
fuel oil. Plant Watson conducted
CALPUFF modeling in 2012 for Units 4
and 5 using CALPUFF Version 5.8 Level
070623 and assuming that these units
would convert to firing only natural gas.
The modeling analysis demonstrated a
maximum 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.48 dv over
the three years modeled, and a 22nd
highest day’s visibility impact over all
three years of 0.46 dv. Since the 2012
CALPUFF modeling was conducted,
Units 4 and 5 were modified in 2015 by
removing all liquid burning equipment
and dismantling the coal handling
systems. Now both units are physically
limited to burn natural gas only.41
41 In an April 9, 2015, letter to MDEQ, Mississippi
Power Company requested a modification to its title
V permit for Plant Watson to reflect actions to
render Units 4 and 5 incapable of combusting any
solid or liquid fuels. These activities included the
removal of liquid fuel burning equipment and the
permanent dismantlement of the coal handling
system. MDEQ issued a revised title V permit and
acid rain permit on December 29, 2016. These
documents are located in the docket for this
proposed action for informational purposes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Although the 2012 modeled values are
below the State’s contribution threshold
for sources that are subject to BART,
these changes at Plant Watson reduced
annual emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants such that the source elected
to model using more recent emissions.
On behalf of Mississippi Power
Company, Southern Company Services
performed updated CALPUFF modeling
on Units 1 and 2 using current
emissions (i.e., 2017–2019) and the
current EPA-approved version of
CALPUFF. The modeling analysis
predicted a maximum annual 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.44 dv over the three years
modeled, and a 22nd highest day’s
visibility impact over all three years of
0.41 dv. MDEQ concluded that Plant
Watson’s Units 4 and 5 are not subject
to BART, and thus, no further BART
analysis is required because the 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.44 dv is below the State’s
0.5 dv contribution threshold for BART.
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Mississippi’s
BART SIP
1. Overview
EPA proposes to find that the draft
BART SIP corrects the deficiencies
arising from Mississippi’s prior reliance
on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements that resulted in EPA’s
limited disapproval of Mississippi’s
regional haze plan. Because this was the
sole deficiency leading to EPA’s prior
limited disapproval, the Agency is also
proposing to withdraw that limited
disapproval and to fully approve the
State’s regional haze SIP.
As discussed above, Plant Morrow’s
BART-eligible Units 1 and 2
permanently retired in 2018, and EPA
therefore proposes to approve the State’s
finding that this source is exempt from
further BART analysis. The remaining
six facilities all modeled below the
State’s BART contribution threshold of
0.5 dv. As explained previously,
modeling for four facilities (Baxter
Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
0.85
0.63
0.56
0.11
0.09
0.11
249.56
317.39
344.65
56.35
43.42
58.79
PM10
6.59
7.80
6.93
1.37
1.14
1.36
and Plant Moselle) was conducted in
the early 2010s with earlier versions of
CALPUFF. For these facilities, EPA
evaluated potential impacts of changes
to the CALPUFF modeling system, and,
as discussed in Section III.B.2, EPA
believes that the modeling system
changes do not significantly affect the
modeling results for these sources. In
addition, EPA agrees with the State’s
analyses of the modeling results and the
supplemental emissions analyses, as
discussed in Section III.B.3, below.
Thus, EPA proposes to approve the
State’s determination that Baxter
Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron,
Plant Daniel, Plant Moselle, and Plant
Watson are not subject to BART, and no
further BART analysis is required of
these sources.
2. Assessment of CALPUFF Modeling
System Changes
MDEQ opted to rely on existing BART
exemption modeling for four sources,
Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant
Chevron, and Plant Moselle, which
utilized older versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system. For this reason, EPA
assessed whether the updates to the
CALPUFF modeling system could affect
the modeling results for these four
sources such that they would become
subject to BART. EPA first considered
the changes to the CALPUFF modeling
system and an earlier analysis prepared
by an EPA contractor, and found that
these changes are generally unlikely to
result in significant differences in
modeled visibility impacts. Second,
EPA analyzed Plant Watson’s modeling
results under both the current CALPUFF
model and the older version of the
model used by Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, and Plant Moselle. This
analysis accounts for the significant
similarities between the emissions
profiles of Plant Watson and the other
plants, and further corroborates that
using the updated CALPUFF model is
unlikely to result in the other plants
becoming subject to BART. Thus, EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47144
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
to remodel Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle using the current EPA-approved
version of CALPUFF.
CALPUFF Modeling System Versions
Used for Mississippi’s BART-Eligible
Sources
The initial BART exemption modeling
utilized CALPUFF and CALMET
Version 5.8 Level 070623 for all sources
except Plant Chevron, which utilized
CALPUFF version 5.754 Level 060202
and CALMET version 5.7. The EPAapproved version of the CALPUFF
modeling system has since been
updated to Version 5.8.5 Level
151214.42 Specific updates to the
CALPUFF and CALMET models since
Version 5.8 are summarized below:
• December 4, 2013—CALPUFF and
CALMET updated from Version 5.8 to
Version 5.8.4 Level 130731. Changes are
described in Model Change Bulletins E,
F, and G.43 This update included bug
fixes only and no enhancements or new
features.
• July 26, 2016—CALPUFF and
CALMET updated to Version 5.8.5 Level
151214 which is the current EPAapproved version of the models. This
was the version of CALUFF used in
revised modeling for Plants Watson and
Daniel. Changes are described in Model
Change Bulletin H.44 This update
included program fixes to the PRIME
downwash algorithm along with
updates to eliminate specific
compilation and list file errors.
A December 3, 2013, memorandum
prepared by an EPA contractor
summarized the changes to the
CALPUFF modeling system described in
Model Change Bulletins E, F, and G, and
the potential effect of those changes on
predicted pollutant impacts for several
scenarios and source types.45 This
memorandum broadly concluded that
the changes to the CALPUFF modeling
system resulted in no difference, or
almost no difference (+/¥ 1 percent
(%)), in predicted values for most
scenarios and source types evaluated.
In addition to the differences in
CALPUFF versions, three sources
(Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, and
Plant Chevron) used Version 6.292
Level 110406 of the CALPOST processor
(one of the components of the CALPUFF
modeling framework), while four
sources (Plant Daniel, Plant Morrow,
Plant Moselle, and Plant Watson) used
Version 6.221 Level 080724. Use of
either version of CALPOST is consistent
with EPA policy in this context.46
Further Evaluation of CALPUFF Model
Changes at Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle
EPA also performed a specific
assessment of the potential impacts of
these updates to the EPA-approved
version of the CALPUFF modeling
system on the visibility results for
Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant
Chevron, and Plant Moselle. Because
the emissions profile and visibility
impact for Plant Watson is similar to
these four sources, and Plant Watson
also used an earlier version of
CALPUFF, EPA analyzed Plant Watson
modeling information using the earlier
and current versions of CALPUFF as a
point of comparison to illustrate the
effect of the CALPUFF model changes.
Emissions from Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle were all dominated primarily
by NOX and secondarily by PM10,
similar to Plant Watson. The predicted
visibility impacts from these five
facilities on the nearest Class I areas
were dominated by NOX emissions,
accounting for 86% of the visibility
impacts from Plant Watson and 90% to
98% of the visibility impacts from the
remaining facilities.47 The magnitude of
NOX emissions from Baxter Wilson,
Gerald Andrus, and Plant Watson are
greater than the magnitude of NOX
emissions from Plants Chevron and
Moselle. With the noted similarities in
the emissions profiles and predicted
visibility impacts in the initial modeling
performed for these facilities, the
updated modeling performed for Plant
Watson using the current EPA-approved
version of CALPUFF and recent
emissions data provides insight on the
potential effects of updates to the
CALPUFF modeling system on
predicted visibility impacts for Baxter
Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron,
and Plant Moselle.
The modeling performed for Plant
Watson in 2020 using 2017–2019
emissions data and the current EPAapproved version of CALPUFF
indicated similar visibility impacts as
those predicted by the 2012 modeling:
91% of the visibility impacts at Breton
due to the facility are the result of NOX
emissions, 8% of the visibility impacts
are the result of PM10 emissions, and
only 1% of the visibility impacts are the
result of SO2 emissions. A comparison
of emissions utilized in the initial
modeling for Plant Watson compared to
the emissions utilized in the revised
modeling for Plant Watson is presented
in Table 10 along with the contribution
to visibility impacts from each
pollutant.
TABLE 10—EMISSIONS RATES MODELED AND VISIBILITY IMPACTS FOR PLANT WATSON
Pollutant
2012 Modeling
contribution
to visibility
impacts
(%)
2020 Modeling
contribution
to visibility
impacts
(%)
2012 Modeling
emissions
rate
(lb/hr)
2020 Modeling
emissions rate
(lb/hr)
1
86
13
1
91
8
4.99
2,491.39
62.32
4.08
2,141.34
66.94
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 ......................................................................................
NOX ......................................................................................
PM10 .....................................................................................
42 See EPA, CALPUFF Modeling System,
available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
7thconf/calpuff/Previous_SCRAM_CALPUFF_
Posting_Reference.pdf.
43 Bulletins E, F, and G are available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_
mcb_e.txt, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/
calpuff/calpuff_mcb_f.txt, and https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_
mcb_g.txt, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
44 https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/
calpuff/calpuff_mcb_h.txt.
45 AMEC, AERMOD Technical Assistance—
Modification of CALPUFF and CALMET Final
Report (December 3, 2013), available at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/
CALPUFF_Update_Memo_12032013.pdf.
46 This context refers to calculating visibility
using the new IMPROVE equation through
CALPOST Method 8. See p.71 of the November
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Change in
2012 to 2020
modeled
emissions
rates
(%)
¥18
¥14
+7
2012 Plant Watson modeling report (Appendix B).
This modeling report is included in the docket for
this rulemaking. The IMPROVE Equation is
available at: https://npshistory.com/publications/airquality/flag-2010.pdf.
47 Breton is the nearest Class I area for Plant
Watson, Baxter Wilson, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle, and Caney Creek is the nearest Class I area
for Gerald Andrus.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47145
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The 2017–2019 emissions rates used
in the 2020 BART exemption modeling
for Plant Watson changed relative to the
2003–2005 emissions rates used in the
source’s initial 2012 modeling as
follows: NOX emissions decreased by
14%; PM10 emissions increased by 7%;
and SO2 emissions decreased by 18%;
in addition, SO2 emissions remained
substantially lower than NOX and PM10
emissions.
The 2020 modeling for Plant Watson
indicated that the maximum 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact at Breton over the three years
modeled decreased by 10% relative to
the initial 2012 modeling. The 2020
modeling also indicated that the 22nd
highest day’s visibility impact over the
three years modeled decreased by 11%
relative to the initial 2012 modeling.
This information is presented in Table
11. Table 11 indicates that the 10–11%
reduction in predicted visibility impacts
is closely correlated to the 14%
reduction in the NOX emissions rate.
These results suggest that the reductions
in predicted visibility impacts are
primarily due to the 14% reductions in
NOX emissions rather than the updates
to CALPUFF.
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF INITIAL MODELING TO REVISED MODELING FOR PLANT WATSON
Max 98th
percentile
over 3 years
modeled
(dv)
Initial 2012 Modeling ........................................................................................
Revised 2020 Modeling ...................................................................................
2012 to 2020 Change (%) ...............................................................................
The updated modeling performed for
Plant Watson using the current EPAapproved version of CALPUFF and
recent emissions data suggests that the
updates to the CALPUFF model did not
significantly affect predicted visibility
impacts for Plant Watson. Instead, the
predicted changes in visibility from
Plant Watson between the initial and
revised modeling appear to be driven by
NOX emissions reductions. With the
0.482
0.436
¥9.5%
noted similarities in the emissions
profiles and predicted visibility impacts
between Plant Watson and Baxter
Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron,
and Plant Moselle, the updates to
CALPUFF are also not expected to have
a significant impact on predicted
visibility impacts from these other
facilities. Revised modeling performed
with the current EPA-approved version
of CALPUFF and recent emissions for
22nd
highest day
over 3 years
modeled
(dv)
0.457
0.408
¥10.7%
NOX
emissions rate
(lb/hr)
PM10
emissions rate
(lb/hr)
2,491.4
2,141.3
¥14.1%
62.3
66.9
+7.4%
these facilities would likely result in
visibility impacts the same as or less
than the values from the 2011/2012
modeling shown in Table 12 because
recent emissions have either remained
equivalent to or decreased since the
2011/2012 modeling. Therefore, the
reduction in NOX and PM10 emissions
shown in Table 12 would suggest a
corresponding decrease in visibility
impact at the nearest Class I area.
TABLE 12—2011/2012 VISIBILITY MODELING RESULTS AND CHANGES IN RECENT NOX AND PM10 EMISSIONS FOR
BAXTER WILSON, GERALD ANDRUS, PLANT CHEVRON, AND PLANT MOSELLE
Facility
Baxter Wilson ......................
Gerald Andrus .....................
Plant Chevron .....................
Plant Moselle ......................
Breton .................................
Caney Creek ......................
Breton .................................
Breton .................................
As previously noted, Plant Chevron
used a different version of CALPUFF
(Version 5.754) than Plant Watson used
in its initial modeling (Version 5.8).
While EPA did not specifically analyze
the changes from CALPUFF Version
5.754 to 5.8 (or from 5.754 to the current
version), EPA nonetheless believes that
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2011/2012
modeled DV
impact 48
Nearest
class I area
48 The maximum 98th percentile 24-hour
visibility impact over the three years modeled.
49 Percent decrease in NO emissions from the
X
emissions used in the 2012 modeling to emissions
that would be used in the 2020 modeling. Detailed
emissions data for each of the four facilities are
presented in Section III.A.
50 Percent decrease in PM
10 emissions from the
emissions used in the 2012 modeling to emissions
that would be used in the 2020 modeling. Detailed
emissions data for each of the four facilities are
presented in Section III.A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
NOX
contribution
to visibility
impact
(%)
0.49
0.15
0.27
0.05
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
¥80
¥54
¥25
¥11
96
98
90
92
updating the modeling for Plant
Chevron is not necessary. As previously
shown, the updates to Version 5.8 of the
CALPUFF model did not significantly
affect predicted visibility impacts for
Plant Watson. Instead, the predicted
changes in visibility from Plant Watson
between the initial and revised
modeling appear to be driven by NOX
emissions reductions. If EPA assumes a
similar relationship also holds true for
Plant Chevron, then the Agency would
expect updated modeling to show
decreased visibility impact for Plant
Chevron. That is, the 2011 modeling for
Plant Chevron indicated a maximum
98th percentile 24-hour impact of 0.27
dv over the three years modeled, which
is well below the value of 0.5 dv. The
PO 00000
Percent (%)
change in
NOX
emissions 49
PM10
contribution
to visibility
impact
(%)
Percent
change in
PM10
emissions 50
3
2
9
7
¥58
¥13
0
¥57
reduction in NOX emissions shown in
Table 12 for Plant Chevron would
suggest a corresponding decrease in
visibility impact at Breton. Specifically,
if EPA assumed that any visibility
impact changes would be solely due to
changes in NOX emissions, then the
visibility impact of updated modeling
would be approximately 0.21 dv.51 In
51 The basis for the estimated impact of 0.21 dv
due to NOX reductions alone is as follows. The 2011
CALPUFF modeling for Plant Chevron indicated
that 90% of visibility impacts at Breton were from
NOX emissions which equates to approximately
0.243 dv (90% of the total estimated impact of 0.27
dv). The remaining 10% of visibility impacts are
due to PM10 and SO2 emissions which equates to
approximately 0.027 dv (10% of 0.27 dv). To
approximate the impact of the 25% reduction in
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
Continued
04AUP1
47146
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
addition, while EPA is not aware of
evidence indicating that CALPUFF
Version 5.754 underpredicts visibility
impacts relative to the current
CALPUFF version, even were this to be
true, the Agency thinks it is extremely
unlikely that would cause the visibility
impact to rise above 0.5 dv, given that
Plant Chevron initially modeled 0.27 dv
and the subsequent emission reductions
at the source.
3. Evaluation of Supplemental
Emissions Analyses and Operational
Changes at Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle
EPA agrees with the supplemental
emission analyses performed by MDEQ
for Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant
Chevron and Plant Moselle.
Baxter Wilson
Even though the 2012 modeling for
Baxter Wilson indicated visibility
impacts below but near the 0.5 dv
threshold (0.49 dv), there have been
operational changes that have
significantly reduced the emissions
from this facility, including the
shutdown of the larger of the two units
at this facility. These changes have
resulted in substantial reductions in
both annual and maximum 24-hour
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10
relative to the baseline period modeled
as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Gerald Andrus
The 2012 modeling for the Gerald
Andrus indicated visibility impacts of
0.15 dv, which is well below the 0.5 dv
threshold. As shown in Table 6 above,
recent maximum 24-hour emissions
rates of SO2 are essentially the same as
those modeled in 2012 while NOX and
PM10 maximum 24-hour emissions rates
have decreased substantially. Overall
the recent annual emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 have drastically reduced
at Gerald Andrus as shown in Table 7.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Plant Chevron
The 2011 modeling for Plant Chevron
indicated visibility impacts of 0.27 dv,
which is well below the 0.5 dv
threshold. While recent annual
emissions of SO2 have increased relative
to the baseline period modeled, the
magnitude of the facility’s current
maximum 24-hour SO2 emissions rate
remains relatively low (8 lb/hr)
NOX emissions from Plant Chevron, EPA decreased
the portion of the visibility impacts due to NOX
emissions (0.243 dv) by 25% (0.243 * (1¥0.25) =
0.182 dv). The PM10 and SO2 portion of the
visibility impacts remains at 0.027 dv. Thus, the
revised estimated total visibility impact from Plant
Chevron on Breton is 0.21 dv (0.182 + 0.027 = 0.209
dv (rounded to 0.21)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
compared to its NOX emissions rates
(420 lb/hr) for all four units combined
(see Table 2), and CALPUFF predicted
that visibility impacts from Chevron
were dominated by NOX emissions.
During the same period, maximum 24hour NOX emissions rates have
decreased by about 25% while PM10
maximum 24-hour emissions rates are
essentially unchanged.
Plant Moselle
The 2011 modeling for Plant Moselle
indicated visibility impacts of 0.05 dv
which is well below the 0.5 dv
threshold. As shown in Table 8 above,
recent maximum 24-hour emissions
rates of NOX, SO2, and PM10 are
equivalent to or less than those modeled
in 2011.
Based on the State’s submission and
EPA’s analysis in this section and
Section III.B.2, EPA proposes to approve
MDEQ’s finding that the four facilities
(i.e., Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus,
Plant Chevron, and Plant Moselle)
remain exempt from further BART
review.
4. Evaluation of Updated Modeling at
Plant Daniel and Plant Watson
Plant Daniel and Plant Watson have
updated BART exemption modeling
using current emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM to reflect the emissions changes
as a result of the operational changes at
each plant. The updated BART
exemption modeling also used a newer
version of CALPUFF, which is the
current EPA-approved version. EPA
believes the updated modeling analyses
for Plant Daniel and Plant Watson
properly reflect additional emissions
controls and operational changes that
have reduced emissions since the
original modeling was conducted. For
both facilities, the updated modeling
shows that the two facilities model
below the BART contribution threshold.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
MDEQ’s finding that these facilities are
also exempt from further BART review.
5. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Review
MDEQ provided the draft BART SIP
to the FLMs to review in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), and the FLMs
have not provided any comments.
MDEQ’s draft BART SIP references the
procedures for continuing consultation
between the State and FLMs on the
implementation of the State’s visibility
protection program in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) that are contained in
Section 11 of the State’s September 22,
2008, regional haze plan.52 These
52 The
draft BART SIP references Section 10, but
EPA believes the State meant to refer to Section 11.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
procedures remain in effect for the draft
BART SIP.
6. Summary
In summary, EPA proposes to approve
the draft BART SIP and finds that it
corrects the deficiencies that led to the
limited approval and limited
disapproval of the State’s regional haze
SIP; to withdraw the limited
disapproval of Mississippi’s regional
haze SIP; and to fully approve
Mississippi’s regional haze SIP as
meeting all regional haze requirements
of the CAA for the first implementation
period, replacing the prior limited
approval.
IV. Summary and EPA’s Evaluation of
Mississippi’s Progress Report and
Adequacy Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA’s analysis
of Mississippi’s Progress Report and an
explanation of the basis for the Agency’s
proposed approval. EPA cannot take
final action to approve Mississippi’s
Progress Report unless the Agency
finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP because the existing
regional haze SIP contains a deficiency
in its current strategy to achieve RPGs.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Mississippi
summarizes the status of the emissions
reduction measures that were relied
upon by the State in its regional haze
plan. The measures include, among
other things, applicable federal
programs (e.g., federal consent
agreements, federal control strategies for
EGUs, Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standards, and mobile
source rules). Additionally, MDEQ
highlighted control programs and
measures that were not relied upon in
its regional haze plan which provide
further assurances that visibility
impacts from Mississippi’s sources are
addressed (e.g., EPA’s MATS Rule and
measures taken by certain sources to
address the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS).
In the Progress Report, MDEQ also
reviewed the status of BART
requirements for the non-EGU BARTsubject sources in the State—Chevron
Pascagoula Refinery (Chevron Refinery)
and Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
(MPC)—both located in Pascagoula,
Mississippi, and notes that it will
address BART for the aforementioned
BART-eligible EGUs in a separate SIP
submittal.53
53 Subsequent to submittal of the Progress Report,
Mississippi addressed EGU BART in its draft BART
SIP, which is discussed in Section III of this notice.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in Section II of this
notice, a number of states, including
Mississippi, submitted regional haze
plans that relied on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements. EPA
finalized a limited disapproval of
Mississippi’s regional haze plan due to
this reliance on CAIR. In its draft BART
SIP, Mississippi determined that none
of its seven BART-eligible facilities with
EGUs formerly subject to CAIR are
subject to BART.
Mississippi’s draft BART SIP explains
the status of each BART-eligible EGU
formerly subject to CAIR. Table 1
identifies the 14 BART-eligible units
(located at seven facilities) and the
highest modeled impact at the nearest
Class I area for each facility. Section III
of this notice explains the status of each
BART-eligible EGU in greater detail.
In the State’s regional haze plan and
Progress Report, Mississippi focuses its
assessment on SO2 emissions from coalfired boilers at EGUs and industrial
boilers because of VISTAS’ findings that
ammonium sulfate accounted for 69–
87% of the visibility-impairing
pollution in all of the VISTAS states,
except one coastal area, based on 2000
to 2004 data. The emissions sensitivity
analyses conducted by VISTAS
predicted that reductions in SO2
emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources would result in
the greatest improvements in visibility
in the Class I areas in the VISTAS
region, more than any other visibilityimpairing pollutant. Thus, Mississippi
concluded that reducing SO2 emissions
from EGU and non-EGU point sources
would have the greatest visibility
benefits for the Class I areas impacted
by Mississippi sources.54
Because many states had not yet
defined their criteria for identifying
sources to evaluate for reasonable
progress at the time Mississippi was
developing its September 22, 2008,
regional haze plan, Mississippi initially
applied its criteria for identifying
emissions units eligible for a reasonable
progress control analysis as a screening
tool to identify Class I areas outside of
the State potentially impacted by
Mississippi sources.55 Mississippi only
identified SO2 emissions from E.I.
54 See
77 FR 11887 (February 28, 2012).
noted earlier, Breton in Louisiana, Sipsey in
Alabama, and Caney Creek in Arkansas are the
closest Class I areas to Mississippi. With respect to
reasonable progress, Louisiana, Alabama, and
Arkansas did not identify any Mississippi sources
as having an impact on the visibility at Breton,
Sipsey, and Caney Creek, respectively.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
55 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
DuPont Delisle (DuPont) and Plant
Watson as potentially impacting
visibility at Breton in Louisiana for
reasonable progress during the first
implementation period.56 However,
when Louisiana completed its
reasonable progress assessments and
finalized its regional haze SIP submittal,
it did not identify any Mississippi
sources as impacting Breton using
Louisiana’s evaluation criteria. Thus,
MDEQ concluded, and EPA agreed, that
no further evaluation of Dupont and
Plant Watson was needed for reasonable
progress and MDEQ updated its 2008
regional haze plan in the May 9, 2011,
amendment with this conclusion.57
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the State
described the implementation of
measures within Mississippi, including
BART for NOX, SO2, and PM at its
BART-subject sources for non-EGUs in
its Progress Report and for EGUs in its
draft BART SIP.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed in Section IV.A.1. of this
notice, Mississippi focused its
assessment in its regional haze plan and
Progress Report on SO2 emissions from
coal-fired boilers at point sources in
Mississippi because of VISTAS’ findings
that ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing
pollution in the VISTAS states based
upon 2000 to 2004 data.58 In its Progress
Report, MDEQ provides a bar graph
with Mississippi’s EGU SO2 emissions
from 2002 to 2017 and states that these
emissions have decreased from 65,741
tons in 2002 to 2,569 tons in 2017.
MDEQ notes that these emissions are
trending downward overall, with
significant decreases from 2014 to 2016
(following increases in 2013 and 2014
due to emissions from Plant Watson)
and consistently low values in 2016 and
2017 due to the conversion of Plant
Watson from coal to natural gas in
2015.59
56 See 77 FR 11888 (February 28, 2012). See also
page 14 of the Progress Report.
57 See 77 FR 11888 (February 28, 2012).
58 The Progress Report also documents that
sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor
to regional haze at Breton. See Section IV.A.5 for
additional information.
59 The Progress Report identifies Plant Watson as
‘‘Watson Electric’’ on page 10 in Figure 1 and in the
associated note. The Progress Report notes that
Plant Watson converted to natural gas in 2014 on
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47147
Mississippi includes cumulative VOC,
PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and NOX emissions
data from 2002, 2007, and 2014 for
EGUs and non-EGUs in the State, along
with the 2018 emissions projections
from its 2008 regional haze plan. The
2007 actual emissions data were
developed through the Southeastern
Modeling, Analysis and Planning
(SEMAP) partnership. At the time of
Progress Report development, the 2014
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) was
the latest available inventory.60 EPA’s
NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions for criteria
pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors,
and hazardous air pollutants from air
emissions sources that is updated every
three years using information provided
by the states and other information
available to EPA.61
According to MDEQ, EGU emissions
are near or below the 2018 projections
for all pollutants except SO2. As noted
in Section III.A.7., Plant Watson
converted from coal to natural gas in
2015, and the source’s SO2 emissions
dropped from 70,667 tons in 2014 to 5.1
tons in 2017 and 4.6 tons in 2018.
MDEQ notes that this change in
emissions from 2014 to 2018 at Plant
Watson brings the State’s EGU SO2
emissions closer to the 2018 value of
15,213 tons projected in the regional
haze plan (see Table 13).62 The
emissions reductions identified by
Mississippi are due, in part, to the
implementation of measures included in
the State’s regional haze plan.
Since the time of SIP development
and submission, more recent emissions
data has become available for
Mississippi’s EGUs and non-EGUs from
the 2017 NEI, which are reflected in
Tables 13 and 14. For Mississippi’s
EGUs, actual emissions from the NEI for
2017 are below the 2018 projected
emissions shown in Table 13 for all
pollutants except VOC and NOX. Of
particular note is that 2017 actual SO2
emissions of the State’s EGUs are well
below (2,877 tpy) the 2018 projected
value of 15,213 tpy of SO2.
page 16; the correct date is 2015 as stated on page
10.
60 See EPA’s website for additional data and
documentation for the 2014 version of the NEI
(https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
61 EPA’s NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory.
62 Progress Report, page 11, Table 3.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47148
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13—EGU EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
Year/source
2002
2007
2014
2018
2017
VOC
(VISTAS) .....................................................................
(SEMAP) .....................................................................
(NEI) ............................................................................
(Projected) ..................................................................
(NEI) ............................................................................
Emissions from the State’s non-EGU
point sources are below the 2018
NOX
648
669
349
1,274
2,515
PM2.5
43,135
48,150
21,686
21,535
30,214
1,138
1,426
1,829
7,252
2,752
PM10
1,633
2,165
2,359
7,412
3,213
SO2
67,429
75,563
90,733
15,213
2,877
emissions projections for all pollutants
as shown in Table 14.
TABLE 14—NON-EGU EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
Year/source
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2002
2007
2014
2018
2017
VOC
(VISTAS) .....................................................................
(SEMAP) .....................................................................
(NEI) ............................................................................
(Projected) ..................................................................
(NEI) ............................................................................
NOX
43,204
33,917
28,885
45,335
24,840
61,526
50,033
31,761
61,252
13,498
Emissions data for 2018 has also
become available for the State’s EGUs
since the time that Mississippi
submitted its Progress Report, and EPA
notes that Mississippi’s EGUs emitted
3,189.7 tons of SO2 in 2018,63 well
below the projected 2018 value.
In the Progress Report, MDEQ also
detailed emissions reductions at the
State’s two non-EGU BART-subject
sources, Chevron Refinery and MPC. In
the State’s regional haze plan, Chevron
Refinery and MPC modeled visibility
impacts at Breton of 3.89 dv and 0.81
dv, respectively. To satisfy a 2005
consent decree, Chevron Refinery
installed numerous controls on its units
by 2008 which resulted in a modeled
visibility improvement of 2.99 dv at
Breton.64 With respect to MPC, the
Progress Report summarized the
upgrades made at the source under a
November 9, 2010, Permit to Construct
Air Emissions Equipment that included
Best Available Control Technology
emissions limits for SO2 and sulfuric
acid mist. The facility filed for
bankruptcy on October 24, 2014, fully
ceased operations in December of 2014,
and has been permanently shut down
and declared a Superfund site.65
Based on the information provided in
the Progress Report, EPA proposes to
find that Mississippi has adequately
addressed the applicable provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions.
63 Mississippi’s EGUs emitted 13,041.3 tons of
NOX in 2018. See EPA’s Air Markets Program Data
website, located at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
64 See Progress Report, pp. 13–14 and the 2005
consent decree in U.S. v. Chevron, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
documents/chevron-cd.pdf. Table 6 of the Progress
Report identifies emissions reductions from the
BART-eligible units covered by the consent decree.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
3. Visibility Conditions
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that
states with Class I areas within their
borders provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions
and baseline visibility conditions
expressed in terms of five-year averages
of these annual values. Because there
are no Class I areas in Mississippi, the
State is not required to provide an
assessment of visibility conditions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) as noted in
the Progress Report.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Mississippi
presents EGU SO2 emissions data (from
2002 to 2017), and data from statewide
actual emissions inventories for 2007
(SEMAP) and 2014 (NEI) and compares
these data to the baseline emissions
inventory for 2002 (actual emissions)
and the projected emissions for 2018
from the State’s regional haze plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
9,906
7,305
9,363
10,719
6,226
PM10
19,472
10,203
10,769
22,837
7,376
SO2
35,960
19,415
13,450
25,674
5,500
These emissions inventories, shown in
Tables 15–18 include the following
source classifications: Point, area,
biogenic (e.g., VOC from vegetation,
emissions from fires), non-road mobile,
and on-road mobile sources. The
pollutants inventoried for these
categories are VOC, NOX, PM2.5, PM10,
NH3, and SO2.
The 2014 emissions for VOC, NOX,
and NH3 are all below the projected
2018 emissions for these pollutants. The
increases in total PM10 and PM2.5 from
2007 to 2014 (shown in Tables 16 and
17) are due to different methodologies
for these years in calculating unpaved
road emissions in the emission
inventories. MDEQ notes that according
to data from the Mississippi Department
of Transportation, the number of miles
of unpaved roads in the State have
decreased from 22,547 miles in 2006 to
18,857 miles in 2014. The increase in
SO2 emissions from 105,657 tons in
2007 to 108,429 tons in 2014 was due
to emissions from Plant Watson prior to
the source converting to natural gas in
2015. As noted in Section IV.A.2, the
overall SO2 emissions from EGUs
decreased substantially following this
conversion.
65 For more information on MPC as a Superfund
site, see https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/
SiteProfiles/index.cfm?
fuseaction=second.Cleanup&
id=0403508#bkground.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
47149
TABLE 15—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Nonroad Mobile ........................................
Biogenic ...................................................
Fires .........................................................
43,852
131,808
86,811
41,081
1,544,646
13,621
104,661
4,200
110,672
88,787
20,305
3,326
11,044
50,401
2,089
4,690
0
13,763
21,106
343,377
2,828
5,010
0
14,686
1,359
58,721
3,549
23
0
177
103,389
771
4,566
11,315
0
99
Total ..................................................
1,861,820
331,952
81,896
387,007
63,829
120,139
TABLE 16—2007 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Nonroad Mobile ........................................
Biogenic ...................................................
Fires .........................................................
34,586
74,755
4,516
35,315
1,544,646
178,431
98,183
6,091
117,225
48,321
20,305
12,454
8,731
42,758
4,061
3,105
0
66,621
12,368
326,350
5,030
3,308
0
78,612
1,640
58,774
1,809
35
0
12,413
94,978
344
920
3,088
0
6,327
Total ..................................................
1,872,249
302,579
125,276
425,668
74,671
105,657
TABLE 17—2014 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
Source category
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Nonroad Mobile ........................................
Biogenic ...................................................
Fires .........................................................
29,234
47,959
28,852
22,408
1,515,263
69,792
53,477
19,504
72,763
14,631
14,157
6,156
11,192
122,136
2,336
1,434
0
26,913
13,128
977,608
4,438
1,510
0
31,758
2,891
64,986
1,428
23
0
4,855
104,183
951
399
34
0
2,863
Total ..................................................
1,713,509
180,658
164,012
1,028,442
74,184
108,429
TABLE 18—2018 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[tpy]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Source category
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Nonroad Mobile ........................................
Biogenic ...................................................
Fires .........................................................
46,452
140,134
31,306
28,842
1,544,646
14,747
71,804
4,483
30,259
68,252
20,305
3,840
17,172
53,222
810
3,203
0
15,669
30,046
375,495
1,607
3,452
0
17,013
1,591
69,910
4,520
29
0
285
54,367
746
435
6,683
0
240
Total ..................................................
1,806,127
198,943
90,076
427,613
76,335
62,471
As discussed in Section IV.A.2, the
Progress Report also contains other
emissions data, including a figure
displaying Mississippi’s EGU SO2
emissions from 2002 to 2017 and two
tables summarizing EGU and non-EGU
actual emissions data for 2002, 2007,
and 2014, along with the 2018
emissions projections for the State’s
regional haze plan (see Tables 13 and 14
of this notice). MDEQ states that EGU
SO2 emissions have decreased from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
65,741 tons in 2002 to 2,569 tons in
2017.
EPA is proposing to find that
Mississippi adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding emissions tracking because
the State compared the most recent
updated emission inventory data at the
time of SIP development with the
baseline emissions used in the modeling
for the regional haze plan. Furthermore,
Mississippi evaluated EPA Air Markets
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Program Data 66 SO2 emissions data
from 2002–2017 for EGUs in the State
because ammonium sulfate is the
primary component of visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS
states and EGUs are the largest source of
SO2 in the State.
66 EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at:
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
47150
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Mississippi
documented that sulfates, which are
formed from SO2 emissions, continue to
be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze for Breton, and therefore
focused its analysis on large SO2
emissions from point sources.67 In its
September 22, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, Mississippi notes that
ammonium sulfate is the largest
contributor to visibility impairment for
Class I in the southeastern United States
based upon 2000 to 2004 data, and that
reducing SO2 emissions would be the
most effective means of reducing
ammonium sulfate.68 In addressing the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5),
Mississippi shows in the Progress
Report that the overall contribution of
sulfates toward visibility impairment at
Breton 69 over the 2008–2012 period is
66% for the 20 percent haziest days and
54 percent for the 20 percent clearest
days. Although the State concludes that
sulfates continue to be the major
component to visibility impairment at
Breton, it also examines other potential
pollutants of concern affecting visibility
at this Class I area. Furthermore, the
Progress Report shows that SO2
emissions reductions from 2002–2017
for EGUs in Mississippi overall are
decreasing, and with the conversion of
Plant Watson to natural gas in 2015, are
estimated to well exceed the projected
emission reductions from 2002–2018 in
the State’s regional haze plan.
MDEQ summarized the changes in
emissions from 2002 to 2014, the latest
complete emissions inventory for all
source categories in the State. For VOC,
NH3, and NOX, the actual emissions
decreased from 2002 to 2014. For SO2,
total emissions in the State decreased
from 2002, with a slight increase from
2007, due to the point source category.
MDEQ explains that the increase in SO2
emissions was due to emissions from
Plant Watson which, as noted
previously, converted from coal to
natural gas in 2015 and emitted 5.1 tons
and 4.6 tons of SO2 in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.70 For PM2.5 and PM10,
increases in statewide PM2.5 and PM10
67 See
Figures 2 and 3 in the Progress Report.
page 15 of Mississippi’s September 22,
2008, regional haze SIP narrative.
69 While Mississippi does not have any Class I
areas, MDEQ reviewed particle speciation data for
Breton because it is the closest Class I area.
70 As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of
Plant Watson from coal to natural gas in 2015
contributed to significant SO2 emissions decreases.
In addition, 2017 Mississippi EGU SO2 emissions
were 3,841 tons, which are well below the 2018
projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of section
IV.A.2 of this rulemaking.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
68 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
emissions occurred from 2002 to 2014
due to increases in area source
emissions for these pollutants. The
increase in 2014 is due to an increase in
the unpaved road dust category created
by different methodologies used to
calculate unpaved road emissions over
the years. MDEQ notes that according to
data from the Mississippi Department of
Transportation, the number of miles of
unpaved roads in the State have
decreased from 22,547 miles in 2006 to
18,857 miles in 2014. Thus, MDEQ
concludes that here have been no
emissions changes that would impede
progress and no significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within the
State that have limited or impeded
progress over the review period.
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an
assessment of significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions for the reasons
discussed in this section.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
Mississippi believes that its regional
haze plan is sufficient to enable
potentially impacted Class I areas to
meet their RPGs. MDEQ based this
conclusion on the data provided in the
Progress Report, including the
emissions reductions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from EGU and nonEGU point sources achieved in the State
(summarized in Section IV.A.2).71
Mississippi asserts that it consulted
with other states during the
development of its regional haze plan
for reasonable progress, including
Alabama and Louisiana, and that these
states indicated that Mississippi sources
have no impact on the visibility at
Sipsey in Alabama and at Breton in
Louisiana, respectively. As discussed
above, MDEQ assessed the particle
speciation data for Breton indicating
that sulfates continue to be the
dominant contributor to regional haze in
this area.
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
strategy assessment. In its Progress
Report, Mississippi assesses the particle
speciation data at Breton and affirms
that the focus of the State’s regional
haze plan on addressing SO2 emissions
in the State continues to be most
effective strategy to improve visibility at
Breton. Mississippi documents the
overall downward emissions trends in
key pollutants, with a focus on SO2
71 See Tables 3 and 4 on page 11 of the Progress
Report which are reproduced as Tables 13 and 14
in this notice, with the addition of ‘‘2017 (NEI)’’
emissions to Tables 13 and 14.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions from EGUs in the State and
determined that its regional haze plan is
sufficient to enable Class I areas outside
the State potentially impacted by the
emissions from Mississippi to meet their
RPGs.72 EPA’s proposed approval of the
strategy assessment is also based on the
fact that CAIR was in effect in
Mississippi through 2014, providing
some of the emission reductions relied
upon in Mississippi’s regional haze plan
through that date; the implementation of
CSAPR, which by the end of the first
regional haze implementation period,
reduced emissions of NOX from EGUs
formerly subject to CAIR in Mississippi;
and the significant reductions of SO2
from EGUs formerly subject to CAIR in
the State due to retirements, emissions
controls, and permanent conversions to
natural gas as described in Section III.A.
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
EPA notes that the primary
monitoring network for regional haze
nationwide is the IMPROVE network,
which monitors visibility conditions in
Class I areas. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System (VIEWS) 73
website has been maintained by VISTAS
and the other regional planning
organizations to provide ready access to
the IMPROVE data and data analysis
tools.
In its Progress Report, Mississippi
states that no modifications to the
existing monitoring network are
necessary because it has no Class I areas
and thus no monitoring strategy. EPA
proposes to find that Mississippi has
adequately addressed the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the monitoring strategy
because the State has no Class I areas.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, MDEQ
submitted a negative declaration to EPA
that the existing regional haze plan
requires no further substantive revision
at this time to achieve the RPGs for
Class I areas potentially impacted by the
State’s sources. The State’s negative
declaration is based on the findings
from the Progress Report, including the
findings that: Actual emissions
reductions of visibility-impairing
72 Visibility conditions for 2009–2013 are below
the 2018 RPGs for Sipsey in Alabama. See 83 FR
64797, 64800 (December 18, 2018). For Caney
Creek, visibility conditions for 2012–2016 are below
the revised 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days
and below 2000–2004 baseline conditions for the 20
percent best days. See 84 FR 11697, 11707 (March
28, 2019).
73 The VIEWS website is located at: https://
views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/SiteBrowser/
Default.aspx?appkey=SBCF_VisSum.
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules
pollutants in 2014 from EGUs and nonEGUs in Mississippi exceed the
predicted reductions in MDEQ’s
regional haze plan with the exception of
SO2 for EGUs; 74 additional EGU control
measures not relied upon in the State’s
2008 regional haze plan have occurred
during the first implementation period
that have further reduced SO2
emissions; and the State’s expectation
that emissions of SO2 from EGUs in
Mississippi are expected to continue to
trend downward.
EPA proposes to conclude that
Mississippi has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the emissions
trends of the largest emitters of
visibility-impairing pollutants in the
State indicate that the RPGs for any
Class I areas in other states potentially
impacted by Mississippi sources will be
met and because MDEQ submitted the
draft BART SIP which, if finalized,
would correct the deficiencies in the
regional haze plan that led to the
limited disapproval. As previously
noted, EPA is simultaneously proposing
to approve a SIP revision to address
certain BART determinations for 14
EGUs. EPA cannot take final action to
approve Mississippi’s declaration under
40 CFR 51.308(h) unless the Agency
finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP.
V. Proposed Action
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA proposes to approve the draft
BART SIP and finds that it corrects the
deficiencies that led to the limited
approval and limited disapproval of the
State’s regional haze SIP; to withdraw
the limited disapproval of Mississippi’s
regional haze SIP; and to fully approve
Mississippi’s regional haze SIP as
meeting all regional haze requirements
of the CAA for the first implementation
period, replacing the prior limited
approval. EPA also proposes to approve
Mississippi’s October 4, 2018, Regional
Haze Progress Report, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and to
approve the State’s negative declaration
under 51.308(h). EPA cannot take final
action to approve Mississippi’s Progress
Report and negative declaration unless
the Agency finalizes its proposal to
approve the draft BART SIP.
74 As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of
Plant Watson from coal to natural gas in 2015
contributed to significant SO2 emissions decreases
after 2014. In addition, 2017 Mississippi EGU SO2
emissions were 3,841 tons, which were below the
2018 projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of
section IV.A.2 of this notice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Aug 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. These actions merely propose
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
these proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47151
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, these rules do not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 23, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020–16443 Filed 8–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 423
[CMS–3394–NC]
RIN 0938–AU25
Medicare Program: Electronic
Prescribing of Controlled Substances;
Request for Information (RFI)
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
Section 2003 of the Substance
Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes
Opioid Recovery and Treatment for
Patients and Communities Act
(SUPPORT Act) requires generally that
prescriptions for controlled substances
covered under a Medicare Part D
prescription drug plan or Medicare
Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MA/
PD) be transmitted by a health care
practitioner electronically in accordance
with an electronic prescription drug
program, beginning January 1, 2021.
Further, section 2003 of the SUPPORT
Act provides CMS with the authority to,
through rulemaking, enforce and specify
appropriate penalties for
noncompliance with the requirement for
electronic prescribing of controlled
substances (EPCS). The SUPPORT Act
requires CMS to specify, through
rulemaking, circumstances and
processes by which it may waive the
EPCS requirement. This Request for
Information (RFI) seeks input from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04AUP1.SGM
04AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47134-47151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16443]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0447; FRL-10012-92-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; MS; BART SIP and Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, a draft Mississippi State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted through a letter dated
April 23, 2020, addressing best available retrofit technology (BART)
determinations for 14 electric generating units (EGUs) (``draft BART
SIP''). These EGUs were initially addressed in EPA's prior limited
approval and limited disapproval actions on Mississippi's regional haze
SIP because of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain regional haze
requirements. EPA proposes to approve the draft BART SIP and finds that
it corrects the deficiencies that led to the limited approval and
limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP; to withdraw the
limited disapproval of the regional haze SIP; and to replace the prior
limited approval with a full approval of the regional haze SIP as
meeting all regional haze requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the first implementation period. In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve the State's first periodic report describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and the associated determination that the State's regional haze SIP is
adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period
(``Progress Report''). The State submitted the
[[Page 47135]]
progress report as a SIP revision by letter dated October 4, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0447, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni or Gobeail
McKinley, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-
9031 or electronic mail at [email protected]. Ms. McKinley can
be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9230 or electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Parallel Processing
Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent
state and federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA
before conducting its public hearing and completing its public comment
process under state law. EPA reviews this proposed state action and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under federal law.\1\
If, after the state completes its public comment process and after
EPA's public comment process has run, the state changes its final
submittal from the proposed submittal, EPA evaluates those changes and
decides whether to publish another NPRM in light of those changes or to
proceed to taking final action on its proposed action and describe the
state's changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking
action by EPA will occur only after the final submittal has been
adopted by the state and formally provided to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although not the case in this proposed rulemaking, in some
instances, EPA's NPRM is published in the Federal Register during
the same time frame that the state is holding its public hearing and
conducting its public comment process. The state and EPA then
provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the state
action and federal action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its previously submitted regional haze SIP,\2\ the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) relied on CAIR \3\ to meet
BART requirements for the 14 BART-eligible units, located at seven
facilities, formerly subject to that trading program.\4\ Mississippi's
newly submitted draft BART SIP addresses BART for these EGUs in lieu of
relying on CAIR as an alternative to BART. Because the draft BART SIP
has not yet completed the State's public notice-and-comment process,
Mississippi has requested that EPA parallel process the SIP revision
with the State's rulemaking proceedings. Mississippi submitted the
draft BART SIP to EPA on April 23, 2020,\5\ and noticed it for public
comment on the same date. The State's public comment period closed on
May 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this notice, EPA is using ``regional haze SIP'' and
``regional haze plan'' interchangeably.
\3\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia),
including Mississippi, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or
interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
\4\ See 77 FR 38191 (June 27, 2012); 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
\5\ EPA received MDEQ's April 23, 2020, draft BART SIP on April
24, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Mississippi submits the final BART SIP (including a response
to all public comments raised during the State's public participation
process), EPA will evaluate the submittal. If the State changes the
final submittal from the draft BART SIP that EPA is proposing to
approve today, EPA will evaluate those changes for significance. If EPA
finds any such changes to be significant, then the Agency intends to
determine whether to re-propose based on the revised submission or to
proceed to take final action on the BART SIP as changed by the State.
II. Background
A. Regional Haze and the Regional Haze Plan
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5 which
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment (i.e., light scattering) reduces the clarity, color, and
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause
serious health effects (including premature death, heart attacks,
irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and
increased respiratory symptoms) and mortality in humans and contributes
to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \6\ in many Class I areas
\7\ in the western United States is 100-150 kilometers (km), or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without
anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of
the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 km, or
about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). CAA programs
[[Page 47136]]
have reduced emissions of haze-causing pollution, lessening visibility
impairment and resulting in improved average visual ranges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or miles, at
which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\7\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In
accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with
the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979); 40 CFR part 81 Subpart D. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I area is
the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this action, it
means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\8\ An interactive ``story map'' depicting efforts and recent
progress by EPA and states to improve visibility at national parks
and wilderness areas is available at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and
wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues, and EPA subsequently promulgated the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR).\9\ The RHR established a requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP which applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
Virgin Islands.\10\ Each jurisdiction was required to submit a SIP
addressing regional haze requirements for the first implementation
period no later than December 17, 2007.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 64 FR 35713 (July 1, 1990).
\10\ 40 CFR 51.300(b).
\11\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 22, 2008, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to
address regional haze in Class I areas impacted by emissions from
Mississippi and subsequently amended that submittal on May 9, 2011. As
discussed further in Section II.B.2, EPA finalized a limited approval
and a limited disapproval of the Mississippi regional haze SIP in June
2012 because of deficiencies \12\ in the regional haze SIP arising from
the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements, including BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The deficiencies resulting from Mississippi's reliance on
CAIR to satisfy BART relate to those BART determinations and to the
use of those determinations as an element of the required long-term
strategy for achieving RPGs. Mississippi's reliance on CAIR did not
affect its reasonable progress control analysis because the State
determined in its regional haze SIP that no controls were necessary
for reasonable progress given the areas of influence and
consultation with neighboring states. See 77 FR 11879, 11888
(February 28, 2012) for further information on the reasonable
progress evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. BART
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. On
July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states
in the BART evaluation process. Under the RHR and the BART Guidelines,
the BART evaluation process consists of three steps: (1) An
identification of all BART-eligible sources, (2) an assessment of
whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and (3) a
determination of the BART controls.\13\ States must conduct BART
determinations for all ``BART-eligible'' sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area, or in the alternative, adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. In
making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a
state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state
is generally encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in other aspects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e); BART Guidelines, I.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first step of the BART evaluation process, states are
required to identify all the BART-eligible sources within their
boundaries by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the Act and
the RHR: (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission
unit(s) began operation on or after August 6, 1962, and was in
existence on August 6, 1977; and (3) the potential emissions of any
visibility-impairing pollutant from the units exceed 250 tons per year
(tpy).\14\ With respect to the third criterion, states must address all
visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a BART-eligible source,
which is the collection of emissions units whose potential to emit for
a visibility-impairing pollutant is greater than 250 tpy. The most
significant visibility-impairing pollutants are SO2,
NOX, and particulate matter (PM).\15\ States should use
their best judgment in determining whether VOC or NH3
compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.\16\ Sources that meet all
three criteria are BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), (g)(7); 40 CFR 51.301
(definition of ``Existing stationary facility''); see also BART
Guidelines, II.
\15\ See 70 FR 39160.
\16\ See BART Guidelines, II.A.3, III.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those
sources that are subject to BART. Section III of the BART Guidelines
allows states to exempt BART-eligible sources from further BART review
(i.e., deem them not subject to BART) via modeling and emissions
analyses demonstrating that the sources may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any
Class I area. For such sources, a state need not make a BART
determination.
For states using modeling to determine whether single sources are
subject to BART, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area.\17\ Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an
exemption threshold value for their BART modeling below which a BART-
eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its
selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The
BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different
Class I areas. States should consider the number of emissions sources
affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources' impacts. Generally, the exemption threshold set by
the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview (dv).\18\ States
[[Page 47137]]
are also free to use a lower threshold if, for instance, they conclude
that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in
proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See BART Guidelines, III.A.3 (``Option 1: Individual Source
Attribution Approach (Dispersion Modeling)'').
\18\ A dv is the unit of measurement on the dv index scale for
quantifying in a standard manner human perceptions of visibility.
See 40 CFR 51.301. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single
source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should
be considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART
Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source `contributes to visibility impairment'
may reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter,
any threshold that you use for determining whether a source
`contributes' to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews.'' See BART Guidelines, III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once a state has determined which sources are subject to BART, the
state must determine BART for these sources in the third and final step
of the BART evaluation process. In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to
be assigned to each factor, but must reasonably consider all five
factors.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a)(2).
2. Draft BART SIP
a. Relationship to EPA's Transport Rules
Like many other states formerly subject to CAIR, Mississippi had
relied on CAIR in its regional haze SIP to meet certain requirements of
EPA's RHR, including BART requirements for emissions of SO2
and NOX from its BART-eligible EGUs in the State.\19\ This
reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations at the time that
Mississippi developed its regional haze SIP. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005). However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) invalidated CAIR, although
it ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits CAIR provided. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In addition to relying on CAIR to satisfy BART
SO2 and NOX requirements, these sources also
modeled their coars PM (PM10) emissions and found that
those emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class 1 area. See 77 FR 11890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's
remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to
replace CAIR and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to
implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\20\ Although Mississippi
was covered under CAIR's annual NOX and SO2
trading programs, only CSAPR's ozone-season NOX program
applied to the State. See 40 CFR 52.1284.\21\ Implementation of CSAPR
was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have
superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions
for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an
order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing
EPA to continue to administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA
ultimately began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs in 27 states in the Eastern
United States that significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
\21\ See also 76 FR 48208 (Mississippi FIP for 1997 ozone
NAAQS); 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (Mississippi FIP for 2008
ozone 8-hour ozone NAAQS).
\22\ See 79 FR 71663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this same timeframe, EPA also finalized a limited approval
and a limited disapproval of the Mississippi regional haze SIP in June
2012 because of deficiencies in the regional haze SIP arising from the
State's reliance on CAIR as an alternative to BART for the State's
BART-eligible EGUs.\23\ See 77 FR 38191 (June 27, 2012) (limited
approval); 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012) (limited disapproval). In the
limited disapproval action, EPA did not subject Mississippi to a FIP.
Mississippi had requested that EPA not issue a FIP and instead provide
the State with additional time to correct the deficiencies in its
regional haze SIP through a SIP revision.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The State's analysis of reasonable progress controls was
not dependent on CAIR, and thus not affected by CAIR's invalidation.
See 77 FR 11879, 11888 (February 28, 2012) (finding no controls were
necessary for reasonable progress given the areas of influence and
consultation with neighboring states).
\24\ See 77 FR 33654.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, Mississippi began working on a new SIP submission to
address the limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP and
the change from CAIR and CSAPR. One important impact of the transition
from CAIR to CSAPR was that Mississippi previously relied on CAIR as an
alternative to BART for both SO2 and NOX because
it participated in trading programs for both pollutants under CAIR;
however, because Mississippi is only part of the CSAPR seasonal
NOX program (and not part of the SO2 program), it
could not rely on CSAPR to satisfy BART for SO2. Thus, the
State worked with the BART-eligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR to
determine how these facilities would now address BART.\25\ These 14
BART-eligible units are located at the following seven facilities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA previously approved the State's identification of BART-
eligible sources in its limited approval action. EPA is not
reexamining these BART-eligibility findings in this rulemaking, and
any comments on this issue are beyond the scope of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Energy \26\--Plant Moselle (Plant Moselle);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Cooperative Energy was formerly known as South Mississippi
Electric Power Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative Energy--R. D. Morrow Sr. Generating Plant
(Plant Morrow);
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.--Baxter Wilson Plant (Baxter
Wilson);
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.--Gerald Andrus Plant (Gerald
Andrus);
Mississippi Power Company--Plant Chevron (Plant Chevron);
Mississippi Power Company--Plant Daniel (Plant Daniel);
and
Mississippi Power Company--Plant Watson (Plant Watson).
As explained further in Section III of this notice, the draft BART
SIP proposes to find that these 14 BART-eligible EGUs are exempt from
BART because visibility modeling and/or supplemental analyses
demonstrate that they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area.
b. Pollutants Addressed
As described earlier, the BART Guidelines direct states to address
SO2, NOX, and direct PM (including both
PM10 and PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairing
pollutants, and to exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or
NH3 emissions from a source impair visibility in an area.
See 70 FR 39160. Mississippi had previously determined that VOC from
anthropogenic sources and NH3 from point sources are not
significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Mississippi for the
first implementation period. The State continues to rely on these
findings in its draft BART SIP. EPA previously approved these findings
in our earlier limited approval, and the Agency is not
[[Page 47138]]
reexamining this issue in this rulemaking.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 77 FR 11887-88 (discussing analysis by the State and
the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Dispersion Modeling Methodology
Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Mississippi requested that
each of its seven BART-eligible facilities formerly subject to CAIR
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas. The
BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \28\ modeling system
(CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to
determine whether an individual source may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas (i.e.,
whether it is subject to BART). The BART Guidelines also recommend that
states develop a modeling protocol for making individual source
attributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire CALPUFF
modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST
models and other pre and post processors. The different versions of
CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, etc. which
may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the output from
a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an older
version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF modeling
system are available from the model developer at: https://www.src.com/calpuff/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VISTAS states, including Mississippi, developed a ``Protocol
for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses'' (VISTAS BART
Modeling Protocol).\29\ Mississippi, in coordination with VISTAS, used
this modeling protocol to apply CALPUFF to determine whether individual
sources in Mississippi were subject to or exempt from BART. EPA
previously approved the use of this modeling methodology by
Mississippi,\30\ and the Agency believes that the continued use of this
modeling methodology in the draft BART SIP remains appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol, December 22, 2005,
Revision 3.2 (August 31, 2006), is included in Appendix L.8 of the
BART SIP.
\30\ See 77 FR 11888-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Contribution Threshold
In its prior regional haze submissions, MDEQ used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which BART-eligible units
(including the 14 units addressed by the draft BART SIP) are subject to
BART. EPA previously approved the use of this 0.5 dv BART contribution
threshold, and the Agency is not reexamining this issue in this
rulemaking.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The factors supporting the Agency's original approval of
the 0.5 dv BART contribution threshold have not changed. See 77 FR
11889 (Feb. 28, 2012). In fact, there are now fewer BART-eligible
sources (due to the removal of all BART-eligible units at Plant
Morrow and Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson) and less visibility-impairing
pollutants emitted from BART-eligible sources than existed in the
record at the time of EPA's earlier limited approval (due to
SO2 scrubbers installed at Plant Daniel and removal of
fuel oil burning capabilities for Unit 1 at Gerald Andrus and Unit 1
at Baxter Wilson). These changes are discussed further in Section
III of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Progress Report Requirements
The RHR requires each state to submit progress reports that
evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area
within the state and for each Class I area outside the state which may
be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require a state to
submit, at the same time as each progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The first
progress report is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze plan and must be submitted as a SIP revision. Mississippi
submitted its progress report for the first implementation period to
EPA on October 4, 2018.
III. Summary and EPA's Evaluation of Mississippi's BART SIP
A. Summary of Mississippi's BART SIP
The draft BART SIP sets forth MDEQ's subject-to-BART determinations
for the BART-eligible sources formerly subject to CAIR, and finds that
none of these sources is subject to BART. Table 1 identifies these
BART-eligible sources, the highest modeled impact at the Class I area
nearest each source,\32\ and the State's determination regarding
whether the sources are subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ MDEQ followed the VISTAS BART Modeling protocol which
specifies that BART exemption modeling should be performed for Class
I areas located within 300 km of each BART-eligible source. The
Class I areas listed in Table 1 are the only Class I areas located
within 300 km of each BART-eligible source with the exception of
Baxter Wilson, which has no Class I areas within 300 km and is
located 310 km from Breton.
Table 1--Mississippi EGUs Subject-to-BART Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24-
hour 98th
BART-eligible percentile
Facility name units Nearest Class I Area visibility Subject to BART?
impact \33\
(dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Wilson..................... 1, 2 Breton Wilderness 0.49* No.
Area (Breton) (LA).
Gerald Andrus..................... 1 Caney Creek 0.15* No.
Wilderness Area
(Caney Creek) (AR).
Plant Chevron..................... 1, 2, 3, 4 Breton (LA).......... 0.27 No.
Plant Daniel...................... 1, 2 Breton (LA).......... 0.39 No.
Plant Morrow...................... 1, 2 Breton (LA).......... N/A** N/A**.
Plant Moselle..................... 3 Breton (LA).......... 0.05 No.
Plant Watson...................... 4, 5 Breton (LA).......... 0.44 No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These visibility impacts for Baxter Wilson and Gerald Andrus are based on burning natural gas only as these
facilities have removed the ability to burn fuel oil at Unit 1 for each facility. In addition, as explained
further below, the visibility impact for Baxter Wilson was modeled based on emissions from both Unit 1 and
Unit 2, but Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson has since been removed.
** ``N/A'' indicates that there is no visibility impact from Plant Morrow Units 1 and 2 because these BART-
eligible units were removed from service.
[[Page 47139]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ EPA's BART Guidelines recommend comparing visibility
improvements between control options using the 98th percentile of
24-hour delta dv, which is equivalent to the facility's 8th highest
visibility impact day. See 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005). The 98th
percentile is recommended rather than the maximum value to allow for
uncertainty in the modeled impacts and to avoid undue influence from
unusual meteorological conditions. The ``delta'' refers to the
difference between total dv impact from the facility plus natural
background, and dv of natural background alone, so ``delta
deciviews'' is the estimate of the facility's impact relative to
natural visibility conditions. The VISTAS BART Modeling Protocol
interprets EPA's recommended use of the 98th percentile value as the
highest of the three annual 98th percentile values at a particular
Class I area or the 22nd highest value in the combined 3-year
period, whichever is more conservative (p.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original modeling for each of these plants was generally
performed in the early 2010s, using data from an earlier period (e.g.,
2001-03 or 2003-05) and earlier versions of the CALPUFF model. For four
facilities (Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle), the State supplemented the original modeling with new
analyses of emissions changes for SO2, NOX, and
PM10 \34\ since the BART baseline period. For each plant,
recent emissions have either remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period modeled. Accordingly, the
State concluded that the prior modeling results remain valid for
determining whether the sources are subject to BART.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ PM10 includes PM2.5, thus, MDEQ
evaluated PM10 emissions data in the supplemental
emissions analyses in the draft BART SIP.
\35\ In addition, as further explained in Section III.B.2, EPA
has also evaluated the potential impacts of updates to the CALPUFF
model, and found that such updates are unlikely to result in
significantly different visibility impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Plant Daniel and Plant Watson, the sources conducted updated
modeling with recent emissions data and the current version of CALPUFF.
Finally, Plant Morrow's BART-eligible units are permanently retired,
and thus there is no need to determine whether this source is subject
to BART.
The following subsections discuss in more detail MDEQ's assessment
of the BART exemption modeling for each of the seven facilities.
1. Mississippi Power Company--Chevron Cogenerating Plant Units 1, 2, 3,
and 4
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at Plant Chevron, located in Pascagoula,
Mississippi, and owned and operated by Mississippi Power Company, have
been identified by MDEQ as BART-eligible. Plant Chevron is located
approximately 48 km north of Breton. Plant Chevron is an electric
generating facility with four gas-fired combined cycle turbines. All
four units each have the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of
NOX emissions. Plant Chevron performed CALPUFF modeling in
2011 on these four units utilizing CALPUFF version 5.754 Level 060202.
The modeling analysis predicted a maximum annual 98th percentile 24-
hour average visibility impact of 0.27 dv over the three years modeled
on Breton, and a 22nd highest day's visibility impact over all three
years of 0.24 dv.
As explained previously, because the original modeling was
conducted years ago, MDEQ also performed a supplemental emissions
analysis for this facility. MDEQ compared more current (2016-2018)
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emissions values
from annual emissions reports submitted by Plant Chevron with the 2003-
2005 baseline emissions values and showed that recent emissions have
remained roughly equivalent to or decreased relative to the baseline
period modeled. Therefore, MDEQ concluded that it is not necessary to
remodel using recent emissions. Table 2 compares the maximum 24-hour
emissions rates for 2003-2005 that were modeled in 2011 against updated
maximum 24-hour emissions rates for 2016-2018. The State found that:
(1) The maximum SO2 emissions rates from all four units
combined were slightly higher, but still quite low, in the updated
period compared to the baseline period (approximately 8 pounds per hour
(lb/hr) vs 4 lb/hr); (2) the maximum NOX emissions rates
from all four units combined were significantly lower in the updated
period compared to the baseline period (approximately 420 lb/hr vs 558
lb/hr); and (3) the maximum PM10 emissions rates from all
four units combined were approximately the same (9 lb/hr). The 2011
CALPUFF modeling found that most of the visibility impact from this
facility was from nitrates, so the recent decrease in NOX
emissions would suggest a corresponding decrease in visibility impact
on Breton.
In addition, Table 3 compares the annual 2003-2005 baseline
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 to
2016-2018 annual emissions. Annual emissions are not an input into
CALPUFF modeling, but MDEQ elected to consider them. The annual
emissions comparison provides a general indication of overall trends in
emissions between the baseline period that was used in the 2011
modeling and more recent emissions. The annual emissions of
NOX and SO2 are higher in the 2016-2018 period
and PM10 emissions are lower.
Table 2--Plant Chevron Modeled (2003-2005) and 2016-2018 Maximum 24-Hour Emissions Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2003- Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2016-
2005) 2018)
Emission unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1.................................................. 0.75 119.58 1.90 0.17 90.91 1.88
Unit 2.................................................. 0.78 122.64 1.95 0.17 88.84 1.83
Unit 3.................................................. 1.00 159.23 2.55 4.11 119.64 2.47
Unit 4.................................................. 0.98 156.84 2.50 3.66 120.56 2.49
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 3.51 558.29 8.90 8.11 419.95 8.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Plant Chevron Baseline (2001-2003) and Current (2016-2018) Period Annual Emissions Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined annual emission (tons) units 1-4
Year -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................ 1.61 1,238.26 66.14
[[Page 47140]]
2002............................................................ 1.55 1,181.77 62.59
2003............................................................ 1.44 1,264.50 67.65
2016............................................................ 8.01 1,430.36 29.50
2017............................................................ 7.77 1,274.89 26.30
2018............................................................ 5.76 1,240.95 26.11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, MDEQ concluded that Plant Chevron Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are
not subject to BART, and thus, no further BART analysis is required
because Plant Chevron's 2011 modeling found that its visibility impact
was 0.27 dv which is significantly less than 0.5 dv, and there have
been no significant increases in SO2, NOX, or
PM10 emissions since the modeled baseline period.
Specifically, there have been no significant increases in the maximum
24-hour SO2 nor PM10 emissions rates, and the
maximum 24-hour NOX emissions rates have declined.
2. Mississippi Power Company--Plant Victor J Daniel Units 1 and 2
Units 1 and 2 at Plant Daniel, located in Escatawpa, Mississippi,
and owned and operated by Mississippi Power Company, have been
identified by MDEQ as BART-eligible. Plant Daniel is approximately 63
km northeast of Breton. Plant Daniel is an electric generating facility
with two coal-fired steam EGUs. Each of the units have the potential to
emit over 250 tpy of SO2, NOX, and
PM10. Plant Daniel controls SO2 emissions from
these units through scrubbers (i.e., wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
systems) installed to comply with EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS).\36\ Scrubber operation began in September 2015.
Mississippi Power Company performed updated CALPUFF modeling on Units 1
and 2 using recent emissions data (i.e., from September 2015-August
2018) and the current EPA-approved version of CALPUFF. The modeling
analysis predicted a maximum annual 98th percentile 24-hour average
visibility impact of 0.39 dv over the three years modeled, and a 22nd
highest day's visibility impact over all three years of 0.33 dv. MDEQ
concluded that Plant Daniel's Units 1 and 2 are not subject to BART,
and thus, no further BART analysis is required because the 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility impact of 0.39 dv is below the
State's 0.5 dv contribution threshold for BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See June 15, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA Region 4 that
includes an October 30, 2015 title V permit renewal application
addendum for Plant Daniel addressing MATS requirements. These
documents are included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Entergy Mississippi Inc.--Baxter Wilson Plant Units 1 and 2
Units 1 and 2 at Baxter Wilson, located in Vicksburg, Mississippi,
and owned and operated by Entergy Mississippi, Inc., have been
identified by MDEQ as BART-eligible. Baxter Wilson is located
approximately 310 km northwest of Breton. Baxter Wilson is an electric
generating facility that currently has one natural gas-fired unit (Unit
1). The initial CALPUFF modeling was performed in 2012 with CALPUFF
version 5.8 Level 070623. The modeling used the maximum 24-hour
emissions rates over the three-year baseline period of 2001-2003
assuming that both Units 1 and 2 fired only natural gas. This modeling
indicated a maximum 98th percentile 24-hour impact of 0.49 dv over the
three years modeled and a 22nd highest day's visibility impact over all
three years of 0.39 dv, both of which are below the contribution
threshold of 0.5 dv.
Since the modeling was performed, the facility has undergone
changes. Unit 1 at Baxter Wilson originally was a dual fuel oil and
gas-fired unit, but the fuel oil tanks have been rendered unusable, and
the capability to burn fuel oil is in the process of being removed.\37\
Unit 2, the larger unit, permanently retired thereby reducing
SO2, NOX, and PM emissions from the plant.\38\
Given these changes and the fact that the original modeling was
conducted years ago, MDEQ also performed a supplemental emissions
analysis for this facility. MDEQ compared more current (2016-2018)
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emissions values
from annual emissions reports submitted by Baxter Wilson with the 2001-
2003 baseline emissions values and showed that recent emissions have
remained roughly equivalent to or decreased relative to the baseline
period modeled. Therefore, MDEQ concluded that it is not necessary to
remodel using recent emissions. Table 4 compares the maximum 24-hour
emissions rates for 2001-2003 that were modeled with updated rates for
2016-2018. Because the facility can no longer burn fuel oil, all
emissions values in Table 4 reflect the burning of natural gas. The
State found that the combined current emissions rates from Units 1 and
2 have decreased considerably relative to the baseline values modeled
for SO2, NOX, and PM10 because Unit 2
has shut down. In particular, current NOX emissions rates
are approximately one-fifth of the modeled emissions rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See May 27, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA Region 4 that
includes a September 8, 2019, letter providing an update on the
removal of fuel oil capabilities at Gerald Andrus and Baxter Wilson.
These documents are included in the docket for this proposed action.
\38\ Unit 2 at Baxter Wilson was decommissioned in June 2018. A
copy of the Acid Rain and CSAPR Trading Programs Retired Unit
Exemption Form is located in Appendix L.7.2 of the draft BART SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Table 5 compares the annual baseline emissions of
2001-2003 to 2016-2018 annual emissions. Table 5 reflects annual
emissions from burning both natural gas and fuel oil. MDEQ concludes
that the current annual emissions are much less than the baseline
emissions for all pollutants.
[[Page 47141]]
Table 4--Baxter Wilson Modeled 2001-2003 and 2016-2018 Maximum 24-Hour Emissions Rates--Natural Gas Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2001- Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2016-
2003) 2018)
Emission unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1.................................................. 2.71 2,030 35.69 3.67 1,337 36.17
Unit 2.................................................. 2.40 4,674 49.77 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 5.11 6,704 85.46 3.67 1,337 36.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Baxter Wilson Baseline (2001-2003) and Current (2016-2018) Period Annual Emissions Comparison--Natural
Gas and Fuel Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined annual emission (tons)
Year -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................ 34,117.18 14,274.82 2,796.09
2002............................................................ 8.34 6,375.26 102.94
2003............................................................ 1.99 1,325.02 24.51
2016............................................................ 2.49 1,550.71 25.19
2017............................................................ 2.65 794.41 25.06
2018............................................................ 3.08 1,111.63 34.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDEQ concluded that Baxter Wilson is not subject to BART, and no
further BART analysis is required because the maximum 98th percentile
24-hour average visibility impact of 0.49 dv is below the State's 0.5
dv contribution threshold for BART, and recent maximum 24-hour
emissions rates and annual emissions of SO2, NOX,
and PM have declined since the 2001-2003 modeled baseline period.
4. Entergy Mississippi Inc.--Gerald Andrus Plant Unit 1
Gerald Andrus Unit 1, located in Greenville, Mississippi, and owned
and operated by Entergy Mississippi, Inc., has been identified by MDEQ
as BART-eligible. Gerald Andrus is located approximately 290 km east of
Caney Creek. Gerald Andrus is an electric generating facility that
currently has one natural gas-fired unit (Unit 1). The initial CALPUFF
modeling performed in 2012 for Unit 1 using CALPUFF Version 5.8 Level
070623 was based on Unit 1 only firing natural gas. This modeling
demonstrated a maximum 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact over the three years modeled of 0.15 dv and a 22nd highest day's
visibility impact over all three years of 0.12 dv based on burning
natural gas.
As with Baxter Wilson, the facility has undergone changes since the
original modeling. Namely, Unit 1 at Gerald Andrus originally was a
dual fuel oil- and gas-fired unit. As of April 23, 2020, Gerald Andrus
removed the capability to utilize fuel oil.\39\ Given this change and
the fact that the original modeling was conducted years ago, MDEQ also
performed a supplemental emissions analysis for this facility. MDEQ
compared more current (2016-2018) SO2, NOX, and
PM10 emissions values from annual emissions reports
submitted by Gerald Andrus with the 2001-2003 baseline emissions values
and showed that recent emissions have remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period modeled. Therefore, MDEQ
concluded that it is not necessary to remodel using recent emissions.
The comparison of 2001-2003 modeled maximum 24-hour emissions rates to
updated 2016-2018 maximum 24-hour emissions rates of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 is shown in Table 6. Because the
facility has removed the ability to burn fuel oil, all emissions values
in Table 6 reflect the burning of natural gas. The State's evaluation
found that the maximum 24-hour SO2 emissions rates from
2016-2018 were essentially the same as the modeled value (approximately
3.8 lb/hr vs. 3.7 lb/hr), and that recent maximum 24-hour
PM10 and NOX emissions rates were less than the
modeled emissions rates. In addition, Table 7 compares the annual 2001-
2003 baseline emissions to 2016-2018 annual emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM10. Table 7 reflects
annual emissions from burning both natural gas and fuel oil. MDEQ
concluded that the current annual emissions are much less than the
baseline emissions for all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See May 27, 2020, email from MDEQ to EPA Region 4 with a
September 8, 2019, letter providing an update on the removal of fuel
oil capabilities at Gerald Andrus and Baxter Wilson. These documents
are included in the docket for this proposed action.
[[Page 47142]]
Table 6--Gerald Andrus Modeled 2001-2003 and 2016-2018 Maximum 24-Hour Emissions Rates--Natural Gas Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2001- Maximum 24-hour emissions rates (lb/hr) (2016-
2003) 2018)
Emission unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1.................................................. 3.66 3,971 54.2 3.83 1,813 47.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Gerald Andrus Baseline (2001-2003) and Current (2016-2018) Period Annual Emissions Comparison--Natural
Gas and Fuel Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined annual emission (tons)
Year -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................ 32,725.12 8,417.70 2,108.27
2002............................................................ 8.44 4,809.19 103.72
2003............................................................ 12,568.21 6,626.94 1,096.43
2016............................................................ 2.22 763.67 26.36
2017............................................................ 1.53 436.82 17.26
2018............................................................ 3.15 1,138.78 36.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDEQ concluded that Gerald Andrus is not subject to BART, and no
further BART analysis is required because the 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.15 dv is well below the State's 0.5 dv
threshold contribution for BART, 2016-2018 annual emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM have declined from 2001-2003
levels, and the maximum 24-hour emissions rates of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 have remained equivalent to
(SO2) or lower than (NOX and PM10)
those in the 2001-2003 modeled baseline period.
5. Cooperative Energy--R. D. Morrow Sr. Generating Plant Units 1 and 2
Plant Morrow Units 1 and 2, located in Purvis, Mississippi, and
owned and operated by Cooperative Energy, were previously identified by
MDEQ as BART-eligible. Plant Morrow is located approximately 138 km
from Breton. On November 17, 2018, Units 1 and 2 were permanently
retired.\40\ MDEQ concluded that there are no other units at Plant
Morrow that are BART-eligible, and therefore, the facility has no
further BART obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ A copy of the Acid Rain and CSAPR Trading Programs Retired
Unit Exemption Form is located in Appendix L.4.2 of the draft BART
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Cooperative Energy--Plant Moselle Unit 3
Plant Moselle Unit 3, located in Moselle, Mississippi, and owned
and operated by Cooperative Energy, has been identified by MDEQ as
BART-eligible. Plant Moselle is located approximately 170 km north of
Breton. Plant Moselle is an electric generating facility that currently
has one natural gas-fired unit (Unit 3). Plant Moselle conducted
CALPUFF modeling for Unit 3 in 2011 using CALPUFF Version 5.8 Level
070623. The modeling analysis demonstrated a maximum 98th percentile
24-hour average visibility impact over the three years modeled of 0.05
dv, and a 22nd highest day's visibility impact over all three years of
0.042 dv.
Given that the original modeling was conducted years ago, MDEQ also
performed a supplemental emissions analysis for this facility. MDEQ
compared more current (2016-2018) SO2, NOX, and
PM10 emissions values from annual emissions reports
submitted by Plant Moselle with the 2001-2003 baseline emissions values
and showed that recent emissions have remained roughly equivalent to or
decreased relative to the baseline period modeled. Therefore, MDEQ
concluded that it is not necessary to remodel using recent emissions.
The comparison of modeled 2001-2003 maximum 24-hour emissions rates of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 to updated 2016-
2018 maximum 24-hour emissions rates is shown in Table 8. The State's
evaluation found that the 2016-2018 maximum 24-hour SO2
emissions rate was equivalent to the modeled value (0.25 lb/hr vs. 0.24
lb/hr). MDEQ notes maximum 24-hour average NOX and
PM10 emissions rates from 2016-2018 are less than the
modeled emissions rates. In addition, Table 9 compares the annual 2001-
2003 baseline emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM10 to 2016-2018 annual emissions. MDEQ concluded that the
2016-2018 annual emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM10 are less than the baseline emissions.
Table 8--Plant Moselle Modeled 2001-2003 and 2016-2018 Maximum 24-Hour Emissions Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 24-hour emissions rates emissions (lb/ Maximum 24-hour emissions rates emissions (lb/
hr) (2001-2003) hr) (2016-2018)
Emissions period (date) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3.................................................. 0.24 245.25 6.50 0.25 217.25 3.21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47143]]
Table 9--Plant Moselle Baseline (2001-2003) and Current (2016-2018) Period Annual Emissions Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual emissions (tons)
Year -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................ 0.85 249.56 6.59
2002............................................................ 0.63 317.39 7.80
2003............................................................ 0.56 344.65 6.93
2016............................................................ 0.11 56.35 1.37
2017............................................................ 0.09 43.42 1.14
2018............................................................ 0.11 58.79 1.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDEQ concluded that Plant Moselle is not subject to BART, and no
further BART analysis is required because the 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.05 dv is well below the State's 0.5 dv
contribution threshold for BART, 2016-2018 annual emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 have declined from
2001-2003 levels, and maximum 24-hour emissions rates of
SO2, NOX and PM10 have remained
equivalent to (SO2) or declined (NOX and
PM10) since the 2001-2003 baseline period modeled.
7. Mississippi Power Company--Plant Watson Units 4 and 5
Plant Watson Units 4 and 5, located in Gulfport, Mississippi, and
owned and operated by Mississippi Power Company, have been identified
by MDEQ as being BART-eligible. Plant Watson is 45 km from Breton.
Plant Watson is an electric generating facility that has two natural-
gas fired units (Units 4 and 5). These units were previously capable of
firing coal and fuel oil. Plant Watson conducted CALPUFF modeling in
2012 for Units 4 and 5 using CALPUFF Version 5.8 Level 070623 and
assuming that these units would convert to firing only natural gas. The
modeling analysis demonstrated a maximum 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.48 dv over the three years modeled, and
a 22nd highest day's visibility impact over all three years of 0.46 dv.
Since the 2012 CALPUFF modeling was conducted, Units 4 and 5 were
modified in 2015 by removing all liquid burning equipment and
dismantling the coal handling systems. Now both units are physically
limited to burn natural gas only.\41\ Although the 2012 modeled values
are below the State's contribution threshold for sources that are
subject to BART, these changes at Plant Watson reduced annual emissions
of visibility-impairing pollutants such that the source elected to
model using more recent emissions. On behalf of Mississippi Power
Company, Southern Company Services performed updated CALPUFF modeling
on Units 1 and 2 using current emissions (i.e., 2017-2019) and the
current EPA-approved version of CALPUFF. The modeling analysis
predicted a maximum annual 98th percentile 24-hour average visibility
impact of 0.44 dv over the three years modeled, and a 22nd highest
day's visibility impact over all three years of 0.41 dv. MDEQ concluded
that Plant Watson's Units 4 and 5 are not subject to BART, and thus, no
further BART analysis is required because the 98th percentile 24-hour
average visibility impact of 0.44 dv is below the State's 0.5 dv
contribution threshold for BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ In an April 9, 2015, letter to MDEQ, Mississippi Power
Company requested a modification to its title V permit for Plant
Watson to reflect actions to render Units 4 and 5 incapable of
combusting any solid or liquid fuels. These activities included the
removal of liquid fuel burning equipment and the permanent
dismantlement of the coal handling system. MDEQ issued a revised
title V permit and acid rain permit on December 29, 2016. These
documents are located in the docket for this proposed action for
informational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation of Mississippi's BART SIP
1. Overview
EPA proposes to find that the draft BART SIP corrects the
deficiencies arising from Mississippi's prior reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements that resulted in EPA's limited
disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze plan. Because this was the
sole deficiency leading to EPA's prior limited disapproval, the Agency
is also proposing to withdraw that limited disapproval and to fully
approve the State's regional haze SIP.
As discussed above, Plant Morrow's BART-eligible Units 1 and 2
permanently retired in 2018, and EPA therefore proposes to approve the
State's finding that this source is exempt from further BART analysis.
The remaining six facilities all modeled below the State's BART
contribution threshold of 0.5 dv. As explained previously, modeling for
four facilities (Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle) was conducted in the early 2010s with earlier versions of
CALPUFF. For these facilities, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
changes to the CALPUFF modeling system, and, as discussed in Section
III.B.2, EPA believes that the modeling system changes do not
significantly affect the modeling results for these sources. In
addition, EPA agrees with the State's analyses of the modeling results
and the supplemental emissions analyses, as discussed in Section
III.B.3, below. Thus, EPA proposes to approve the State's determination
that Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, Plant Daniel, Plant
Moselle, and Plant Watson are not subject to BART, and no further BART
analysis is required of these sources.
2. Assessment of CALPUFF Modeling System Changes
MDEQ opted to rely on existing BART exemption modeling for four
sources, Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle, which utilized older versions of the CALPUFF modeling system.
For this reason, EPA assessed whether the updates to the CALPUFF
modeling system could affect the modeling results for these four
sources such that they would become subject to BART. EPA first
considered the changes to the CALPUFF modeling system and an earlier
analysis prepared by an EPA contractor, and found that these changes
are generally unlikely to result in significant differences in modeled
visibility impacts. Second, EPA analyzed Plant Watson's modeling
results under both the current CALPUFF model and the older version of
the model used by Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, and Plant Moselle. This
analysis accounts for the significant similarities between the
emissions profiles of Plant Watson and the other plants, and further
corroborates that using the updated CALPUFF model is unlikely to result
in the other plants becoming subject to BART. Thus, EPA proposes to
find that it is not necessary
[[Page 47144]]
to remodel Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle using the current EPA-approved version of CALPUFF.
CALPUFF Modeling System Versions Used for Mississippi's BART-Eligible
Sources
The initial BART exemption modeling utilized CALPUFF and CALMET
Version 5.8 Level 070623 for all sources except Plant Chevron, which
utilized CALPUFF version 5.754 Level 060202 and CALMET version 5.7. The
EPA-approved version of the CALPUFF modeling system has since been
updated to Version 5.8.5 Level 151214.\42\ Specific updates to the
CALPUFF and CALMET models since Version 5.8 are summarized below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See EPA, CALPUFF Modeling System, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/7thconf/calpuff/Previous_SCRAM_CALPUFF_
Posting_Reference.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 4, 2013--CALPUFF and CALMET updated from Version
5.8 to Version 5.8.4 Level 130731. Changes are described in Model
Change Bulletins E, F, and G.\43\ This update included bug fixes only
and no enhancements or new features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Bulletins E, F, and G are available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_mcb_e.txt, https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_mcb_f.txt, and https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_mcb_g.txt,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 2016--CALPUFF and CALMET updated to Version 5.8.5
Level 151214 which is the current EPA-approved version of the models.
This was the version of CALUFF used in revised modeling for Plants
Watson and Daniel. Changes are described in Model Change Bulletin
H.\44\ This update included program fixes to the PRIME downwash
algorithm along with updates to eliminate specific compilation and list
file errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/calpuff_mcb_h.txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A December 3, 2013, memorandum prepared by an EPA contractor
summarized the changes to the CALPUFF modeling system described in
Model Change Bulletins E, F, and G, and the potential effect of those
changes on predicted pollutant impacts for several scenarios and source
types.\45\ This memorandum broadly concluded that the changes to the
CALPUFF modeling system resulted in no difference, or almost no
difference (+/- 1 percent (%)), in predicted values for most scenarios
and source types evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ AMEC, AERMOD Technical Assistance--Modification of CALPUFF
and CALMET Final Report (December 3, 2013), available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/calpuff/CALPUFF_Update_Memo_12032013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the differences in CALPUFF versions, three sources
(Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, and Plant Chevron) used Version 6.292
Level 110406 of the CALPOST processor (one of the components of the
CALPUFF modeling framework), while four sources (Plant Daniel, Plant
Morrow, Plant Moselle, and Plant Watson) used Version 6.221 Level
080724. Use of either version of CALPOST is consistent with EPA policy
in this context.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ This context refers to calculating visibility using the new
IMPROVE equation through CALPOST Method 8. See p.71 of the November
2012 Plant Watson modeling report (Appendix B). This modeling report
is included in the docket for this rulemaking. The IMPROVE Equation
is available at: https://npshistory.com/publications/air-quality/flag-2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Evaluation of CALPUFF Model Changes at Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant Moselle
EPA also performed a specific assessment of the potential impacts
of these updates to the EPA-approved version of the CALPUFF modeling
system on the visibility results for Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus,
Plant Chevron, and Plant Moselle. Because the emissions profile and
visibility impact for Plant Watson is similar to these four sources,
and Plant Watson also used an earlier version of CALPUFF, EPA analyzed
Plant Watson modeling information using the earlier and current
versions of CALPUFF as a point of comparison to illustrate the effect
of the CALPUFF model changes. Emissions from Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant Moselle were all dominated primarily
by NOX and secondarily by PM10, similar to Plant
Watson. The predicted visibility impacts from these five facilities on
the nearest Class I areas were dominated by NOX emissions,
accounting for 86% of the visibility impacts from Plant Watson and 90%
to 98% of the visibility impacts from the remaining facilities.\47\ The
magnitude of NOX emissions from Baxter Wilson, Gerald
Andrus, and Plant Watson are greater than the magnitude of
NOX emissions from Plants Chevron and Moselle. With the
noted similarities in the emissions profiles and predicted visibility
impacts in the initial modeling performed for these facilities, the
updated modeling performed for Plant Watson using the current EPA-
approved version of CALPUFF and recent emissions data provides insight
on the potential effects of updates to the CALPUFF modeling system on
predicted visibility impacts for Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant
Chevron, and Plant Moselle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Breton is the nearest Class I area for Plant Watson, Baxter
Wilson, Plant Chevron, and Plant Moselle, and Caney Creek is the
nearest Class I area for Gerald Andrus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling performed for Plant Watson in 2020 using 2017-2019
emissions data and the current EPA-approved version of CALPUFF
indicated similar visibility impacts as those predicted by the 2012
modeling: 91% of the visibility impacts at Breton due to the facility
are the result of NOX emissions, 8% of the visibility
impacts are the result of PM10 emissions, and only 1% of the
visibility impacts are the result of SO2 emissions. A
comparison of emissions utilized in the initial modeling for Plant
Watson compared to the emissions utilized in the revised modeling for
Plant Watson is presented in Table 10 along with the contribution to
visibility impacts from each pollutant.
Table 10--Emissions Rates Modeled and Visibility Impacts for Plant Watson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in 2012
2012 Modeling 2020 Modeling 2012 Modeling 2020 Modeling to 2020
Pollutant contribution contribution emissions rate emissions rate modeled
to visibility to visibility (lb/hr) (lb/hr) emissions
impacts (%) impacts (%) rates (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................. 1 1 4.99 4.08 -18
NOX............................. 86 91 2,491.39 2,141.34 -14
PM10............................ 13 8 62.32 66.94 +7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47145]]
The 2017-2019 emissions rates used in the 2020 BART exemption
modeling for Plant Watson changed relative to the 2003-2005 emissions
rates used in the source's initial 2012 modeling as follows:
NOX emissions decreased by 14%; PM10 emissions
increased by 7%; and SO2 emissions decreased by 18%; in
addition, SO2 emissions remained substantially lower than
NOX and PM10 emissions.
The 2020 modeling for Plant Watson indicated that the maximum 98th
percentile 24-hour average visibility impact at Breton over the three
years modeled decreased by 10% relative to the initial 2012 modeling.
The 2020 modeling also indicated that the 22nd highest day's visibility
impact over the three years modeled decreased by 11% relative to the
initial 2012 modeling. This information is presented in Table 11. Table
11 indicates that the 10-11% reduction in predicted visibility impacts
is closely correlated to the 14% reduction in the NOX
emissions rate. These results suggest that the reductions in predicted
visibility impacts are primarily due to the 14% reductions in
NOX emissions rather than the updates to CALPUFF.
Table 11--Comparison of Initial Modeling to Revised Modeling for Plant Watson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max 98th 22nd highest
percentile day over 3 NOX emissions PM10 emissions
over 3 years years modeled rate (lb/hr) rate (lb/hr)
modeled (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial 2012 Modeling........................... 0.482 0.457 2,491.4 62.3
Revised 2020 Modeling........................... 0.436 0.408 2,141.3 66.9
2012 to 2020 Change (%)......................... -9.5% -10.7% -14.1% +7.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated modeling performed for Plant Watson using the current
EPA-approved version of CALPUFF and recent emissions data suggests that
the updates to the CALPUFF model did not significantly affect predicted
visibility impacts for Plant Watson. Instead, the predicted changes in
visibility from Plant Watson between the initial and revised modeling
appear to be driven by NOX emissions reductions. With the
noted similarities in the emissions profiles and predicted visibility
impacts between Plant Watson and Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant
Chevron, and Plant Moselle, the updates to CALPUFF are also not
expected to have a significant impact on predicted visibility impacts
from these other facilities. Revised modeling performed with the
current EPA-approved version of CALPUFF and recent emissions for these
facilities would likely result in visibility impacts the same as or
less than the values from the 2011/2012 modeling shown in Table 12
because recent emissions have either remained equivalent to or
decreased since the 2011/2012 modeling. Therefore, the reduction in
NOX and PM10 emissions shown in Table 12 would
suggest a corresponding decrease in visibility impact at the nearest
Class I area.
Table 12--2011/2012 Visibility Modeling Results and Changes in Recent NOX and PM10 Emissions for Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Percent (%) PM10
2011/2012 contribution change in NOX contribution Percent change
Facility Nearest class I area modeled DV to visibility emissions \49\ to visibility in PM10
impact \48\ impact (%) impact (%) emissions \50\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Wilson............................. Breton...................... 0.49 96 -80 3 -58
Gerald Andrus............................. Caney Creek................. 0.15 98 -54 2 -13
Plant Chevron............................. Breton...................... 0.27 90 -25 9 0
Plant Moselle............................. Breton...................... 0.05 92 -11 7 -57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously noted, Plant Chevron used a different version of
CALPUFF (Version 5.754) than Plant Watson used in its initial modeling
(Version 5.8). While EPA did not specifically analyze the changes from
CALPUFF Version 5.754 to 5.8 (or from 5.754 to the current version),
EPA nonetheless believes that updating the modeling for Plant Chevron
is not necessary. As previously shown, the updates to Version 5.8 of
the CALPUFF model did not significantly affect predicted visibility
impacts for Plant Watson. Instead, the predicted changes in visibility
from Plant Watson between the initial and revised modeling appear to be
driven by NOX emissions reductions. If EPA assumes a similar
relationship also holds true for Plant Chevron, then the Agency would
expect updated modeling to show decreased visibility impact for Plant
Chevron. That is, the 2011 modeling for Plant Chevron indicated a
maximum 98th percentile 24-hour impact of 0.27 dv over the three years
modeled, which is well below the value of 0.5 dv. The reduction in
NOX emissions shown in Table 12 for Plant Chevron would
suggest a corresponding decrease in visibility impact at Breton.
Specifically, if EPA assumed that any visibility impact changes would
be solely due to changes in NOX emissions, then the
visibility impact of updated modeling would be approximately 0.21
dv.\51\ In
[[Page 47146]]
addition, while EPA is not aware of evidence indicating that CALPUFF
Version 5.754 underpredicts visibility impacts relative to the current
CALPUFF version, even were this to be true, the Agency thinks it is
extremely unlikely that would cause the visibility impact to rise above
0.5 dv, given that Plant Chevron initially modeled 0.27 dv and the
subsequent emission reductions at the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The maximum 98th percentile 24-hour visibility impact over
the three years modeled.
\49\ Percent decrease in NOX emissions from the
emissions used in the 2012 modeling to emissions that would be used
in the 2020 modeling. Detailed emissions data for each of the four
facilities are presented in Section III.A.
\50\ Percent decrease in PM10 emissions from the
emissions used in the 2012 modeling to emissions that would be used
in the 2020 modeling. Detailed emissions data for each of the four
facilities are presented in Section III.A.
\51\ The basis for the estimated impact of 0.21 dv due to
NOX reductions alone is as follows. The 2011 CALPUFF
modeling for Plant Chevron indicated that 90% of visibility impacts
at Breton were from NOX emissions which equates to
approximately 0.243 dv (90% of the total estimated impact of 0.27
dv). The remaining 10% of visibility impacts are due to
PM10 and SO2 emissions which equates to
approximately 0.027 dv (10% of 0.27 dv). To approximate the impact
of the 25% reduction in NOX emissions from Plant Chevron,
EPA decreased the portion of the visibility impacts due to
NOX emissions (0.243 dv) by 25% (0.243 * (1-0.25) = 0.182
dv). The PM10 and SO2 portion of the
visibility impacts remains at 0.027 dv. Thus, the revised estimated
total visibility impact from Plant Chevron on Breton is 0.21 dv
(0.182 + 0.027 = 0.209 dv (rounded to 0.21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Evaluation of Supplemental Emissions Analyses and Operational
Changes at Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and Plant
Moselle
EPA agrees with the supplemental emission analyses performed by
MDEQ for Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron and Plant Moselle.
Baxter Wilson
Even though the 2012 modeling for Baxter Wilson indicated
visibility impacts below but near the 0.5 dv threshold (0.49 dv), there
have been operational changes that have significantly reduced the
emissions from this facility, including the shutdown of the larger of
the two units at this facility. These changes have resulted in
substantial reductions in both annual and maximum 24-hour emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 relative to the
baseline period modeled as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Gerald Andrus
The 2012 modeling for the Gerald Andrus indicated visibility
impacts of 0.15 dv, which is well below the 0.5 dv threshold. As shown
in Table 6 above, recent maximum 24-hour emissions rates of
SO2 are essentially the same as those modeled in 2012 while
NOX and PM10 maximum 24-hour emissions rates have
decreased substantially. Overall the recent annual emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM10 have drastically
reduced at Gerald Andrus as shown in Table 7.
Plant Chevron
The 2011 modeling for Plant Chevron indicated visibility impacts of
0.27 dv, which is well below the 0.5 dv threshold. While recent annual
emissions of SO2 have increased relative to the baseline
period modeled, the magnitude of the facility's current maximum 24-hour
SO2 emissions rate remains relatively low (8 lb/hr) compared
to its NOX emissions rates (420 lb/hr) for all four units
combined (see Table 2), and CALPUFF predicted that visibility impacts
from Chevron were dominated by NOX emissions. During the
same period, maximum 24-hour NOX emissions rates have
decreased by about 25% while PM10 maximum 24-hour emissions
rates are essentially unchanged.
Plant Moselle
The 2011 modeling for Plant Moselle indicated visibility impacts of
0.05 dv which is well below the 0.5 dv threshold. As shown in Table 8
above, recent maximum 24-hour emissions rates of NOX,
SO2, and PM10 are equivalent to or less than
those modeled in 2011.
Based on the State's submission and EPA's analysis in this section
and Section III.B.2, EPA proposes to approve MDEQ's finding that the
four facilities (i.e., Baxter Wilson, Gerald Andrus, Plant Chevron, and
Plant Moselle) remain exempt from further BART review.
4. Evaluation of Updated Modeling at Plant Daniel and Plant Watson
Plant Daniel and Plant Watson have updated BART exemption modeling
using current emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM to
reflect the emissions changes as a result of the operational changes at
each plant. The updated BART exemption modeling also used a newer
version of CALPUFF, which is the current EPA-approved version. EPA
believes the updated modeling analyses for Plant Daniel and Plant
Watson properly reflect additional emissions controls and operational
changes that have reduced emissions since the original modeling was
conducted. For both facilities, the updated modeling shows that the two
facilities model below the BART contribution threshold. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve MDEQ's finding that these facilities are also
exempt from further BART review.
5. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Review
MDEQ provided the draft BART SIP to the FLMs to review in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), and the FLMs have not provided any
comments. MDEQ's draft BART SIP references the procedures for
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs on the
implementation of the State's visibility protection program in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) that are contained in Section 11 of
the State's September 22, 2008, regional haze plan.\52\ These
procedures remain in effect for the draft BART SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The draft BART SIP references Section 10, but EPA believes
the State meant to refer to Section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Summary
In summary, EPA proposes to approve the draft BART SIP and finds
that it corrects the deficiencies that led to the limited approval and
limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP; to withdraw the
limited disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP; and to fully
approve Mississippi's regional haze SIP as meeting all regional haze
requirements of the CAA for the first implementation period, replacing
the prior limited approval.
IV. Summary and EPA's Evaluation of Mississippi's Progress Report and
Adequacy Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes EPA's analysis of Mississippi's Progress
Report and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed
approval. EPA cannot take final action to approve Mississippi's
Progress Report unless the Agency finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP because the existing regional haze SIP contains a
deficiency in its current strategy to achieve RPGs.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Mississippi summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by the State in its
regional haze plan. The measures include, among other things,
applicable federal programs (e.g., federal consent agreements, federal
control strategies for EGUs, Maximum Achievable Control Technology
standards, and mobile source rules). Additionally, MDEQ highlighted
control programs and measures that were not relied upon in its regional
haze plan which provide further assurances that visibility impacts from
Mississippi's sources are addressed (e.g., EPA's MATS Rule and measures
taken by certain sources to address the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS). In the Progress Report, MDEQ also reviewed the status of BART
requirements for the non-EGU BART-subject sources in the State--Chevron
Pascagoula Refinery (Chevron Refinery) and Mississippi Phosphates
Corporation (MPC)--both located in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and notes
that it will address BART for the aforementioned BART-eligible EGUs in
a separate SIP submittal.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Subsequent to submittal of the Progress Report, Mississippi
addressed EGU BART in its draft BART SIP, which is discussed in
Section III of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47147]]
As discussed in Section II of this notice, a number of states,
including Mississippi, submitted regional haze plans that relied on
CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA finalized a
limited disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze plan due to this
reliance on CAIR. In its draft BART SIP, Mississippi determined that
none of its seven BART-eligible facilities with EGUs formerly subject
to CAIR are subject to BART.
Mississippi's draft BART SIP explains the status of each BART-
eligible EGU formerly subject to CAIR. Table 1 identifies the 14 BART-
eligible units (located at seven facilities) and the highest modeled
impact at the nearest Class I area for each facility. Section III of
this notice explains the status of each BART-eligible EGU in greater
detail.
In the State's regional haze plan and Progress Report, Mississippi
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from coal-fired
boilers at EGUs and industrial boilers because of VISTAS' findings that
ammonium sulfate accounted for 69-87% of the visibility-impairing
pollution in all of the VISTAS states, except one coastal area, based
on 2000 to 2004 data. The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by
VISTAS predicted that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources would result in the greatest
improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in the VISTAS region,
more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant. Thus, Mississippi
concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
point sources would have the greatest visibility benefits for the Class
I areas impacted by Mississippi sources.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See 77 FR 11887 (February 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many states had not yet defined their criteria for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress at the time
Mississippi was developing its September 22, 2008, regional haze plan,
Mississippi initially applied its criteria for identifying emissions
units eligible for a reasonable progress control analysis as a
screening tool to identify Class I areas outside of the State
potentially impacted by Mississippi sources.\55\ Mississippi only
identified SO2 emissions from E.I. DuPont Delisle (DuPont)
and Plant Watson as potentially impacting visibility at Breton in
Louisiana for reasonable progress during the first implementation
period.\56\ However, when Louisiana completed its reasonable progress
assessments and finalized its regional haze SIP submittal, it did not
identify any Mississippi sources as impacting Breton using Louisiana's
evaluation criteria. Thus, MDEQ concluded, and EPA agreed, that no
further evaluation of Dupont and Plant Watson was needed for reasonable
progress and MDEQ updated its 2008 regional haze plan in the May 9,
2011, amendment with this conclusion.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ As noted earlier, Breton in Louisiana, Sipsey in Alabama,
and Caney Creek in Arkansas are the closest Class I areas to
Mississippi. With respect to reasonable progress, Louisiana,
Alabama, and Arkansas did not identify any Mississippi sources as
having an impact on the visibility at Breton, Sipsey, and Caney
Creek, respectively.
\56\ See 77 FR 11888 (February 28, 2012). See also page 14 of
the Progress Report.
\57\ See 77 FR 11888 (February 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State described
the implementation of measures within Mississippi, including BART for
NOX, SO2, and PM at its BART-subject sources for
non-EGUs in its Progress Report and for EGUs in its draft BART SIP.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed in Section IV.A.1. of this notice, Mississippi focused
its assessment in its regional haze plan and Progress Report on
SO2 emissions from coal-fired boilers at point sources in
Mississippi because of VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate is the
primary component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS
states based upon 2000 to 2004 data.\58\ In its Progress Report, MDEQ
provides a bar graph with Mississippi's EGU SO2 emissions
from 2002 to 2017 and states that these emissions have decreased from
65,741 tons in 2002 to 2,569 tons in 2017. MDEQ notes that these
emissions are trending downward overall, with significant decreases
from 2014 to 2016 (following increases in 2013 and 2014 due to
emissions from Plant Watson) and consistently low values in 2016 and
2017 due to the conversion of Plant Watson from coal to natural gas in
2015.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The Progress Report also documents that sulfates continue
to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Breton. See
Section IV.A.5 for additional information.
\59\ The Progress Report identifies Plant Watson as ``Watson
Electric'' on page 10 in Figure 1 and in the associated note. The
Progress Report notes that Plant Watson converted to natural gas in
2014 on page 16; the correct date is 2015 as stated on page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi includes cumulative VOC, PM2.5,
PM10, SO2, and NOX emissions data from
2002, 2007, and 2014 for EGUs and non-EGUs in the State, along with the
2018 emissions projections from its 2008 regional haze plan. The 2007
actual emissions data were developed through the Southeastern Modeling,
Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) partnership. At the time of Progress
Report development, the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) was the
latest available inventory.\60\ EPA's NEI is a comprehensive and
detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria
pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions
sources that is updated every three years using information provided by
the states and other information available to EPA.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See EPA's website for additional data and documentation for
the 2014 version of the NEI (https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data).
\61\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to MDEQ, EGU emissions are near or below the 2018
projections for all pollutants except SO2. As noted in
Section III.A.7., Plant Watson converted from coal to natural gas in
2015, and the source's SO2 emissions dropped from 70,667
tons in 2014 to 5.1 tons in 2017 and 4.6 tons in 2018. MDEQ notes that
this change in emissions from 2014 to 2018 at Plant Watson brings the
State's EGU SO2 emissions closer to the 2018 value of 15,213
tons projected in the regional haze plan (see Table 13).\62\ The
emissions reductions identified by Mississippi are due, in part, to the
implementation of measures included in the State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Progress Report, page 11, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the time of SIP development and submission, more recent
emissions data has become available for Mississippi's EGUs and non-EGUs
from the 2017 NEI, which are reflected in Tables 13 and 14. For
Mississippi's EGUs, actual emissions from the NEI for 2017 are below
the 2018 projected emissions shown in Table 13 for all pollutants
except VOC and NOX. Of particular note is that 2017 actual
SO2 emissions of the State's EGUs are well below (2,877 tpy)
the 2018 projected value of 15,213 tpy of SO2.
[[Page 47148]]
Table 13--EGU Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/source VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (VISTAS)................... 648 43,135 1,138 1,633 67,429
2007 (SEMAP).................... 669 48,150 1,426 2,165 75,563
2014 (NEI)...................... 349 21,686 1,829 2,359 90,733
2018 (Projected)................ 1,274 21,535 7,252 7,412 15,213
2017 (NEI)...................... 2,515 30,214 2,752 3,213 2,877
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from the State's non-EGU point sources are below the 2018
emissions projections for all pollutants as shown in Table 14.
Table 14--Non-EGU Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/source VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (VISTAS)................... 43,204 61,526 9,906 19,472 35,960
2007 (SEMAP).................... 33,917 50,033 7,305 10,203 19,415
2014 (NEI)...................... 28,885 31,761 9,363 10,769 13,450
2018 (Projected)................ 45,335 61,252 10,719 22,837 25,674
2017 (NEI)...................... 24,840 13,498 6,226 7,376 5,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions data for 2018 has also become available for the State's
EGUs since the time that Mississippi submitted its Progress Report, and
EPA notes that Mississippi's EGUs emitted 3,189.7 tons of
SO2 in 2018,\63\ well below the projected 2018 value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Mississippi's EGUs emitted 13,041.3 tons of NOX
in 2018. See EPA's Air Markets Program Data website, located at:
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Progress Report, MDEQ also detailed emissions reductions at
the State's two non-EGU BART-subject sources, Chevron Refinery and MPC.
In the State's regional haze plan, Chevron Refinery and MPC modeled
visibility impacts at Breton of 3.89 dv and 0.81 dv, respectively. To
satisfy a 2005 consent decree, Chevron Refinery installed numerous
controls on its units by 2008 which resulted in a modeled visibility
improvement of 2.99 dv at Breton.\64\ With respect to MPC, the Progress
Report summarized the upgrades made at the source under a November 9,
2010, Permit to Construct Air Emissions Equipment that included Best
Available Control Technology emissions limits for SO2 and
sulfuric acid mist. The facility filed for bankruptcy on October 24,
2014, fully ceased operations in December of 2014, and has been
permanently shut down and declared a Superfund site.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Progress Report, pp. 13-14 and the 2005 consent decree
in U.S. v. Chevron, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/chevron-cd.pdf. Table 6 of the Progress
Report identifies emissions reductions from the BART-eligible units
covered by the consent decree.
\65\ For more information on MPC as a Superfund site, see
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0403508#bkground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided in the Progress Report, EPA
proposes to find that Mississippi has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions.
3. Visibility Conditions
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas within
their borders provide information on current visibility conditions and
the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions expressed in terms of five-year averages of these
annual values. Because there are no Class I areas in Mississippi, the
State is not required to provide an assessment of visibility conditions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) as noted in the Progress Report.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Mississippi presents EGU SO2
emissions data (from 2002 to 2017), and data from statewide actual
emissions inventories for 2007 (SEMAP) and 2014 (NEI) and compares
these data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual
emissions) and the projected emissions for 2018 from the State's
regional haze plan. These emissions inventories, shown in Tables 15-18
include the following source classifications: Point, area, biogenic
(e.g., VOC from vegetation, emissions from fires), non-road mobile, and
on-road mobile sources. The pollutants inventoried for these categories
are VOC, NOX, PM2.5, PM10,
NH3, and SO2.
The 2014 emissions for VOC, NOX, and NH3 are
all below the projected 2018 emissions for these pollutants. The
increases in total PM10 and PM2.5 from 2007 to
2014 (shown in Tables 16 and 17) are due to different methodologies for
these years in calculating unpaved road emissions in the emission
inventories. MDEQ notes that according to data from the Mississippi
Department of Transportation, the number of miles of unpaved roads in
the State have decreased from 22,547 miles in 2006 to 18,857 miles in
2014. The increase in SO2 emissions from 105,657 tons in
2007 to 108,429 tons in 2014 was due to emissions from Plant Watson
prior to the source converting to natural gas in 2015. As noted in
Section IV.A.2, the overall SO2 emissions from EGUs
decreased substantially following this conversion.
[[Page 47149]]
Table 15--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 43,852 104,661 11,044 21,106 1,359 103,389
Area.................................................... 131,808 4,200 50,401 343,377 58,721 771
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 86,811 110,672 2,089 2,828 3,549 4,566
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 41,081 88,787 4,690 5,010 23 11,315
Biogenic................................................ 1,544,646 20,305 0 0 0 0
Fires................................................... 13,621 3,326 13,763 14,686 177 99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,861,820 331,952 81,896 387,007 63,829 120,139
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16--2007 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 34,586 98,183 8,731 12,368 1,640 94,978
Area.................................................... 74,755 6,091 42,758 326,350 58,774 344
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 4,516 117,225 4,061 5,030 1,809 920
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 35,315 48,321 3,105 3,308 35 3,088
Biogenic................................................ 1,544,646 20,305 0 0 0 0
Fires................................................... 178,431 12,454 66,621 78,612 12,413 6,327
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,872,249 302,579 125,276 425,668 74,671 105,657
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17--2014 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 29,234 53,477 11,192 13,128 2,891 104,183
Area.................................................... 47,959 19,504 122,136 977,608 64,986 951
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 28,852 72,763 2,336 4,438 1,428 399
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 22,408 14,631 1,434 1,510 23 34
Biogenic................................................ 1,515,263 14,157 0 0 0 0
Fires................................................... 69,792 6,156 26,913 31,758 4,855 2,863
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,713,509 180,658 164,012 1,028,442 74,184 108,429
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18--2018 Projected Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 46,452 71,804 17,172 30,046 1,591 54,367
Area.................................................... 140,134 4,483 53,222 375,495 69,910 746
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 31,306 30,259 810 1,607 4,520 435
Nonroad Mobile.......................................... 28,842 68,252 3,203 3,452 29 6,683
Biogenic................................................ 1,544,646 20,305 0 0 0 0
Fires................................................... 14,747 3,840 15,669 17,013 285 240
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,806,127 198,943 90,076 427,613 76,335 62,471
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section IV.A.2, the Progress Report also contains
other emissions data, including a figure displaying Mississippi's EGU
SO2 emissions from 2002 to 2017 and two tables summarizing
EGU and non-EGU actual emissions data for 2002, 2007, and 2014, along
with the 2018 emissions projections for the State's regional haze plan
(see Tables 13 and 14 of this notice). MDEQ states that EGU
SO2 emissions have decreased from 65,741 tons in 2002 to
2,569 tons in 2017.
EPA is proposing to find that Mississippi adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data at the
time of SIP development with the baseline emissions used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan. Furthermore, Mississippi evaluated
EPA Air Markets Program Data \66\ SO2 emissions data from
2002-2017 for EGUs in the State because ammonium sulfate is the primary
component of visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and
EGUs are the largest source of SO2 in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ EPA Air Markets Program Data is available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47150]]
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Mississippi documented that sulfates, which
are formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest
single contributor to regional haze for Breton, and therefore focused
its analysis on large SO2 emissions from point sources.\67\
In its September 22, 2008, regional haze SIP submittal, Mississippi
notes that ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility
impairment for Class I in the southeastern United States based upon
2000 to 2004 data, and that reducing SO2 emissions would be
the most effective means of reducing ammonium sulfate.\68\ In
addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Mississippi shows
in the Progress Report that the overall contribution of sulfates toward
visibility impairment at Breton \69\ over the 2008-2012 period is 66%
for the 20 percent haziest days and 54 percent for the 20 percent
clearest days. Although the State concludes that sulfates continue to
be the major component to visibility impairment at Breton, it also
examines other potential pollutants of concern affecting visibility at
this Class I area. Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that
SO2 emissions reductions from 2002-2017 for EGUs in
Mississippi overall are decreasing, and with the conversion of Plant
Watson to natural gas in 2015, are estimated to well exceed the
projected emission reductions from 2002-2018 in the State's regional
haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See Figures 2 and 3 in the Progress Report.
\68\ See page 15 of Mississippi's September 22, 2008, regional
haze SIP narrative.
\69\ While Mississippi does not have any Class I areas, MDEQ
reviewed particle speciation data for Breton because it is the
closest Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDEQ summarized the changes in emissions from 2002 to 2014, the
latest complete emissions inventory for all source categories in the
State. For VOC, NH3, and NOX, the actual
emissions decreased from 2002 to 2014. For SO2, total
emissions in the State decreased from 2002, with a slight increase from
2007, due to the point source category. MDEQ explains that the increase
in SO2 emissions was due to emissions from Plant Watson
which, as noted previously, converted from coal to natural gas in 2015
and emitted 5.1 tons and 4.6 tons of SO2 in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.\70\ For PM2.5 and PM10, increases
in statewide PM2.5 and PM10 emissions occurred
from 2002 to 2014 due to increases in area source emissions for these
pollutants. The increase in 2014 is due to an increase in the unpaved
road dust category created by different methodologies used to calculate
unpaved road emissions over the years. MDEQ notes that according to
data from the Mississippi Department of Transportation, the number of
miles of unpaved roads in the State have decreased from 22,547 miles in
2006 to 18,857 miles in 2014. Thus, MDEQ concludes that here have been
no emissions changes that would impede progress and no significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within the State that have limited
or impeded progress over the review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of Plant Watson
from coal to natural gas in 2015 contributed to significant
SO2 emissions decreases. In addition, 2017 Mississippi
EGU SO2 emissions were 3,841 tons, which are well below
the 2018 projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of section IV.A.2
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions for the reasons discussed in this
section.
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
Mississippi believes that its regional haze plan is sufficient to
enable potentially impacted Class I areas to meet their RPGs. MDEQ
based this conclusion on the data provided in the Progress Report,
including the emissions reductions of visibility-impairing pollutants
from EGU and non-EGU point sources achieved in the State (summarized in
Section IV.A.2).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See Tables 3 and 4 on page 11 of the Progress Report which
are reproduced as Tables 13 and 14 in this notice, with the addition
of ``2017 (NEI)'' emissions to Tables 13 and 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi asserts that it consulted with other states during the
development of its regional haze plan for reasonable progress,
including Alabama and Louisiana, and that these states indicated that
Mississippi sources have no impact on the visibility at Sipsey in
Alabama and at Breton in Louisiana, respectively. As discussed above,
MDEQ assessed the particle speciation data for Breton indicating that
sulfates continue to be the dominant contributor to regional haze in
this area.
EPA proposes to find that Mississippi has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its Progress Report, Mississippi assesses the particle speciation data
at Breton and affirms that the focus of the State's regional haze plan
on addressing SO2 emissions in the State continues to be
most effective strategy to improve visibility at Breton. Mississippi
documents the overall downward emissions trends in key pollutants, with
a focus on SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State and
determined that its regional haze plan is sufficient to enable Class I
areas outside the State potentially impacted by the emissions from
Mississippi to meet their RPGs.\72\ EPA's proposed approval of the
strategy assessment is also based on the fact that CAIR was in effect
in Mississippi through 2014, providing some of the emission reductions
relied upon in Mississippi's regional haze plan through that date; the
implementation of CSAPR, which by the end of the first regional haze
implementation period, reduced emissions of NOX from EGUs
formerly subject to CAIR in Mississippi; and the significant reductions
of SO2 from EGUs formerly subject to CAIR in the State due
to retirements, emissions controls, and permanent conversions to
natural gas as described in Section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Visibility conditions for 2009-2013 are below the 2018 RPGs
for Sipsey in Alabama. See 83 FR 64797, 64800 (December 18, 2018).
For Caney Creek, visibility conditions for 2012-2016 are below the
revised 2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days and below 2000-2004
baseline conditions for the 20 percent best days. See 84 FR 11697,
11707 (March 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
EPA notes that the primary monitoring network for regional haze
nationwide is the IMPROVE network, which monitors visibility conditions
in Class I areas. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) \73\ website has been maintained by VISTAS and the other
regional planning organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE
data and data analysis tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The VIEWS website is located at: https://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/SiteBrowser/Default.aspx?appkey=SBCF_VisSum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Mississippi states that no modifications to
the existing monitoring network are necessary because it has no Class I
areas and thus no monitoring strategy. EPA proposes to find that
Mississippi has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40
CFR 51.308(g) regarding the monitoring strategy because the State has
no Class I areas.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
In its Progress Report, MDEQ submitted a negative declaration to
EPA that the existing regional haze plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas
potentially impacted by the State's sources. The State's negative
declaration is based on the findings from the Progress Report,
including the findings that: Actual emissions reductions of visibility-
impairing
[[Page 47151]]
pollutants in 2014 from EGUs and non-EGUs in Mississippi exceed the
predicted reductions in MDEQ's regional haze plan with the exception of
SO2 for EGUs; \74\ additional EGU control measures not
relied upon in the State's 2008 regional haze plan have occurred during
the first implementation period that have further reduced
SO2 emissions; and the State's expectation that emissions of
SO2 from EGUs in Mississippi are expected to continue to
trend downward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As noted in Section IV.A.2, the conversion of Plant Watson
from coal to natural gas in 2015 contributed to significant
SO2 emissions decreases after 2014. In addition, 2017
Mississippi EGU SO2 emissions were 3,841 tons, which were
below the 2018 projected 15,213 tons shown in Table 13 of section
IV.A.2 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to conclude that Mississippi has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because the emissions trends of the largest emitters
of visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the RPGs
for any Class I areas in other states potentially impacted by
Mississippi sources will be met and because MDEQ submitted the draft
BART SIP which, if finalized, would correct the deficiencies in the
regional haze plan that led to the limited disapproval. As previously
noted, EPA is simultaneously proposing to approve a SIP revision to
address certain BART determinations for 14 EGUs. EPA cannot take final
action to approve Mississippi's declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
unless the Agency finalizes its proposal to approve the draft BART SIP.
V. Proposed Action
EPA proposes to approve the draft BART SIP and finds that it
corrects the deficiencies that led to the limited approval and limited
disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP; to withdraw the limited
disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP; and to fully approve
Mississippi's regional haze SIP as meeting all regional haze
requirements of the CAA for the first implementation period, replacing
the prior limited approval. EPA also proposes to approve Mississippi's
October 4, 2018, Regional Haze Progress Report, as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
to approve the State's negative declaration under 51.308(h). EPA cannot
take final action to approve Mississippi's Progress Report and negative
declaration unless the Agency finalizes its proposal to approve the
draft BART SIP.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Do 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, these rules
do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 23, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-16443 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
