81_FR_67376 81 FR 67186 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits for American Electric Power, Rockport

81 FR 67186 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits for American Electric Power, Rockport

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 190 (September 30, 2016)

Page Range67186-67190
FR Document2016-23296

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), authorizing temporary alternate opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American Electric Power, Rockport (AEP Rockport) facility during periods of boiler startup and shutdown. This action is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy regarding emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. Indiana has provided an air quality analysis demonstrating that this revision will continue to protect the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) in Spencer County, Indiana.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67186-67190]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23296]



[[Page 67186]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0074; FRL-9953-14-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary Alternate Opacity Limits 
for American Electric Power, Rockport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), authorizing 
temporary alternate opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American Electric 
Power, Rockport (AEP Rockport) facility during periods of boiler 
startup and shutdown. This action is consistent with the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy regarding emissions during 
periods of startup and shutdown. Indiana has provided an air quality 
analysis demonstrating that this revision will continue to protect the 
applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) in Spencer County, Indiana.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0074. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend 
that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524 
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's response to comment?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP TAOLs for AEP Rockport Units 
#1 and Unit #2, which apply only during narrowly-drawn periods of 
boiler startup and shutdown. These two identical 1,300-megawatt coal-
fired boilers are each equipped with an electrostatic precipitator 
(ESP) to control PM2.5 emissions.
    More specifically, 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 5-1-8 
authorizes AEP Rockport to exceed the applicable SIP opacity limit only 
under the following circumstances: (1) During startup, for a period not 
to exceed two hours (twenty six-minute averaging periods), or until the 
flue gas temperature reaches 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet, 
whichever occurs first; and (2) during shutdown, once the flue gas 
temperatures has dropped below 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet, 
for a period not to exceed one and one-half hours (fifteen six-minute 
averaging periods).
    EPA proposed to approve these alternate limits as revisions to 
Indiana SIP on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 80719). In this action, EPA is 
responding to comments submitted in response to its proposal and 
approving the AEP Rockport TAOLs. This is because they meet the 
criteria contained in Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 5-1-3(d) as an 
appropriate method in determining alternative limits for facilities 
during startup and shutdown periods. These limits are also consistent 
with the CAA and applicable EPA policy. As discussed in EPA's proposal, 
AEP Rockport has met all of these criteria.
    EPA has also previously approved TAOLs for 22 other Indiana power 
plants, all of which are controlled with ESPs (67 FR 46589, July 16, 
2002). These TAOLs contained similar limits, and EPA's basis for 
approval was analogous. The approach taken by Indiana in establishing 
all of these TAOLs is also consistent with section 110 of the CAA and 
the criteria contained in EPA's September 20, 1999 guidance, ``State 
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.''
    As discussed in the proposal, EPA has evaluated Continuous Opacity 
Monitoring System (COMS) data from the AEP Rockport facility and 
conducted air dispersion modeling in the surrounding area. The COMS 
data showed that, between 2009 and 2013, AEP's emissions were in 
compliance with the SIP opacity rule 99.81 percent of the time. 
Conversely, AEP's emissions exceeded the opacity standards just 0.19 
percent of the time, which includes the startup and shutdown periods 
covered by the TAOL.
    After EPA received public comments in response to the proposal, the 
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) performed an 
additional air quality analysis in response to specific comments. AEP 
provided a revised emission profile for PM describing hourly emissions 
during a 24-hour period, including a startup event, in which the ESP 
would be entirely shut down during hours 9 and 10. IDEM made the 
conservative assumption that all of the boilers' PM10 
emissions were 100 percent PM2.5. The new analysis also 
considered two scenarios, in which one boiler is starting up while the 
other boiler is either not operating, or operating at its full, steady 
rate. Both boilers at Rockport exhaust through a common stack. The two 
scenarios represent the stack exhaust and dispersion rates for a boiler 
startup/shutdown event. IDEM modeled one scenario which assumed that 
the ESP is completely offline for the two hours of highest oil and coal 
combustion.
    IDEM's modeling followed EPA's guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
W, using the current version of the AERMOD modeling system, over a full 
receptor grid, with five years of recent surface meteorological data 
from Evansville, Indiana (2010-2014). IDEM also included background 
from the near-by Dale monitor, in response to Sierra Club comments. The 
modeling with the background results yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 
value of 26.06 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), which is well 
below the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.

II. What is EPA's response to comment?

    EPA received comment letters from AEP and the Sierra Club, both on 
January 27, 2016.
    The AEP comment letter supports the approval of 326 IAC 5-1-8 into 
the Indiana SIP. Sierra Club's comments are provided and addressed 
below.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the fact that AEP Rockport often 
does

[[Page 67187]]

not meet applicable opacity limitations is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that it cannot meet these limits. The commenter asserts 
that there are numerous options that might be effective in reducing 
emissions during startup and shutdown periods, including revamping 
plant maintenance practices, installing baghouses after the ESPs to 
collect uncontrolled PM, and using a startup fuel other than fuel oil.
    Response: The TAOLs at AEP Rockport are needed during startup and 
shutdown because of temperature limitations of the ESP, which has 
lowered efficiency at times when temperatures are below 250 degrees. 
(See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). In addition, AEP Rockport has 
provided data showing that during periods of low temperature when the 
control technology cannot efficiently control particulates, there may 
be violations of the SIP opacity limits. During normal operations, 
however, emission limits are met. The COMs data submitted by AEP 
Rockport demonstrate that it has operated in a manner consistent with 
good air pollution control and maintenance practices. The data show 
that, between 2009 and 2013, the facility was in compliance 99.81 
percent of the time, and exceeded the opacity standards just 0.19 
percent of the time. This includes the startup and shutdown periods 
covered by the TAOL.
    The commenter suggests that other control devices should be added 
to the facility, or that there should be a fuel switch. EPA disagrees 
for several reasons. First, considering additional controls or changes 
in fuel is not a criterion in the Indiana SIP for evaluating the 
approvability of a TAOL. In addition, even if AEP Rockport were to add 
or modify its control such as by adding a fabric filter (baghouse), 
similar technical issues could also occur during the low-temperature, 
low-flow scenario of startups and shutdowns.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the fact that AEP Rockport often 
meets applicable opacity limitations during startup and shutdown proves 
that it can meet these limits. To support this claim, the commenter 
cites opacity records from the facility on two specific dates in August 
1999 in which the opacity did not exceed 40 percent during one startup 
event and one shutdown event. While conceding that these records also 
show violating emissions during startups and shutdowns on other 
occasions, the commenter further notes that the same records show that 
the facility was also able to comply with the opacity limits during 
startups and shutdowns as recently as last year.
    Response: Because AEP Rockport often meets its limits speaks to the 
fact that it currently operates the controls in a fashion that is 
consistent with the TAOL approval criterion of maintaining and 
operating controls in a way to minimize emissions. AEP Rockport's 
control system also operates effectively during normal operations, 
enabling it to meet its opacity limitations. As explained in EPA's 
proposal, the need for a TAOL occurs only during startup and shutdown 
periods--when ESP effectiveness is hampered by temperature (See 67 FR 
46589, July 16, 2002).
    AEP Rockport's COM data from 2001 to 2004, and 2007 to 2013, 
indicate opacity exceedances during startup and shutdown periods, which 
shows this has been a long-running technical issue. EPA has also 
reviewed the opacity exceedance report summary for 2007 to 2013. It 
shows that AEP Rockport averaged 2 startups per year and 4.7 shutdowns 
per year that exceeded the opacity limitations.
    There are aspects of ESP operation that cannot be predicted or 
controlled during unit startups. Therefore, it is impractical to set an 
opacity limitation during startup and shutdown periods, particularly 
given the noted history of limited exceedances and the potential for 
more irregular opacity episodes. Given that EPA expects SIP compliance 
100 percent of the time, the fact that a source may ``often'' meet 
applicable emission limits is not sufficient.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the air quality demonstration 
made in 2001 or 2004 is obsolete due to changing conditions that impact 
opacity compliance at the AEP Rockport. The commenter further asserted 
that the documents AEP submitted in support of its TAOL petition are 
outdated and fail to satisfy the requirements in 326 IAC 5-1-3-
(d)(2)(B).
    Response: The requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2)(B) were fulfilled 
for the AEP Rockport facility with the information provided by Indiana 
in 2015. This is current information, as Indiana evaluated the AEP 
Rockport TAOLs in 2014. The current data for AEP Rockport show it 
operates in manner that minimizes opacity emissions during both normal 
operation and during startup and shutdown periods.
    AEP's updated COMs data, which reflects maintenance changes, 
upgrades, retrofits, or alterations at the facility, still records 
exceedances during some start-up and shutdown events during 2009 
through 2013. This data which accounts for recent changes in conditions 
shows that there is an ongoing technical issue with the ESP temperature 
limitations during start-up and shutdowns that necessitates the TAOLs.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the 2004 modeling does not 
address the current NAAQS. The Indiana SIP requires the owner or 
operator to demonstrate the TAOL will not impact the maintenance of the 
NAAQS. The commenter asserted that AEP Rockport's 2004 demonstration is 
clearly inadequate in that it does not address subsequently-adopted PM 
NAAQS, because the demonstration did not address the 2012 24-hour and 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response: The submission by Indiana contained both 2004 and updated 
2013 modeling. The modeling provided to EPA for SIP approval included 
an analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. The analysis 
used a conservative assumption that 100 percent of PM10 
equals the PM2.5 concentrations emitted. EPA concurred with 
this analysis, which further showed that the TAOL would not interfere 
with the NAAQS for fine particulate matter.
    In addition, in response to the comment, Indiana performed and 
provided EPA with an updated AERMOD modeling analysis. The modeling 
shows that the PM2.5 NAAQS should remain protected in 
Spencer County, Indiana with the TAOLs in place. More specifically, the 
results yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 value of 26.06 [mu]g/m\3\, 
which is well below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. Indiana did not address the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as the 
TAOL is only intended to address short-term situations. The 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS protects public health in this scenario. EPA 
also considered the 2012 NAAQS, and evaluated modeled concentrations 
from the TAOLs, using an hourly value of 1.59 [mu]g/m\3\ from the 
modeled scenario that would best represent a contribution to an annual 
average. EPA a determined that the modeled annual average combined with 
background concentrations (for current monitored data of 10.1 [mu]g/
m\3\ for 2013-2015 period, and 9.3 for the current annual period) would 
be less than the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the 2004 modeling assumes PM 
emission will be controlled in ways the TAOL does not require. More 
specifically, AEP Rockport assumed that its ESPs would be partially 
energized and reducing particulate matter emissions, albeit at only 60 
percent efficiency. Rockport's operating permit excuses it from running 
the ESPs during startup and shutdown. The emissions rate both Indiana 
and AEP Rockport

[[Page 67188]]

used is based on the assumption that AEP Rockport will take steps to 
minimize opacity that are not required by law.
    Response: EPA believes that the modeling done in support of the 
TAOL is an appropriate representation of the impact of the TAOL on the 
NAAQS. The parameters used in the modeling are consistent with EPA SSM 
guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840), and reflect the operations 
at the facility, because Indiana has found through review of the 
reported data that AEP Rockport's ESP typically provides 75 percent 
control efficiency or more during startup.
    It should also be noted that AEP Rockport is subject to other rules 
that limit its emissions, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) 
rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU). Controlling PM emissions under 
the MATS rule will further limit the opacity from the AEP Rockport 
units. Indiana's analysis without ESP control still shows the air 
quality will be protected. Therefore, EPA believes that the assumption 
of 60 percent efficiency in the modeling is conservative, and shows 
that the NAAQS would be protected at a level well below the standard.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the 2013 modeling is unrealistic 
and retains flaws from the 2004 modeling. Some of the key modeling 
assumptions that Indiana used are unrealistic. These assumptions cut in 
both directions: Some overestimate air quality impact and some 
underestimate air quality impact. Indiana assumed that there was no 
background PM2.5 concentration. Indiana's justifications for 
using a zero background PM concentration do not withstand scrutiny. 
Assuming zero background concentration for PM2.5 produces an 
air quality modeling result that cannot be relied upon to show NAAQS 
compliance. The 2013 annual mean for PM2.5 at the Dale, 
Spencer County, Indiana monitor was 10.20 [mu]g/m\3\. Indiana's 
modeling yielded an eighth high 24-hour PM2.5 value of 22 
[mu]g/m\3\. Even though the methodology for calculating these values is 
very different, adding them yields a total of 32.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    Response: The commenter notes in its own analysis that the 
modeling, with background concentration, still yield results that are 
below the standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
    The revised modeling analysis by Indiana addressed the concerns 
raised by the commenter. Background data was taken from the Dale 
monitor in Spencer County, Indiana. AEP Rockport is also in Spencer 
County, Indiana, about 20 miles from the Dale monitor. The latest three 
years of monitoring data from 2013-2015 were used. The background value 
of 23 [mu]g/m\3\ does include the expected impact from AEP Rockport's 
startup and shutdown periods, as no adjustment to the data was made. 
Thus, both Indiana and EPA considered a conservative background 
concentration in their evaluations of the AEP Rockport TAOLs.
    Indiana's 2013 modeling is conservative in several additional ways. 
The dispersion modeling used averaged stack temperatures and flow rates 
in the startup process (which were not from the same hour the emissions 
value came from). Using the good engineering practice stack height of 
220.7 m, instead of the actual 272.5 m stack height, also leads to a 
conservative estimate of dispersion and, therefore, conservatively high 
concentration results. The analysis used a cold-unit startup, which is 
expected to produce more opacity than a warm-unit startup. (A warm-unit 
startup is when the boiler is still warm, a scenario that could come 
from frequent startups and shutdowns.) Indiana used coarse particulate 
matter (PM10) emission rates in its modeling analysis, 
making the conservative assumption that those emissions were 100 
percent PM2.5. Indiana compared the model result to the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard and determined that the NAAQS were 
protected.
    A scenario considering two hours of uncontrolled emissions during 
startup gave a maximum concentration of 3.06 [mu]g/m\3\. Adding in the 
background concentration yields a total value of 26.06 [mu]g/m\3\. A 
second scenario was considered with one unit starting up while the 
other unit is in normal operation. This scenario yields a total 
concentration of 24.59 [mu]g/m\3\. The higher stack temperature and 
greater flow rate increase the dispersion characteristics leading to 
the lower concentration. Thus, the first scenario provides a worst-case 
analysis with a background concentration and no ESP operation during 
startup, and it still demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Indiana has not demonstrated 
that this TAOL is needed and justifiable, as required by 326 IAC 5-1-
3(d)(2). The commenter noted that the Indiana SIP requires the owner to 
demonstrate that a particular TAOL is needed and justifiable during 
periods of startup and shutdown. The TAOL should be narrowly tailored 
and all steps must be taken to minimize emissions during startup and 
shutdown.
    Response: The criteria for demonstrating that a TAOL is needed and 
justifiable are provided in SIP rule 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2). As discussed 
above, the need in this case is supported by both the COMs data showing 
exceedances and the limitations of the technology due to low 
temperatures specific to startup and shutdown.
    The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet the criteria contained in EPA's 
SSM guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840). The TAOLs are narrowly 
tailored, as they apply only to Rockport Unit 1 and Unit 2. They also 
align the previously approved Indiana TAOLs as it is a coal-fired 
utility boiler controlled with an ESP. The data provided on previous 
startups and shutdowns for both units indicated the TAOLs were set 
properly to minimize emissions during startup and shutdown. AEP 
Rockport has satisfied the criteria for approval. Further, the AEP 
Rockport startup and shutdown TAOLs are consistent with the previously 
approved TAOLs at other similar Indiana facilities (See 67 FR 46589, 
July, 16, 2002). The TAOLs for AEP Rockport were also tailored 
specifically to the facility using monitored COM data to determine 
opacity limits that were appropriate given the operational limitations 
of the specific parameters on the ESP for AEP Rockport. AEP Rockport 
has demonstrated that the PM2.5 NAAQS and thus the area's 
air quality will remain protected. The reports on the startups and 
shutdown do show the periods when the current opacity limitations are 
exceeded occurred during 14 startups and 33 shutdowns from 2007 to 
2013, which is an average of 2.0 startup and 4.7 shutdown exceedances 
per year. Just one startup (2.1 hours) and two shutdowns (1.7 and 2.0 
hours) during 2007 to 2013 exceeded the proposed TAOLs.
    The air quality analysis of the TAOLs shows that the 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS is protected, and EPA's analysis of the annual 
standard based on the modeling provided supports that the annual 
PM2.5 standard is protected. Compliance with this standard 
protects the public health from short-term events such as startups and 
shutdowns.
    Comment: The proposed TAOLs include no upper limits on opacity 
during the specified timeframe. As such, they could potentially allow 
extremely high opacity scenarios. There is no concrete restriction on 
how many times AEP Rockport may startup or shutdown each unit in a 
year, or even in a week. The combination of these two events raises the 
potential for serious impacts on ambient air quality.
    AEP Rockport has not demonstrated it requires a wholesale exemption 
from numerical opacity limits when the TAOL would apply. None of the 
opacity

[[Page 67189]]

records show opacity reaching levels near 100 percent for two hours 
during a startup. AEP assumed the ESPs would run at 60 percent 
efficiency before the flue gas temperature reaches 250 [deg]F. 
Furthermore, AEP Rockport claimed that 60 percent control efficiency 
was a low estimate. If true, that means AEP Rockport could partially 
control its opacity during the startup and shutdown periods. The TAOLs 
simply grants AEP Rockport an unneeded, unjustified free pass during 
the specified time period.
    Response: EPA agrees that the data indicates opacity does not 
approach 100 percent opacity. The opacity readings vary in time and 
opacity level, which makes setting numerical opacity limitations 
impractical. While there is not a percent opacity limit, the TAOL does 
provide meaningful constraints of time and temperature that the 
facility must follow that limits the emissions during startup and 
shutdowns. The TAOL for unit startup is only allowed until the exhaust 
temperature reaches 250 [deg]F at the ESP inlet, up to a maximum of 20 
six-minute averaging periods (2 hours). The TAOL for unit shutdown 
begins when the exhaust temperature declines below 250 [deg]F at the 
ESP inlet and goes for up to 15 six-minute averaging periods (1.5 
hours).

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the addition of the AEP Rockport TAOL to 326 IAC 
5-1-8 to the Indiana SIP. The rule provides AEP Rockport Units #1 and 
Unit #2 with TAOLs under certain circumstances during unit startup and 
shutdown periods. All available data support that the AEP Rockport 
TAOLs are set at an appropriate level. The AEP Rockport TAOLs meet the 
requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d)(2). The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet 
the other requirements of 326 IAC 5-1-3(d), as approved into the 
Indiana SIP.
    This action is consistent with the CAA, the Indiana SIP, and EPA 
policy regarding emissions during periods of startup and shutdown. 
Indiana has provided an air quality analysis demonstrating that the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in Spencer County should continue to be 
protected with the revision.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana 
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for 
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by 
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under 
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final 
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by 
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 67190]]


    Dated: September 19, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an 
entry under ``Article 5. Opacity Regulations'' ``Rule 1. Opacity 
Limitations'' for 5-1-8 in numerical order to read as follows:


Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Indiana
        Indiana citation                Subject           effective      EPA approval date          Notes
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Article 5. Opacity Regulations
                                           Rule 1. Opacity Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
5-1-8..........................  Site-specific              12/6/2014  9/30/2016, [insert
                                  temporary alternate                   Federal Register
                                  opacity limitations.                  citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-23296 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                  67186            Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,                   During Malfunctions, Startup, and
                                                  AGENCY                                                  (312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.                  Shutdown.’’
                                                                                                          SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                              As discussed in the proposal, EPA has
                                                  40 CFR Part 52                                          Throughout this document whenever                     evaluated Continuous Opacity
                                                                                                          ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean           Monitoring System (COMS) data from
                                                  [EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074; FRL–9953–14–                    EPA. This supplementary information                   the AEP Rockport facility and
                                                  Region 5]                                               section is arranged as follows:                       conducted air dispersion modeling in
                                                                                                                                                                the surrounding area. The COMS data
                                                                                                          I. What is the background for this action?
                                                  Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary                   II. What is EPA’s response to comment?                showed that, between 2009 and 2013,
                                                  Alternate Opacity Limits for American                   III. What action is EPA taking?                       AEP’s emissions were in compliance
                                                  Electric Power, Rockport                                IV. Incorporation by Reference                        with the SIP opacity rule 99.81 percent
                                                                                                          V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews              of the time. Conversely, AEP’s
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                                                                             emissions exceeded the opacity
                                                  Agency (EPA).                                           I. What is the background for this                    standards just 0.19 percent of the time,
                                                  ACTION: Final rule.                                     action?                                               which includes the startup and
                                                                                                             EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP              shutdown periods covered by the
                                                  SUMMARY:    The Environmental Protection                TAOLs for AEP Rockport Units #1 and                   TAOL.
                                                  Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to                 Unit #2, which apply only during                        After EPA received public comments
                                                  the Indiana State Implementation Plan                   narrowly-drawn periods of boiler                      in response to the proposal, the Indiana
                                                  (SIP), authorizing temporary alternate                  startup and shutdown. These two                       Department of Environmental
                                                  opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American                  identical 1,300-megawatt coal-fired                   Management (IDEM) performed an
                                                  Electric Power, Rockport (AEP                           boilers are each equipped with an                     additional air quality analysis in
                                                  Rockport) facility during periods of                    electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to                   response to specific comments. AEP
                                                  boiler startup and shutdown. This                       control PM2.5 emissions.                              provided a revised emission profile for
                                                  action is consistent with the Clean Air                    More specifically, 326 Indiana                     PM describing hourly emissions during
                                                  Act (CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA                     Administrative Code (IAC) 5–1–8                       a 24-hour period, including a startup
                                                  policy regarding emissions during                       authorizes AEP Rockport to exceed the                 event, in which the ESP would be
                                                  periods of startup and shutdown.                        applicable SIP opacity limit only under               entirely shut down during hours 9 and
                                                  Indiana has provided an air quality                     the following circumstances: (1) During               10. IDEM made the conservative
                                                  analysis demonstrating that this revision               startup, for a period not to exceed two               assumption that all of the boilers’ PM10
                                                  will continue to protect the applicable                 hours (twenty six-minute averaging                    emissions were 100 percent PM2.5. The
                                                  National Ambient Air Quality Standards                  periods), or until the flue gas                       new analysis also considered two
                                                  (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter                     temperature reaches 250 degrees                       scenarios, in which one boiler is starting
                                                  (PM2.5) in Spencer County, Indiana.                     Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet, whichever                up while the other boiler is either not
                                                  DATES: This final rule is effective on                  occurs first; and (2) during shutdown,                operating, or operating at its full, steady
                                                  October 31, 2016.                                       once the flue gas temperatures has                    rate. Both boilers at Rockport exhaust
                                                  ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
                                                                                                          dropped below 250 degrees Fahrenheit                  through a common stack. The two
                                                  docket for this action under Docket ID                  at the ESP inlet, for a period not to                 scenarios represent the stack exhaust
                                                  No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074. All                          exceed one and one-half hours (fifteen                and dispersion rates for a boiler startup/
                                                  documents in the docket are listed on                   six-minute averaging periods).                        shutdown event. IDEM modeled one
                                                                                                             EPA proposed to approve these                      scenario which assumed that the ESP is
                                                  the www.regulations.gov Web site.
                                                                                                          alternate limits as revisions to Indiana              completely offline for the two hours of
                                                  Although listed in the index, some
                                                                                                          SIP on December 28, 2015 (80 FR                       highest oil and coal combustion.
                                                  information is not publicly available,
                                                                                                          80719). In this action, EPA is                          IDEM’s modeling followed EPA’s
                                                  i.e., Confidential Business Information
                                                                                                          responding to comments submitted in                   guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
                                                  (CBI) or other information whose
                                                                                                          response to its proposal and approving                W, using the current version of the
                                                  disclosure is restricted by statute.
                                                                                                          the AEP Rockport TAOLs. This is                       AERMOD modeling system, over a full
                                                  Certain other material, such as
                                                                                                          because they meet the criteria contained              receptor grid, with five years of recent
                                                  copyrighted material, is not placed on
                                                                                                          in Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 5–1–3(d) as               surface meteorological data from
                                                  the Internet and will be publicly
                                                                                                          an appropriate method in determining                  Evansville, Indiana (2010–2014). IDEM
                                                  available only in hard copy form.
                                                                                                          alternative limits for facilities during              also included background from the near-
                                                  Publicly available docket materials are
                                                                                                          startup and shutdown periods. These                   by Dale monitor, in response to Sierra
                                                  available either through
                                                                                                          limits are also consistent with the CAA               Club comments. The modeling with the
                                                  www.regulations.gov or at the
                                                                                                          and applicable EPA policy. As                         background results yielded a 24-hour
                                                  Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                                                                          discussed in EPA’s proposal, AEP                      PM2.5 value of 26.06 micrograms per
                                                  Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
                                                                                                          Rockport has met all of these criteria.               cubic meter (mg/m3), which is well
                                                  West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,                           EPA has also previously approved
                                                  Illinois 60604. This facility is open from                                                                    below the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                                                                          TAOLs for 22 other Indiana power                      of 35 mg/m3.
                                                  8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through                  plants, all of which are controlled with
                                                  Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We                  ESPs (67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002).                    II. What is EPA’s response to comment?
                                                  recommend that you telephone Matt                       These TAOLs contained similar limits,
                                                  Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)                                                                            EPA received comment letters from
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                                                                          and EPA’s basis for approval was                      AEP and the Sierra Club, both on
                                                  886–6524 before visiting the Region 5                   analogous. The approach taken by
                                                  office.                                                                                                       January 27, 2016.
                                                                                                          Indiana in establishing all of these                     The AEP comment letter supports the
                                                  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:    Matt                TAOLs is also consistent with section                 approval of 326 IAC 5–1–8 into the
                                                  Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control                    110 of the CAA and the criteria                       Indiana SIP. Sierra Club’s comments are
                                                  Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch                 contained in EPA’s September 20, 1999                 provided and addressed below.
                                                  (AR–18J), Environmental Protection                      guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:                  Comment: The commenter stated that
                                                  Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson                       Policy Regarding Excess Emissions                     the fact that AEP Rockport often does


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00096   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                     67187

                                                  not meet applicable opacity limitations                    Response: Because AEP Rockport                     ongoing technical issue with the ESP
                                                  is not sufficient to demonstrate that it                often meets its limits speaks to the fact             temperature limitations during start-up
                                                  cannot meet these limits. The                           that it currently operates the controls in            and shutdowns that necessitates the
                                                  commenter asserts that there are                        a fashion that is consistent with the                 TAOLs.
                                                  numerous options that might be                          TAOL approval criterion of maintaining                   Comment: The commenter stated that
                                                  effective in reducing emissions during                  and operating controls in a way to                    the 2004 modeling does not address the
                                                  startup and shutdown periods,                           minimize emissions. AEP Rockport’s                    current NAAQS. The Indiana SIP
                                                  including revamping plant maintenance                   control system also operates effectively              requires the owner or operator to
                                                  practices, installing baghouses after the               during normal operations, enabling it to              demonstrate the TAOL will not impact
                                                  ESPs to collect uncontrolled PM, and                    meet its opacity limitations. As                      the maintenance of the NAAQS. The
                                                  using a startup fuel other than fuel oil.               explained in EPA’s proposal, the need                 commenter asserted that AEP Rockport’s
                                                     Response: The TAOLs at AEP                           for a TAOL occurs only during startup                 2004 demonstration is clearly
                                                  Rockport are needed during startup and                  and shutdown periods—when ESP                         inadequate in that it does not address
                                                  shutdown because of temperature                         effectiveness is hampered by                          subsequently-adopted PM NAAQS,
                                                  limitations of the ESP, which has                       temperature (See 67 FR 46589, July 16,                because the demonstration did not
                                                  lowered efficiency at times when                        2002).                                                address the 2012 24-hour and annual
                                                  temperatures are below 250 degrees.                        AEP Rockport’s COM data from 2001                  PM2.5 NAAQS.
                                                  (See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). In                    to 2004, and 2007 to 2013, indicate                      Response: The submission by Indiana
                                                  addition, AEP Rockport has provided                     opacity exceedances during startup and                contained both 2004 and updated 2013
                                                  data showing that during periods of low                 shutdown periods, which shows this                    modeling. The modeling provided to
                                                  temperature when the control                            has been a long-running technical issue.              EPA for SIP approval included an
                                                  technology cannot efficiently control                   EPA has also reviewed the opacity                     analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. The
                                                  particulates, there may be violations of                exceedance report summary for 2007 to                 analysis used a conservative assumption
                                                  the SIP opacity limits. During normal                   2013. It shows that AEP Rockport                      that 100 percent of PM10 equals the
                                                  operations, however, emission limits are                averaged 2 startups per year and 4.7                  PM2.5 concentrations emitted. EPA
                                                                                                          shutdowns per year that exceeded the                  concurred with this analysis, which
                                                  met. The COMs data submitted by AEP
                                                                                                          opacity limitations.                                  further showed that the TAOL would
                                                  Rockport demonstrate that it has
                                                                                                             There are aspects of ESP operation                 not interfere with the NAAQS for fine
                                                  operated in a manner consistent with
                                                                                                          that cannot be predicted or controlled                particulate matter.
                                                  good air pollution control and                                                                                   In addition, in response to the
                                                                                                          during unit startups. Therefore, it is
                                                  maintenance practices. The data show                                                                          comment, Indiana performed and
                                                                                                          impractical to set an opacity limitation
                                                  that, between 2009 and 2013, the facility                                                                     provided EPA with an updated
                                                                                                          during startup and shutdown periods,
                                                  was in compliance 99.81 percent of the                                                                        AERMOD modeling analysis. The
                                                                                                          particularly given the noted history of
                                                  time, and exceeded the opacity                                                                                modeling shows that the PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                                                                          limited exceedances and the potential
                                                  standards just 0.19 percent of the time.                for more irregular opacity episodes.                  should remain protected in Spencer
                                                  This includes the startup and shutdown                  Given that EPA expects SIP compliance                 County, Indiana with the TAOLs in
                                                  periods covered by the TAOL.                            100 percent of the time, the fact that a              place. More specifically, the results
                                                     The commenter suggests that other                    source may ‘‘often’’ meet applicable                  yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 value of 26.06
                                                  control devices should be added to the                  emission limits is not sufficient.                    mg/m3, which is well below the 24-hour
                                                  facility, or that there should be a fuel                   Comment: The commenter stated that                 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. Indiana did
                                                  switch. EPA disagrees for several                       the air quality demonstration made in                 not address the annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
                                                  reasons. First, considering additional                  2001 or 2004 is obsolete due to changing              as the TAOL is only intended to address
                                                  controls or changes in fuel is not a                    conditions that impact opacity                        short-term situations. The 24-hour PM2.5
                                                  criterion in the Indiana SIP for                        compliance at the AEP Rockport. The                   NAAQS protects public health in this
                                                  evaluating the approvability of a TAOL.                 commenter further asserted that the                   scenario. EPA also considered the 2012
                                                  In addition, even if AEP Rockport were                  documents AEP submitted in support of                 NAAQS, and evaluated modeled
                                                  to add or modify its control such as by                 its TAOL petition are outdated and fail               concentrations from the TAOLs, using
                                                  adding a fabric filter (baghouse), similar              to satisfy the requirements in 326 IAC                an hourly value of 1.59 mg/m3 from the
                                                  technical issues could also occur during                5–1–3–(d)(2)(B).                                      modeled scenario that would best
                                                  the low-temperature, low-flow scenario                     Response: The requirements of 326                  represent a contribution to an annual
                                                  of startups and shutdowns.                              IAC 5–1–3(d)(2)(B) were fulfilled for the             average. EPA a determined that the
                                                     Comment: The commenter stated that                   AEP Rockport facility with the                        modeled annual average combined with
                                                  the fact that AEP Rockport often meets                  information provided by Indiana in                    background concentrations (for current
                                                  applicable opacity limitations during                   2015. This is current information, as                 monitored data of 10.1 mg/m3 for 2013–
                                                  startup and shutdown proves that it can                 Indiana evaluated the AEP Rockport                    2015 period, and 9.3 for the current
                                                  meet these limits. To support this claim,               TAOLs in 2014. The current data for                   annual period) would be less than the
                                                  the commenter cites opacity records                     AEP Rockport show it operates in                      2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3.
                                                  from the facility on two specific dates in              manner that minimizes opacity                            Comment: The commenter stated that
                                                  August 1999 in which the opacity did                    emissions during both normal operation                the 2004 modeling assumes PM
                                                  not exceed 40 percent during one                        and during startup and shutdown                       emission will be controlled in ways the
                                                  startup event and one shutdown event.                   periods.                                              TAOL does not require. More
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  While conceding that these records also                    AEP’s updated COMs data, which                     specifically, AEP Rockport assumed that
                                                  show violating emissions during                         reflects maintenance changes, upgrades,               its ESPs would be partially energized
                                                  startups and shutdowns on other                         retrofits, or alterations at the facility,            and reducing particulate matter
                                                  occasions, the commenter further notes                  still records exceedances during some                 emissions, albeit at only 60 percent
                                                  that the same records show that the                     start-up and shutdown events during                   efficiency. Rockport’s operating permit
                                                  facility was also able to comply with the               2009 through 2013. This data which                    excuses it from running the ESPs during
                                                  opacity limits during startups and                      accounts for recent changes in                        startup and shutdown. The emissions
                                                  shutdowns as recently as last year.                     conditions shows that there is an                     rate both Indiana and AEP Rockport


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00097   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                  67188            Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  used is based on the assumption that                    2013–2015 were used. The background                   326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). As discussed
                                                  AEP Rockport will take steps to                         value of 23 mg/m3 does include the                    above, the need in this case is supported
                                                  minimize opacity that are not required                  expected impact from AEP Rockport’s                   by both the COMs data showing
                                                  by law.                                                 startup and shutdown periods, as no                   exceedances and the limitations of the
                                                     Response: EPA believes that the                      adjustment to the data was made. Thus,                technology due to low temperatures
                                                  modeling done in support of the TAOL                    both Indiana and EPA considered a                     specific to startup and shutdown.
                                                  is an appropriate representation of the                 conservative background concentration                    The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet
                                                  impact of the TAOL on the NAAQS. The                    in their evaluations of the AEP Rockport              the criteria contained in EPA’s SSM
                                                  parameters used in the modeling are                     TAOLs.                                                guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR
                                                  consistent with EPA SSM guidance and                       Indiana’s 2013 modeling is                         33840). The TAOLs are narrowly
                                                  rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840), and reflect             conservative in several additional ways.              tailored, as they apply only to Rockport
                                                  the operations at the facility, because                 The dispersion modeling used averaged                 Unit 1 and Unit 2. They also align the
                                                  Indiana has found through review of the                 stack temperatures and flow rates in the              previously approved Indiana TAOLs as
                                                  reported data that AEP Rockport’s ESP                   startup process (which were not from                  it is a coal-fired utility boiler controlled
                                                  typically provides 75 percent control                   the same hour the emissions value came                with an ESP. The data provided on
                                                  efficiency or more during startup.                      from). Using the good engineering                     previous startups and shutdowns for
                                                     It should also be noted that AEP                     practice stack height of 220.7 m, instead             both units indicated the TAOLs were set
                                                  Rockport is subject to other rules that                 of the actual 272.5 m stack height, also              properly to minimize emissions during
                                                  limit its emissions, such as the Mercury                leads to a conservative estimate of                   startup and shutdown. AEP Rockport
                                                  and Air Toxics (MATS) rule (40 CFR                      dispersion and, therefore,                            has satisfied the criteria for approval.
                                                  part 63, subpart UUUUU). Controlling                    conservatively high concentration                     Further, the AEP Rockport startup and
                                                  PM emissions under the MATS rule will                   results. The analysis used a cold-unit                shutdown TAOLs are consistent with
                                                  further limit the opacity from the AEP                  startup, which is expected to produce                 the previously approved TAOLs at other
                                                  Rockport units. Indiana’s analysis                      more opacity than a warm-unit startup.                similar Indiana facilities (See 67 FR
                                                  without ESP control still shows the air                 (A warm-unit startup is when the boiler               46589, July, 16, 2002). The TAOLs for
                                                  quality will be protected. Therefore,                   is still warm, a scenario that could come             AEP Rockport were also tailored
                                                  EPA believes that the assumption of 60                  from frequent startups and shutdowns.)                specifically to the facility using
                                                  percent efficiency in the modeling is                   Indiana used coarse particulate matter                monitored COM data to determine
                                                  conservative, and shows that the                        (PM10) emission rates in its modeling                 opacity limits that were appropriate
                                                  NAAQS would be protected at a level                     analysis, making the conservative                     given the operational limitations of the
                                                  well below the standard.                                assumption that those emissions were                  specific parameters on the ESP for AEP
                                                     Comment: The commenter stated that                   100 percent PM2.5. Indiana compared                   Rockport. AEP Rockport has
                                                  the 2013 modeling is unrealistic and                    the model result to the 24-hour PM2.5                 demonstrated that the PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                  retains flaws from the 2004 modeling.                   standard and determined that the                      and thus the area’s air quality will
                                                  Some of the key modeling assumptions                    NAAQS were protected.                                 remain protected. The reports on the
                                                  that Indiana used are unrealistic. These                   A scenario considering two hours of                startups and shutdown do show the
                                                  assumptions cut in both directions:                     uncontrolled emissions during startup                 periods when the current opacity
                                                  Some overestimate air quality impact                    gave a maximum concentration of 3.06                  limitations are exceeded occurred
                                                  and some underestimate air quality                      mg/m3. Adding in the background                       during 14 startups and 33 shutdowns
                                                  impact. Indiana assumed that there was                  concentration yields a total value of                 from 2007 to 2013, which is an average
                                                  no background PM2.5 concentration.                      26.06 mg/m3. A second scenario was                    of 2.0 startup and 4.7 shutdown
                                                  Indiana’s justifications for using a zero               considered with one unit starting up                  exceedances per year. Just one startup
                                                  background PM concentration do not                      while the other unit is in normal                     (2.1 hours) and two shutdowns (1.7 and
                                                  withstand scrutiny. Assuming zero                       operation. This scenario yields a total               2.0 hours) during 2007 to 2013 exceeded
                                                  background concentration for PM2.5                      concentration of 24.59 mg/m3. The                     the proposed TAOLs.
                                                  produces an air quality modeling result                 higher stack temperature and greater                     The air quality analysis of the TAOLs
                                                  that cannot be relied upon to show                      flow rate increase the dispersion                     shows that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
                                                  NAAQS compliance. The 2013 annual                       characteristics leading to the lower                  protected, and EPA’s analysis of the
                                                  mean for PM2.5 at the Dale, Spencer                     concentration. Thus, the first scenario               annual standard based on the modeling
                                                  County, Indiana monitor was 10.20 mg/                   provides a worst-case analysis with a                 provided supports that the annual PM2.5
                                                  m3. Indiana’s modeling yielded an                       background concentration and no ESP                   standard is protected. Compliance with
                                                  eighth high 24-hour PM2.5 value of 22                   operation during startup, and it still                this standard protects the public health
                                                  mg/m3. Even though the methodology for                  demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour                from short-term events such as startups
                                                  calculating these values is very                        PM2.5 NAAQS.                                          and shutdowns.
                                                  different, adding them yields a total of                   Comment: The commenter stated that                    Comment: The proposed TAOLs
                                                  32.2 mg/m3.                                             Indiana has not demonstrated that this                include no upper limits on opacity
                                                     Response: The commenter notes in its                 TAOL is needed and justifiable, as                    during the specified timeframe. As such,
                                                  own analysis that the modeling, with                    required by 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The                  they could potentially allow extremely
                                                  background concentration, still yield                   commenter noted that the Indiana SIP                  high opacity scenarios. There is no
                                                  results that are below the standard of 35               requires the owner to demonstrate that                concrete restriction on how many times
                                                  mg/m3.                                                  a particular TAOL is needed and                       AEP Rockport may startup or shutdown
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                     The revised modeling analysis by                     justifiable during periods of startup and             each unit in a year, or even in a week.
                                                  Indiana addressed the concerns raised                   shutdown. The TAOL should be                          The combination of these two events
                                                  by the commenter. Background data was                   narrowly tailored and all steps must be               raises the potential for serious impacts
                                                  taken from the Dale monitor in Spencer                  taken to minimize emissions during                    on ambient air quality.
                                                  County, Indiana. AEP Rockport is also                   startup and shutdown.                                    AEP Rockport has not demonstrated it
                                                  in Spencer County, Indiana, about 20                       Response: The criteria for                         requires a wholesale exemption from
                                                  miles from the Dale monitor. The latest                 demonstrating that a TAOL is needed                   numerical opacity limits when the
                                                  three years of monitoring data from                     and justifiable are provided in SIP rule              TAOL would apply. None of the opacity


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00098   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                        67189

                                                  records show opacity reaching levels                    for inclusion in the State                                • Is not subject to requirements of
                                                  near 100 percent for two hours during                   implementation plan, have been                         Section 12(d) of the National
                                                  a startup. AEP assumed the ESPs would                   incorporated by reference by EPA into                  Technology Transfer and Advancement
                                                  run at 60 percent efficiency before the                 that plan, are fully federally enforceable             Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
                                                  flue gas temperature reaches 250 °F.                    under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA                  application of those requirements would
                                                  Furthermore, AEP Rockport claimed                       as of the effective date of the final                  be inconsistent with the CAA; and
                                                  that 60 percent control efficiency was a                rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will                    • Does not provide EPA with the
                                                  low estimate. If true, that means AEP                   be incorporated by reference by the                    discretionary authority to address, as
                                                  Rockport could partially control its                    Director of the Federal Register in the                appropriate, disproportionate human
                                                  opacity during the startup and                          next update to the SIP compilation.1                   health or environmental effects, using
                                                  shutdown periods. The TAOLs simply                      EPA has made, and will continue to                     practicable and legally permissible
                                                  grants AEP Rockport an unneeded,                        make, these documents generally                        methods, under Executive Order 12898
                                                  unjustified free pass during the                        available electronically through                       (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
                                                  specified time period.                                  www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
                                                     Response: EPA agrees that the data                                                                             In addition, the SIP is not approved
                                                                                                          Region 5 Office (please contact the
                                                  indicates opacity does not approach 100                                                                        to apply on any Indian reservation land
                                                                                                          person identified in the FOR FURTHER
                                                  percent opacity. The opacity readings                                                                          or in any other area where EPA or an
                                                                                                          INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
                                                  vary in time and opacity level, which                                                                          Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
                                                                                                          preamble for more information).
                                                  makes setting numerical opacity                                                                                tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
                                                  limitations impractical. While there is                 V. Statutory and Executive Order                       Indian country, the rule does not have
                                                  not a percent opacity limit, the TAOL                   Reviews                                                tribal implications and will not impose
                                                  does provide meaningful constraints of                     Under the CAA, the Administrator is                 substantial direct costs on tribal
                                                  time and temperature that the facility                  required to approve a SIP submission                   governments or preempt tribal law as
                                                  must follow that limits the emissions                   that complies with the provisions of the               specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
                                                  during startup and shutdowns. The                       CAA and applicable Federal regulations.                FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
                                                  TAOL for unit startup is only allowed                   42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).                       The Congressional Review Act, 5
                                                  until the exhaust temperature reaches                   Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,                    U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
                                                  250 °F at the ESP inlet, up to a                        EPA’s role is to approve state choices,                Business Regulatory Enforcement
                                                  maximum of 20 six-minute averaging                      provided that they meet the criteria of                Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
                                                  periods (2 hours). The TAOL for unit                    the CAA. Accordingly, this action                      that before a rule may take effect, the
                                                  shutdown begins when the exhaust                        merely approves state law as meeting                   agency promulgating the rule must
                                                  temperature declines below 250 °F at                    Federal requirements and does not                      submit a rule report, which includes a
                                                  the ESP inlet and goes for up to 15 six-                impose additional requirements beyond                  copy of the rule, to each House of the
                                                  minute averaging periods (1.5 hours).                   those imposed by state law. For that                   Congress and to the Comptroller General
                                                  III. What action is EPA taking?                         reason, this action:                                   of the United States. EPA will submit a
                                                                                                             • Is not a significant regulatory action            report containing this action and other
                                                     EPA is approving the addition of the                                                                        required information to the U.S. Senate,
                                                                                                          subject to review by the Office of
                                                  AEP Rockport TAOL to 326 IAC 5–1–8                                                                             the U.S. House of Representatives, and
                                                                                                          Management and Budget under
                                                  to the Indiana SIP. The rule provides                                                                          the Comptroller General of the United
                                                                                                          Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
                                                  AEP Rockport Units #1 and Unit #2                                                                              States prior to publication of the rule in
                                                                                                          October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
                                                  with TAOLs under certain                                                                                       the Federal Register. A major rule
                                                                                                          January 21, 2011);
                                                  circumstances during unit startup and
                                                                                                             • Does not impose an information                    cannot take effect until 60 days after it
                                                  shutdown periods. All available data                                                                           is published in the Federal Register.
                                                                                                          collection burden under the provisions
                                                  support that the AEP Rockport TAOLs                                                                            This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
                                                                                                          of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
                                                  are set at an appropriate level. The AEP                                                                       defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
                                                                                                          U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
                                                  Rockport TAOLs meet the requirements
                                                                                                             • Is certified as not having a                         Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
                                                  of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The AEP
                                                                                                          significant economic impact on a                       petitions for judicial review of this
                                                  Rockport TAOLs also meet the other
                                                                                                          substantial number of small entities                   action must be filed in the United States
                                                  requirements of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d), as
                                                                                                          under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5                Court of Appeals for the appropriate
                                                  approved into the Indiana SIP.
                                                     This action is consistent with the                   U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                   circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a
                                                  CAA, the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy                       • Does not contain any unfunded                     petition for reconsideration by the
                                                  regarding emissions during periods of                   mandate or significantly or uniquely                   Administrator of this final rule does not
                                                  startup and shutdown. Indiana has                       affect small governments, as described                 affect the finality of this action for the
                                                  provided an air quality analysis                        in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                    purposes of judicial review nor does it
                                                  demonstrating that the PM2.5 NAAQS in                   of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                               extend the time within which a petition
                                                  Spencer County should continue to be                       • Does not have Federalism                          for judicial review may be filed, and
                                                  protected with the revision.                            implications as specified in Executive                 shall not postpone the effectiveness of
                                                                                                          Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,                   such rule or action. This action may not
                                                  IV. Incorporation by Reference                          1999);                                                 be challenged later in proceedings to
                                                    In this rule, EPA is finalizing                          • Is not an economically significant                enforce its requirements. (See section
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  regulatory text that includes                           regulatory action based on health or                   307(b)(2).)
                                                  incorporation by reference. In                          safety risks subject to Executive Order
                                                                                                                                                                 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
                                                  accordance with requirements of 1 CFR                   13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                                                  51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation                  • Is not a significant regulatory action              Environmental protection, Air
                                                  by reference of the Indiana Regulations                 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR                pollution control, Incorporation by
                                                  described in the amendments to 40 CFR                   28355, May 22, 2001);                                  reference, Intergovernmental relations,
                                                  part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these                                                                      Particulate matter, Reporting and
                                                  materials have been approved by EPA                       1 62   FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).                      recordkeeping requirements.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00099    Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                  67190               Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                    Dated: September 19, 2016.                                PART 52—APPROVAL AND                                         ■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
                                                  Robert A. Kaplan,                                           PROMULGATION OF                                              (c) is amended by adding an entry under
                                                  Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.                    IMPLEMENTATION PLANS                                         ‘‘Article 5. Opacity Regulations’’ ‘‘Rule
                                                                                                                                                                           1. Opacity Limitations’’ for 5–1–8 in
                                                      40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:                   ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52                      numerical order to read as follows:
                                                                                                              continues to read as follows:                                § 52.770      Identification of plan.
                                                                                                                  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                        *       *    *           *   *
                                                                                                                                                                               (c) * * *

                                                                                                              EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS
                                                                                                                                  Indiana
                                                      Indiana citation                          Subject                           effective                   EPA approval date                             Notes
                                                                                                                                    date


                                                              *                         *                         *                           *                       *                         *                   *

                                                                                                                        Article 5. Opacity Regulations
                                                                                                                         Rule 1. Opacity Limitations


                                                           *                             *                    *                           *                            *                        *                   *
                                                  5–1–8 ........................   Site-specific temporary alternate               12/6/2014         9/30/2016, [insert Federal Reg-
                                                                                     opacity limitations.                                              ister citation].

                                                              *                         *                         *                           *                       *                         *                   *



                                                  *       *       *        *       *                          Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and                          generally has the option to determine
                                                  [FR Doc. 2016–23296 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]                 Wisconsin. Through this NODA, the                            how the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                      EPA is providing notice of the                               Group 2 allowances in its state
                                                                                                              availability of data on these allowance                      emissions budget should be allocated
                                                                                                              allocations to existing units, as well as                    among the state’s EGUs through a State
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                    the data upon which the allocations are                      Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.2
                                                  AGENCY                                                      based.                                                       However, for the 2017 control period,
                                                                                                              DATES: September 30, 2016.                                   and by default for subsequent control
                                                  40 CFR Part 97                                                                                                           periods in situations where a state has
                                                                                                              FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9953–30–                         Questions concerning this notice should                      not provided the EPA with the state’s
                                                  OAR]                                                        be addressed to Michael Cohen, at (202)                      own allocations pursuant to an
                                                                                                              343–9497 or cohen.michael@epa.gov; or                        approved SIP revision, the allocations
                                                  Availability of Data on Allocations of                      Robert Miller, at (202) 343–9077 or                          are made by the EPA.
                                                  Cross-State Air Pollution Rule                              miller.robertl@epa.gov. The mailing                             In the case of units that commenced
                                                  Allowances to Existing Electricity                          address for each of these individuals is                     commercial operations before January 1,
                                                  Generating Units                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,                        2015, termed ‘‘existing’’ units for
                                                                                                              Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204M,                        purposes of this trading program, the
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                                                                                        EPA determined default allocations for
                                                  Agency (EPA).                                               1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
                                                                                                              Washington, DC 20460.                                        all control periods in the CSAPR Update
                                                  ACTION: Final rule; notice of data                                                                                       rulemaking, according to a methodology
                                                  availability (NODA).                                        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                                                                                              CSAPR allowance trading programs                             finalized in the rulemaking but not
                                                                                                              require affected EGUs to hold emission                       included in the regulatory text.3
                                                  SUMMARY:    Under the Cross-State Air                                                                                    Through this NODA, the EPA is
                                                  Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading program                      allowances sufficient to cover their
                                                                                                              emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/                      providing notice of the availability of
                                                  regulations, the EPA allocates emission                                                                                  unit-level default allocations of CSAPR
                                                  allowances to existing electricity                          or sulfur dioxide in each control period.
                                                                                                              In the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone                       NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances
                                                  generating units (EGUs) as provided in
                                                                                                              National Ambient Air Quality Standards                       for EGUs that commenced commercial
                                                  a notice of data availability (NODA). In
                                                                                                              (NAAQS), the EPA established new                             operation before January 1, 2015, as
                                                  the CSAPR Update promulgated earlier
                                                                                                              emissions budgets for ozone season NOX                       required by the CSAPR regulations.4
                                                  this year, the EPA finalized default
                                                                                                              emissions in 2017 and subsequent years                       The data are contained in an Excel
                                                  allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
                                                                                                              for 22 eastern states and promulgated                        spreadsheet titled ‘‘Unit-Level
                                                  Season Group 2 allowances for the                                                                                        Allocations and Underlying Data for the
                                                  control periods in 2017 and subsequent                      FIP provisions requiring affected EGUs
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  years to existing EGUs in 22 eastern                        in those states to participate in the                            2 See40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.
                                                  states for which the EPA finalized                          CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2                                   3 SeeCSAPR Allowance Allocations Final Rule
                                                  Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)—                        Trading Program.1 Beginning with the                         TSD, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
                                                  Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,                       2018 control period, each covered state                      final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
                                                                                                                                                                              4 See 40 CFR 97.811(a)(1). The approach of
                                                  Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
                                                                                                                1 See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for            allocating emission allowances to existing EGUs as
                                                  Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,                            the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (September 7, 2016),                    provided in a NODA was established in the original
                                                  Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,                       available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/final-           CSAPR and was unchanged in the CSAPR Update.
                                                  Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,                          cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.                       See, e.g., 40 CFR 97.511(a)(1).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      18:28 Sep 29, 2016    Jkt 238001   PO 00000     Frm 00100    Fmt 4700       Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM      30SER1



Document Created: 2018-02-09 13:34:00
Document Modified: 2018-02-09 13:34:00
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis final rule is effective on October 31, 2016.
ContactMatt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected]
FR Citation81 FR 67186 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR