82 FR 32287 - Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 133 (July 13, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 133 (July 13, 2017)
| Page Range | 32287-32294 | |
| FR Document | 2017-14748 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 32287-32294] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-14748] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0298; FRL-9964-84-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Utah on January 4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted on January 19, 2017, for the coarse particulate matter (PM10 ) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Salt Lake County and Utah County PM10 nonattainment areas. The revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve are located in Utah Division of Administrative Rule (DAR) R307-110-17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1-4, and establish emissions limits for PM10 , nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) for certain stationary sources in the nonattainment areas. These actions are being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017. [[Page 32288]] ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2017-0298 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6210, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for PM10 and classified as moderate areas by operation of law as of November 15, 1990 (56 FR 56694, 56840; November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the Act. As described in section 110 and 172 of the Act, areas designated nonattainment based on failure to meet the PM10 NAAQS are required to develop SIPs with sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the NAAQS. On July 8, 1994, the EPA approved the PM10 SIP for Salt Lake and Utah Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP included a demonstration of attainment and various control measures, including emission limits at stationary sources. Because emissions of SO2 and NOX contribute significantly to the PM10 problem in the area, the SIP included limits on emissions of SO2 and NOX in addition to emissions of PM10 . On September 26, 1995, the EPA designated Ogden City as nonattainment for PM10 and classified the area as moderate under section 107(d)(3) of the Act (60 FR 38726; July 28, 1995). Subsequently, the EPA approved a clean data determination for the Ogden City nonattainment area on January 7, 2013 (78 FR 885), suspending obligations to submit certain requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 4 of the Act for so long as the area continues to attain. On July 3, 2002 Utah submitted SIP revisions adopting rule R307- 110-10, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX, Part A, and rule R307-110-17, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section IX Part H. These revisions were approved by the EPA on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The revisions to Utah's SIP Section IX Part H removed several stationary sources subject to reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements from the initial list of RACT sources in the Utah County nonattainment area, based on SIP threshold limits for PM10 , NOx, and SO2 of 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. In doing so, the number of major stationary sources included in the SIP for the Utah County nonattainment area was reduced from 14 sources to 5 sources. Notably, one of the sources retained in Utah's 2002 SIP was Geneva Steel, which underwent a protracted closure and had largely ceased operations by 2004. In 2005, the PacifiCorp--Lake Side Power Plant was constructed on a portion of the former Geneva Steel facility, utilizing banked emission credits from Geneva Steel's closure. On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted SIP revisions to R307-110-17 titled ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits'' and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. The titles for Subsection IX.H.1-4 include: (1) General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM10 Requirements; (2) Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/ Maintenance Area; (3) Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area; and (4) Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices. Additionally, on January 19, 2017, Utah submitted revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. Further discussion of the revisions to R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4 can be found below. III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's SIP A. R307-110-17 1. Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Section IX.H into state rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of state law. This is a ministerial provision and does not by itself include any control measures. B. Subsection IX.H.1-4 1. Subsection IX.H.1. General Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, PM10 Requirements. This section establishes general requirements for record keeping, [[Page 32289]] reporting, and monitoring for the stationary sources subject to emissions limits under subsections IX.H.2-4. Additionally, this section establishes general refinery requirements, addressing limitations on emitting units common to the refineries in the nonattainment areas. These general refinery requirements include limits at fluid catalytic cracking units, limits on refinery fuel gas, restrictions on liquid fuel oil consumption, requirement for sulfur removal units, and requirements for hydrocarbon flares. 2. Subsection IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This section establishes specific emission limitations for 14 sources. These sources are Big West Oil Refinery; Bountiful City Light and Power; Central Valley Reclamation Facility; Chevron Products Company; Hexcel Corporation; Holly Refining and Marketing Company; Kennecott Utah Copper (KUC): Bingham Canyon Mine; KUC: Copperton Concentrator; KUC: Power Plant and Tailings Impoundment; KUC: Smelter and Refinery; PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company; University of Utah; and West Valley Power Holdings, LLC. Major stationary sources were identified based on their potential to emit (PTE) of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of PM10 , NOx, or SO2 . A summary of the current emission limits, for retained sources, is outlined in Table 1 below, and a summary of the proposed new emission limits is outlined in Table 2 below. Table 1--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentration based Alternative emission Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amoco Oil Company \1\.............. PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 113 tpy. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 688 tpy.............. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2,013 tpy............ Bountiful City Light and Power..... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 1.06 tpy. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 250 tpy.............. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 5.97................. Central Valley Water Reclamation PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.67 tpy. Facility. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 203.7 tpy............ SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.95 tpy............. Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 175 tpy. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1,022 tpy............ SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2,578 tpy. Flying J \2\....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 22 tpy. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 278.7 tpy. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 864.6 tpy. Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... 175 MMscf natural gas #3 \3\. per year. 10.8 MM pounds of carbon fiber produced per year. Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.416 tpd. Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.09 tpd............. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.31 tpd. Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Maximum of 30,000 Canyon Mine. daily miles for waste haul trucks. Fugitive road dust emission controls. Kennecott Utah Copper: Power Plant. PM10.................. Total Power Plant..... 257 tpy. NOX................... Total Power Plant..... 5085 tpy............. SO2................... Total Power Plant..... 6219 tpy. Kennecott Utah Copper: Tailings ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Fugitive dust Impoundment. maintenance program and mitigation procedures. Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter..... PM10.................. Main Stack............ 400 lb/hr. SO2 (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 5,700 lb/hr.......... SO2................... Acid Plant Tail Gas... 1200 lb/hr........... 650 ppmvd. NOX................... Smelter Powerhouse.... 20.8 lb/hr........... 80/9 ppmdv. PM10.................. Rotary Concentrate 4.2 lb/hr. Dryer Stack. NOX................... Rotary Concentrate 7.1 lb/hr............ 67 ppmdv. Dryer Stack. Kennecott Utah Copper: Refinery.... PM10.................. Total Refinery........ 51.9 tpy. SO2................... Total Refinery........ 162.6 tpy............ NOX................... Total Refinery........ 121 tpy. University of Utah................. PM10.................. Source wide........... 74.3 tpy. NOX................... Source wide........... 245.8 tpy. SO2................... Source wide........... 219.3 tpy. Utah Power and Light--Gadsby \4\... PM10.................. Source Wide........... 61.3 tpy. NOX................... Source wide........... 2,983 tpy............ [[Page 32290]] SO2................... Source wide........... 67.7 tpy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Amoco Oil Company facility corresponds with the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company in the proposed emission limits of Table 2. \2\ The Flying J refinery corresponds with the Big West Oil facility in the proposed emission limits of Table 2. \3\ The Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant #3 corresponds with the Hexcel Corporation in the proposed emission limits of Table 2. \4\ Utah Power and Light--Gadsby, corresponds with PacifiCorp--Gadsby in the proposed emission limits of Table 2. Table 2--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentration based Alternative emission Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Big West Oil....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 1.037 tons per day NOX................... Facility Wide......... (tpd). SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.8 tpd.............. 0.6 tpd.............. Bountiful City Light and Power..... NOX................... GT#1.................. 0.6 g NOX/kW-hr. NOX................... GT#2 and GT#3......... 7.5 lb NOX/hr........ Central Valley Water Reclamation NOX................... Facility Wide......... 0.648 tpd. Facility. Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.715 tpd. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.1 tpd.............. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 1.05 tpd............. Hexcel Corporations................ ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... 5.50 MMscf natural gas per day. 0.061 MM pounds of carbon fiber produced per day. Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.416 tpd. Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.09 tpd............. SO2................... 0.31 tpd............. Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Maximum of 30,000 Canyon Mine. miles for waste haul trucks per day. Fugitive road dust emission control requirements. Kennecott Copperton Concentrator... ...................... ...................... ..................... ..................... Requirement to operate a gas scrubber operated in accordance with parametric monitoring. Kennecott Utah Copper:............. PM10.................. Power Plant Unit #5... 18.8 lb/hr. Power Plant and NOX................... Power Plant Unit #5... ..................... 2.0 ppmdv (15% O2 dry). Tailings Impoundment NOX................... Power Plant Unit #5 395 lb/hr. Startup/Shutdown. PM10 (Filterable)..... Units #1, #2, #3, and 0.004 grains/dscf. #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29. PM10 (Filterable + Units #1,# 2, #3, and 0.03 grains/dscf. Condensable). #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29. NOX................... Units #1,# 2, and #3, ..................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2). Nov 1-Feb 28/29. NOX................... Unit #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/ ..................... 336 ppmdv (3% O2). 29. PM10 (Filterable)..... Units #1,# 2, and #3, 0.029 grains/dscf. Mar 1-Oct 1. PM10 (Filterable + Units #1,# 2, and #3, 0.29 grains/dscf. Condensable). Mar 1-Oct 1. PM10 (Filterable)..... Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1.. 0.029 grains/dscf. NOX................... Units #1,# 2, and #3, ..................... 426.5 ppmdv (3% O2).. Mar 1-Oct 1. NOX................... Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1.. ..................... 384 ppmdv (3% O2).... Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter and PM10 (Filterable)..... Main Stack............ 89.5 lb/hr........... Refinery. PM10 (Filterable + Main Stack............ 439 lb/hr............ Condensable). SO2 (3-hr rolling avg) Main Stack............ 552 lb/hr............ SO2 (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 422 lb/hr............ NOX (daily avg)....... Main Stack............ 154 lb/hr............ NOX................... Refinery: Sum of 2 9.5 lb/hr............ tank house boilers. NOX................... Refinery: Combined 5.96 lb/hr........... Heat Plant. NOX................... Molybdenum Autoclave 5.01 lb/hr........... Project: Combined Heat Plant. PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power NOX................... Steam Unit #1......... 179 lb/hr............ Plant. [[Page 32291]] NOX................... Steam Unit #2......... 204 lb/hr............ ...................... Steam Unit #3......... 142 lb./hr (Nov 1-Feb NOX................... 28/29). NOX................... Steam Unit #3......... 203 lb/hr (Mar 1-Oct 31). Tesoro Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 2.25 tpd. Company. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.988 tpd............ SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.1 tpd. University of Utah................. NOX................... Boiler #3............. ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). Boiler #4a & #4b...... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). Boiler #5a & #5b...... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). Turbine............... ..................... 9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). Turbine and WHRU Duct ..................... 15 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry). burner. West Valley Power \5\.............. NOX................... Sum of all five 1,050 lb/day. turbines. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ West Valley Power was not a listed source in the 1994 SIP for the Salt Lake County PM10 NAA. 3. Subsection IX.H.3. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This section establishes specific emission limitations for 6 sources. These sources are Brigham Young University (BYU); Geneva Nitrogen Inc.; PacifiCorp Energy: Lake Side Power Plant; Payson City Corporation: Payson City Power; Provo City Power: Power Plant; and Springville City Corporation: Whitehead Power Plant. Major stationary sources were identified based on their PTE of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more for PM10 , NOX , and SO2 . It is important to note that the SIP threshold of 100 tpy for all three pollutants is less than the previous SIP major stationary source thresholds Utah established in its 2002 SIP revision. The 2002 SIP revision had established major stationary source thresholds for PM10 , NOX , and SO2 at 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. By lowering the SIP threshold to 100 tpy for all three pollutants, three sources are now added into the SIP. These sources are BYU, Payson City Power and PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. PacifiCorp Energy-- Lake Side Power Plant sits on a portion of the former Geneva Steel site. A summary of the current emission limits, for retained sources, is outlined in Table 3 below, and a summary of the proposed new emission limits are outlined in Table 4 below. Table 3--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentration based Alternative emission Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geneva Nitrogen Inc: Geneva Plant.. PM10.................. Prill Tower........... 0.24 tpd............. NOX................... Montecatini Plant..... 0.389 tpd............ NOX................... Weatherly Plant....... 0.233 tpd............ Provo City Power: Power Plant...... NOX................... All engines combined.. 2.45 tpd............. Springville City Corporation: NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.68 tpd............. Whitehead Power Plant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentration based Alternative emission Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brigham Young University........... NOX................... Unit #1 \6\........... 9.55 lb/hr........... 95 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). NOX................... Unit #2............... 37.4 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). SO2................... Unit #2............... 56.0 lb/hr........... 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). NOX................... Unit #3............... 37.4 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). SO2................... Unit #3............... 56.0 lb/hr........... 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). NOX................... Unit #4 \7\........... 19.2 lb/hr........... 127 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). NOX................... Unit #5............... 74.8 lb/hr........... 331 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). SO2................... Unit #5............... 112.07 lb/hr......... 597 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). [[Page 32292]] NOX................... Unit #6 \7\........... 19.2 lb/hr........... 127 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry). Geneva Nitrogen Inc.: Geneva Plant. PM10.................. Prill Tower........... 0.236 tpd............ PM2.5................. Prill Tower........... 0.196 tpd. NOX................... Montecatini Plant..... 30.8 lb/hr. NOX................... Weatherly Plant....... 18.4 lb/hr. PacifiCorp Energy: Lakeside Power NOX................... Block #1 Turbine/HRSG 14.9 lb/hr. Plant. Stacks. NOX................... Block #2 Turbine/HRSG 18.1 lb/hr. Stacks. Payson City Corporation: Payson NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.54 tpd. City Power. Provo City Power: Power Plant...... NOX................... All engines combined.. 2.45 tpd. Springville City Corporation: NOX................... All engines combined.. 1.68 tpd. Whitehead Power Plant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The NOX limit for Unit #1 is 95 ppm (9.55 lb/hr) until it operates for more than 300 hours during a rolling 12-month period, then the limit will be 36 ppm (5.44 lb/hr). This will be accomplished through the installation of low NOX burners with Flue Gas Recirculation. \7\ The NOX limit for Units #4 and #6 is 127 ppm (38.5 lb/hr) until December 31, 2018, at which time the limit will then be 36 ppm (19.2 lb/hr). 4. Subsection IX.H.4. Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices. R307-110-17 Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. This section establishes interim emission limits for sources whose new emission limits under Subsections IX.H.2 and 3 are based on controls that are not currently installed, with the provision that all necessary controls needed to meet the emission limits under Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be installed by January 1, 2019. A summary of the proposed interim emission limits is outlined in Table 5 below. Table 5--Proposed Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentration based Alternative emission Source Pollutant Process unit Mass based limits limits limits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Big West Oil....................... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.377 tpd Oct 1-March 31. 0.407 tpd April 1- Sept 30. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 2.764 tpd Oct 1-March 31. 3.639 tpd April 1- Sept 30. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.027 tpd Oct 1-Mar 31. 1.145 tpd Apr 1-Sep 30. Chevron Products Company........... PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.234 tpd. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 0.5 tpd. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.52 tpd. Holly Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.44 tpd. Company. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 4.714 tpd. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 2.20 tpd. Tesoro Refining and Marketing PM10.................. Facility Wide......... 0.261 tpd. Company. SO2................... Facility Wide......... 3.699 tpd Nov 1-Feb 28/29. 4.374 tpd Mar 1-Oct 31. NOX................... Facility Wide......... 1.988 tpd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 32293]] IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4, submitted January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017 are intended to strengthen the SIP. Therefore, CAA section 110(l) requirements are satisfied. Specifically, the proposed emission limits for the retained sources in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area will result in a reduction of PM10 , SO2 , and NOX emissions by 10.64 tpd, 12.87 tpd and 29.97 tpd, respectively, when compared to the limits established in the original PM10 SIP. Given the large net decrease in emissions from the retained major stationary sources in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area, the proposed action will enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. The proposed emissions from Geneva Nitrogen, Provo City Power Plant, and the Springville City Corporation--Whitehead Power Plant are consistent with the 2002 SIP revisions for Utah County. Additionally, this proposed action adds three sources--BYU, Payson City Power and PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. Both BYU and Payson City Power have been in existence since the original 1994 SIP, and BYU was initially included as a source in the original 1994 SIP, but was removed in 2002. The inclusion of these two sources do not reflect an increase in emissions into the Utah County nonattainment area airshed, but rather reflect a change in the approach of how stationary sources are included into the SIP. PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant is also being added into the SIP, but its addition does not reflect an emissions increase to the nonattainment area because the facility was required to use offsetting emissions, largely made available through the closure of the Geneva Steel facility. The closing of Geneva Steel resulted in the removal of approximately 1,700 tpy PM10 , 1,400 tpy SO2 , and 4,200 tpy NOX from the Utah County airshed. These emission reductions were banked and made available for purchase for future major source construction and modifications. In order to construct the Lakeside Power Plant, banked emission credits were purchased and used at an offset ratio of 1.2:1 (e.g. For every 1.0 tpy of emissions allowed at the Lakeside Power Plant, 1.2 tpy of banked emission credits must be spent from the Utah emissions credit offset registry.). In total the Lakeside Power Plant utilized banked emission credits for PM10, SO2 , and NOX in the amounts of 257 tpy, 66 tpy, and 337 tpy, respectively. Given the offset ratio required for the construction of the Lakeside Power Plant, the inclusion of this source into the SIP does not result in any emissions increase to the Utah County airshed, and actually reflects a net decrease from the 2002 SIP. As a result of the decreased emissions from the closure of the Geneva Steel facility, and the offsetting ratio required to construct the Lake Side Power Plant, the proposed revision to the Utah County PM10 SIP will enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. V. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment The EPA is proposing approval and requesting public comment on revisions to Administrative Rule R307-110-17 and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4 as submitted by the State of Utah on January 4, 2016, and January 19, 2017. These revisions establish emissions limitations and related requirements for certain stationary sources of PM10 , NOX and SO2 , and will therefore serve to continue progress towards attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in the nonattainment areas. The proposed revisions reflect more stringent emission levels for total emissions of PM10 , SO2 , and NOX for each of the affected facilities, as well as updates the inventory of major stationary sources to accurately reflect the current sources in both the Salt Lake County and Utah County nonattainment areas (e.g., removing sources which no longer exist, or are now covered under an area source rule). The updated list of sources and revised emission limits for the major stationary sources in the two nonattainment areas will serve to enhance both area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. VI. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the DAQ PM10 SIP revisions as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and does not provide the 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). [[Page 32294]] In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 30, 2017. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2017-14748 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 32287
warrant proposing to extend the NOX Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and (c) * * *
compliance dates for the affected units. 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2 by (c)(7) Compliance dates for AEP Flint
It is not our intent to require a a total of 21 months to January 27, 2020. Creek Unit 1 and Entergy White Bluff
compliance timeframe that could force Upon finalization of this proposed Units 1 and 2. The owner or operator of
the owners to expedite the planning, action, the reconsideration process for AEP Flint Creek Unit 1 must comply
installation, and deployment of the NOX the 18-month NOX compliance with the SO2 emission limit listed in
control equipment in such a way that deadlines will conclude. paragraph (c)(6) of this section by April
would require omitting company The revisions to the Arkansas 27, 2018, and with the NOX emission
planning procedures and other Regional Haze FIP we are proposing at limit listed in paragraph (c)(6) by
important processes the owners and this time are limited to the NOX January 27, 2020. The owner or operator
operators have in place for projects such compliance dates for the five of White Bluff Units 1 and 2 must
as this. We also believe it is prudent to aforementioned units. We are not comply with the SO2 emission limit
establish compliance deadlines that proposing to revise any other portions of listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this section
allow the installation of the NOX the FIP in this proposed action. As such, by October 27, 2021, and must comply
controls to be optimally scheduled so as we are not accepting public comment at with the NOX emission limits listed in
to not compromise system reliability, this time on any issues unrelated to the paragraph (c)(6) of this section by
especially taking into consideration that NOX compliance dates for these units. January 27, 2020.
four of the affected units are within the However, we note that the * * * * *
same regional transmission organization reconsideration process under CAA (c)(25) Compliance dates for Entergy
system. Entergy, AECC, and EEAA section 307(d)(7)(B) for other portions of Independence Units 1 and 2. The owner
asserted that 3 years are needed to the FIP, as discussed in our April 14, or operator of each unit must comply
develop, plan, permit, install, tune, and 2017 letter, is ongoing.10 If EPA with the SO2 emission limit in
test the equipment at the affected units, determines through the ongoing paragraph (c)(24) of this section by
which is consistent with the compliance reconsideration process that revisions to October 27, 2021, and with the NOX
deadline we proposed in our April 8, other parts of the FIP are warranted, we emission limits by January 27, 2020.
2015 FIP proposal.8 Additionally, as we will propose such revisions in a future [FR Doc. 2017–14692 Filed 7–12–17; 8:45 am]
noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section of rulemaking action. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
this proposed rulemaking, we published
a notice in the Federal Register on April List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
25, 2017, administratively staying the Environmental protection, Air ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
effectiveness of the 18-month NOX pollution control, Best available retrofit AGENCY
compliance deadlines in the FIP for a technology, Incorporation by reference,
period of 90 days as part of our Intergovernmental relations, Interstate 40 CFR Part 52
reconsideration process for the NOX transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, [EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0298; FRL–9964–84–
compliance deadlines.9 To also account Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional Region 8]
for the 90 day stay of the effectiveness haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
of these NOX compliance deadlines, we requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Approval and Promulgation; State of
are proposing to extend the NOX Visibility. Utah; Salt Lake County and Utah
compliance deadlines for Flint Creek County Nonattainment Area Coarse
Dated: June 30, 2017.
Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Particulate Matter State
Independence Units 1 and 2 by a total Samuel Coleman,
Implementation Plan Revisions to
of 21 months to January 27, 2020. We Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Control Measures for Point Sources
believe this is consistent with the Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
requirement under the CAA section AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
169A(b)(2) and (g)(4) and the Regional Agency (EPA).
amended as follows:
Haze Rule under section 51.308(e)(1)(iv) ACTION: Proposed rule.
to install and operate BART as PART 52—APPROVAL AND
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
expeditiously as practicable, but in no PROMULGATION OF
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
event later than 5 years after approval of IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
certain state implementation plan (SIP)
the implementation plan revision.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 revisions submitted by Utah on January
III. Summary of Proposed Action continues to read as follows: 4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted
After carefully considering the on January 19, 2017, for the coarse
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. particulate matter (PM10) national
petitions for reconsideration of the NOX
compliance deadlines submitted by Subpart E—Arkansas ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
Arkansas, Entergy, AECC, and EEAA, in the Salt Lake County and Utah
we are proposing to revise the Arkansas ■ 2. Amend § 52.173 by revising (c) (7) County PM10 nonattainment areas. The
Regional Haze FIP by extending the and (25) to read as follows: revisions that the EPA is proposing to
NOX compliance deadlines for Flint approve are located in Utah Division of
§ 52.173 Visibility protection. Administrative Rule (DAR) R307–110–
Creek, White Bluff, and Independence.
* * * * * 17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1–4, and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
After carefully considering the
information presented by the petitioners establish emissions limits for PM10,
10 See letter dated April 14, 2017, regarding
and to account for the 90 day stay of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur
‘‘Convening a Proceeding for Reconsideration of
effectiveness of these NOX compliance Final Rule, ‘Promulgation of Air Quality dioxide (SO2) for certain stationary
deadlines, we are proposing to extend Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional sources in the nonattainment areas.
the NOX compliance deadlines for Flint Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal These actions are being taken under
Implementation Plan,’ published September 7, section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
2016. 81 FR 66332.’’ A copy of this letter is
8 80 FR 18944. included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA–R06– DATES: Written comments must be
9 82 FR 18994. OAR–2015–0189. received on or before August 14, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jul 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM 13JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_32420/page/1.svg)
![32294 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 133 / Thursday, July 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the SIP is not approved www.regulations.gov or via email to R6_ D. Louisiana’s Five-Factor Analyses for
to apply on any Indian reservation land LA_BART@epa.gov. Follow the online SO2 and PM BART for Nelson
or in any other area where the EPA or instructions for submitting comments. III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a Once submitted, comments cannot be
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of edited or removed from Regulations.gov. I. Background
Indian country, the proposed rule does The EPA may publish any comment
A. The Regional Haze Program
not have tribal implications and will not received to its public docket. Do not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal submit electronically any information Regional haze is visibility impairment
governments or preempt tribal law as you consider to be Confidential that is produced by a multitude of
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Business Information (CBI) or other sources and activities that are located
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). information whose disclosure is across a broad geographic area and emit
restricted by statute. Multimedia fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
Environmental protection, Air accompanied by a written comment. carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their
pollution control, Ammonia, The written comment is considered the precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
Incorporation by reference, official comment and should include nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen discussion of all points you wish to cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting make. The EPA will generally not organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur consider comments or comment particle precursors react in the
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. contents located outside of the primary atmosphere to form PM2.5, which
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or impairs visibility by scattering and
other file sharing system). For absorbing light. Visibility impairment
Dated: June 30, 2017. reduces the clarity, color, and visible
additional submission methods, please
Debra H. Thomas, distance that can be seen. PM2.5 can also
contact Jennifer Huser, huser.jennifer@
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. epa.gov. For the full EPA public cause serious adverse health effects and
[FR Doc. 2017–14748 Filed 7–12–17; 8:45 am] comment policy, information about CBI mortality in humans; it also contributes
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P or multimedia submissions, and general to environmental effects such as acid
guidance on making effective deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
comments, please visit http://
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION monitoring network, ‘‘Interagency
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-
AGENCY Monitoring of Protected Visual
epa-dockets.
Environments’’ (IMPROVE), shows that
40 CFR Part 52 Docket: The index to the docket for visibility impairment caused by air
this action is available electronically at pollution occurs virtually all the time at
[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0129; FRL–9964–20– www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
Region 6] most national parks and wilderness
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, areas. In 1999, the average visual range
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all in many Class I areas (i.e., national
Approval and Promulgation of
documents in the docket are listed in parks and memorial parks, wilderness
Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
the index, some information may be areas, and international parks meeting
Regional Haze State Implementation
publicly available only at the hard copy certain size criteria) in the western
Plan
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and United States was 100–150 kilometers,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection some may not be publicly available at or about one-half to two-thirds of the
Agency (EPA). either location (e.g., CBI). visual range that would exist without
ACTION: Proposed rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: anthropogenic air pollution. In most of
Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347, the eastern Class I areas of the United
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean States, the average visual range was less
huser.jennifer@epa.gov. To inspect the
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of
hard copy materials, please schedule an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the visual range that would exist under
appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr.
is proposing to approve for the Entergy estimated natural conditions. CAA
Bill Deese at 214–665–7253.
R. S. Nelson facility (Nelson) (1) a programs have reduced some haze-
portion of a revision to the Louisiana SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever causing pollution, lessening some
Regional Haze State Implementation visibility impairment and resulting in
Plan (SIP) submitted on February 20, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA. partially improved average visual
2017; and (2) a revision submitted for ranges.
parallel processing on June 20, 2017, by Table of Contents CAA requirements to address the
the State of Louisiana through the problem of visibility impairment
Louisiana Department of Environmental I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program continue to be implemented. In Section
Quality (LDEQ). Specifically, the EPA is 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the
B. Our Previous Actions and Our Proposed
proposing to approve these two Action on Louisiana Regional Haze CAA, Congress created a program for
revisions, which address the Best II. Our Evaluation of Louisiana’s BART protecting visibility in the nation’s
Available Retrofit Technology
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Analysis for Nelson national parks and wilderness areas.
requirement of Regional Haze for Nelson A. Identification of Nelson as a BART- This section of the CAA establishes as
for sulfur-dioxide (SO2) and particulate- Eligible Source a national goal the prevention of any
matter (PM). B. Evaluation of Whether Nelson Is Subject future, and the remedying of any
DATES: Written comments must be to BART
1. Visibility Impairment Threshold
existing, man-made impairment of
received on or before August 14, 2017. 2. CALPUFF Modeling to Screen Sources visibility in 156 national parks and
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 3. Nelson is Subject to BART wilderness areas designated as
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– C. Reliance on CSAPR To Satisfy NOX mandatory Class I Federal areas. On
OAR–2017–0129, at http:// BART December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:37 Jul 12, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JYP1.SGM 13JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_32420/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2017-07-13 01:00:40
Document Modified: 2017-07-13 01:00:40
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017. | |
| Contact | James Hou, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6210, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 32287 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Ammonia; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR