Air Plan Approval; TN; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure, 41344-41361 [2023-13470]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41344
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
IDEM did not evaluate environmental
justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA performed an environmental
justice analysis, as is described in
section IV of this preamble titled,
‘‘Environmental Justice
Considerations.’’ The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis
of the action. Due to the nature of the
action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision
is based inconsistent with the stated
goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for minority, lowincome populations, and Indigenous
peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: June 20, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023–13524 Filed 6–23–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0535; FRL–11020–
01–R4]
Air Plan Approval; TN; 2010 1-Hour
SO2 NAAQS Transport Infrastructure
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
pertaining to the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The good neighbor
provision requires each State’s
implementation plan to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting the
interstate transport of air pollution in
amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS
in any other State. In this action, EPA
is proposing to determine that
Tennessee will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other State.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the July 31, 2019, SIP revision as
meeting the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2019–0535 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evan Adams, 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.
Mr. Adams can be reached via phone
number (404) 562–9009 or via electronic
mail at adams.evan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations
Background
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1Hour SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
III. Tennessee’s SIP Submission and EPA’s
Analysis
A. State’s Submission
B. EPA’s Evaluation Methodology
C. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion
Modeling
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing
SO2 Emissions
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2
Emissions in Tennessee
6. Conclusion
D. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference
With Maintenance of the NAAQS
1. State Submission
2. EPA Analysis
3. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a
revised primary SO2 NAAQS with a
level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based
on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations. See 75 FR 35520
(June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires States to
make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 1 These
submissions must meet the various
1 In 2012, EPA decided to retain the current
secondary NAAQS for SO2. Thus, the CAA section
110(a)(1) requirement to submit an infrastructure
SIP for this secondary standard was not triggered.
The secondary SO2 standard is 500 ppb averaged
over three hours, not to be exceeded more than once
per year. See 77 FR 20218 (April 3, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2),
as applicable.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another
State. The two clauses of this section are
referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment of the
NAAQS) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS).
The Tennessee Department of
Environment & Conservation (TDEC)
submitted a revision to the Tennessee
SIP on July 31, 2019,2 addressing prongs
1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.3
Updated transport modeling for the
Eastman Chemical facility in Sullivan
County, Tennessee, was completed and
submitted to EPA on November 30, 2021
to supplement the July 31, 2019
submission.4 EPA is proposing to
approve TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission because the State
demonstrated that Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other State. All other
elements related to the infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Tennessee
have been addressed in separate
rulemakings.5
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Designations Background
In this proposed action, EPA has
considered information from the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS designations process,
as discussed in more detail in section
III.C of this notice. For this reason, a
brief summary of EPA’s designations
process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
is included here.6
2 TDEC’s SIP revision was submitted August 1,
2019, through a transmittal letter dated July 31,
2019.
3 On March 13, 2014, TDEC submitted a SIP
revision addressing all infrastructure elements with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the
exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
4 EPA officially received the supplemental file
dated November 30, 2021 on December 7, 2021.
5 EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee’s
March 13, 2014, SIP revision on November 28, 2016
(81 FR 85410) and September 24, 2018 (83 FR
48237).
6 While designations may provide useful
information for purposes of analyzing transport,
particularly for a more source-specific pollutant
such as SO2, EPA notes that designations
themselves are not dispositive of whether or not
upwind emissions are impacting areas in
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41345
After the promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required to
designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’
‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’
pursuant to section 107(d)(1)–(2) of the
CAA. The process for designating areas
following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section
107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires
EPA to complete the initial designations
process within two years of
promulgating a new or revised standard.
If the Administrator has insufficient
information to make these designations
by that deadline, EPA has the authority
to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA
Administrator signed the first round 7 of
designations (‘‘Round 1’’) 8 for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013,
designating 29 areas in 16 States as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5,
2013). The EPA Administrator signed
Federal Register notices for Round 2
designations 9 on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November
29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December 13,
2016)). Round 3 designations 10 were
signed on December 21, 2017 (83 FR
1098 (January 9, 2018)) and March 28,
2018 (83 FR 14597 (April 5, 2018)).
downwind states. EPA has consistently taken the
position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
elimination of significant contribution and
interference with maintenance in other states, and
this analysis is not limited to designated
nonattainment areas. Nor must designations for
nonattainment areas have first occurred before
states or the EPA can act under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross State Air
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011);
Final Response to Petition from New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011)
(finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of
designations for that standard).
7 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to
which ‘‘round of designations.’’
8 EPA and state documents and public comments
related to the Round 1 final designations are in the
docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2012–0233 and at EPA’s website for SO2
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations.
9 EPA and state documents and public comments
related to the Round 2 final designations are in the
docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2014–0464 and at EPA’s website for SO2
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations.
10 EPA and state documents and public comments
related to Round 3 final designations are in the
docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2017–0003 and at EPA’s website for SO2
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41346
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Round 4 designations 11 were signed on
December 21, 2020 (86 FR 16055 (March
26, 2021)) 12 and April 8, 2021 (86 FR
19576 (April 14, 2021)).13
In Round 1 and Round 2 of
designations, EPA designated one SO2
nonattainment area and one
unclassifiable area in Tennessee. In
Round 1, EPA designated a portion of
Sullivan County as nonattainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on
air quality monitoring data.14 In Round
2, EPA designated Sumner County as
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.15 The remaining counties in
Tennessee were designated as
attainment/unclassifiable in Round 3;
therefore, no areas in Tennessee were
designated in Round 4.16 Although the
11 EPA and state documents and public comments
related to Round 4 final designations are in the
docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2020–0037 and at EPA’s website for SO2
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations.
12 The Round 4 2010 1-hour SO NAAQS
2
designations action was signed by former EPA
Administrator Andrew Wheeler on December 21,
2020, pursuant to a court-ordered deadline of
December 31, 2020. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, former Acting
Administrator Jane Nishida re-signed the same
action on March 10, 2021, for publication in the
Federal Register.
13 On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA
separately promulgated air quality characterization
requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air
quality, through air dispersion modeling or
monitoring, in areas associated with sources that
emitted in 2014 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more
of SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the
DRR by EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of
modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources
restricting their annual SO2 emissions to less than
2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. EPA used the
information generated by implementation of the
DRR to help inform Round 4 designations for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
14 See August 5, 2013, final rulemaking (78 FR
47191, 47204) and EPA’s Technical Support
Document (TSD): Tennessee—Area Designations for
the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-03/documents/tn-tsd.pdf.
15 EPA designated Sumner County, Tennessee, as
unclassifiable in Round 2 designations for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a notice published July 12,
2016 (81 FR 45039). See also EPA’s Final Technical
Support Document: Tennessee—Area Designations
for the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-07/documents/r4_tn_final_
designation_tsd_06302016.pdf. On September 29,
2020, TDEC submitted a request to redesignate
Sumner County to attainment and to terminate DRR
reporting requirements for TVA-Gallatin. On May
25, 2021, the final rule to redesignate Sumner
County as attainment/unclassifiable was published
(86 FR 27981). EPA did not receive any comments
on the proposed rulemaking. EPA is not requesting
review and comment on the redesignation for
Sumner County, Tennessee, in this proposed action.
16 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 38
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission,
TDEC identified a 50-km distance
threshold to reflect the transport
properties of SO2. TDEC used this 50km threshold for the supporting
analyses in the submission, and notes
that this 50-km distance is the modeling
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate
domain limit of the EPA-recommended
2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate Transport
American Meteorological Society/
SIPs
Environmental Protection Agency
Although SO2 is emitted from a
Regulatory Model (AERMOD) modeling
similar universe of point and nonpoint
system.
sources as is directly emitted fine
Given the properties of SO2, EPA
particulate matter (PM2.5) and the
preliminarily agrees with Tennessee’s
precursors to ozone and PM2.5, interstate selection of the urban scale to assess
transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
trends in area-wide air quality that
of PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions might impact downwind states. As
usually do not have long-range transport discussed further in section III.B, EPA
in the atmosphere. The transport of SO2 proposes that Tennessee’s selection of
relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS the urban scale is appropriate for
is more analogous to the transport of
assessing trends in both area-wide air
lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in
quality and the effectiveness of largethat emissions of SO2 typically result in scale pollution control strategies at SO2
1-hour pollutant impacts of greatest
point sources. Tennessee’s selection of
concern near the emissions source.
this transport distance for SO2 is
However, ambient 1-hour
consistent with 40 CFR part 58,
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ‘‘Urban
quickly with distance from the source as scale,’’ which States that measurements
do 3-month average concentrations of
in this scale would be used to estimate
Pb, because SO2 gas is not removed by
SO2 concentrations over large portions
deposition as rapidly as are Pb particles. of an urban area with dimensions from
Emitted SO2 has wider-ranging impacts
four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA’s
than emitted Pb, but it does not have
preferred modeling platform for
such wide-ranging impacts that
regulatory purposes for near-field
treatment in a manner similar to ozone
dispersion of emissions for distances up
or PM2.5 would be appropriate.
to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR
Accordingly, the approaches that EPA
part 51. Thus, EPA preliminarily
has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport concurs with Tennessee’s application of
are too regionally focused, and the
the 50-km threshold to evaluate
approach for Pb transport is too tightly
emission source impacts into
circumscribed to the source, to be
neighboring states and to assess air
appropriate for assessing SO2 transport.
quality monitors within 50 km of the
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case
State’s border, which is discussed
and requires a different approach.
further in section III.C.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in
As discussed in sections III.C and
prior SO2 transport analyses, EPA
III.D, EPA first reviewed Tennessee’s
focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-wide
analysis to assess how the State
zone because the physical properties of
evaluated the transport of SO2 to other
SO2 result in relatively localized
States, the types of information used in
pollutant impacts near an emissions
the analysis, and the conclusions drawn
source that drop off with distance.
by the State. EPA then conducted a
Given the properties of SO2, EPA
weight of evidence analysis based on a
selected a spatial scale with dimensions review of the State’s submission and
from four to 50 km from point sources— other available information, including
the ‘‘urban scale’’—to assess trends in
SO2 air quality for monitors and
area-wide air quality that might impact
available emissions and/or source
downwind States.17
modeling for sources in Tennessee and
in neighboring States within 50 km of
Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
the Tennessee border.18
Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/
designations process is separate from
action on Tennessee’s SO2 transport SIP,
EPA proposes the information relied on
in the designations process can be
helpful in evaluating Tennessee’s SO2
transport obligations.
sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/38-tnso2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support
Document: Chapter 38 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
17 For the definition of spatial scales for SO , see
2
40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (‘‘Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discussion on how EPA applies these definitions
with respect to interstate transport of SO2, see
EPA’s proposed rulemaking on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May
8, 2017).
18 This proposed approval action is based on the
information contained in the administrative record
for this action and does not prejudge any other
future EPA action or determinations regarding
Tennessee’s or any neighboring State’s air quality
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
III. Tennessee’s SIP Submission and
EPA’s Analysis
A. State Submission
Through a letter dated July 31, 2019,
TDEC submitted a revision to the
Tennessee SIP addressing prongs 1 and
2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TDEC
supplemented this submittal with
updated transport modeling for the
Eastman Chemical facility on November
30, 2021. Tennessee conducted a weight
of evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from the State adversely
affect attainment or maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind
States.
TDEC concluded that the State is
meeting its prong 1 and prong 2
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. TDEC based its conclusions for
prongs 1 and 2 on: SO2 design values
(DVs) 19 for 2015–2017 and 2016–2018
along with the 99th percentile 1-hour
SO2 concentrations for the years 2015
through 2018 at the air quality monitors
in Tennessee and the surrounding States
of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia;
declining SO2 emissions trends in
Tennessee from 2005 to 2014 (all source
categories); 20 the percent change in SO2
emissions by source category from 2005
to 2014; SO2 sources assessed in EPA’s
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations
process which are located within 50 km
of the State’s border; and State and
Federal regulations that establish
requirements for sources of SO2
emissions. Based on this analysis, the
State concluded that emissions within
Tennessee will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other State.
EPA’s evaluation of Tennessee’s
submission is detailed in sections III.B,
C, and D.
B. EPA’s Evaluation Methodology
EPA acknowledges the State’s
analysis in the July 31, 2019,
submission as well as the supplemental
modeling submitted on November 30,
2021. EPA has evaluated this
information, and further supplements
the State’s analysis of sources here to
ensure there are no further SO2
emissions controls needed for meeting
CAA interstate transport requirements.
EPA proposes that a reasonable starting
point for determining which sources
and emissions activities in Tennessee
are likely to impact downwind air
quality in other States with respect to
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using
information in EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).21 The NEI is
a comprehensive and detailed estimate
of air emissions for criteria pollutants,
41347
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. EPA evaluated data
from the 2017 NEI released in April of
2020, the most recently available,
complete, and quality assured dataset of
the NEI.22
As shown in Table 1, the majority of
SO2 emissions in Tennessee originate
from point sources.23 In 2017, the total
SO2 emissions from point sources in
Tennessee comprised approximately 93
percent of the total SO2 emissions in the
State. The remaining emissions from
non-point sources in the other listed
source categories are more dispersed
throughout the State and are therefore
less likely to contribute to high ambient
concentrations when compared to a
point source on a ton-for-ton basis.
Based on EPA’s analysis of the 2017
NEI, EPA proposes that it is appropriate
to focus the analysis on SO2 emissions
from Tennessee’s larger point sources
(i.e., emitting over 100 tons per year
(tpy) of SO2 in 2019,24 the emissions
data available in EPA’s Emissions
Inventory System (EIS)),25 which are
located within the ‘‘urban scale,’’ i.e.,
within 50 km of one or more State
borders.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2017 NEI SO2 DATA FOR TENNESSEE BY SECTOR TYPE
Emissions
(tpy)
Category
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generating Units (EGUs) (All Fuel Types) ...................................................................
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel Types) ..............................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/Institutional (All Fuel Types) ..................................................................................
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel Types) .......................................................................................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories) ......................................................................................................................
Mobile Sources (All Categories) ..............................................................................................................................
Fires (All Types) ......................................................................................................................................................
Waste Disposal ........................................................................................................................................................
Solvent Processes ...................................................................................................................................................
Bulk Gasoline Terminal ...........................................................................................................................................
status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on
their own administrative records and EPA’s
analyses of information that become available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the DRR
and information submitted to EPA by States, air
agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as
citizen groups and industry representatives.
19 A ‘‘Design Value’’ or DV is a statistic that
describes the air quality status of a given location
relative to the level of the NAAQS. The DV for the
primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is the 3-year
average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum
1-hour average concentrations for a monitoring site.
For example, the 2019 DV is calculated based on
the three-year average from 2017–2019. The
interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
NAAQS, including the data handling conventions
and calculations necessary for determining
compliance with the NAAQS, can be found in
Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.
20 Table 2 of Tennessee’s SIP revision also
provides 2017 data for the point source category
only, which showed a 49,713.42 ton decrease from
90,283.03 tons in 2014 to 40,569.61 tons in 2017.
21 EPA’s NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/national-emissionsinventory.
22 EPA evaluated the January 2021 version of the
2017 NEI. For more information, see the website:
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
23 Tennessee’s point sources, for the purposes of
this action, are comprised of all of the following
emissions source categories in Table 1: ‘‘Fuel
Combustion’’ categories with the exception of
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24,328.80
15,517.78
93.21
131.84
3,110.95
1143.20
1,681.00
726.70
0.97
0.04
Percent of
total SO2
emissions
52.05
33.20
0.20
0.28
6.66
1.55
3.60
1.55
0
0
residential fuel combustion, the ‘‘Industrial
Processes (All Categories),’’ and ‘‘Waste Disposal.’’
Residential fuel combustion is considered a
nonpoint source and, thus, residential fuel
combustion data is not included in the point source
fuel combustion data and related calculations.
24 With respect to EPA’s evaluation of sources
emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019, in the
absence of special factors, for example the presence
of nearby larger sources or unusual factors (such as
a very high concentration of smaller sources),
sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy SO2
can be appropriately presumed to not be
contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
25 EPA’s EIS is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventorysystem-eis-gateway.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41348
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2017 NEI SO2 DATA FOR TENNESSEE BY SECTOR TYPE—Continued
Emissions
(tpy)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Category
Percent of
total SO2
emissions
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial) ................................................................................................................................
3.63
0.01
SO2 Emissions Total ........................................................................................................................................
46,738.12
100
As explained in Section II, because
the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts
near an emissions source that drop off
with distance, in SO2 transport analyses,
EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone.
Thus, EPA focused its evaluation on
Tennessee’s point sources of SO2
emissions located within approximately
50 km of another State and their
potential impact on neighboring States.
EPA’s implementation strategy for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS included the
flexibility in certain circumstances to
characterize air quality for stationary
sources subject to EPA’s Data
Requirements Rule ‘‘DRR’’ via either
data collected at ambient air quality
monitors sited to capture the points of
maximum concentration, or air
dispersion modeling (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘DRR monitors’’ or ‘‘DRR
modeling,’’ respectively). EPA’s
assessment of SO2 emissions from
Tennessee’s point sources located
within approximately 50 km of another
State and their potential impacts on
neighboring States (see sections III.C.1.
and III.C.2. of this rulemaking) and SO2
air quality data at monitors within 50
km of the Tennessee border (see section
III.C.3. of this rulemaking) is informed
by all available data at the time of this
proposed rulemaking.26
As described in this section, EPA
proposes that an assessment of
Tennessee’s satisfaction of the prong 1
and 2 requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably
based upon evaluating the downwind
impacts via modeling and an assessment
of SO2 emissions from Tennessee’s
point sources emitting more than 100
tpy of SO2 that are located within
approximately 50 km of another State,
other States’ point sources emitting
more than 100 tpy of SO2 that are
located within approximately 50 km of
Tennessee, and upon any Federal
regulations and SIP-approved
26 EPA
notes that the evaluation of other States’
satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS can be informed by similar
factors found in this proposed rulemaking but may
not be identical to the approach taken in this or any
future rulemaking for Tennessee, depending on
available information and state-specific
circumstances.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of
Tennessee’s SO2 sources.
C. EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor
provision requires States’ plans to
prohibit emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another State. TDEC
confirms in its submission that, with its
existing, SIP-approved SO2 emissions
controls in place in conjunction with
Federal pollution control requirements,
Tennessee will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any
other State with respect to the 2010 1hour SO2 standard. To evaluate
Tennessee’s satisfaction of prong 1, EPA
assessed the State’s implementation
plan submission with respect to the
following factors: (1) potential ambient
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring
States based on available SO2 air
dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3)
SO2 ambient air quality for Tennessee
and neighboring States; (4) SIPapproved Tennessee regulations that
address SO2 emissions; and (5) Federal
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at
Tennessee sources. EPA has reviewed
Tennessee’s submission, and where new
or more current information has become
available, EPA is including this
information as part of the Agency’s
evaluation of this submission, and the
discussion with respect to the four
factors proceeds in the next sections.
EPA proposes that, based on the
information available at the time of this
rulemaking, these factors, taken
together, support Tennessee’s proposed
determination that the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another State.
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion
Modeling
(a) State Submission
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission,
TDEC summarized existing modeling for
five sources in Tennessee addressed in
different rounds of designations for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS: Eastman
Chemical Company (Eastman Chemical)
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
facility (Round 1); 27 and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) coal-fired power
plants Gallatin (TVA-Gallatin) (Round
2), Allen Fossil Plant (TVA-Allen),
TVA-Cumberland, and TVAJohnsonville (Round 3).28 Of these five
sources described in the July 31, 2019,
SIP submission, four are located within
50 km of another State: Eastman
Chemical, TVA-Gallatin, TVA-Allen,
and TVA-Cumberland.29 In addition,
TDEC characterized SO2 concentrations
for Eastman Chemical, TVA-Gallatin,
and TVA-Cumberland by extending the
modeling domains for these sources into
neighboring States and noting the
modeled maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations in the neighboring
States.30 With respect to TVA-Gallatin,
on September 29, 2020, TDEC submitted
a request to redesignate Sumner County,
Tennessee, from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS (‘‘Sumner County
redesignation request’’) which included
a modeling analysis of TVA-Gallatin’s
SO2 emissions. EPA finalized approval
of TDEC’s Sumner County redesignation
27 In Round 1 of the 2010 1-hour SO NAAQS
2
designations, EPA designated a portion of Sullivan
County ‘‘nonattainment’’ for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data. This
nonattainment portion of Sullivan County
encompasses a 3-km radius centered at Eastman
Chemical’s B–253 powerhouse, located at 36.5186
N. 82.5350 W.
28 See modeling results for the following
Tennessee sources in the July 31, 2019, SIP
submission: Table 8 on p.17 for Eastman Chemical
and Table 11 on p.22 for TVA-Allen, TVACumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and TVA-Johnsonville.
29 TVA-Johnsonville is located approximately 52
km from the Kentucky border, and thus, TDEC did
not further analyze this source.
30 The receptor grid started at the Tennessee
border and ended at a distance of 50 km from the
source: for Eastman Chemical, the grid started at 8
km (the distance to the Tennessee-Virginia border)
and went 42 km into Virginia (50 km from Eastman
Chemical); for TVA-Gallatin, the grid started at 37
km (the distance from the source to TennesseeKentucky border) and extended 13 km into
Kentucky (50 km from TVA-Gallatin); and for TVACumberland, the grid started at 27 km (the distance
from the source to the Tennessee-Kentucky border)
and extended 23 km into Kentucky (50 km from
TVA-Cumberland). TDEC relied on the existing 10km distance used in the TVA-Allen modeling
because the modeling domain already extended into
Arkansas (10¥3.5 = 6.5 km) and Mississippi (10¥9
= 1 km) (see page 30 of Tennessee’s SIP revision).
The modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS within the modeled domains.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
request on May 25, 2021. See 86 FR
27981. A summary of the existing
Round 3 modeling for TVA-Allen;
TDEC’s updated modeling for TVACumberland included in the July 31,
2019, SIP submission; TDEC’s modeling
to support the Sumner County
redesignation request; and TDEC’s
updated transport modeling for the
Eastman Chemical facility dated
November 30, 2021, along with
supplemental data that has been
reviewed as part of the Agency’s
analysis, is provided in Table 2 of this
section.31
TDEC also evaluated existing
modeling available for DRR sources in
other States which are located within 50
km of the Tennessee border: 32 Ascend
Performance Materials-Decatur Plant
(Ascend) in Alabama (39 km); Plum
Point Energy Station in Arkansas (Plum
Point) (2.5 km); and Sikeston Power
Station (Sikeston) in Missouri (44 km).
TDEC states that the three modeled DRR
sources (Ascend,33 Plum Point, and
Sikeston) demonstrated attainment of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with
maximum modeled 1-hour SO2
concentrations of 72.0, 14.9, and 37.2
ppb, respectively.34
31 EPA is opting not to rely on the updated
modeling TDEC included in the July 31, 2019, SIP
submission for Eastman Chemical or for TVAGallatin for this action because more recent, revised
modeling is available. For Eastman Chemical, EPA
is relying on revised modeling submitted on
November 30, 2021, and for TVA-Gallatin, EPA is
relying upon modeling submitted by TDEC to EPA
in support of the September 29, 2020, redesignation
request for Sumner County, Tennessee, from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is summarized in
Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
32 See Table 26 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of
TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
33 As explained in section III.C.1.b, EPA
previously determined that the Agency does not
have sufficient information to demonstrate whether
the area around Ascend meets or does not meet the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area
that does not meet the standard, and thus
designated the area around Ascend as
unclassifiable. Although EPA does not have any
indications that there are violations of the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS in the area around Ascend, the
Agency assessed Ascend in section III.C.2.b of this
proposed action with respect to interstate transport
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. According to June
6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, emails from ADEM
to EPA, Ascend ceased operating Boiler #5, Boiler
#6 is set to cease operations in 2020, and Cokers
#1 and #2 were set to cease operations in 2021.
However, EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021, that
Boiler #5 and Coker #2 were removed from service
in 2019 and 2021 respectively and Coker #1 and
Boiler #6 are still operating under the facility’s
current Title V permit. ADEM’s June 6, 2019, and
December 2, 2019, emails are included in the
docket for a separate rulemaking action published
December 31, 2019 (84 FR 72278) at
www.regulations.gov at Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0792.
34 See Table 27 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of
TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA evaluated existing SO2 modeling
results for three SO2 sources in
Tennessee within 50 km of the State’s
border (i.e., TVA-Allen, TVACumberland, and TVA-Gallatin), and
new modeling for Eastman Chemical, to
ascertain whether these sources in
Tennessee may potentially be
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in a downwind state. EPA
evaluated the modeling analyses
provided for TVA-Allen and TVACumberland in Tennessee’s July 31,
2019, SIP submission. For TVA-Allen,
TDEC analyzed existing DRR modeling
for this source because the modeling
done for TVA-Allen for Round 3 of
designations had a receptor grid that
already extended into the neighboring
States. For TVA-Cumberland, TDEC
characterized SO2 concentrations out to
50 km from the source.35 In addition,
EPA evaluated modeling for TVAGallatin that TDEC provided to support
the Sumner County redesignation
request, which EPA has summarized in
Table 2 of this section.36 For Eastman
Chemical, EPA evaluated TDEC’s
updated SO2 transport modeling dated
November 30, 2021. Details of the
modeling for each of these four sources
are discussed below and summarized in
Table 2. A more detailed evaluation of
Tennessee’s modeling analyses for these
sources is included in the Modeling
Technical Support Document (TSD)
available in the docket for this proposed
action.
TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland are
Round 3 DRR sources in Tennessee
35 As discussed in section I.B, Tennessee used air
dispersion modeling to characterize air quality in
the vicinity of certain SO2 emitting sources to
identify the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations in
ambient air which informed EPA’s 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS designations. The available air dispersion
modeling, using AERMOD, of certain SO2 sources
can support interstate transport-related conclusions
about whether sources in one state are potentially
contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard in other states. While AERMOD was
not designed specifically to address interstate
transport, the 50-km distance that EPA recommends
for use with AERMOD aligns with the concept that
there are localized pollutant impacts of SO2 near an
emissions source that drop off with distance. Thus,
EPA proposes that the use of AERMOD provides a
reliable indication of air quality for interstate
transport purposes.
36 Due to size and incompatibility with the
Federal Docket Management System, the supporting
modeling files for the Sumner County redesignation
request (Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0482)
are available at the EPA Region 4 office for review.
To request these files, please contact the person
listed in the proposed rule for the Sumner County
redesignation request under the section titled FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for that action.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41349
located within 50 km of another state.37
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission,
TDEC modified the modeling for TVACumberland submitted for Round 3 and
characterized SO2 concentrations using
a receptor grid that started at the
Tennessee border and ended at a
distance of 50 km from the source to
assess potential impacts in Kentucky,
whose border is approximately 27 km
away from this source. In the Round 3
designations modeling, TDEC evaluated
whether there were any large sources
within the modeling domain that
needed to be included in the modeling
to evaluate cumulative impacts. As
discussed in the Round 3 designations
TSD,38 TDEC determined that no other
large sources needed to be included in
the modeling. EPA reviewed TDEC’s
modeling and has determined that no
large sources are located in Kentucky
that would interact with the emissions
from the Cumberland plant to contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS across the Kentucky border.
TDEC’s modeling results showed no
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations
above the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS anywhere within the modeled
domain, which extends into Kentucky.
TVA-Allen is located approximately
3.5 km from Arkansas and 9 km from
37 The modeling results for Tennessee’s DRRsubject sources which elected to model for Round
3 designations (TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, and
TVA-Johnsonville) may be found in the initial and
final Round 3 technical support documents for
Tennessee. See Technical Support Document:
Chapter 38 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the
2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/
documents/38-tn-so2-rd3-final.pdf; see also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_
rd3-final.pdf. TVA-Johnsonville is located
approximately 52 km from the Kentucky border,
and thus, TDEC did not extend the modeling
domain for this DRR source. The original DRR
modeling results for TVA-Johnsonville show that
the highest predicted 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour concentration within the
modeling domain is 48.7 ppb. Additionally, the SO2
emissions from TVA-Johnsonville decreased from
17,812 tpy in 2012 to 17 tpy in 2020 due to the
retirement and shutdown of its coal-fired boilers in
2018. The other DRR-subject source in Tennessee,
Cargill Corn Milling Company, Inc., accepted a
federally enforceable emissions limit as its pathway
to satisfy the DRR.
38 EPA also notes that the SO emissions from
2
TVA-Allen decreased from 9,989 tpy in 2013 to 7
tpy in 2020 due to the retirement and shutdown of
its three coal-fired boilers in 2018. Details about the
current emissions from TVA-Allen and Tennessee’s
other DRR sources are provided in TDEC’s May 10,
2021, Annual Ongoing Data Requirements Rule
(DRR) Report. See Tennessee’s 2021 DRR ongoing
verification report ‘‘Annual Ongoing Data
Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ in
Docket No. EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0535 for this
proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41350
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Mississippi. Because the 10-km receptor
grid for the Round 3 designations
modeling for TVA-Allen already
extended into the neighboring states of
Arkansas and Mississippi, TDEC did not
conduct supplemental modeling for this
source. The modeling results showed no
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations
above the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS anywhere in the modeled
domain for this source.38 A summary of
the modeling results for TVA-Allen and
TVA-Cumberland provided in the July
31, 2019, SIP submission is shown in
Table 2 of this section.
TVA-Gallatin is a Round 2 source
located in Sumner County, Tennessee.39
In Round 2 of designations, EPA
designated Sumner County as
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in its entirety because this
initial Round 2 modeling for TVAGallatin was not adequate for
designation purposes. In the September
29, 2020, Sumner County redesignation
request, modeling was performed to
characterize the SO2 air quality around
TVA-Gallatin.40 The modeling results
showed no maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations above the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the 40
x 40 km modeling domain. EPA expects
that the concentrations would decline
further from the area of maximum
concentration.
In addition to the results of the
modeling, there are other factors which
support EPA’s proposed conclusion that
TVA-Gallatin is not significantly
contributing to nonattainment in
neighboring Kentucky. There are no
sources within 50 km of the Kentucky/
Tennessee border emitting greater than
100 tpy of SO2 in Kentucky or in the
area between TVA-Gallatin and the
Kentucky border based on 2017 NEI
data. The nearest source in Kentucky
that emits greater than 100 tpy of SO2
is the TVA-Paradise Fossil Plant, which
is located 115 km from TVA-Gallatin, 68
km from the Tennessee border, and 78
km from the Sumner County
unclassifiable area. Given the localized
range of potential 1-hour SO2 emissions
as explained in Section II of this notice,
EPA proposes to determine that there
would not be any interaction between
this source and TVA-Gallatin that
would result in concentrations which
would exceed the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Additionally, EPA proposes
that it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from TVA-Gallatin travel into Kentucky
in higher concentrations than what is
observed in the modeling domain. As
indicated in Table 2 of this section, the
modeled maximum concentration at the
state border of 23.1 ppb is well below
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Thus, EPA proposes that TVAGallatin is not contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in a neighboring state.
Eastman Chemical is a Round 1
source in Tennessee located within 50
km of another state. Specifically,
Eastman Chemical is located in Sullivan
County, Tennessee, approximately 8 km
from the Virginia border and
approximately 50 km from the borders
of Kentucky and North Carolina. In its
July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC
provided modeling for purposes of
assessing Eastman Chemical’s interstate
transport impacts on neighboring states.
TDEC’s November 30, 2021,
supplemental modeling replaces the
modeling analysis TDEC submitted as
part of its July 31, 2019, SIP submission
for Eastman Chemical. TDEC’s
supplemental modeling included
receptors extending out to 50 km to
assess potential impacts in Virginia,
North Carolina, and Kentucky. For this
modeling, all SO2 emitting units at
Eastman Chemical were modeled using
their current allowable emission limits
from their current Title V permits,
which are federally enforceable. Section
III.C.3.b of this notice describes changes
being made at Eastman Chemical to
further reduce SO2 emissions from the
facility (e.g., addition of Dry Sorbent
Injection (DSI) controls on two boilers).
TDEC’s supplemental modeling does
not account for these additional
emissions reductions, but instead uses
higher allowable emissions rates in their
current Title V permits. The modeling
results showed no maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations above the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
neighboring states of Virginia, North
Carolina, and Kentucky. The maximum
1-hour SO2 modeled impacts in the
neighboring states are: 9.1 ppb in
Kentucky, 7.5 ppb in North Carolina,
and 59.4 ppb in Virginia. Additionally,
EPA assessed the SO2 sources in the
neighboring states of Kentucky, North
Carolina, and Virginia to determine
whether there are large SO2 emission
sources within 50 km of the Tennessee
border whose SO2 emissions could
interact with Eastman Chemical’s SO2
emissions in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
Kentucky, Virginia, or North Carolina.
This assessment concluded that there
are no sources within 50 km that emit
greater than 100 tpy in these
neighboring states that needed to be
assessed in the modeling performed by
TDEC. Additional details regarding this
analysis of sources in neighboring states
are provided in Section III.C.3.b of this
notice. Additional details regarding the
EPA’s evaluation of TDEC’s modeling
are provided in the Modeling TSD
available in the docket supporting this
proposed action. Considering the results
of TDEC’s modeling, EPA proposes that
Eastman Chemical is not contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a
neighboring state.
The following summarizes EPA’s
assessment of the modeling provided by
TDEC for the four sources discussed in
this section. TDEC’s July 31, 2019,
modeling for TVA-Cumberland and
existing Round 3 DRR modeling for
TVA-Allen show that maximum 1-hour
modeled SO2 concentrations at the
distances to neighboring states’ borders
listed in Table 2 are below the level of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
modeling results for TVA-Gallatin
submitted with the Sumner County
redesignation request show that
maximum 1-hour modeled SO2
concentration within the modeling
domain is well below the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and SO2
concentrations are expected to continue
to decline with distance. EPA has
reviewed the modeling analyses
provided in the July 31, 2019, SIP
submission and proposes that TDEC’s
existing and supplemental modeling for
TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland are
adequate for assessing interstate
transport of SO2. Additionally, the
modeling for TVA-Gallatin submitted
with the Sumner County redesignation
request and TDEC’s supplemental
modeling for Eastman Chemical, dated
November 30, 2021, also provide
support for this action.41 Table 2
provides a summary of the modeling
results for TVA-Allen, TVACumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and
Eastman Chemical.
39 TVA-Gallatin was also subject to the DRR and
thus, TDEC characterized TVA-Gallatin as a Round
3 DRR source in its July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
TVA-Gallatin chose modeling for its pathway to
satisfy the DRR requirements.
40 The modeling used the most current version of
AERMOD that was available at the time the
modeling was conducted, version 19191, with the
most recent three years of actual SO2 emissions
from the TVA-Gallatin facility (2017–2019) and
concurrent meteorology data from 2017–2019.
41 As noted in footnote 31, EPA is opting not to
rely on the modeling TDEC included in the July 31,
2019, SIP submission for Eastman Chemical or for
TVA-Gallatin for this action because Tennessee
provided more recent modeling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
41351
TABLE 2—SO2 MODELING FOR TENNESSEE SOURCES TVA-ALLEN, TVA-CUMBERLAND, TVA-GALLATIN, AND EASTMAN
CHEMICAL
Approximate
distance from
source
to adjacent
state (km)
TVA-Allen 42 ....
Shelby ...........
3.5 (AR), 9.0
(MS).
Yes—Nucor Steel Memphis
facility.
38.2 (AR), 31.3 (MS) (based
on 2012–2014 actual
emissions).
TVA-Cumberland 43.
TVA-Gallatin ....
Stewart ..........
27 (KY) 44 ......
No .........................................
Sumner ..........
37 (KY) ..........
No .........................................
Sullivan ..........
8 (VA), 50
(NC), 50
(KY).
Yes—Domtar Paper .............
19.7 (KY), (based on 2012–
2014 actual emissions).
23.1 (TN) 45 (based on
2017–2019 actual emissions).
9.1 (KY), 7.5 (NC), 59.4
(VA), (based on allowable
emissions).
Eastman
Chemical.
EPA also evaluated existing, valid
modeling available for sources in other
states which are located within 50 km
of Tennessee to assess whether there are
emissions from sources in neighboring
states to which emissions from sources
in Tennessee may interact and
contribute to an air quality problem in
the neighboring state. (The sources in
Other facilities
included in modeling?
Modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration at or beyond
the state border (ppb)
Source
County in
Tennessee
Tennessee that may be relevant to this
analysis are not necessarily the same
four sources identified in Table 2.)
Table 3 provides a summary of the
modeling for the SO2 sources in
neighboring states modeled in Rounds 2
and 3 of 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
designations (i.e., modeling EPA
determined was adequate for purposes
Model grid extends into
another state?
Yes—Southeastern portions
of Crittenden County in
AR; and small northern
portion of DeSoto County,
MS.
Yes—KY (portions of Christian and Trigg Counties).
No.
Yes—NC (portion of Mitchell
County), VA (portions of
Bristol, Washington, Russell, Scott, Norton, Wise,
and Lee Counties).
of informing designations) which are
located within 50 km of Tennessee:
Plum Point in Arkansas and Sikeston in
Missouri. The modeling results in Table
3 show that the maximum 1-hour
modeled SO2 concentrations for Plum
Point and Sikeston are below the level
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
TABLE 3—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH SO2 MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 km OF TENNESSEE
Source
County (state)
Approximate
distance from
source to Tennessee border
(km)
Other facilities included in
modeling?
Modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration (ppb)
Plum Point .......
Mississippi
(AR).
<5 1 ................
No .........................................
14.9 (based on PTE) ............
Sikeston ..........
Scott (MO) .....
44 ..................
Yes—AECI New Madrid
Plant, Buzzi Unicem Cape
Girardeau, Havco Wood
Products, Noranda Aluminum, Inc.—New Madrid,2 Q.C. Corporation.
37.2 (based on 2012–2014
actual emissions for all facilities except for Noranda
Aluminum, Inc.—New Madrid 2 which used allowable emissions).
1 Plum
Model grid extends into
another state?
Yes—into TN (portions of
Lauderdale and Tipton
Counties).
No.
Point is 2.5 km to the Tennessee border according to TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
Aluminum, Inc.—New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2 Noranda
Since the modeling results for Plum
Point and Sikeston do not demonstrate
an air quality problem in these areas as
it pertains to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA
does not believe sources in Tennessee
are contributing to nonattainment in the
neighboring states near these emissions
sources.
The following DRR sources in
Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North
Carolina, and Virginia located within 50
km of the Tennessee border were not
42 The values of 31.3 ppb (MS) and 38.2 ppb (AR)
reflect the modeling summary for TVA-Allen shown
in Table 24 on p. 23 from TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission. In Round 3 designations, the modeled
maximum 1-hour SO2 impact of TVA-Allen was 66
ppb. See EPA’s Technical Support Document,
Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area Designations
for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/
documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
43 The value of 19.7 ppb reflects the modeling
data for TVA-Cumberland shown in Table 19 on
p.29 from TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission. In
Round 3 of designations, the modeled maximum 1hour SO2 impact from TVA-Cumberland was 46.5
ppb. See pp.72–73 of EPA’s Technical Support
Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
44 In Round 3, EPA stated the approximate
distance from TVA-Cumberland as 28 km south of
the Kentucky border. See p. 75 of EPA’s Technical
Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
45 This value for the TVA-Gallatin modeling is the
maximum concentration in the modeling domain,
which is solely within Tennessee.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41352
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
modeled or had modeling that resulted
in an unclassifiable designation:
Alabama’s DRR source, TVA—Widows
Creek Fossil Plant, located
approximately 13 km from the
Tennessee border, permanently shut
down and therefore no modeling was
done under the DRR. Alabama’s DRR
source, TVA—Colbert Fossil Plant,
located approximately 28 km from the
Tennessee border, accepted federally
enforceable permit limits to exempt out
of the DRR requirements. For Alabama’s
DRR source, Ascend, in Morgan County,
Alabama, located approximately 39 km
from the Tennessee border, EPA
previously determined, in Round 3 SO2
designations, that the Agency did not
have sufficient information to
demonstrate whether the area around
Ascend meets the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS or contributes to an area that
does not meet the standard, and thus
designated the Morgan County area in
Alabama as unclassifiable in Round 3.
For Kentucky’s source, John S. Cooper
Power Station (Cooper) in Pulaski
County, Kentucky, located
approximately 43 km from the
Tennessee border, EPA previously
determined, in Round 2 SO2
designations, that the Agency did not
have sufficient information to
demonstrate whether the area around
Cooper meets the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS or contributes to an area that
does not meet the standard, and thus
designated the Pulaski County area in
Kentucky as unclassifiable in Round 2.
Missouri’s DRR sources, Associated
Electric Cooperative, Inc. New Madrid
Power Plant (AECI—New Madrid), and
Magnitude 7 Metals (formerly Noranda
Aluminum Inc.—New Madrid), both
located approximately less than 5 km
from the Tennessee border, opted to
monitor to satisfy the DRR. North
Carolina’s DRR sources, Duke Energy
Progress—Steam Electric Plant, and
Blue Ridge Paper Products (Evergreen
Packaging Group)—Canton Mill
(Evergreen), located approximately 51
and 28 km, respectively, from the
Tennessee border, opted to monitor to
satisfy the DRR and were designated in
Round 4. Virginia’s DRR source,
American Electric Power-Clinch River
Plant, located approximately 36 km
from the Tennessee border, accepted
federally enforceable permit limits to
exempt out of the DRR requirements.46
See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2017–0003.
As explained in the above paragraph,
two DRR sources in other states located
within 50 km of Tennessee conducted
SO2 designation modeling; however,
EPA previously determined this
modeling was insufficient to designate
areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Although EPA does not have any
indications that there are violations in
the areas around these two sources—
Ascend 47 in Morgan County, Alabama,
and Cooper 48 in Pulaski County,
Kentucky—EPA assesses the SO2
emissions from these sources in section
III.C.2.b. of this notice with respect to
interstate transport from Tennessee for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Ascend
and Cooper are located approximately
39 and 43 km, respectively, from the
Tennessee border.
EPA proposes that the modeling
results for the sources with valid
modeling (summarized in Tables 2 and
3), weighed along with the other factors
in this notice, support EPA’s proposed
conclusion that sources in Tennessee
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
(a) State Submission
TDEC provided statewide SO2
emissions inventories for 2005, 2008,
2011, 2014, and 2017 49 from the NEI by
source category (i.e., point, area, on-road
mobile, nonroad mobile, and event
(fires)), as shown in Table 4. TDEC
states that the data shows substantial
declines in the point source, on-road
mobile, and nonroad mobile SO2
emissions from 2005 to 2014.
TABLE 4—TENNESSEE’S NEI SO2 EMISSIONS FOR 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017
Year
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
Point
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
(July 31, 2019, Submission) 3 .........
288,256.16
258,046.16
155,988.36
90,283.03
40,569.61
Mobile
on-road
Area
4,578.11
2 65,175.82
2,320.98
1,441.94
4 N/A
4,833.88
877.69
769.02
711.10
4 N/A
Mobile
nonroad
3,890.82
590.73
85.61
61.88
4 N/A
Event
1 60.01
1,210.11
1,158.75
1,702.74
5 None
Year totals
301,618.99
325,900.52
160,322.73
94,200.68
4 N/A
1 The
2005 fires source category is comprised of only wildfires and no prescribed fires.
respect to the 2008 area source emissions, TDEC identifies the following factors that could have influenced the reported increase from
2005 to 2008: (1) in 2008, wildfires in east Tennessee occurred; (2) the reporting requirements for area sources changed in 2008 and EPA made
adjustments to states’ inventories; (3) EPA released version 3 of the NEI to replace version 2; and (4) Source Classification Codes were discontinued after the 2008 year and that could have affected the emission factors and growth rates. With respect to the change in reporting requirements noted by TDEC, those reporting requirements changed in December of 2008. See 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008).
3 The 2017 point source emissions data in TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission reflects the data available at the time. See Table 5, below,
for 2017 NEI data.
4 ‘‘N/A’’ means ‘‘Not Available’’ as presented in TDEC’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 emissions data
has become available for the Area and Mobile Sources (On-Road and Nonroad) Categories. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI data.
5 The 2017 NEI EVENT source category has no data for wildfires or prescribed fires at the time of SIP development for TDEC’s July 31, 2019,
SIP submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 data has become available for this source category. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI
data.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2 With
46 Each of the sources listed in this paragraph are
covered in further detail in this notice except TVA
-Widows Creek (AL), which has permanently shut
down, and TVA-Colbert (AL) and American Electric
Power-Clinch River Plant (VA), which both adopted
enforceable limits. Additionally, TVA-Colbert
reported 2020 emissions of 1.743 tpy and 2021
emissions of 4.4 tpy, and American Electric Power-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
Clinch River reported emissions of 79.7 tpy in 2020
and 43.467 tpy in 2021.
47 See EPA’s initial and final TSDs for Alabama,
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201708/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/
documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
48 Cooper is also considered a DRR source since
it met the 2,000 tpy threshold for inclusion in the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DRR. The source chose a federally enforceable
emission limit to exempt out of the DRR
requirements. However, EPA had already
designated the area as unclassifiable in Round 2.
49 For 2017, TDEC provided point source
emissions only. This data was preliminary at the
time of Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, SIP submission,
as EPA had not yet released the final 2017 NEI,
which was released in April 2020.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41353
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(b) EPA Analysis
any trends in SO2 emissions over this
period. Statewide SO2 emissions
decreased from approximately 1,058,622
tons in 1990 to 46,737.72 tons in 2017.50
EPA supplemented the NEI emissions
trends that TDEC included in the July
EPA reviewed the statewide
emissions data provided by TDEC and
also evaluated SO2 emissions data from
1990 to 2017 for Tennessee to examine
31, 2019, SIP submission when the 2017
NEI was finalized and made publicly
available in January 2021, and all the
source categories are now available. See
Table 5, below.
TABLE 5—TENNESSEE’S NEI SO2 EMISSIONS FOR 2017
[2017 NEI January 2021 version]
Year
Point
Area
Mobile
on-road
Mobile
nonroad
Event
Year totals
2017 NEI (January 2021 version) ............
41,191.44
3,185.61
678.34
40.68
1,641.64
46,737.72
In addition to reviewing SO2
emissions trends in Tennessee, as
discussed in section III.B, EPA also
finds that it is appropriate to examine
the impacts of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources emitting greater than
100 tons of SO2 in Tennessee at
distances ranging from zero km to 50 km
from a neighboring state’s border.
Therefore, in addition to those sources
addressed in section III.C.1.b. of this
notice, EPA also assessed the potential
impacts of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources not subject to the
DRR that emitted more than 100 tons of
SO2 in 2019 and are located in
Tennessee within 50 km of the border.
EPA assessed this information to
evaluate trends in area-wide air quality
and to evaluate whether the SO2
emissions from these sources could
interact with SO2 emissions from the
nearest source in a neighboring state in
such a way as to significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in that state. Table 6 lists the
10 sources in Tennessee not subject to
the DRR that emitted greater than 100
tpy of SO2 in 2019 and are located
within 50 km of the State’s border. EPA
focused on identifying the nearest nonDRR sources to the Tennessee sources as
the DRR sources are covered under
other pathways like modeling,
monitoring, or taking an enforceable
limit. EPA did look to see if a DRR
source was the nearest SO2 source in a
neighboring state and found that in
some instances, a DRR source was a
closer SO2 source. The shortest distance
between a Tennessee source and the
nearest neighboring DRR source was
approximately 77 km. Additionally, the
two nearest DRR sources identified were
TVA Paradise in Kentucky, which was
modeled using allowable emissions
limits, and Blue Ridge Paper, which was
characterized by monitoring and later
had modeling which showed
attainment. Both of these sources are
adequately characterized through the
DRR process, and because they are
greater than 50 km from any of the
Tennessee sources listed in Table 6,
EPA does not anticipate a transport
problem/interaction.
TABLE 6—TENNESSEE NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES
2021 annual
SO2 emissions
(tpy)
Tennessee source 1
5 153.8
Florim USA, Inc ...........................................
Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc .................................
Nucor Steel Memphis, Inc ...........................
Tate & Lyle, Ingredients Americas LLC ......
Packaging Corporation of America .............
AGC Industries—Greenland Plant ..............
BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc.
Holston Army Ammunition Plant
(Holston) 4.
Resolute Forest Products—Calhoun Operations.
Lucite International Inc ................................
Memphis International .................................
Approximate
distance to
Tennessee border
(km)
Closest
neighboring
state
Approximate
distance
to nearest
neighboring
state SO2
source
(km)
Nearest neighboring state non-DRR SO2
source (>100 tons SO2) & 2021 emissions
(tpy)
(KY) ...................
(KY) ....................
(AR), <5 (MS) ....
(NC) ...................
(MS) ...................
(VA) ....................
(VA) ...................
Kentucky ............
Kentucky ............
Arkansas ............
North Carolina ...
Mississippi .........
Virginia ...............
Virginia ...............
109
103
51
153
27
126
122
CC Metals and Alloys LLC (348.7).5
CC Metals and Alloys LLC (348.7).5
Roxul USA Inc. (139.6).
Tennessee Alloys Company 2 (639.6).
Mississippi Silicon (503.7).5
SGL Carbon LLC (54.6).3
Eastman Chemical (3541.9).
328.8
34 (GA), 43 (NC) ....
Georgia ..............
95
Tennessee Alloys Company 1 (639.6).
5 313.1
9 (AR), 30 (MS) ......
<5 (MS) ...................
Arkansas ............
Mississippi .........
46
34
Roxul USA Inc (139.6).6
Roxul USA Inc (139.6).
377.9
5 176.9
154.4
228.9
5 421.6
1,052.9
115.7
<5
14
<5
45
<5
11
<5
1 Eastman
is also a non-DRR source that could have been classified in Table 6; however, the facility is discussed in greater detail below in Section III.3.b.
Alloys Company is in Alabama.
Carbon LLC is in North Carolina.
4 See below for a more detailed discussion on BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc. Holston Army Ammunition Plant (Holston).
5 Sources have not reported annual 2021 SO emissions at the time of publication. The values reported for this source are from 2020.
2
6 Roxul USA Inc is in Mississippi.
2 Tennessee
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3 SGL
EPA does not have monitoring or
modeling data suggesting that any of the
states of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, or Virginia
are impacted by SO2 emissions from the
Tennessee sources listed in Table 6. Of
these 10 sources, three are located at or
less than 50 km from the nearest source
in another state: Packaging Corporation
of America, Lucite International Inc.,
and Memphis International. As shown
in Table 6, the nearest sources in
neighboring states to these three
Tennessee sources are Mississippi
Silicon and Roxul USA Inc., which
50 State annual emissions trends for criteria
pollutants of Tier 1 emission source categories from
1990 to 2017 are available at: https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41354
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
emitted 647.8 tons and 102.9 tons of
SO2 in 2019, respectively. EPA proposes
that the relatively low SO2 emissions of
the three Tennessee sources, combined
with the SO2 emissions from the nearest
neighboring states’ sources shown in
Table 6, make it unlikely that the SO2
emissions from these Tennessee sources
could interact with SO2 emissions from
the out-of-state sources in such a way as
to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state.
Of the 10 Tennessee sources in Table
6, seven are located over 50 km from the
nearest source in another state (i.e.,
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North
Carolina, and Virginia) emitting over
100 tons of SO2. EPA proposes that the
fact that the distances between sources
are greater than 50 km, combined with
the level of SO2 emissions from these
Tennessee sources and the nearest
sources emitting greater than 100 tons of
SO2 in the neighboring states, makes it
unlikely that SO2 emissions from these
seven sources could interact with SO2
emissions from the out-of-state sources
in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in those
other states.
One of these seven sources is the
Holston military facility, located in
Hawkins County, Tennessee, less than 5
km from the Tennessee-Virginia border.
Holston has achieved a 31 percent
reduction in emissions from the years
2017 to 2020 due to the changes at the
facility. Holston emitted 1,767.6 tpy SO2
in 2017, 1,621.1 tpy SO2 in 2018, and
1,389.2 tpy SO2 in 2019. The nearest
non-DRR SO2 source emitting greater
than 100 tpy in a nearby state is SGL
Carbon LLC, located 122 km away in
North Carolina. EPA further evaluated
Holston due to the magnitude of the
source’s SO2 emissions in 2019 and the
proximity of the source to the Virginia
border (less than 5 km) and its
proximity to the Sullivan County
nonattainment area.51 In 2020, Holston’s
four coal-fired boilers emitted 1,224
tons of SO2, or nearly all SO2 emissions
from this facility that year.52 EPA
received a letter dated November 1,
2021, which stated that the last
remaining unit of the four, coal-fired
boiler #2, had ceased operation and was
last operated on October 4, 2021. Since
this time, the Holston facility has been
operated with new natural gas steam
units.53 EPA expects a large reduction in
SO2 emissions due to the fuel switch
from burning coal to natural gas.54 EPA
proposes that it is unlikely that the SO2
emissions from Holston alone or in
combination with Eastman will
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in North Carolina based
on the reduction of the source’s SO2
emissions from the conversion to
natural gas.
EPA also reviewed the location of
sources in neighboring states emitting
more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located
within 50 km of the Tennessee border
(see Table 7). This is because elevated
levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in
Tennessee may have a downwind
impact, are most likely to be found near
such sources. As with Table 6, EPA
looked to see if a DRR source was the
nearest SO2 source in a neighboring
state and found that for the sources in
Table 7, the sources indicated are the
nearest SO2 source. There are no DRR
sources that are closer than the sources
indicated in the table.
TABLE 7—NEIGHBORING STATES’ NON-DRR SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR TENNESSEE 1
2021 annual
SO2 emissions
(tons)
Source 2
Nucor-Yamato Steel Company (AR) .............
Nucor Steel Arkansas (AR) ...........................
Nucor Steel Decatur LLC (AL) .......................
Approximate
distance to
Tennessee
border
(km)
348.5
110.3
127.2
<5
<5
38
Approximate
distance
to nearest
Tennessee
SO2 source
(km)
73
78
115
Tennessee non-DRR SO2 source
(>100 tons SO2) & 2021 emissions
(tons)
Lucite International Inc. (313.1).
Lucite International Inc. (313.1).
Packaging Corporation Of America (228.9).
1 Table
7 does not include sources that are duplicative of those in Table 6.
also reviewed the emissions from DRR sources near the Tennessee border, however, the sources covered in this table are the closest
sources regardless of being a DRR or non-DRR source.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2 EPA
As shown in Table 7, the shortest
distance between any pair of these
sources is 73 km. Therefore, given the
localized range of potential 1-hour SO2
impacts, and the level of emissions
emitted at these sources, EPA proposes
that it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from the sources in Alabama and
Arkansas could interact with SO2
emissions from Tennessee’s nearest
non-DRR sources in such a way as to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Alabama and Arkansas.
In addition, EPA evaluated SO2
emissions trends for Ascend in Alabama
and Cooper in Kentucky, which are
within 50 km of the Tennessee border
and for which EPA could not rely on
existing air dispersion modeling to
assess their impacts for interstate
transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS on other states. Ascend is
approximately 39 km from the
Tennessee border. For Ascend, Table 8
shows that 2020 SO2 emissions have
significantly declined below 2012–2019
levels.55 EPA also considered whether
any changes in controls or operations
had occurred at Ascend. According to
emails from Alabama’s Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) to
EPA on June 6, 2019, and December 2,
51 On May 31, 2018, BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance
Systems, Inc. (BAE) submitted an application for a
permit to construct and operate an expansion of an
existing explosives manufacturing operation at the
Holston Army Ammunition Plant Area B facility
located in Hawkins County. The proposed
expansion is a multi-phase project, and the current
application covers the first phase only. Phase I will
include four new natural gas and oil-fired boilers
and operations for recrystallization, coating, and
milling of explosives. Phase I will also include the
retirement of four existing coal-fired boilers (units
37–0028–01, 37–0028–02, 37–0028–03, and 37–
0028–04) upon startup of the new natural gas-fired
steam generating boilers (37–0028–120, 37–0028–
121, 37–0028–122, and 37–0028–123). On October
8, 2018, TDEC issued a PSD permit (Permit No.
974192) that includes a provision that the permittee
must notify the State when boilers 37–0028–01, 02,
03, and 04 have ceased operation. This permit is
available in the online docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0535 at https://
www.regulations.gov.
52 Emissions data obtained using EPA’s Emissions
Inventory System at eis.epa.gov.
53 See the November 2, 2021 email from TDEC to
EPA Region 4 transmitting a letter from BAE
regarding Notification of Ceased Operation for
Boiler #2 at Holston Army Ammunition ‘‘OSI
HSAAP 37–0028–01 to-04 Notification of Ceased
Operations.pdf’’ located in the docket for this
action.
54 See ‘‘974192-Final Determination.pdf’’ in the
docket for this action.
55 See Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, submittal for
specific data on the Ascend facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41355
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2019, Ascend had ceased operating
Boiler #5 and anticipated the
retirements of Boiler #6 in 2020, and
Coker #1 and #2 in 2021.56 However,
EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021,
that Boiler #5 and Coker #2 were
removed from service in 2019 and 2021,
respectively and Coker #1 and Boiler #6
are still authorized to operate under the
facility’s current Title V permit. EPA
also evaluated data in EPA’s Air Quality
System (AQS) 57 from the SO2 monitors
in the surrounding area of Ascend.
There are no monitors within 50 km of
Ascend. The closest SO2 monitor is
located in Jefferson County, Alabama
(AQS ID: 01–073–1003) and is
approximately 128 km from Ascend.
The 2020–2022 DV for this monitor is 6
ppb. The closest source in Tennessee to
Ascend which emitted over 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2019 is Packaging Corp. of
America, which is approximately 123
km away from Ascend and emitted
347.9 tons of SO2 in 2019. The distance
between Ascend and Packaging Corp. of
America exceeds 50 km. EPA proposes
that the distance between these two
sources make it unlikely that SO2
emissions from Ascend could interact
with SO2 emissions from Packaging
Corp. of America in such a way as to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Alabama.
TABLE 8—ASCEND—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS
[TPY]
Alabama source
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Ascend .............................................................
2,182
2,595
2,839
2,594
2,179
1,628
1,436
1,020
100
771
EPA also evaluated SO2 emissions
trends for Kentucky’s DRR source,
Cooper, which is within 50 km of the
Tennessee border (approximately 43
km) and for which EPA could not rely
on existing Round 2 air dispersion
modeling to assess its interstate
transport impacts on other states for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Available SO2
emissions data from EPA’s Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD) indicates that
emissions at Cooper have decreased
since 2012 from 7,428 tons to 47 tons in
2020 as shown in Table 9.58 The closest
source in Tennessee to Cooper which
emitted over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2020 is
TVA Bull Run Fossil Plant (Bull Run) in
Clinton, Tennessee, which is
approximately 116 km away from
Cooper and emitted approximately 229
tons of SO2 in 2020. EPA proposes that
the distance between these two sources
makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions
from Cooper could interact with SO2
emissions from Bull Run in such a way
as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Kentucky.
TABLE 9—COOPER—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS
[TPY]
Kentucky source
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Cooper ..............................................................
7,428
4,604
4,324
1,804
320
110
148
81
47
165
EPA’s analysis of SO2 emissions
trends information, the Tennessee
sources in Table 6, neighboring states’
sources in Table 7, and emissions trends
data related to Ascend and Cooper in
Tables 8 and 9 support its conclusion
that sources in Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in a nearby state.
Tennessee and the surrounding states
(Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Virginia).59 TDEC
states that all valid DVs in the
attainment/unclassifiable areas for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee
and surrounding states are attaining the
standard.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
EPA reviewed monitoring data for
monitors in Tennessee within 50 km of
another state and for monitors within 50
km of Tennessee in adjacent states using
relevant data from EPA’s AQS DV
reports. The 2010 1-hour SO2 standard
is violated at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of the
daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as
determined in accordance with
Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. Of the
six monitors in Tennessee located
within 50 km of another state, EPA has
summarized the DVs based on certified
monitoring data in Tables 10 and 11.
Table 10 provides DVs from the 2012–
2014 to 2019–2021 DV periods for the
Blount and Shelby County monitors.
Table 11 shows the DVs from the four
monitors located in the Sullivan
County, Tennessee nonattainment area.
The most recent certified 3-year DV
period is 2020–2022.
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-designvalues.
58 This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/. EPA’s AMPD is an application that provides
both current and historical data collected as part of
EPA’s emissions trading programs.
59 See Table 1 of Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission.
(a) State Submission
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
In its SIP submission, TDEC included
a table providing 2015–2017 and 2016–
2018 DVs and annual 99th percentile
SO2 concentrations for monitors in
56 See
supra footnote 33.
AQS contains ambient air pollution data
collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies. This data is available at
57 EPA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
(b) EPA Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41356
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—1-HOUR SO2 DVS (ppb) FOR AQS MONITORS IN TENNESSEE WITHIN 50 km OF ANOTHER STATE
County
AQS site code
Blount ....
Shelby ...
47–009–0101 ...
47–157–0075 ...
1 ND
2012–2014
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
2017–2018
2017–2019
2018–2020
2019–2021
2020–2022
1 ND
1 ND
1 ND
9
8
2
7
2
6
1
4
1
2
1
2
1 ND
9
2
Approximate
distance to
Tennessee
border
(km)
14
17
indicates that there is no valid DV due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.
As shown in Table 10, the DVs for the
Blount County, Tennessee monitor from
2014–2016 to 2019–2021 and the DVs
for the Shelby County, Tennessee
monitor for 2012–2014 to 2020–2022 are
well below the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
(c) Analysis of Eastman Chemical in
Sullivan County, Tennessee
There are four AQS monitors in
Sullivan County: AQS ID 47–163–6001,
47–163–6002, 47–163–6003, and 47–
163–6004. These monitors do not have
valid DVs prior to 2017–2019 and are
located within 50 km of the Tennessee
border (i.e., approximately 7, 9, 8, and
9 km, respectively, from the nearest
interstate border, Tennessee-Virginia).
Two of these monitors, AQS ID 47–163–
6001 and 47–163–6002, have four sets of
complete DVs (2017–2019 through
2020–2022) and the other two monitors,
AQS ID 47–163–6003 and 47–163–6004,
have two sets of complete DVs (2019–
2021 through 2020–2022). As seen in
Table 11, one of these monitors (AQS ID
47–163–6003) violated the NAAQS with
a 2019–2021 DV of 87 ppb.60 This
monitor is located north of the Eastman
Chemical facility, in the direction of the
Virginia border. It is also 1.3 km upwind
and in the same wind direction of an
attaining monitor in the nonattainment
area, AQS ID: 47–163–6001, indicating
that concentrations are below the
standard within Tennessee’s border.
However, with new, early certified 2022
data that was submitted to EPA in
March 2023 and included in the docket
of this proposed action, monitor AQS ID
47–163–6003 is attaining the primary
SO2 NAAQS with a DV of 71 ppb. In
Table 11, a downward trend is also
observed among all DVs at monitors
within 50 km of Eastman Chemical.
TABLE 11—1-HOUR SO2 DVS (ppb) FOR SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE MONITORS WITHIN 50 km OF THE TENNESSEE
BORDER
County (state)
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
County
County
County
County
(TN)
(TN)
(TN)
(TN)
Monitored source
....
....
....
....
Eastman
Eastman
Eastman
Eastman
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
Chemical
AQS ID
2017–2019
DV
2018–2020
DV
2019–2021
DV
2020–2022
DV
79
55
2 ND
2 ND
63
38
2 ND
2 ND
49
27
87
53
41
27
71
51
47–163–6001
47–163–6002
47–163–6003
47–163–6004
Approximate
distance from
Eastman
Chemical
(km)
Approximate distance
to border
(km)
7
9
8
9
(VA),
(VA),
(VA),
(VA),
49
47
48
47
(NC),
(NC),
(NC),
(NC),
52 1
53 1
51 1
51 1
(KY)
(KY)
(KY)
(KY)
...
...
...
...
2.5
3.3
1.2
1.2
1 These
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
distances to the Kentucky border are estimated at just over 50 km and thus, are included for informational purposes.
2 ND indicates that the monitors established in Sullivan County (AQS ID: 47–163–6003 and 47–163–6004) to measure SO in the areas with modeled maximum
2
concentrations around Eastman Chemical officially began collecting data for NAAQS comparison on January 1, 2019, and thus do not have a valid DV for 2019 and
2020.
Eastman Chemical is located in
Sullivan County, Tennessee,
approximately 8 km from the Virginia
border and approximately 50 km from
the borders of Kentucky and North
Carolina. Given the decreasing gradient
measured in the 2019–2021 DVs
between the 47–163–6003 and 47–163–
6001 monitors over 1.3 km, it may be
the case that SO2 emissions from the
source would not contribute to
nonattainment in Virginia, which is
several more kilometers beyond the
attaining monitor. Given that the
physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts,
the decreasing gradient measured in the
2019–2021 DVs between the monitors
over only 1.3 km indicates that it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from the
Eastman Chemical facility would
contribute to nonattainment in the
neighboring states that are 8 km–50 km
from Eastman Chemical. However,
considering the data in Table 11, EPA
conducted further analysis, including an
evaluation of design values, an
assessment of new modeling provided
by TDEC that uses Eastman Chemical’s
current allowable emissions limits
contained in its Title V permits (see
section III.C.1.b), and an assessment of
both the current actual emissions
scenario and likely future emissions
scenario at Eastman Chemical to assess
whether Eastman Chemical’s SO2
emissions could contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Kentucky, North
Carolina, or Virginia. This analysis is
discussed in the following paragraphs.
In Round 1 of SO2 designations, EPA
designated as nonattainment the portion
of Sullivan County contained in a 3-km
radius circle centered at Eastman
Chemical’s B–253 powerhouse, which
contained a single monitor that was
violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
based on 2009–2011 air quality data.
The SO2 emissions at Eastman come
from three main boiler groups, B–83, B–
253, and B–325. Powerhouse B–253
includes five boilers (Boilers 25–29),
each with an individual stack, that
provide steam and electricity to the
facility. Powerhouse B–325 includes
two coal-fired boilers that vent to a
single stack (Boiler 30 and Boiler 31).
Boiler 30 is equipped with a spray dryer
absorber and electrostatic precipitator to
control particulate matter and acid
gases. Boiler 31 is equipped with a
spray dryer absorber and fabric filter to
control particulate matter and acid
60 See below in section III.A.3.c and III.D.2 for
more analysis on the gradient decrease between 47–
163–6003 and 47–163–6001 monitors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41357
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
gases. Powerhouse B–83 includes seven
boilers; five coal-fired boilers (Boilers
18–22) and two coal-fired boilers
(Boilers 23 and 24) that also burn
hazardous wastewater treatment sludge,
venting to a single stack.61
Since Round 1 of designations,
Eastman Chemical has converted the
five B–253 boilers (25–29) from burning
coal to natural gas.62 This conversion
reduced the combined SO2 emissions
from these units by over 99.9 percent
(from 14,897 tpy in 2011 to less than 10
tpy in 2019). This conversion took place
incrementally from 2014–2018 as
follows: Boiler 25 in March of 2014,
Boiler 27 in June of 2016, Boiler 28 in
December of 2016, Boiler 29 in June of
2018, and Boiler 26 in September of
2018. The emissions reductions at the
B–253 boilers can be seen in Table 13,
below. Total SO2 emissions at the
facility from all emissions units have
decreased over this time period from
21,246 tpy in 2012 to 3,542 tpy in 2021,
as seen in Table 13, below.
Additionally, Eastman Chemical
installed temporary dry sorbent
injection (DSI) controls 63 on the B–83
powerhouse Boilers 23 and 24 on June
operational in January 2022 after
performance testing. Tennessee
continues to work with Eastman
Chemical to consider additional SO2
controls at the facility. The Andrew
Johnson (AQS ID: 47–163–6003) and
Happy Hill (AQS ID: 47–163–6004)
ambient SO2 monitors continued to
measure exceedances of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in 2020, 2021, and 2022, while
the permanent DSI control system was
under construction. However, as seen in
Table 12 below, the number of NAAQS
exceedances have decreased
significantly at monitors near Eastman
Chemical. The other two SO2 monitors
in the nonattainment area (Ross N.
Robinson, AQS ID: 47–163–6001;
Skyland Drive, AQS ID: 47–163–6002)
did not measure any NAAQS
exceedances during 2019–2022.
Additional information and discussion
about the current attainment status of
the area, the NAAQS exceedances at
these two monitors, and the controls
and operational changes Eastman is
pursuing to bring the area back into
attainment with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
is provided in the TSD available in the
docket for this proposed rule.
1, 2019, which have further reduced
SO2 emissions, as shown in Table 13.
The temporary DSI controls were
installed as an interim measure to
address the measured exceedances of
the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS in 2019, discussed
above, and were operated in 2019–2021
by Eastman while design and
installation of permanent DSI controls
took place. EPA evaluated the effect of
the temporary DSI controls by
comparing the average hourly SO2
emissions from Eastman’s nine coalfired boilers at B–83 (boilers 18–24) and
B–325 (boilers 30 and 31) in 2019 prior
to installation of the DSI controls
(January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019) with
the average hourly emissions after
installation of the controls (June 1, 2019,
to December 31, 2019). The results of
this evaluation show that the average
hourly SO2 emissions decreased from
1,338 pounds per hour (lb/hr) (January
1 to May 1) to 793 lb/hr (June 1 to
December 31), which is approximately a
40 percent reduction in average hourly
emissions. Eastman completed
installation of permanent DSI controls at
B–83 Boilers 23 and 24 in November
2021, and the controls became fully
TABLE 12—EXCEEDANCES AT EASTMAN CHEMICAL
[Days]
Monitor
AQS ID
Andrew Johnson ..........................................................
Happy Hill .....................................................................
2019
47–163–6003
47–163–6004
2020
18
2
2021
3
1
2022
4
2
Total
0
2
25
7
TABLE 13—EASTMAN CHEMICAL—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS
[TPY] [From EPA’s EIS]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B–253–1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #25–29 .......................................
B–325–1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #30 AND 31 ...............................
B–83–1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #18–24 .........................................
Total Emissions from all other Emissions Units ...............................
Eastman Chemical Total SO2 Emissions .........................................
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
14,171
1,363
5,549
163
21,246
14,195
1,435
5,809
160
21,600
12,034
1,330
6,013
161
19,538
10,638
1,306
5,879
156
17,978
7,765
1,348
5,055
156
14,324
4,779
1,340
4,447
180
10,746
2018
2,367
1,371
5,274
104
9,116
2019
6
1,346
3,118
40
4,510
2020
6
1,276
1,558
31
2,871
2021
7
1,208
2,296
31
3,542
EPA also assessed the SO2 sources in
the neighboring states of Kentucky,
North Carolina, and Virginia to
determine whether there are large SO2
emission sources within 50 km of the
Tennessee border whose SO2 emissions
could interact with Eastman Chemical’s
SO2 emissions in such a way as to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Kentucky, Virginia, or
North Carolina. EPA identified only one
source, located in Virginia, which is
within 50 km of Eastman Chemical and
has SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy
based on 2017 NEI emissions data. EPA
accessed more current SO2 emissions for
this Virginia source, Dominion—
Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center,
from EPA’s AMPD.64 The source
emitted 95 tons of SO2 in 2018 and 69
tons of SO2 in 2019 and 2020. Based on
this more recent data, EPA concludes
there are no large SO2 emission sources
61 Prior to September 2021, the emissions from
the seven coal-fired boilers in the B–83 powerhouse
were exhausted through two stacks, one which
served boilers 18–22 and another which served
boilers 23 and 24. Due to structural deterioration,
Eastman decommissioned the stack that served
boilers 18–22 on September 10, 2021. Following the
decommissioning of the stack, all emissions from
Boilers 18–24 are now ducted to and emitted from
the stack that previously only served Boilers 23 and
24.
62 Eastman’s conversion of the five B–253 boilers
from coal to natural gas was required to meet Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements
under the Federal Regional Haze Program. The
conversion requirement is incorporated into
Tennessee’s regional haze SIP and into the facility’s
Title V permit. See 77 FR 70689 (November 27,
2012); Eastman Operating Permit No. 066116H.
63 DSI is a control system that involves injection
of a dry alkaline material such as a sodium or
calcium-based sorbent (i.e., a material that absorbs
or adsorbs gases) either directly into a coal-fired
boiler or into ducting downstream of where coal is
combusted and exhaust (flue) gas that reacts with
acid gas pollutants (e.g., SO2) to form a dry waste
product which is then collected through a
particulate filtration device.
64 This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41358
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
in neighboring states within 50 km of
Eastman Chemical.
(d) EPA Analysis Continued—Monitors
Outside of Tennessee
No sources in Tennessee elected to
establish monitors to characterize the air
quality around specific sources subject
to EPA’s DRR for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There are
four DRR monitors located in other
states within 50 km of the Tennessee
border. These four monitors, which are
in Missouri and North Carolina, do not
have valid DVs prior to the 2017–2019
DV time period. Thus, EPA identified in
Table 14 the 2017–2019 DVs, 2018–2020
DVs, and 2019–2021 DVs, along with
the distance between each source and
the border of Tennessee.
TABLE 14—SO2 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS (ppb) FOR ROUND 4 DRR MONITORS IN SURROUNDING STATES
WITHIN 50 km OF THE TENNESSEE BORDER
County (state)
Round 4 monitored source
New Madrid County (MO) ...
New Madrid County (MO) ...
New Madrid County (MO) ...
Haywood County (NC) ........
Magnitude 7 Metals1 ..........
Magnitude 7 Metals1 ..........
Magnitude 7 Metals1 ..........
Blue Ridge Paper Products,
LLC (BRPP).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 Noranda
2017–2019
design value
AQS ID
29–143–9001
29–143–9002
29–143–9003
37–087–0013
2018–2020
design value
202
268
47
152
2019–2021
design value
320
361
68
90
Approximate
distance to
Tennessee
border
(km)
376
333
83
36
3
3
4
30
Aluminum, Inc.—New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.
EPA evaluated the 2017–2019, 2018–
2020, and 2019–2021 DVs at the four
DRR monitors in Table 14. The New
Madrid County, Missouri, monitor (AQS
ID: 29–143–9001) has a 2017–2019 DV
of 202 ppb, a 2018–2020 DV of 320 ppb,
and a 2019–2021 DV of 376 ppb, all of
which violate the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. The New Madrid County,
Missouri, monitor (AQS ID: 29–143–
9002) has a 2017–2019 DV of 268 ppb,
a 2018–2020 DV of 361 ppb, and a
2019–2021 DV of 333 ppb, all of which
violate the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
The New Madrid County, Missouri,
monitor (AQS ID: 29–143–9003) has a
2017–2019 DV of 47 ppb and 2018–2020
DV of 68, both of which are below the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
however, the 2019–2021 DV of 83 ppb
violates the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Regarding the violating DVs at the three
New Madrid County, Missouri, monitors
in Table 14, EPA notes that there are no
SO2 emission sources in Tennessee
emitting over 100 tpy within 50 km of
these monitors based on 2019 data. The
nearest SO2 source in Tennessee that
emitted over 100 tons of SO2 in 2019 is
located approximately 114 km away
from the Missouri monitors in Table 14,
which is well beyond the 50-km
transport distance threshold discussed
in Section II.65 EPA notes a portion of
New Madrid County surrounding the
three New Madrid SO2 monitors,
Magnitude 7 Metals and Associated
Electric Cooperative, Inc., New Madrid
Power Plant was designated
65 This
Tennessee source, Owens Corning
Composite Materials, LLC (EIS ID: 3100911),
emitted 106.6 tons of SO2 in 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
nonattainment for the SO2 1-hour
standard in Round 4 designations.66
The Haywood County, North
Carolina, monitor has a 2017–2019 DV
of 152 ppb, a 2018–2020 DV of 90 ppb,
and a 2019–2021 DV of 36 ppb. While
both the 2017–2019 and 2018–2020 DVs
violate the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
the 2019–2021 DV of 36 ppb is below
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.67 EPA
notes that there are no SO2 emission
sources in Tennessee emitting over 100
tpy within 50 km of the Haywood
County, North Carolina, monitor. The
nearest source in Tennessee that emitted
over 100 tons of SO2 in 2019 is located
approximately 103 km away from the
Haywood County, North Carolina,
monitor, which is well beyond the 50km transport distance threshold
discussed in Section II.68
After careful review of the State’s
assessment and all available monitoring
data and related source information,
EPA proposes that the AQS monitoring
66 See
86 FR 16055 (March 26, 2021).
designated Beaverdam Township in
Haywood County as attainment/unclassifiable in
Round 4 designations based on modeling of
permanent and federally enforceable SO2 emission
limits for the Blue Ridge Paper Products facility,
which provided for attainment of the 1-hour
standard. See 86 FR 16055. For additional
information about round 4 designations for
Beaverdam Township in Haywood County, NC see
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/
epa-completes-fourth-round-sulfur-dioxidedesignations including the final technical support
document for North Carolina https://www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/07-nc-rd4_
final_so2_designations_tsd.pdf and the EPA’s
November 24, 2020, final rule approving North
Carolina’s, source-specific SIP submittal to make
Blue Ridge’s modeled SO2 emission limits
permanent. See 85 FR 74884.
68 This Tennessee source, Cemex Construction
Materials Atlantic, LLC—Knoxville Plant (EIS ID:
4979911), emitted 138.5 tons of SO2 in 2019.
67 EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
data assessed and the lack of any
sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 in
2019 in Tennessee within 50 km of
adjacent states’ monitors with 2017–
2019, 2018–2020, and 2019–2021 DVs
that violated the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS support EPA’s proposed
conclusion that Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the neighboring states.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations
Addressing SO2 Emissions
(a) State Submission
Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission identifies SIP-approved
measures which help ensure that SO2
emissions in the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state. TDEC states
that Tennessee Comprehensive Rules
and Regulations (TCRR) 1200–03–09.–
01, Construction Permits, regulates the
construction of new sources and
modification of existing sources, and it
highlights section .01(1)(e), which
prohibits TDEC from issuing a
construction permit to construct or
modify an air contaminant source 69 if
the construction or modification would,
among other things, interfere with
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS
in a neighboring state. In addition,
TDEC also states that TCRR 1200–03–
06.–03, General Non-Process Gaseous
Emissions, and 1200–03–07.–07,
General Provisions and Applicability for
Process Gaseous Emissions Standards,
69 ‘‘Air Contaminant Source’’ is defined at TCRR
1200–03–02.–01(1)(b) as ‘‘any and all sources of
emission of air contaminants, whether privately or
publicly owned or operated.’’
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
regulate gaseous emissions from nonprocess and process emission sources,
respectively. Further, TDEC notes that
TCRR 1200–03–13.–01, Violation
Statement, provides for enforcement
action for any failure to comply with
Tennessee’s air regulations.
(b) EPA Analysis
As part of EPA’s weight of evidence
approach to evaluating 2010 SO2
transport SIPs, EPA considered
Tennessee’s SIP-approved measures
summarized in III.C.4.a. of this notice
that address SO2 emissions sources in
the State. As noted in TDEC’s SIP
revision, the State has a SIP-approved
permitting rule—TCRR 1200–03–09–
.01—that applies to major and minor
sources generally and prohibits TDEC
from issuing a construction permit to
construct or modify an air contaminant
source if the construction or
modification would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS
in a neighboring state. The State also
has SIP-approved major new source
review (NSR) rules at TCRR 1200–03–
09–.01(4) and –.01(5) covering PSD and
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting, respectively. PSD
applies to the construction of any new
major stationary source or any major
modification at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated
as attainment or unclassifiable or not yet
designated, and NNSR applies in
nonattainment areas. Tennessee’s SIPapproved permitting rules may help in
ensuring that SO2 emissions due to
construction or modification of major
and minor sources in Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in neighboring states. However,
without more information regarding the
application of the interstate-transport
analysis within the state’s permitting
process, EPA cannot form a conclusive
position whether this is sufficient for
approvability of the state’s good
neighbor SIP submittal evaluated here
as to new or modifying sources. Further,
new source permitting requirements do
not address emissions from existing
emissions units. Nonetheless, the EPA
finds based on other information as
discussed in this proposal that
Tennessee’s SIP submission can be
approved.
EPA preliminarily agrees that SIPapproved regulation, TCRR 1200–3–13–
.01, Violation Statement, provides TDEC
with authority for enforcement of SO2
emission limits and control measures.
This rule states that, ‘‘Failure to comply
with any of the provisions of these [air]
regulations shall constitute a violation
thereof and shall subject the person or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
persons responsible therefore to any and
all the penalties provided by law.’’
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2
Emissions in Tennessee
(a) State Submission
TDEC identified EPA programs
which, either directly or indirectly, have
significantly reduced SO2 emissions in
Tennessee. These programs include: the
Acid Rain Program under title IV of the
CAA; the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) SO2 Group 1 Trading Program;
Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule; Mercury and
Air Toxic Standards Rule (MATS); 70
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS); Nonroad Diesel Rule; and EPA’s
Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions
Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
Requirements Rule.71
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA is proposing to find that the
Federal control measures identified in
section III.C.5.a of this notice have
helped to reduce SO2 emissions from
various sources in the State. EPA’s Acid
Rain Program set a permanent cap on
the total amount of SO2 that may be
emitted by EGUs in the contiguous
United States.72 CSAPR required
significant reductions in SO2 emissions
from power plants in the eastern half of
the United States.73 MATS required
reductions of emissions of heavy metals
which, as a co-benefit, reduced
emissions of SO2, and establishes
alternative numeric emission standards,
including SO2 (as an alternate to
hydrochloric acid).74 EPA’s Nonroad
Diesel Rule will reduce sulfur levels
from about 3,000 parts per million
(ppm) to 15 ppm when fully
implemented.75 EPA’s Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements (Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule)
required refiners to start producing
diesel fuel for use in highway vehicles
with a sulfur content of no more than
15 ppm as of June 1, 2006.76 NSPS for
various source categories, including but
not limited to Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units; 77
70 See
77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
41359
Sulfuric Acid Plants; 78 Stationary Gas
and Combustion Turbines; 79 Portland
Cement Manufacturing; 80 Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units
(Boilers); 81 and Onshore Natural Gas
Processing for Which Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After January 20, 1984, and
on or Before August 23, 2011,82
establish standards which reduce SO2
emissions.
In addition to the rules listed in
section III.C.5.a of this notice, EPA’s
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards Rule 83 also reduces SO2
emissions by establishing gasoline
sulfur standards that reduce SO2
emissions from certain types of mobile
sources. EPA proposes that these
Federal measures taken together have
lowered and/or will continue to lower
SO2 emissions, and so are expected to
continue to support EPA’s proposed
conclusion that SO2 emissions from
Tennessee will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
6. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that
Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented on
November 30, 2021, by the revised
modeling for Eastman Chemical,
satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA’s
evaluation of Prong 2 of the good
neighbor provision—Interference with
Maintenance of the NAAQS—follows
and requires state plans to prohibit
emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS in another
state.
D. EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation:
Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS
1. State Submission
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission,
TDEC relied upon the information
provided for prong 1 to demonstrate that
emissions within Tennessee will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring
state, including: attaining DVs for the
71 https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-
vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-airpollution-new-motor-vehicles-tier.
72 See 40 CFR parts 72 through 78.
73 See 40 CFR part 97.610(a)(13). See also 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011).
74 See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 77 FR
9304.
75 See 40 CFR parts 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94, 1039,
1048, 1051, 1065, and 1068. See also 69 FR 38958
(June 29, 2004).
76 See 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. See also 66
FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
77 See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part
63. See also 77 FR 9304.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78 See 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, D, E, F, G and
H. See also 36 FR 24876 (December 23, 1971).
79 See 40 CFR part 60, subparts GG and KKKK.
See also 71 FR 38482 (July 6, 2006) and 44 FR
52792 (September 10, 1979).
80 See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 75 FR
54970 (September 9, 2010).
81 See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part
63. See also 77 FR 9304.
82 See 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. See also 77
FR 49490 (August 16, 2012).
83 See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036,
1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See
also 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41360
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2016–2018 period; SO2 emission
reductions trends from 2005–2014 from
the NEI; DRR modeling for large SO2
sources within 50 km of the State
border; and supplemental modeling
analyses out to 50 km for TVA-Gallatin
and Eastman Chemical, which tend to
show that the areas of other states
closest to these sources are not
exceeding the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Also, TDEC indicates that
there are no monitors located in the
nine surrounding states, or Tennessee,
that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on valid and complete
data for the 2016–2018 monitoring
period, which TDEC believes is
evidence that Tennessee is not
interfering with any maintenance efforts
by neighboring states for this monitoring
period. Finally, as discussed in sections
III.C.4 and III.C.5, TDEC cited SIPapproved and Federal measures which
address SO2 emissions in Tennessee.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. EPA Analysis
In North Carolina v. EPA, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
explained that the regulating authority
must give prong 2 of the CAA’s
interstate transport provision
‘‘independent significance’’ from prong
1 by evaluating the impact of upwind
state emissions on downwind areas that,
even if currently in attainment, are at
risk of future nonattainment. North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910–11
(D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA interprets prong 2
to require an evaluation of the potential
impact of a state’s emissions on areas
that are currently measuring clean data,
but that may have issues maintaining
that air quality. Therefore, in addition to
the analysis presented by Tennessee,
EPA has also reviewed additional
information on SO2 air quality and
emission trends to evaluate the State’s
conclusion that Tennessee will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind
states. This evaluation builds on the
analysis regarding significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1),
which looked at: (1) potential ambient
impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring
states based on available SO2 air
dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3)
SO2 ambient air quality for Tennessee
and neighboring states, including the
analysis of Eastman Chemical in
Sullivan County, Tennessee; (4) SIPapproved Tennessee regulations that
address SO2 emissions; and (5) Federal
regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at
Tennessee sources.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
For the prong 2 analysis, EPA
evaluated the data discussed in section
III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a
specific focus on evaluating emissions
trends in Tennessee, analyzing air
quality data, and assessing how future
sources of SO2 are addressed through
existing SIP-approved and Federal
regulations. Based on 2019 emissions
data, there is a continued trend of
decreasing statewide SO2 emissions
within Tennessee. Additionally, there
are no Tennessee sources emitting over
100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 within 50 km of
adjacent states’ monitors with 2017–
2019, 2018–2020, and 2019–2021 DVs
that exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Given the historical trend
of overall decreasing SO2 emissions
from sources within Tennessee, EPA
proposes that evaluating whether these
decreases in emissions can be
maintained over time is a reasonable
criterion to ensure that sources within
Tennessee do not interfere with its
neighboring states’ ability to maintain
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to air quality data trends,
the 2015–2017 through 2019–2021 DVs
for the Blount County AQS SO2 monitor
and the 2012–2014 through 2019–2021
DVs for the Shelby County AQS SO2
monitor in Tennessee within 50 km of
another state’s border are well below the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, as
shown in Table 10 in section III.C.3.b.
Additionally, three of the four Sullivan
County monitors in Tennessee have a
2019–2021 DV below the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The fourth
monitor is located north of the facility
and is 1.3 km directly upwind of an
attaining monitor in the nonattainment
area. Given the decreasing gradient
measured in the 2019–2021 and 2020–
2022 DVs between the monitors 47–
163–6003 and 47–163–6001, which are
only 1.3 km apart, it may be the case
that SO2 emissions from the source
would not contribute to nonattainment
in the neighboring states that are 8 km–
50 km from Eastman Chemical.
Tennessee’s revised transport modeling
for Eastman Chemical submitted on
November 30, 2021, along with
decreasing SO2 emissions trends
resulting from additional controls at
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of
any large neighboring SO2 sources,
support EPA’s proposed finding that
Eastman Chemical will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North
Carolina, and Virginia. Further, as
shown in Tables 2 and 3, modeling
results for sources in Tennessee within
50 km of the State border, including
Eastman Chemical, are below the level
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states and modeling results
for sources in neighboring states within
50 km of Tennessee’s border show
maximum impacts are well below level
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus,
these modeling results, in addition to
the lack of additional nearby large SO2
sources in the neighboring states within
50 km of the Tennessee border, SIPapproved and Federal regulations that
have reduced SO2 emissions as
discussed above, and annual DRR
reporting for large sources, demonstrate
that Tennessee’s sources of SO2 are not
expected to interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state.
3. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that
Tennessee’s July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented by the
revised modeling for Eastman Chemical
on November 30, 2021, satisfies the
requirements of prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is
based on the following considerations:
SO2 emissions statewide from 2005 to
2014 for all source categories (except the
‘‘Event’’ category, which includes
emissions from fires) and 2005 to 2017
for point sources in Tennessee have
declined significantly; current
Tennessee SIP-approved measures and
Federal emissions control programs
ensure control of SO2 emissions from
sources within Tennessee; current
2019–2021 DVs for the AQS SO2
monitors in Blount and Shelby Counties
Tennessee within 50 km of another
state’s border with valid DVs are well
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; regarding the Sullivan County,
Tennessee, monitors, three of the four
Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee
have a 2019–2021 DV below the level of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; regarding
Eastman Chemical and the Sullivan
County monitor which is located north
of the facility and is 1.3 km directly
upwind of an attaining monitor in the
nonattainment area, so given that the
physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts,
the decreasing gradient measured in the
2019–2021 DVs between the monitors
over only 1.3 km indicates that it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from the
Eastman Chemical facility would
contribute to nonattainment in the
neighboring states that are 8 km–50 km
from Eastman Chemical; Tennessee’s
revised transport modeling for Eastman
Chemical submitted on November 30,
2021, along with decreasing SO2
emissions trends resulting from
additional controls at Eastman
Chemical, and the absence of any large
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
neighboring SO2 sources, support EPA’s
proposed finding that Eastman
Chemical will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina,
and Virginia; and modeling for DRR
sources within 50 km of Tennessee’s
border both within the State and located
in other states demonstrate that
Tennessee’s largest point sources of SO2
are not expected to interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state. Based on these
factors described above, in addition to
the analysis provided by Tennessee in
its SIP submission and supplemented
on November 30, 2021, with revised
modeling for Eastman Chemical, and
EPA’s prong 1 analysis of the factors
described in section III.C and III.D of
this notice, EPA proposes to find that
emission sources within Tennessee will
not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IV. Proposed Action
Based on the above analysis, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee’s July
31, 2019, SIP submission. This
determination is based on EPA’s
independent evaluation, including as
supplemented by the revised modeling
for Eastman Chemical, as demonstrating
that emissions from Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
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 proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
TDEC did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41361
action. Due to the nature of the action
proposed here, this proposed action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required
as part of this proposed action, and
there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving EJ for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023–13470 Filed 6–23–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0879; FRL–8899–01–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV40
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines and New Source Performance
Standards: Internal Combustion
Engines; Electronic Reporting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE), the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Stationary Compression Ignition (CI)
Internal Combustion Engines, and the
NSPS for Stationary Spark Ignition (SI)
Internal Combustion Engines, to add
electronic reporting provisions. The
addition of electronic reporting
provisions will provide for simplified
reporting by sources and enhance
availability of data on sources to the
EPA and the public. In addition, a small
number of clarifications and corrections
to these rules are being proposed to
correct inadvertent and other minor
errors in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), particularly related
to tables. Finally, information is being
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41344-41361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535; FRL-11020-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; TN; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport
Infrastructure
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Tennessee's July 31, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
good neighbor provision requires each State's implementation plan to
contain adequate provisions prohibiting the interstate transport of air
pollution in amounts that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other
State. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other State.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the July 31, 2019, SIP revision
as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0535 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
[[Page 41345]]
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, 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. Mr. Adams can be reached via
phone number (404) 562-9009 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. Tennessee's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis
A. State's Submission
B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology
C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in
Tennessee
6. Conclusion
D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference With Maintenance of
the NAAQS
1. State Submission
2. EPA Analysis
3. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires
States to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' \1\
These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2012, EPA decided to retain the current secondary NAAQS
for SO2. Thus, the CAA section 110(a)(1) requirement to
submit an infrastructure SIP for this secondary standard was not
triggered. The secondary SO2 standard is 500 ppb averaged
over three hours, not to be exceeded more than once per year. See 77
FR 20218 (April 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another State. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment of the NAAQS) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance
of the NAAQS).
The Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC)
submitted a revision to the Tennessee SIP on July 31, 2019,\2\
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\3\ Updated transport modeling for the
Eastman Chemical facility in Sullivan County, Tennessee, was completed
and submitted to EPA on November 30, 2021 to supplement the July 31,
2019 submission.\4\ EPA is proposing to approve TDEC's July 31, 2019,
SIP submission because the State demonstrated that Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
State. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for
Tennessee have been addressed in separate rulemakings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ TDEC's SIP revision was submitted August 1, 2019, through a
transmittal letter dated July 31, 2019.
\3\ On March 13, 2014, TDEC submitted a SIP revision addressing
all infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\4\ EPA officially received the supplemental file dated November
30, 2021 on December 7, 2021.
\5\ EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP
revision on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85410) and September 24, 2018
(83 FR 48237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this proposed action, EPA has considered information from the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in
more detail in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief
summary of EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is included here.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requires elimination of significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in other states, and this analysis is not limited
to designated nonattainment areas. Nor must designations for
nonattainment areas have first occurred before states or the EPA can
act under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See, e.g., Clean Air
Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross State Air
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to
Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the
Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding
facility in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations by that
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA Administrator signed the
first round \7\ of designations (``Round 1'') \8\ for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16
States as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The EPA Administrator signed Federal
Register notices for Round 2 designations \9\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December
13, 2016)). Round 3 designations \10\ were signed on December 21, 2017
(83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)) and March 28, 2018 (83 FR 14597 (April
5, 2018)).
[[Page 41346]]
Round 4 designations \11\ were signed on December 21, 2020 (86 FR 16055
(March 26, 2021)) \12\ and April 8, 2021 (86 FR 19576 (April 14,
2021)).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\8\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
Round 1 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\9\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
Round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\10\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to
Round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\11\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to
Round 4 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\12\ The Round 4 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations
action was signed by former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on
December 21, 2020, pursuant to a court-ordered deadline of December
31, 2020. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, former Acting
Administrator Jane Nishida re-signed the same action on March 10,
2021, for publication in the Federal Register.
\13\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately
promulgated air quality characterization requirements for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The
DRR requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through
air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with
sources that emitted in 2014 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their
annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide
documentation that the sources have been shut down. EPA used the
information generated by implementation of the DRR to help inform
Round 4 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Round 1 and Round 2 of designations, EPA designated one
SO2 nonattainment area and one unclassifiable area in
Tennessee. In Round 1, EPA designated a portion of Sullivan County as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air
quality monitoring data.\14\ In Round 2, EPA designated Sumner County
as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\15\ The
remaining counties in Tennessee were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in Round 3; therefore, no areas in Tennessee were
designated in Round 4.\16\ Although the designations process is
separate from action on Tennessee's SO2 transport SIP, EPA
proposes the information relied on in the designations process can be
helpful in evaluating Tennessee's SO2 transport obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See August 5, 2013, final rulemaking (78 FR 47191, 47204)
and EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD): Tennessee--Area
Designations for the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/tn-tsd.pdf.
\15\ EPA designated Sumner County, Tennessee, as unclassifiable
in Round 2 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
a notice published July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039). See also EPA's Final
Technical Support Document: Tennessee--Area Designations for the
2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/r4_tn_final_designation_tsd_06302016.pdf. On September 29, 2020,
TDEC submitted a request to redesignate Sumner County to attainment
and to terminate DRR reporting requirements for TVA-Gallatin. On May
25, 2021, the final rule to redesignate Sumner County as attainment/
unclassifiable was published (86 FR 27981). EPA did not receive any
comments on the proposed rulemaking. EPA is not requesting review
and comment on the redesignation for Sumner County, Tennessee, in
this proposed action.
\16\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/38-tn-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions usually do
not have long-range transport in the atmosphere. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant
impacts of greatest concern near the emissions source. However, ambient
1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with
distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb,
because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as
are Pb particles. Emitted SO2 has wider-ranging impacts than
emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that
treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be
appropriate. Accordingly, the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused, and the
approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source,
to be appropriate for assessing SO2 transport.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a
different approach.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-wide zone because the
physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized
pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance.
Given the properties of SO2, EPA selected a spatial scale
with dimensions from four to 50 km from point sources--the ``urban
scale''--to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact
downwind States.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport
of SO2, see EPA's proposed rulemaking on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC identified a 50-km
distance threshold to reflect the transport properties of
SO2. TDEC used this 50-km threshold for the supporting
analyses in the submission, and notes that this 50-km distance is the
modeling domain limit of the EPA-recommended American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)
modeling system.
Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees
with Tennessee's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed
further in section III.B, EPA proposes that Tennessee's selection of
the urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide
air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control
strategies at SO2 point sources. Tennessee's selection of
this transport distance for SO2 is consistent with 40 CFR
part 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ``Urban scale,'' which States
that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate
SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with
dimensions from four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA's preferred modeling
platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions
for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA
preliminarily concurs with Tennessee's application of the 50-km
threshold to evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states
and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border,
which is discussed further in section III.C.
As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed
Tennessee's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of
SO2 to other States, the types of information used in the
analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a
weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State's submission
and other available information, including SO2 air quality
for monitors and available emissions and/or source modeling for sources
in Tennessee and in neighboring States within 50 km of the Tennessee
border.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action or determinations regarding
Tennessee's or any neighboring State's air quality status. Any such
future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be
based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of
information that become available at those times. Future available
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the DRR and information
submitted to EPA by States, air agencies, and third-party
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41347]]
III. Tennessee's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis
A. State Submission
Through a letter dated July 31, 2019, TDEC submitted a revision to
the Tennessee SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TDEC
supplemented this submittal with updated transport modeling for the
Eastman Chemical facility on November 30, 2021. Tennessee conducted a
weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions
from the State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind States.
TDEC concluded that the State is meeting its prong 1 and prong 2
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TDEC based its
conclusions for prongs 1 and 2 on: SO2 design values (DVs)
\19\ for 2015-2017 and 2016-2018 along with the 99th percentile 1-hour
SO2 concentrations for the years 2015 through 2018 at the
air quality monitors in Tennessee and the surrounding States of
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; declining SO2
emissions trends in Tennessee from 2005 to 2014 (all source
categories); \20\ the percent change in SO2 emissions by
source category from 2005 to 2014; SO2 sources assessed in
EPA's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process which are
located within 50 km of the State's border; and State and Federal
regulations that establish requirements for sources of SO2
emissions. Based on this analysis, the State concluded that emissions
within Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other State. EPA's evaluation of Tennessee's submission is detailed
in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A ``Design Value'' or DV is a statistic that describes the
air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations for a monitoring site. For example, the 2019
DV is calculated based on the three-year average from 2017-2019. The
interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
including the data handling conventions and calculations necessary
for determining compliance with the NAAQS, can be found in Appendix
T to 40 CFR part 50.
\20\ Table 2 of Tennessee's SIP revision also provides 2017 data
for the point source category only, which showed a 49,713.42 ton
decrease from 90,283.03 tons in 2014 to 40,569.61 tons in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology
EPA acknowledges the State's analysis in the July 31, 2019,
submission as well as the supplemental modeling submitted on November
30, 2021. EPA has evaluated this information, and further supplements
the State's analysis of sources here to ensure there are no further
SO2 emissions controls needed for meeting CAA interstate
transport requirements. EPA proposes that a reasonable starting point
for determining which sources and emissions activities in Tennessee are
likely to impact downwind air quality in other States with respect to
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA's
National Emissions Inventory (NEI).\21\ The 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. EPA evaluated
data from the 2017 NEI released in April of 2020, the most recently
available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
\22\ EPA evaluated the January 2021 version of the 2017 NEI. For
more information, see the website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in
Tennessee originate from point sources.\23\ In 2017, the total
SO2 emissions from point sources in Tennessee comprised
approximately 93 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the
State. The remaining emissions from non-point sources in the other
listed source categories are more dispersed throughout the State and
are therefore less likely to contribute to high ambient concentrations
when compared to a point source on a ton-for-ton basis. Based on EPA's
analysis of the 2017 NEI, EPA proposes that it is appropriate to focus
the analysis on SO2 emissions from Tennessee's larger point
sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2
in 2019,\24\ the emissions data available in EPA's Emissions Inventory
System (EIS)),\25\ which are located within the ``urban scale,'' i.e.,
within 50 km of one or more State borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Tennessee's point sources, for the purposes of this action,
are comprised of all of the following emissions source categories in
Table 1: ``Fuel Combustion'' categories with the exception of
residential fuel combustion, the ``Industrial Processes (All
Categories),'' and ``Waste Disposal.'' Residential fuel combustion
is considered a nonpoint source and, thus, residential fuel
combustion data is not included in the point source fuel combustion
data and related calculations.
\24\ With respect to EPA's evaluation of sources emitting
greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019, in the absence of
special factors, for example the presence of nearby larger sources
or unusual factors (such as a very high concentration of smaller
sources), sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy
SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not be contributing
significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
\25\ EPA's EIS is available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway.
Table 1--Summary of 2017 NEI SO2 Data for Tennessee by Sector Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Category Emissions total SO2
(tpy) emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generating 24,328.80 52.05
Units (EGUs) (All Fuel Types)..........
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/ 15,517.78 33.20
Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/ 93.21 0.20
Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel 131.84 0.28
Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)... 3,110.95 6.66
Mobile Sources (All Categories)......... 1143.20 1.55
Fires (All Types)....................... 1,681.00 3.60
Waste Disposal.......................... 726.70 1.55
Solvent Processes....................... 0.97 0
Bulk Gasoline Terminal.................. 0.04 0
[[Page 41348]]
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial).......... 3.63 0.01
-------------------------------
SO2 Emissions Total................. 46,738.12 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an
emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2
transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused
its evaluation on Tennessee's point sources of SO2 emissions
located within approximately 50 km of another State and their potential
impact on neighboring States.
EPA's implementation strategy for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS included the flexibility in certain circumstances to characterize
air quality for stationary sources subject to EPA's Data Requirements
Rule ``DRR'' via either data collected at ambient air quality monitors
sited to capture the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion
modeling (hereinafter referred to as ``DRR monitors'' or ``DRR
modeling,'' respectively). EPA's assessment of SO2 emissions
from Tennessee's point sources located within approximately 50 km of
another State and their potential impacts on neighboring States (see
sections III.C.1. and III.C.2. of this rulemaking) and SO2
air quality data at monitors within 50 km of the Tennessee border (see
section III.C.3. of this rulemaking) is informed by all available data
at the time of this proposed rulemaking.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other States' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed
rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or
any future rulemaking for Tennessee, depending on available
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in this section, EPA proposes that an assessment of
Tennessee's satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the
downwind impacts via modeling and an assessment of SO2
emissions from Tennessee's point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of
SO2 that are located within approximately 50 km of another
State, other States' point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of
SO2 that are located within approximately 50 km of
Tennessee, and upon any Federal regulations and SIP-approved
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Tennessee's
SO2 sources.
C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires States' plans to
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another State. TDEC confirms in its submission that, with
its existing, SIP-approved SO2 emissions controls in place
in conjunction with Federal pollution control requirements, Tennessee
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other State
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate
Tennessee's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State's
implementation plan submission with respect to the following factors:
(1) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring States based on available
SO2 air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3) SO2 ambient air
quality for Tennessee and neighboring States; (4) SIP-approved
Tennessee regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5)
Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Tennessee
sources. EPA has reviewed Tennessee's submission, and where new or more
current information has become available, EPA is including this
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission, and
the discussion with respect to the four factors proceeds in the next
sections.
EPA proposes that, based on the information available at the time
of this rulemaking, these factors, taken together, support Tennessee's
proposed determination that the State will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
State.
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
(a) State Submission
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC summarized existing
modeling for five sources in Tennessee addressed in different rounds of
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS: Eastman Chemical
Company (Eastman Chemical) facility (Round 1); \27\ and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) coal-fired power plants Gallatin (TVA-Gallatin)
(Round 2), Allen Fossil Plant (TVA-Allen), TVA-Cumberland, and TVA-
Johnsonville (Round 3).\28\ Of these five sources described in the July
31, 2019, SIP submission, four are located within 50 km of another
State: Eastman Chemical, TVA-Gallatin, TVA-Allen, and TVA-
Cumberland.\29\ In addition, TDEC characterized SO2
concentrations for Eastman Chemical, TVA-Gallatin, and TVA-Cumberland
by extending the modeling domains for these sources into neighboring
States and noting the modeled maximum 1-hour SO2
concentrations in the neighboring States.\30\ With respect to TVA-
Gallatin, on September 29, 2020, TDEC submitted a request to
redesignate Sumner County, Tennessee, from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
(``Sumner County redesignation request'') which included a modeling
analysis of TVA-Gallatin's SO2 emissions. EPA finalized
approval of TDEC's Sumner County redesignation
[[Page 41349]]
request on May 25, 2021. See 86 FR 27981. A summary of the existing
Round 3 modeling for TVA-Allen; TDEC's updated modeling for TVA-
Cumberland included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission; TDEC's
modeling to support the Sumner County redesignation request; and TDEC's
updated transport modeling for the Eastman Chemical facility dated
November 30, 2021, along with supplemental data that has been reviewed
as part of the Agency's analysis, is provided in Table 2 of this
section.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ In Round 1 of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
designations, EPA designated a portion of Sullivan County
``nonattainment'' for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on
air quality monitoring data. This nonattainment portion of Sullivan
County encompasses a 3-km radius centered at Eastman Chemical's B-
253 powerhouse, located at 36.5186 N. 82.5350 W.
\28\ See modeling results for the following Tennessee sources in
the July 31, 2019, SIP submission: Table 8 on p.17 for Eastman
Chemical and Table 11 on p.22 for TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-
Gallatin, and TVA-Johnsonville.
\29\ TVA-Johnsonville is located approximately 52 km from the
Kentucky border, and thus, TDEC did not further analyze this source.
\30\ The receptor grid started at the Tennessee border and ended
at a distance of 50 km from the source: for Eastman Chemical, the
grid started at 8 km (the distance to the Tennessee-Virginia border)
and went 42 km into Virginia (50 km from Eastman Chemical); for TVA-
Gallatin, the grid started at 37 km (the distance from the source to
Tennessee-Kentucky border) and extended 13 km into Kentucky (50 km
from TVA-Gallatin); and for TVA-Cumberland, the grid started at 27
km (the distance from the source to the Tennessee-Kentucky border)
and extended 23 km into Kentucky (50 km from TVA-Cumberland). TDEC
relied on the existing 10-km distance used in the TVA-Allen modeling
because the modeling domain already extended into Arkansas (10-3.5 =
6.5 km) and Mississippi (10-9 = 1 km) (see page 30 of Tennessee's
SIP revision). The modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS within the modeled domains.
\31\ EPA is opting not to rely on the updated modeling TDEC
included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission for Eastman Chemical
or for TVA-Gallatin for this action because more recent, revised
modeling is available. For Eastman Chemical, EPA is relying on
revised modeling submitted on November 30, 2021, and for TVA-
Gallatin, EPA is relying upon modeling submitted by TDEC to EPA in
support of the September 29, 2020, redesignation request for Sumner
County, Tennessee, from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is summarized in
Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TDEC also evaluated existing modeling available for DRR sources in
other States which are located within 50 km of the Tennessee border:
\32\ Ascend Performance Materials-Decatur Plant (Ascend) in Alabama (39
km); Plum Point Energy Station in Arkansas (Plum Point) (2.5 km); and
Sikeston Power Station (Sikeston) in Missouri (44 km). TDEC states that
the three modeled DRR sources (Ascend,\33\ Plum Point, and Sikeston)
demonstrated attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with
maximum modeled 1-hour SO2 concentrations of 72.0, 14.9, and
37.2 ppb, respectively.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Table 26 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of TDEC's July 31,
2019, SIP submission.
\33\ As explained in section III.C.1.b, EPA previously
determined that the Agency does not have sufficient information to
demonstrate whether the area around Ascend meets or does not meet
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that
does not meet the standard, and thus designated the area around
Ascend as unclassifiable. Although EPA does not have any indications
that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
the area around Ascend, the Agency assessed Ascend in section
III.C.2.b of this proposed action with respect to interstate
transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. According to
June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, emails from ADEM to EPA, Ascend
ceased operating Boiler #5, Boiler #6 is set to cease operations in
2020, and Cokers #1 and #2 were set to cease operations in 2021.
However, EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021, that Boiler #5 and
Coker #2 were removed from service in 2019 and 2021 respectively and
Coker #1 and Boiler #6 are still operating under the facility's
current Title V permit. ADEM's June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019,
emails are included in the docket for a separate rulemaking action
published December 31, 2019 (84 FR 72278) at www.regulations.gov at
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.
\34\ See Table 27 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of TDEC's July 31,
2019, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA evaluated existing SO2 modeling results for three
SO2 sources in Tennessee within 50 km of the State's border
(i.e., TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, and TVA-Gallatin), and new modeling
for Eastman Chemical, to ascertain whether these sources in Tennessee
may potentially be contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a downwind state. EPA evaluated the
modeling analyses provided for TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland in
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. For TVA-Allen, TDEC analyzed
existing DRR modeling for this source because the modeling done for
TVA-Allen for Round 3 of designations had a receptor grid that already
extended into the neighboring States. For TVA-Cumberland, TDEC
characterized SO2 concentrations out to 50 km from the
source.\35\ In addition, EPA evaluated modeling for TVA-Gallatin that
TDEC provided to support the Sumner County redesignation request, which
EPA has summarized in Table 2 of this section.\36\ For Eastman
Chemical, EPA evaluated TDEC's updated SO2 transport
modeling dated November 30, 2021. Details of the modeling for each of
these four sources are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. A
more detailed evaluation of Tennessee's modeling analyses for these
sources is included in the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD)
available in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ As discussed in section I.B, Tennessee used air dispersion
modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain
SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA's
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations. The available air
dispersion modeling, using AERMOD, of certain SO2 sources
can support interstate transport-related conclusions about whether
sources in one state are potentially contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard in other states. While AERMOD was not
designed specifically to address interstate transport, the 50-km
distance that EPA recommends for use with AERMOD aligns with the
concept that there are localized pollutant impacts of SO2
near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Thus, EPA
proposes that the use of AERMOD provides a reliable indication of
air quality for interstate transport purposes.
\36\ Due to size and incompatibility with the Federal Docket
Management System, the supporting modeling files for the Sumner
County redesignation request (Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0482)
are available at the EPA Region 4 office for review. To request
these files, please contact the person listed in the proposed rule
for the Sumner County redesignation request under the section titled
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for that action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland are Round 3 DRR sources in Tennessee
located within 50 km of another state.\37\ In its July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, TDEC modified the modeling for TVA-Cumberland submitted for
Round 3 and characterized SO2 concentrations using a
receptor grid that started at the Tennessee border and ended at a
distance of 50 km from the source to assess potential impacts in
Kentucky, whose border is approximately 27 km away from this source. In
the Round 3 designations modeling, TDEC evaluated whether there were
any large sources within the modeling domain that needed to be included
in the modeling to evaluate cumulative impacts. As discussed in the
Round 3 designations TSD,\38\ TDEC determined that no other large
sources needed to be included in the modeling. EPA reviewed TDEC's
modeling and has determined that no large sources are located in
Kentucky that would interact with the emissions from the Cumberland
plant to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS across
the Kentucky border. TDEC's modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS anywhere within the modeled domain, which extends
into Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The modeling results for Tennessee's DRR-subject sources
which elected to model for Round 3 designations (TVA-Allen, TVA-
Cumberland, and TVA-Johnsonville) may be found in the initial and
final Round 3 technical support documents for Tennessee. See
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Final Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/38-tn-so2-rd3-final.pdf; see also
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf. TVA-
Johnsonville is located approximately 52 km from the Kentucky
border, and thus, TDEC did not extend the modeling domain for this
DRR source. The original DRR modeling results for TVA-Johnsonville
show that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
concentration within the modeling domain is 48.7 ppb. Additionally,
the SO2 emissions from TVA-Johnsonville decreased from
17,812 tpy in 2012 to 17 tpy in 2020 due to the retirement and
shutdown of its coal-fired boilers in 2018. The other DRR-subject
source in Tennessee, Cargill Corn Milling Company, Inc., accepted a
federally enforceable emissions limit as its pathway to satisfy the
DRR.
\38\ EPA also notes that the SO2 emissions from TVA-
Allen decreased from 9,989 tpy in 2013 to 7 tpy in 2020 due to the
retirement and shutdown of its three coal-fired boilers in 2018.
Details about the current emissions from TVA-Allen and Tennessee's
other DRR sources are provided in TDEC's May 10, 2021, Annual
Ongoing Data Requirements Rule (DRR) Report. See Tennessee's 2021
DRR ongoing verification report ``Annual Ongoing Data Requirements
Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard'' in Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535 for this proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TVA-Allen is located approximately 3.5 km from Arkansas and 9 km
from
[[Page 41350]]
Mississippi. Because the 10-km receptor grid for the Round 3
designations modeling for TVA-Allen already extended into the
neighboring states of Arkansas and Mississippi, TDEC did not conduct
supplemental modeling for this source. The modeling results showed no
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations above the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the modeled domain for
this source.\38\ A summary of the modeling results for TVA-Allen and
TVA-Cumberland provided in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission is shown
in Table 2 of this section.
TVA-Gallatin is a Round 2 source located in Sumner County,
Tennessee.\39\ In Round 2 of designations, EPA designated Sumner County
as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its
entirety because this initial Round 2 modeling for TVA-Gallatin was not
adequate for designation purposes. In the September 29, 2020, Sumner
County redesignation request, modeling was performed to characterize
the SO2 air quality around TVA-Gallatin.\40\ The modeling
results showed no maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations above
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the 40 x 40 km
modeling domain. EPA expects that the concentrations would decline
further from the area of maximum concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ TVA-Gallatin was also subject to the DRR and thus, TDEC
characterized TVA-Gallatin as a Round 3 DRR source in its July 31,
2019, SIP submission. TVA-Gallatin chose modeling for its pathway to
satisfy the DRR requirements.
\40\ The modeling used the most current version of AERMOD that
was available at the time the modeling was conducted, version 19191,
with the most recent three years of actual SO2 emissions
from the TVA-Gallatin facility (2017-2019) and concurrent
meteorology data from 2017-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the results of the modeling, there are other factors
which support EPA's proposed conclusion that TVA-Gallatin is not
significantly contributing to nonattainment in neighboring Kentucky.
There are no sources within 50 km of the Kentucky/Tennessee border
emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in Kentucky or in the
area between TVA-Gallatin and the Kentucky border based on 2017 NEI
data. The nearest source in Kentucky that emits greater than 100 tpy of
SO2 is the TVA-Paradise Fossil Plant, which is located 115
km from TVA-Gallatin, 68 km from the Tennessee border, and 78 km from
the Sumner County unclassifiable area. Given the localized range of
potential 1-hour SO2 emissions as explained in Section II of
this notice, EPA proposes to determine that there would not be any
interaction between this source and TVA-Gallatin that would result in
concentrations which would exceed the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, EPA proposes that it is unlikely that SO2
emissions from TVA-Gallatin travel into Kentucky in higher
concentrations than what is observed in the modeling domain. As
indicated in Table 2 of this section, the modeled maximum concentration
at the state border of 23.1 ppb is well below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, EPA proposes that TVA-Gallatin is not
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in a neighboring state.
Eastman Chemical is a Round 1 source in Tennessee located within 50
km of another state. Specifically, Eastman Chemical is located in
Sullivan County, Tennessee, approximately 8 km from the Virginia border
and approximately 50 km from the borders of Kentucky and North
Carolina. In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC provided modeling
for purposes of assessing Eastman Chemical's interstate transport
impacts on neighboring states. TDEC's November 30, 2021, supplemental
modeling replaces the modeling analysis TDEC submitted as part of its
July 31, 2019, SIP submission for Eastman Chemical. TDEC's supplemental
modeling included receptors extending out to 50 km to assess potential
impacts in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. For this modeling,
all SO2 emitting units at Eastman Chemical were modeled
using their current allowable emission limits from their current Title
V permits, which are federally enforceable. Section III.C.3.b of this
notice describes changes being made at Eastman Chemical to further
reduce SO2 emissions from the facility (e.g., addition of
Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) controls on two boilers). TDEC's
supplemental modeling does not account for these additional emissions
reductions, but instead uses higher allowable emissions rates in their
current Title V permits. The modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states of Virginia, North
Carolina, and Kentucky. The maximum 1-hour SO2 modeled
impacts in the neighboring states are: 9.1 ppb in Kentucky, 7.5 ppb in
North Carolina, and 59.4 ppb in Virginia. Additionally, EPA assessed
the SO2 sources in the neighboring states of Kentucky, North
Carolina, and Virginia to determine whether there are large
SO2 emission sources within 50 km of the Tennessee border
whose SO2 emissions could interact with Eastman Chemical's
SO2 emissions in such a way as to contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Kentucky, Virginia, or North Carolina. This
assessment concluded that there are no sources within 50 km that emit
greater than 100 tpy in these neighboring states that needed to be
assessed in the modeling performed by TDEC. Additional details
regarding this analysis of sources in neighboring states are provided
in Section III.C.3.b of this notice. Additional details regarding the
EPA's evaluation of TDEC's modeling are provided in the Modeling TSD
available in the docket supporting this proposed action. Considering
the results of TDEC's modeling, EPA proposes that Eastman Chemical is
not contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in a neighboring state.
The following summarizes EPA's assessment of the modeling provided
by TDEC for the four sources discussed in this section. TDEC's July 31,
2019, modeling for TVA-Cumberland and existing Round 3 DRR modeling for
TVA-Allen show that maximum 1-hour modeled SO2
concentrations at the distances to neighboring states' borders listed
in Table 2 are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
The modeling results for TVA-Gallatin submitted with the Sumner County
redesignation request show that maximum 1-hour modeled SO2
concentration within the modeling domain is well below the level of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and SO2 concentrations are
expected to continue to decline with distance. EPA has reviewed the
modeling analyses provided in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission and
proposes that TDEC's existing and supplemental modeling for TVA-Allen
and TVA-Cumberland are adequate for assessing interstate transport of
SO2. Additionally, the modeling for TVA-Gallatin submitted
with the Sumner County redesignation request and TDEC's supplemental
modeling for Eastman Chemical, dated November 30, 2021, also provide
support for this action.\41\ Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling
results for TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and Eastman
Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ As noted in footnote 31, EPA is opting not to rely on the
modeling TDEC included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission for
Eastman Chemical or for TVA-Gallatin for this action because
Tennessee provided more recent modeling.
[[Page 41351]]
Table 2--SO2 Modeling for Tennessee Sources TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and Eastman Chemical
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
percentile daily
Approximate distance Other facilities maximum 1-hour SO2 Model grid extends
Source County in Tennessee from source to included in modeling? concentration at or into another state?
adjacent state (km) beyond the state
border (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TVA-Allen \42\..................... Shelby................ 3.5 (AR), 9.0 (MS).... Yes--Nucor Steel 38.2 (AR), 31.3 (MS) Yes--Southeastern
Memphis facility. (based on 2012-2014 portions of
actual emissions). Crittenden County in
AR; and small
northern portion of
DeSoto County, MS.
TVA-Cumberland \43\................ Stewart............... 27 (KY) \44\.......... No................... 19.7 (KY), (based on Yes--KY (portions of
2012-2014 actual Christian and Trigg
emissions). Counties).
TVA-Gallatin....................... Sumner................ 37 (KY)............... No................... 23.1 (TN) 45 (based No.
on 2017-2019 actual
emissions).
Eastman Chemical................... Sullivan.............. 8 (VA), 50 (NC), 50 Yes--Domtar Paper.... 9.1 (KY), 7.5 (NC), Yes--NC (portion of
(KY). 59.4 (VA), (based on Mitchell County), VA
allowable emissions). (portions of
Bristol, Washington,
Russell, Scott,
Norton, Wise, and
Lee Counties).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also evaluated existing, valid modeling available for sources
in other states which are located within 50 km of Tennessee to assess
whether there are emissions from sources in neighboring states to which
emissions from sources in Tennessee may interact and contribute to an
air quality problem in the neighboring state. (The sources in Tennessee
that may be relevant to this analysis are not necessarily the same four
sources identified in Table 2.) Table 3 provides a summary of the
modeling for the SO2 sources in neighboring states modeled
in Rounds 2 and 3 of 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations
(i.e., modeling EPA determined was adequate for purposes of informing
designations) which are located within 50 km of Tennessee: Plum Point
in Arkansas and Sikeston in Missouri. The modeling results in Table 3
show that the maximum 1-hour modeled SO2 concentrations for
Plum Point and Sikeston are below the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The values of 31.3 ppb (MS) and 38.2 ppb (AR) reflect the
modeling summary for TVA-Allen shown in Table 24 on p. 23 from
TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. In Round 3 designations, the
modeled maximum 1-hour SO2 impact of TVA-Allen was 66
ppb. See EPA's Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\43\ The value of 19.7 ppb reflects the modeling data for TVA-
Cumberland shown in Table 19 on p.29 from TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission. In Round 3 of designations, the modeled maximum 1-hour
SO2 impact from TVA-Cumberland was 46.5 ppb. See pp.72-73 of EPA's
Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\44\ In Round 3, EPA stated the approximate distance from TVA-
Cumberland as 28 km south of the Kentucky border. See p. 75 of EPA's
Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\45\ This value for the TVA-Gallatin modeling is the maximum
concentration in the modeling domain, which is solely within
Tennessee.
Table 3--Other States' Sources With SO2 Modeling Located Within 50 km of Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
Approximate distance percentile daily
Source County (state) from source to Other facilities maximum 1-hour SO2 Model grid extends
Tennessee border (km) included in modeling? concentration (ppb) into another state?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plum Point......................... Mississippi (AR)...... <5 \1\................ No................... 14.9 (based on PTE).. Yes--into TN
(portions of
Lauderdale and
Tipton Counties).
Sikeston........................... Scott (MO)............ 44.................... Yes--AECI New Madrid 37.2 (based on 2012- No.
Plant, Buzzi Unicem 2014 actual
Cape Girardeau, emissions for all
Havco Wood Products, facilities except
Noranda Aluminum, for Noranda
Inc.--New Madrid,2 Aluminum, Inc.--New
Q.C. Corporation. Madrid 2 which used
allowable emissions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Plum Point is 2.5 km to the Tennessee border according to TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
2 Noranda Aluminum, Inc.--New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.
Since the modeling results for Plum Point and Sikeston do not
demonstrate an air quality problem in these areas as it pertains to the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA does not believe sources in Tennessee
are contributing to nonattainment in the neighboring states near these
emissions sources.
The following DRR sources in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North
Carolina, and Virginia located within 50 km of the Tennessee border
were not
[[Page 41352]]
modeled or had modeling that resulted in an unclassifiable designation:
Alabama's DRR source, TVA--Widows Creek Fossil Plant, located
approximately 13 km from the Tennessee border, permanently shut down
and therefore no modeling was done under the DRR. Alabama's DRR source,
TVA--Colbert Fossil Plant, located approximately 28 km from the
Tennessee border, accepted federally enforceable permit limits to
exempt out of the DRR requirements. For Alabama's DRR source, Ascend,
in Morgan County, Alabama, located approximately 39 km from the
Tennessee border, EPA previously determined, in Round 3 SO2
designations, that the Agency did not have sufficient information to
demonstrate whether the area around Ascend meets the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that does not meet the
standard, and thus designated the Morgan County area in Alabama as
unclassifiable in Round 3. For Kentucky's source, John S. Cooper Power
Station (Cooper) in Pulaski County, Kentucky, located approximately 43
km from the Tennessee border, EPA previously determined, in Round 2
SO2 designations, that the Agency did not have sufficient
information to demonstrate whether the area around Cooper meets the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that does
not meet the standard, and thus designated the Pulaski County area in
Kentucky as unclassifiable in Round 2. Missouri's DRR sources,
Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. New Madrid Power Plant (AECI--New
Madrid), and Magnitude 7 Metals (formerly Noranda Aluminum Inc.--New
Madrid), both located approximately less than 5 km from the Tennessee
border, opted to monitor to satisfy the DRR. North Carolina's DRR
sources, Duke Energy Progress--Steam Electric Plant, and Blue Ridge
Paper Products (Evergreen Packaging Group)--Canton Mill (Evergreen),
located approximately 51 and 28 km, respectively, from the Tennessee
border, opted to monitor to satisfy the DRR and were designated in
Round 4. Virginia's DRR source, American Electric Power-Clinch River
Plant, located approximately 36 km from the Tennessee border, accepted
federally enforceable permit limits to exempt out of the DRR
requirements.\46\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Each of the sources listed in this paragraph are covered in
further detail in this notice except TVA -Widows Creek (AL), which
has permanently shut down, and TVA-Colbert (AL) and American
Electric Power-Clinch River Plant (VA), which both adopted
enforceable limits. Additionally, TVA-Colbert reported 2020
emissions of 1.743 tpy and 2021 emissions of 4.4 tpy, and American
Electric Power-Clinch River reported emissions of 79.7 tpy in 2020
and 43.467 tpy in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the above paragraph, two DRR sources in other
states located within 50 km of Tennessee conducted SO2
designation modeling; however, EPA previously determined this modeling
was insufficient to designate areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Although EPA does not have any indications that there are
violations in the areas around these two sources--Ascend \47\ in Morgan
County, Alabama, and Cooper \48\ in Pulaski County, Kentucky--EPA
assesses the SO2 emissions from these sources in section
III.C.2.b. of this notice with respect to interstate transport from
Tennessee for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Ascend and Cooper
are located approximately 39 and 43 km, respectively, from the
Tennessee border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See EPA's initial and final TSDs for Alabama, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
\48\ Cooper is also considered a DRR source since it met the
2,000 tpy threshold for inclusion in the DRR. The source chose a
federally enforceable emission limit to exempt out of the DRR
requirements. However, EPA had already designated the area as
unclassifiable in Round 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes that the modeling results for the sources with valid
modeling (summarized in Tables 2 and 3), weighed along with the other
factors in this notice, support EPA's proposed conclusion that sources
in Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
(a) State Submission
TDEC provided statewide SO2 emissions inventories for
2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017 \49\ from the NEI by source category
(i.e., point, area, on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, and event (fires)),
as shown in Table 4. TDEC states that the data shows substantial
declines in the point source, on-road mobile, and nonroad mobile
SO2 emissions from 2005 to 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ For 2017, TDEC provided point source emissions only. This
data was preliminary at the time of Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as EPA had not yet released the final 2017 NEI, which
was released in April 2020.
Table 4--Tennessee's NEI SO2 Emissions for 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile on-
Year Point Area road Mobile nonroad Event Year totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005.................................................... 288,256.16 4,578.11 4,833.88 3,890.82 \1\ 60.01 301,618.99
2008.................................................... 258,046.16 \2\ 65,175.82 877.69 590.73 1,210.11 325,900.52
2011.................................................... 155,988.36 2,320.98 769.02 85.61 1,158.75 160,322.73
2014.................................................... 90,283.03 1,441.94 711.10 61.88 1,702.74 94,200.68
2017 (July 31, 2019, Submission) \3\.................... 40,569.61 \4\ N/A \4\ N/A \4\ N/A \5\ None \4\ N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2005 fires source category is comprised of only wildfires and no prescribed fires.
\2\ With respect to the 2008 area source emissions, TDEC identifies the following factors that could have influenced the reported increase from 2005 to
2008: (1) in 2008, wildfires in east Tennessee occurred; (2) the reporting requirements for area sources changed in 2008 and EPA made adjustments to
states' inventories; (3) EPA released version 3 of the NEI to replace version 2; and (4) Source Classification Codes were discontinued after the 2008
year and that could have affected the emission factors and growth rates. With respect to the change in reporting requirements noted by TDEC, those
reporting requirements changed in December of 2008. See 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008).
\3\ The 2017 point source emissions data in TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission reflects the data available at the time. See Table 5, below, for 2017
NEI data.
\4\ ``N/A'' means ``Not Available'' as presented in TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 emissions data has
become available for the Area and Mobile Sources (On-Road and Nonroad) Categories. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI data.
\5\ The 2017 NEI EVENT source category has no data for wildfires or prescribed fires at the time of SIP development for TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 data has become available for this source category. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI data.
[[Page 41353]]
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed the statewide emissions data provided by TDEC and also
evaluated SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 for Tennessee
to examine any trends in SO2 emissions over this period.
Statewide SO2 emissions decreased from approximately
1,058,622 tons in 1990 to 46,737.72 tons in 2017.\50\ EPA supplemented
the NEI emissions trends that TDEC included in the July 31, 2019, SIP
submission when the 2017 NEI was finalized and made publicly available
in January 2021, and all the source categories are now available. See
Table 5, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of
Tier 1 emission source categories from 1990 to 2017 are available
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 5--Tennessee's NEI SO2 Emissions for 2017
[2017 NEI January 2021 version]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Mobile on-road Mobile nonroad Event Year totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 NEI (January 2021 version)................... 41,191.44 3,185.61 678.34 40.68 1,641.64 46,737.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reviewing SO2 emissions trends in
Tennessee, as discussed in section III.B, EPA also finds that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in
Tennessee at distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from a neighboring
state's border. Therefore, in addition to those sources addressed in
section III.C.1.b. of this notice, EPA also assessed the potential
impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources not subject
to the DRR that emitted more than 100 tons of SO2 in 2019
and are located in Tennessee within 50 km of the border. EPA assessed
this information to evaluate trends in area-wide air quality and to
evaluate whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could
interact with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a
neighboring state in such a way as to significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state.
Table 6 lists the 10 sources in Tennessee not subject to the DRR that
emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 and are located
within 50 km of the State's border. EPA focused on identifying the
nearest non-DRR sources to the Tennessee sources as the DRR sources are
covered under other pathways like modeling, monitoring, or taking an
enforceable limit. EPA did look to see if a DRR source was the nearest
SO2 source in a neighboring state and found that in some
instances, a DRR source was a closer SO2 source. The
shortest distance between a Tennessee source and the nearest
neighboring DRR source was approximately 77 km. Additionally, the two
nearest DRR sources identified were TVA Paradise in Kentucky, which was
modeled using allowable emissions limits, and Blue Ridge Paper, which
was characterized by monitoring and later had modeling which showed
attainment. Both of these sources are adequately characterized through
the DRR process, and because they are greater than 50 km from any of
the Tennessee sources listed in Table 6, EPA does not anticipate a
transport problem/interaction.
Table 6--Tennessee Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance to Nearest neighboring
2021 annual nearest state non-DRR SO2
Tennessee source \1\ SO2 emissions Approximate distance to Closest neighboring neighboring source (>100 tons SO2)
(tpy) Tennessee border (km) state state SO2 & 2021 emissions (tpy)
source (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florim USA, Inc...................... \5\ 153.8 <5 (KY)....................... Kentucky.................. 109 CC Metals and Alloys
LLC (348.7).\5\
Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc............. 377.9 14 (KY)....................... Kentucky.................. 103 CC Metals and Alloys
LLC (348.7).\5\
Nucor Steel Memphis, Inc............. \5\ 176.9 <5 (AR), <5 (MS).............. Arkansas.................. 51 Roxul USA Inc. (139.6).
Tate & Lyle, Ingredients Americas LLC 154.4 45 (NC)....................... North Carolina............ 153 Tennessee Alloys
Company \2\ (639.6).
Packaging Corporation of America..... 228.9 <5 (MS)....................... Mississippi............... 27 Mississippi Silicon
(503.7).\5\
AGC Industries--Greenland Plant...... \5\ 421.6 11 (VA)....................... Virginia.................. 126 SGL Carbon LLC
(54.6).\3\
BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc. 1,052.9 <5 (VA)....................... Virginia.................. 122 Eastman Chemical
Holston Army Ammunition Plant (3541.9).
(Holston) \4\.
Resolute Forest Products--Calhoun 328.8 34 (GA), 43 (NC).............. Georgia................... 95 Tennessee Alloys
Operations. Company \1\ (639.6).
Lucite International Inc............. \5\ 313.1 9 (AR), 30 (MS)............... Arkansas.................. 46 Roxul USA Inc
(139.6).\6\
Memphis International................ 115.7 <5 (MS)....................... Mississippi............... 34 Roxul USA Inc (139.6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eastman is also a non-DRR source that could have been classified in Table 6; however, the facility is discussed in greater detail below in Section
III.3.b.
\2\ Tennessee Alloys Company is in Alabama.
\3\ SGL Carbon LLC is in North Carolina.
\4\ See below for a more detailed discussion on BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc. Holston Army Ammunition Plant (Holston).
\5\ Sources have not reported annual 2021 SO2 emissions at the time of publication. The values reported for this source are from 2020.
\6\ Roxul USA Inc is in Mississippi.
EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that any
of the states of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, or Virginia are impacted by SO2 emissions from the
Tennessee sources listed in Table 6. Of these 10 sources, three are
located at or less than 50 km from the nearest source in another state:
Packaging Corporation of America, Lucite International Inc., and
Memphis International. As shown in Table 6, the nearest sources in
neighboring states to these three Tennessee sources are Mississippi
Silicon and Roxul USA Inc., which
[[Page 41354]]
emitted 647.8 tons and 102.9 tons of SO2 in 2019,
respectively. EPA proposes that the relatively low SO2
emissions of the three Tennessee sources, combined with the
SO2 emissions from the nearest neighboring states' sources
shown in Table 6, make it unlikely that the SO2 emissions
from these Tennessee sources could interact with SO2
emissions from the out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any other state.
Of the 10 Tennessee sources in Table 6, seven are located over 50
km from the nearest source in another state (i.e., Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia) emitting over 100 tons of
SO2. EPA proposes that the fact that the distances between
sources are greater than 50 km, combined with the level of
SO2 emissions from these Tennessee sources and the nearest
sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in the
neighboring states, makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions
from these seven sources could interact with SO2 emissions
from the out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in those other states.
One of these seven sources is the Holston military facility,
located in Hawkins County, Tennessee, less than 5 km from the
Tennessee-Virginia border. Holston has achieved a 31 percent reduction
in emissions from the years 2017 to 2020 due to the changes at the
facility. Holston emitted 1,767.6 tpy SO2 in 2017, 1,621.1
tpy SO2 in 2018, and 1,389.2 tpy SO2 in 2019. The
nearest non-DRR SO2 source emitting greater than 100 tpy in
a nearby state is SGL Carbon LLC, located 122 km away in North
Carolina. EPA further evaluated Holston due to the magnitude of the
source's SO2 emissions in 2019 and the proximity of the
source to the Virginia border (less than 5 km) and its proximity to the
Sullivan County nonattainment area.\51\ In 2020, Holston's four coal-
fired boilers emitted 1,224 tons of SO2, or nearly all
SO2 emissions from this facility that year.\52\ EPA received
a letter dated November 1, 2021, which stated that the last remaining
unit of the four, coal-fired boiler #2, had ceased operation and was
last operated on October 4, 2021. Since this time, the Holston facility
has been operated with new natural gas steam units.\53\ EPA expects a
large reduction in SO2 emissions due to the fuel switch from
burning coal to natural gas.\54\ EPA proposes that it is unlikely that
the SO2 emissions from Holston alone or in combination with
Eastman will contribute significantly to nonattainment in North
Carolina based on the reduction of the source's SO2
emissions from the conversion to natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ On May 31, 2018, BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems, Inc. (BAE)
submitted an application for a permit to construct and operate an
expansion of an existing explosives manufacturing operation at the
Holston Army Ammunition Plant Area B facility located in Hawkins
County. The proposed expansion is a multi-phase project, and the
current application covers the first phase only. Phase I will
include four new natural gas and oil-fired boilers and operations
for recrystallization, coating, and milling of explosives. Phase I
will also include the retirement of four existing coal-fired boilers
(units 37-0028-01, 37-0028-02, 37-0028-03, and 37-0028-04) upon
startup of the new natural gas-fired steam generating boilers (37-
0028-120, 37-0028-121, 37-0028-122, and 37-0028-123). On October 8,
2018, TDEC issued a PSD permit (Permit No. 974192) that includes a
provision that the permittee must notify the State when boilers 37-
0028-01, 02, 03, and 04 have ceased operation. This permit is
available in the online docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535 at https://www.regulations.gov.
\52\ Emissions data obtained using EPA's Emissions Inventory
System at eis.epa.gov.
\53\ See the November 2, 2021 email from TDEC to EPA Region 4
transmitting a letter from BAE regarding Notification of Ceased
Operation for Boiler #2 at Holston Army Ammunition ``OSI HSAAP 37-
0028-01 to-04 Notification of Ceased Operations.pdf'' located in the
docket for this action.
\54\ See ``974192-Final Determination.pdf'' in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Tennessee border (see Table 7). This is because elevated levels
of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Tennessee may
have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources.
As with Table 6, EPA looked to see if a DRR source was the nearest
SO2 source in a neighboring state and found that for the
sources in Table 7, the sources indicated are the nearest
SO2 source. There are no DRR sources that are closer than
the sources indicated in the table.
Table 7--Neighboring States' Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Tennessee \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
2021 annual SO2 Approximate distance to Tennessee non-DRR SO2
emissions distance to nearest source (>100 tons SO2)
Source \2\ (tons) Tennessee Tennessee SO2 & 2021 emissions (tons)
border (km) source (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor-Yamato Steel Company (AR)...... 348.5 <5 73 Lucite International
Inc. (313.1).
Nucor Steel Arkansas (AR)............ 110.3 <5 78 Lucite International
Inc. (313.1).
Nucor Steel Decatur LLC (AL)......... 127.2 38 115 Packaging Corporation Of
America (228.9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 7 does not include sources that are duplicative of those in Table 6.
\2\ EPA also reviewed the emissions from DRR sources near the Tennessee border, however, the sources covered in
this table are the closest sources regardless of being a DRR or non-DRR source.
As shown in Table 7, the shortest distance between any pair of
these sources is 73 km. Therefore, given the localized range of
potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, and the level of emissions
emitted at these sources, EPA proposes that it is unlikely that
SO2 emissions from the sources in Alabama and Arkansas could
interact with SO2 emissions from Tennessee's nearest non-DRR
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama and Arkansas.
In addition, EPA evaluated SO2 emissions trends for
Ascend in Alabama and Cooper in Kentucky, which are within 50 km of the
Tennessee border and for which EPA could not rely on existing air
dispersion modeling to assess their impacts for interstate transport
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on other states. Ascend is
approximately 39 km from the Tennessee border. For Ascend, Table 8
shows that 2020 SO2 emissions have significantly declined
below 2012-2019 levels.\55\ EPA also considered whether any changes in
controls or operations had occurred at Ascend. According to emails from
Alabama's Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to EPA on June
6, 2019, and December 2,
[[Page 41355]]
2019, Ascend had ceased operating Boiler #5 and anticipated the
retirements of Boiler #6 in 2020, and Coker #1 and #2 in 2021.\56\
However, EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021, that Boiler #5 and Coker
#2 were removed from service in 2019 and 2021, respectively and Coker
#1 and Boiler #6 are still authorized to operate under the facility's
current Title V permit. EPA also evaluated data in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) \57\ from the SO2 monitors in the surrounding
area of Ascend. There are no monitors within 50 km of Ascend. The
closest SO2 monitor is located in Jefferson County, Alabama
(AQS ID: 01-073-1003) and is approximately 128 km from Ascend. The
2020-2022 DV for this monitor is 6 ppb. The closest source in Tennessee
to Ascend which emitted over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 is
Packaging Corp. of America, which is approximately 123 km away from
Ascend and emitted 347.9 tons of SO2 in 2019. The distance
between Ascend and Packaging Corp. of America exceeds 50 km. EPA
proposes that the distance between these two sources make it unlikely
that SO2 emissions from Ascend could interact with
SO2 emissions from Packaging Corp. of America in such a way
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Tennessee's July 31, 2019, submittal for specific data
on the Ascend facilities.
\56\ See supra footnote 33.
\57\ EPA's AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This
data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
Table 8--Ascend--SO2 Emissions Trends
[TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascend.............................................. 2,182 2,595 2,839 2,594 2,179 1,628 1,436 1,020 100 771
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also evaluated SO2 emissions trends for Kentucky's
DRR source, Cooper, which is within 50 km of the Tennessee border
(approximately 43 km) and for which EPA could not rely on existing
Round 2 air dispersion modeling to assess its interstate transport
impacts on other states for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Available SO2 emissions data from EPA's Air Markets Program
Data (AMPD) indicates that emissions at Cooper have decreased since
2012 from 7,428 tons to 47 tons in 2020 as shown in Table 9.\58\ The
closest source in Tennessee to Cooper which emitted over 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2020 is TVA Bull Run Fossil Plant (Bull Run) in
Clinton, Tennessee, which is approximately 116 km away from Cooper and
emitted approximately 229 tons of SO2 in 2020. EPA proposes
that the distance between these two sources makes it unlikely that
SO2 emissions from Cooper could interact with SO2
emissions from Bull Run in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. EPA's
AMPD is an application that provides both current and historical
data collected as part of EPA's emissions trading programs.
Table 9--Cooper--SO2 Emissions Trends
[TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper.............................................. 7,428 4,604 4,324 1,804 320 110 148 81 47 165
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis of SO2 emissions trends information, the
Tennessee sources in Table 6, neighboring states' sources in Table 7,
and emissions trends data related to Ascend and Cooper in Tables 8 and
9 support its conclusion that sources in Tennessee will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in a nearby state.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
(a) State Submission
In its SIP submission, TDEC included a table providing 2015-2017
and 2016-2018 DVs and annual 99th percentile SO2
concentrations for monitors in Tennessee and the surrounding states
(Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia).\59\ TDEC states that all valid
DVs in the attainment/unclassifiable areas for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee and surrounding states are attaining
the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Table 1 of Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed monitoring data for monitors in Tennessee within 50 km
of another state and for monitors within 50 km of Tennessee in adjacent
states using relevant data from EPA's AQS DV reports. The 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as
determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. Of the six
monitors in Tennessee located within 50 km of another state, EPA has
summarized the DVs based on certified monitoring data in Tables 10 and
11. Table 10 provides DVs from the 2012-2014 to 2019-2021 DV periods
for the Blount and Shelby County monitors. Table 11 shows the DVs from
the four monitors located in the Sullivan County, Tennessee
nonattainment area. The most recent certified 3-year DV period is 2020-
2022.
[[Page 41356]]
Table 10--1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Tennessee Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
distance to
County AQS site code 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2017-2018 2017-2019 2018-2020 2019-2021 2020-2022 Tennessee
border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blount...... 47-009-0101...... \1\ ND \1\ ND \1\ ND 2 2 1 1 1 \1\ ND 14
Shelby...... 47-157-0075...... 9 9 8 7 6 4 2 2 2 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ND indicates that there is no valid DV due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.
As shown in Table 10, the DVs for the Blount County, Tennessee
monitor from 2014-2016 to 2019-2021 and the DVs for the Shelby County,
Tennessee monitor for 2012-2014 to 2020-2022 are well below the level
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
(c) Analysis of Eastman Chemical in Sullivan County, Tennessee
There are four AQS monitors in Sullivan County: AQS ID 47-163-6001,
47-163-6002, 47-163-6003, and 47-163-6004. These monitors do not have
valid DVs prior to 2017-2019 and are located within 50 km of the
Tennessee border (i.e., approximately 7, 9, 8, and 9 km, respectively,
from the nearest interstate border, Tennessee-Virginia). Two of these
monitors, AQS ID 47-163-6001 and 47-163-6002, have four sets of
complete DVs (2017-2019 through 2020-2022) and the other two monitors,
AQS ID 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6004, have two sets of complete DVs
(2019-2021 through 2020-2022). As seen in Table 11, one of these
monitors (AQS ID 47-163-6003) violated the NAAQS with a 2019-2021 DV of
87 ppb.\60\ This monitor is located north of the Eastman Chemical
facility, in the direction of the Virginia border. It is also 1.3 km
upwind and in the same wind direction of an attaining monitor in the
nonattainment area, AQS ID: 47-163-6001, indicating that concentrations
are below the standard within Tennessee's border. However, with new,
early certified 2022 data that was submitted to EPA in March 2023 and
included in the docket of this proposed action, monitor AQS ID 47-163-
6003 is attaining the primary SO2 NAAQS with a DV of 71 ppb.
In Table 11, a downward trend is also observed among all DVs at
monitors within 50 km of Eastman Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See below in section III.A.3.c and III.D.2 for more
analysis on the gradient decrease between 47-163-6003 and 47-163-
6001 monitors.
Table 11--1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for Sullivan County, Tennessee Monitors Within 50 km of the Tennessee Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
2017-2019 2018-2020 2019-2021 2020-2022 Approximate distance from
County (state) Monitored source AQS ID DV DV DV DV distance to Eastman
border (km) Chemical (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan County (TN).......... Eastman Chemical....... 47-163-6001 79 63 49 41 7 (VA), 49 (NC), 2.5
52 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN).......... Eastman Chemical....... 47-163-6002 55 38 27 27 9 (VA), 47 (NC), 3.3
53 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN).......... Eastman Chemical....... 47-163-6003 \2\ ND \2\ ND 87 71 8 (VA), 48 (NC), 1.2
51 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN).......... Eastman Chemical....... 47-163-6004 \2\ ND \2\ ND 53 51 9 (VA), 47 (NC), 1.2
51 \1\ (KY).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These distances to the Kentucky border are estimated at just over 50 km and thus, are included for informational purposes.
\2\ ND indicates that the monitors established in Sullivan County (AQS ID: 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6004) to measure SO2 in the areas with modeled maximum
concentrations around Eastman Chemical officially began collecting data for NAAQS comparison on January 1, 2019, and thus do not have a valid DV for
2019 and 2020.
Eastman Chemical is located in Sullivan County, Tennessee,
approximately 8 km from the Virginia border and approximately 50 km
from the borders of Kentucky and North Carolina. Given the decreasing
gradient measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the 47-163-6003 and 47-
163-6001 monitors over 1.3 km, it may be the case that SO2
emissions from the source would not contribute to nonattainment in
Virginia, which is several more kilometers beyond the attaining
monitor. Given that the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts, the decreasing gradient
measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the monitors over only 1.3 km
indicates that it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from the
Eastman Chemical facility would contribute to nonattainment in the
neighboring states that are 8 km-50 km from Eastman Chemical. However,
considering the data in Table 11, EPA conducted further analysis,
including an evaluation of design values, an assessment of new modeling
provided by TDEC that uses Eastman Chemical's current allowable
emissions limits contained in its Title V permits (see section
III.C.1.b), and an assessment of both the current actual emissions
scenario and likely future emissions scenario at Eastman Chemical to
assess whether Eastman Chemical's SO2 emissions could
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Kentucky, North Carolina,
or Virginia. This analysis is discussed in the following paragraphs.
In Round 1 of SO2 designations, EPA designated as
nonattainment the portion of Sullivan County contained in a 3-km radius
circle centered at Eastman Chemical's B-253 powerhouse, which contained
a single monitor that was violating the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on 2009-2011 air quality data. The SO2 emissions
at Eastman come from three main boiler groups, B-83, B-253, and B-325.
Powerhouse B-253 includes five boilers (Boilers 25-29), each with an
individual stack, that provide steam and electricity to the facility.
Powerhouse B-325 includes two coal-fired boilers that vent to a single
stack (Boiler 30 and Boiler 31). Boiler 30 is equipped with a spray
dryer absorber and electrostatic precipitator to control particulate
matter and acid gases. Boiler 31 is equipped with a spray dryer
absorber and fabric filter to control particulate matter and acid
[[Page 41357]]
gases. Powerhouse B-83 includes seven boilers; five coal-fired boilers
(Boilers 18-22) and two coal-fired boilers (Boilers 23 and 24) that
also burn hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, venting to a single
stack.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Prior to September 2021, the emissions from the seven coal-
fired boilers in the B-83 powerhouse were exhausted through two
stacks, one which served boilers 18-22 and another which served
boilers 23 and 24. Due to structural deterioration, Eastman
decommissioned the stack that served boilers 18-22 on September 10,
2021. Following the decommissioning of the stack, all emissions from
Boilers 18-24 are now ducted to and emitted from the stack that
previously only served Boilers 23 and 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Round 1 of designations, Eastman Chemical has converted the
five B-253 boilers (25-29) from burning coal to natural gas.\62\ This
conversion reduced the combined SO2 emissions from these
units by over 99.9 percent (from 14,897 tpy in 2011 to less than 10 tpy
in 2019). This conversion took place incrementally from 2014-2018 as
follows: Boiler 25 in March of 2014, Boiler 27 in June of 2016, Boiler
28 in December of 2016, Boiler 29 in June of 2018, and Boiler 26 in
September of 2018. The emissions reductions at the B-253 boilers can be
seen in Table 13, below. Total SO2 emissions at the facility
from all emissions units have decreased over this time period from
21,246 tpy in 2012 to 3,542 tpy in 2021, as seen in Table 13, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Eastman's conversion of the five B-253 boilers from coal to
natural gas was required to meet Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements under the Federal Regional Haze Program. The
conversion requirement is incorporated into Tennessee's regional
haze SIP and into the facility's Title V permit. See 77 FR 70689
(November 27, 2012); Eastman Operating Permit No. 066116H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Eastman Chemical installed temporary dry sorbent
injection (DSI) controls \63\ on the B-83 powerhouse Boilers 23 and 24
on June 1, 2019, which have further reduced SO2 emissions,
as shown in Table 13. The temporary DSI controls were installed as an
interim measure to address the measured exceedances of the 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS in 2019, discussed above, and were operated in
2019-2021 by Eastman while design and installation of permanent DSI
controls took place. EPA evaluated the effect of the temporary DSI
controls by comparing the average hourly SO2 emissions from
Eastman's nine coal-fired boilers at B-83 (boilers 18-24) and B-325
(boilers 30 and 31) in 2019 prior to installation of the DSI controls
(January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019) with the average hourly emissions
after installation of the controls (June 1, 2019, to December 31,
2019). The results of this evaluation show that the average hourly
SO2 emissions decreased from 1,338 pounds per hour (lb/hr)
(January 1 to May 1) to 793 lb/hr (June 1 to December 31), which is
approximately a 40 percent reduction in average hourly emissions.
Eastman completed installation of permanent DSI controls at B-83
Boilers 23 and 24 in November 2021, and the controls became fully
operational in January 2022 after performance testing. Tennessee
continues to work with Eastman Chemical to consider additional
SO2 controls at the facility. The Andrew Johnson (AQS ID:
47-163-6003) and Happy Hill (AQS ID: 47-163-6004) ambient
SO2 monitors continued to measure exceedances of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in 2020, 2021, and 2022, while the permanent DSI
control system was under construction. However, as seen in Table 12
below, the number of NAAQS exceedances have decreased significantly at
monitors near Eastman Chemical. The other two SO2 monitors
in the nonattainment area (Ross N. Robinson, AQS ID: 47-163-6001;
Skyland Drive, AQS ID: 47-163-6002) did not measure any NAAQS
exceedances during 2019-2022. Additional information and discussion
about the current attainment status of the area, the NAAQS exceedances
at these two monitors, and the controls and operational changes Eastman
is pursuing to bring the area back into attainment with the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is provided in the TSD available in the docket for
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ DSI is a control system that involves injection of a dry
alkaline material such as a sodium or calcium-based sorbent (i.e., a
material that absorbs or adsorbs gases) either directly into a coal-
fired boiler or into ducting downstream of where coal is combusted
and exhaust (flue) gas that reacts with acid gas pollutants (e.g.,
SO2) to form a dry waste product which is then collected
through a particulate filtration device.
Table 12--Exceedances at Eastman Chemical
[Days]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor AQS ID 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Johnson................. 47-163-6003 18 3 4 0 25
Happy Hill..................... 47-163-6004 2 1 2 2 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 13--Eastman Chemical--SO2 Emissions Trends
[TPY] [From EPA's EIS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-253-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #25-29............................. 14,171 14,195 12,034 10,638 7,765 4,779 2,367 6 6 7
B-325-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #30 AND 31......................... 1,363 1,435 1,330 1,306 1,348 1,340 1,371 1,346 1,276 1,208
B-83-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #18-24.............................. 5,549 5,809 6,013 5,879 5,055 4,447 5,274 3,118 1,558 2,296
Total Emissions from all other Emissions Units................ 163 160 161 156 156 180 104 40 31 31
Eastman Chemical Total SO2 Emissions.......................... 21,246 21,600 19,538 17,978 14,324 10,746 9,116 4,510 2,871 3,542
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also assessed the SO2 sources in the neighboring
states of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia to determine whether
there are large SO2 emission sources within 50 km of the
Tennessee border whose SO2 emissions could interact with
Eastman Chemical's SO2 emissions in such a way as to
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Kentucky, Virginia, or
North Carolina. EPA identified only one source, located in Virginia,
which is within 50 km of Eastman Chemical and has SO2
emissions greater than 100 tpy based on 2017 NEI emissions data. EPA
accessed more current SO2 emissions for this Virginia
source, Dominion--Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center, from EPA's
AMPD.\64\ The source emitted 95 tons of SO2 in 2018 and 69
tons of SO2 in 2019 and 2020. Based on this more recent
data, EPA concludes there are no large SO2 emission sources
[[Page 41358]]
in neighboring states within 50 km of Eastman Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) EPA Analysis Continued--Monitors Outside of Tennessee
No sources in Tennessee elected to establish monitors to
characterize the air quality around specific sources subject to EPA's
DRR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There
are four DRR monitors located in other states within 50 km of the
Tennessee border. These four monitors, which are in Missouri and North
Carolina, do not have valid DVs prior to the 2017-2019 DV time period.
Thus, EPA identified in Table 14 the 2017-2019 DVs, 2018-2020 DVs, and
2019-2021 DVs, along with the distance between each source and the
border of Tennessee.
Table 14--SO2 Design Value Concentrations (ppb) for Round 4 DRR Monitors in Surrounding States Within 50 km of the Tennessee Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
2017-2019 2018-2020 2019-2021 distance to
County (state) Round 4 monitored source AQS ID design value design value design value Tennessee
border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Madrid County (MO).................... Magnitude 7 Metals\1\....... 29-143-9001 202 320 376 3
New Madrid County (MO).................... Magnitude 7 Metals\1\....... 29-143-9002 268 361 333 3
New Madrid County (MO).................... Magnitude 7 Metals\1\....... 29-143-9003 47 68 83 4
Haywood County (NC)....................... Blue Ridge Paper Products, 37-087-0013 152 90 36 30
LLC (BRPP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Noranda Aluminum, Inc.--New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.
EPA evaluated the 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021 DVs at the
four DRR monitors in Table 14. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor
(AQS ID: 29-143-9001) has a 2017-2019 DV of 202 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of
320 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 376 ppb, all of which violate the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor
(AQS ID: 29-143-9002) has a 2017-2019 DV of 268 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of
361 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 333 ppb, all of which violate the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor
(AQS ID: 29-143-9003) has a 2017-2019 DV of 47 ppb and 2018-2020 DV of
68, both of which are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; however, the 2019-2021 DV of 83 ppb violates the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Regarding the violating DVs at the three New
Madrid County, Missouri, monitors in Table 14, EPA notes that there are
no SO2 emission sources in Tennessee emitting over 100 tpy
within 50 km of these monitors based on 2019 data. The nearest
SO2 source in Tennessee that emitted over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2019 is located approximately 114 km away from the
Missouri monitors in Table 14, which is well beyond the 50-km transport
distance threshold discussed in Section II.\65\ EPA notes a portion of
New Madrid County surrounding the three New Madrid SO2
monitors, Magnitude 7 Metals and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
New Madrid Power Plant was designated nonattainment for the
SO2 1-hour standard in Round 4 designations.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ This Tennessee source, Owens Corning Composite Materials,
LLC (EIS ID: 3100911), emitted 106.6 tons of SO2 in 2019.
\66\ See 86 FR 16055 (March 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor has a 2017-2019 DV of
152 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of 90 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 36 ppb. While
both the 2017-2019 and 2018-2020 DVs violate the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, the 2019-2021 DV of 36 ppb is below the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\67\ EPA notes that there are no
SO2 emission sources in Tennessee emitting over 100 tpy
within 50 km of the Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor. The
nearest source in Tennessee that emitted over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2019 is located approximately 103 km away from the
Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor, which is well beyond the 50-km
transport distance threshold discussed in Section II.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ EPA designated Beaverdam Township in Haywood County as
attainment/unclassifiable in Round 4 designations based on modeling
of permanent and federally enforceable SO2 emission
limits for the Blue Ridge Paper Products facility, which provided
for attainment of the 1-hour standard. See 86 FR 16055. For
additional information about round 4 designations for Beaverdam
Township in Haywood County, NC see https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-fourth-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations including the final technical support document for
North Carolina https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/07-nc-rd4_final_so2_designations_tsd.pdf and the EPA's
November 24, 2020, final rule approving North Carolina's, source-
specific SIP submittal to make Blue Ridge's modeled SO2
emission limits permanent. See 85 FR 74884.
\68\ This Tennessee source, Cemex Construction Materials
Atlantic, LLC--Knoxville Plant (EIS ID: 4979911), emitted 138.5 tons
of SO2 in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After careful review of the State's assessment and all available
monitoring data and related source information, EPA proposes that the
AQS monitoring data assessed and the lack of any sources emitting over
100 tons of SO2 in 2019 in Tennessee within 50 km of
adjacent states' monitors with 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021 DVs
that violated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS support EPA's
proposed conclusion that Tennessee will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
neighboring states.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
(a) State Submission
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission identifies SIP-approved
measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in the State
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. TDEC states that Tennessee
Comprehensive Rules and Regulations (TCRR) 1200-03-09.-01, Construction
Permits, regulates the construction of new sources and modification of
existing sources, and it highlights section .01(1)(e), which prohibits
TDEC from issuing a construction permit to construct or modify an air
contaminant source \69\ if the construction or modification would,
among other things, interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS
in a neighboring state. In addition, TDEC also states that TCRR 1200-
03-06.-03, General Non-Process Gaseous Emissions, and 1200-03-07.-07,
General Provisions and Applicability for Process Gaseous Emissions
Standards,
[[Page 41359]]
regulate gaseous emissions from non-process and process emission
sources, respectively. Further, TDEC notes that TCRR 1200-03-13.-01,
Violation Statement, provides for enforcement action for any failure to
comply with Tennessee's air regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ ``Air Contaminant Source'' is defined at TCRR 1200-03-02.-
01(1)(b) as ``any and all sources of emission of air contaminants,
whether privately or publicly owned or operated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) EPA Analysis
As part of EPA's weight of evidence approach to evaluating 2010
SO2 transport SIPs, EPA considered Tennessee's SIP-approved
measures summarized in III.C.4.a. of this notice that address
SO2 emissions sources in the State. As noted in TDEC's SIP
revision, the State has a SIP-approved permitting rule--TCRR 1200-03-
09-.01--that applies to major and minor sources generally and prohibits
TDEC from issuing a construction permit to construct or modify an air
contaminant source if the construction or modification would interfere
with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS in a neighboring state. The
State also has SIP-approved major new source review (NSR) rules at TCRR
1200-03-09-.01(4) and -.01(5) covering PSD and nonattainment new source
review (NNSR) permitting, respectively. PSD applies to the construction
of any new major stationary source or any major modification at an
existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or
unclassifiable or not yet designated, and NNSR applies in nonattainment
areas. Tennessee's SIP-approved permitting rules may help in ensuring
that SO2 emissions due to construction or modification of
major and minor sources in Tennessee will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring
states. However, without more information regarding the application of
the interstate-transport analysis within the state's permitting
process, EPA cannot form a conclusive position whether this is
sufficient for approvability of the state's good neighbor SIP submittal
evaluated here as to new or modifying sources. Further, new source
permitting requirements do not address emissions from existing
emissions units. Nonetheless, the EPA finds based on other information
as discussed in this proposal that Tennessee's SIP submission can be
approved.
EPA preliminarily agrees that SIP-approved regulation, TCRR 1200-3-
13-.01, Violation Statement, provides TDEC with authority for
enforcement of SO2 emission limits and control measures.
This rule states that, ``Failure to comply with any of the provisions
of these [air] regulations shall constitute a violation thereof and
shall subject the person or persons responsible therefore to any and
all the penalties provided by law.''
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Tennessee
(a) State Submission
TDEC identified EPA programs which, either directly or indirectly,
have significantly reduced SO2 emissions in Tennessee. These
programs include: the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA; the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) SO2 Group 1 Trading
Program; Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule; Mercury and Air Toxic Standards Rule
(MATS); \70\ New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); Nonroad Diesel
Rule; and EPA's Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline
Sulfur Control Requirements Rule.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
\71\ https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollution-new-motor-vehicles-tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) EPA Analysis
EPA is proposing to find that the Federal control measures
identified in section III.C.5.a of this notice have helped to reduce
SO2 emissions from various sources in the State. EPA's Acid
Rain Program set a permanent cap on the total amount of SO2
that may be emitted by EGUs in the contiguous United States.\72\ CSAPR
required significant reductions in SO2 emissions from power
plants in the eastern half of the United States.\73\ MATS required
reductions of emissions of heavy metals which, as a co-benefit, reduced
emissions of SO2, and establishes alternative numeric
emission standards, including SO2 (as an alternate to
hydrochloric acid).\74\ EPA's Nonroad Diesel Rule will reduce sulfur
levels from about 3,000 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm when fully
implemented.\75\ EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (Heavy-Duty Diesel
Rule) required refiners to start producing diesel fuel for use in
highway vehicles with a sulfur content of no more than 15 ppm as of
June 1, 2006.\76\ NSPS for various source categories, including but not
limited to Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units;
\77\ Sulfuric Acid Plants; \78\ Stationary Gas and Combustion Turbines;
\79\ Portland Cement Manufacturing; \80\ Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units (Boilers); \81\ and Onshore Natural Gas Processing for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
January 20, 1984, and on or Before August 23, 2011,\82\ establish
standards which reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 40 CFR parts 72 through 78.
\73\ See 40 CFR part 97.610(a)(13). See also 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
\74\ See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 77 FR 9304.
\75\ See 40 CFR parts 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94, 1039, 1048, 1051,
1065, and 1068. See also 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
\76\ See 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. See also 66 FR 5002
(January 18, 2001).
\77\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63. See also
77 FR 9304.
\78\ See 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, D, E, F, G and H. See also
36 FR 24876 (December 23, 1971).
\79\ See 40 CFR part 60, subparts GG and KKKK. See also 71 FR
38482 (July 6, 2006) and 44 FR 52792 (September 10, 1979).
\80\ See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 75 FR 54970 (September
9, 2010).
\81\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63. See also
77 FR 9304.
\82\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. See also 77 FR 49490
(August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the rules listed in section III.C.5.a of this
notice, EPA's Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Rule
\83\ also reduces SO2 emissions by establishing gasoline
sulfur standards that reduce SO2 emissions from certain
types of mobile sources. EPA proposes that these Federal measures taken
together have lowered and/or will continue to lower SO2
emissions, and so are expected to continue to support EPA's proposed
conclusion that SO2 emissions from Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1039,
1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See also 79 FR 23414 (April 28,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented on November 30, 2021, by the revised
modeling for Eastman Chemical, satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's evaluation of Prong 2 of the good
neighbor provision--Interference with Maintenance of the NAAQS--follows
and requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.
D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
1. State Submission
In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC relied upon the
information provided for prong 1 to demonstrate that emissions within
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring state, including: attaining DVs
for the
[[Page 41360]]
2016-2018 period; SO2 emission reductions trends from 2005-
2014 from the NEI; DRR modeling for large SO2 sources within
50 km of the State border; and supplemental modeling analyses out to 50
km for TVA-Gallatin and Eastman Chemical, which tend to show that the
areas of other states closest to these sources are not exceeding the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Also, TDEC indicates
that there are no monitors located in the nine surrounding states, or
Tennessee, that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
based on valid and complete data for the 2016-2018 monitoring period,
which TDEC believes is evidence that Tennessee is not interfering with
any maintenance efforts by neighboring states for this monitoring
period. Finally, as discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, TDEC
cited SIP-approved and Federal measures which address SO2
emissions in Tennessee.
2. EPA Analysis
In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the
regulating authority must give prong 2 of the CAA's interstate
transport provision ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by
evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that,
even if currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment.
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA
interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of
a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data,
but that may have issues maintaining that air quality. Therefore, in
addition to the analysis presented by Tennessee, EPA has also reviewed
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission
trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Tennessee will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), which looked at:
(1) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring states based on available
SO2 air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3) SO2 ambient air
quality for Tennessee and neighboring states, including the analysis of
Eastman Chemical in Sullivan County, Tennessee; (4) SIP-approved
Tennessee regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5)
Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Tennessee
sources.
For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the data discussed in
section III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a specific focus on
evaluating emissions trends in Tennessee, analyzing air quality data,
and assessing how future sources of SO2 are addressed
through existing SIP-approved and Federal regulations. Based on 2019
emissions data, there is a continued trend of decreasing statewide
SO2 emissions within Tennessee. Additionally, there are no
Tennessee sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019
within 50 km of adjacent states' monitors with 2017-2019, 2018-2020,
and 2019-2021 DVs that exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Given the historical trend of overall decreasing
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee, EPA proposes
that evaluating whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained
over time is a reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within
Tennessee do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to
maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to air quality data trends, the 2015-2017 through
2019-2021 DVs for the Blount County AQS SO2 monitor and the
2012-2014 through 2019-2021 DVs for the Shelby County AQS
SO2 monitor in Tennessee within 50 km of another state's
border are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, as shown in Table 10 in section III.C.3.b. Additionally, three
of the four Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The fourth
monitor is located north of the facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind
of an attaining monitor in the nonattainment area. Given the decreasing
gradient measured in the 2019-2021 and 2020-2022 DVs between the
monitors 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6001, which are only 1.3 km apart, it
may be the case that SO2 emissions from the source would not
contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50
km from Eastman Chemical. Tennessee's revised transport modeling for
Eastman Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large neighboring
SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that Eastman
Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Further, as shown in Tables 2 and 3, modeling results for sources in
Tennessee within 50 km of the State border, including Eastman Chemical,
are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states and modeling results for sources in neighboring
states within 50 km of Tennessee's border show maximum impacts are well
below level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these
modeling results, in addition to the lack of additional nearby large
SO2 sources in the neighboring states within 50 km of the
Tennessee border, SIP-approved and Federal regulations that have
reduced SO2 emissions as discussed above, and annual DRR
reporting for large sources, demonstrate that Tennessee's sources of
SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
3. Conclusion
EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented by the revised modeling for Eastman
Chemical on November 30, 2021, satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the
following considerations: SO2 emissions statewide from 2005
to 2014 for all source categories (except the ``Event'' category, which
includes emissions from fires) and 2005 to 2017 for point sources in
Tennessee have declined significantly; current Tennessee SIP-approved
measures and Federal emissions control programs ensure control of
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee; current 2019-
2021 DVs for the AQS SO2 monitors in Blount and Shelby
Counties Tennessee within 50 km of another state's border with valid
DVs are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
regarding the Sullivan County, Tennessee, monitors, three of the four
Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV below the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; regarding Eastman
Chemical and the Sullivan County monitor which is located north of the
facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind of an attaining monitor in the
nonattainment area, so given that the physical properties of
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts, the
decreasing gradient measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the monitors
over only 1.3 km indicates that it is unlikely that SO2
emissions from the Eastman Chemical facility would contribute to
nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50 km from
Eastman Chemical; Tennessee's revised transport modeling for Eastman
Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large
[[Page 41361]]
neighboring SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that
Eastman Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia; and
modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Tennessee's border both within
the State and located in other states demonstrate that Tennessee's
largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state. Based on these factors described above, in addition to the
analysis provided by Tennessee in its SIP submission and supplemented
on November 30, 2021, with revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, and
EPA's prong 1 analysis of the factors described in section III.C and
III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
IV. Proposed Action
Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. This determination is based
on EPA's independent evaluation, including as supplemented by the
revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, as demonstrating that emissions
from Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
TDEC did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the
nature of the action proposed here, this proposed action is expected to
have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-13470 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
