[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10583-10589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03472]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0028; A-1-FRL-9779-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Massachusetts. These SIP revisions
consist of a demonstration that Massachusetts meets the requirements of
reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) set forth by the
Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Additionally, we are proposing approval of updates to two existing
regulations limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2013-0028 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0028,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109--3912.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2013-0028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
[[Page 10584]]
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
In addition, copies of the State submittals are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Division of Air Quality Control, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Additionally, the phrase ``the
Commonwealth'' refers to the state of Massachusetts. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements
b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On January 31, 2008, the State of Massachusetts submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of information
documenting how Massachusetts complied with the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.\1\ Additionally, on June 1, 2010, Massachusetts submitted
updates to two regulations that limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, one of which further restricted emissions from pressure-
vacuum (PV) valves used by gasoline service stations, and another that
updates an existing regulation limiting VOC emissions from solvent
cleaning operations. The Commonwealth's submittals requested that they
be incorporated into the Massachusetts SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commonwealth's submittal was made to address RACT for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and does not address the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires RACT in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
VOC and NOX emissions sources and for all sources covered by
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC
source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control
requirements. States must submit rules or negative declarations for CTG
source categories, but not for sources in ACT categories. However, RACT
must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of those
major sources may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858),
EPA designated areas attainment or nonattainment with respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. The entire state of Massachusetts was
designated nonattainment and classified as moderate, as two
nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.322.
On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard needed to address (see
70 FR 71612). This rule, referred to as the ``Phase 2 Implementation
rule,'' contained, among other things, a description of EPA's
expectations for states with RACT obligations. The Phase 2
Implementation rule indicated that states could meet RACT through the
establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT
control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT
controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes,
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State
must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG
sources.
II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
On January 31, 2008, Massachusetts submitted a demonstration that
its regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for
RACT as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The Commonwealth
held a public hearing on the RACT program on January 18, 2008.
Massachusetts' RACT submittal notes that its prior statewide
designation as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in
the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and
NOX, including RACT level controls. Therefore, as allowed
for within EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule, much of the
Commonwealth's submittal consists of a review of RACT controls adopted
under the 1-hour ozone standard and an indication of whether those
previously adopted controls still represent RACT under the 1997 ozone
standard. Additionally, Massachusetts notes that as a member state of
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) it works with that organization to
identify and adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional
VOC and NOX categories beyond those for which EPA has issued
CTGs or ACT documents.
[[Page 10585]]
With regard to VOC controls, the Commonwealth's submittal
identifies the specific control measures that have been previously
adopted to control emissions from VOC sources, reaffirms negative
declarations for some CTG categories, and describes updates being
considered to strengthen three VOC control regulations to ensure that
they will continue to represent RACT under the 1997 ozone standard. A
table named ``Table RACT-1'' within Massachusetts' submittal contains a
summary of the state's response to each of the CTG categories that EPA
issued through 2006.\2\ The table identifies the specific state rule,
where relevant, that is in place, and the date that EPA approved the
rule into the Massachusetts SIP. A table labeled ``Table RACT-2''
within the Commonwealth's submittal identifies the major VOC sources in
the state that are not covered by an ACT or CTG document. The state has
issued source-specific orders containing control requirements for the
facilities listed in Table RACT-2 of the state's submittal, and all of
these have been previously approved into the Massachusetts SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This rulemaking does not address Massachusetts' response to
the CTGs that EPA issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth's submittal notes that no sources exist in the
state for some CTG categories. Specifically, Table RACT-1 of
Massachusetts' submittal makes negative declarations for the following
CTG sectors:
1. Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and
Process Unit Turnarounds;
2. Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment;
3. Manufacture of Synthetic Pharmaceutical Products;
4. Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires;
5. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners;
6. Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene and
Polystyrene Resins;
7. Natural Gas/Gasoline Process Leaks;
8. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Air Oxidation
Processes; and
9. Ship Building and Repair.
Massachusetts' review of its control program for sources of VOC
concludes that, with the adoption of revised rules for solvent
cleaning, Stage II vehicle refueling, and cutback asphalt, all required
VOC sources in the state are subject to RACT.
As required, the Commonwealth's submittal addresses NOX
emissions as well as VOC emissions. In their submittal, the
Commonwealth explains that in order to address the 1990 CAA
NOX RACT requirement, Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.19,
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides
of Nitrogen (NOX).'' This rule established NOX
RACT for large, medium and small boilers; stationary combustion
turbines; stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines; and
glass melting furnaces. In addition, they describe that 310 CMR
7.19(12) provided for single source NOX RACT determinations
for major ``miscellaneous'' NOX sources with a potential to
emit 50 tons or more per year of NOX. Massachusetts explains
that they have reviewed 310 CMR 7.19 and, in general, have determined
that the NOX controls required by 310 CMR 7.19 continue to
constitute NOX RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for
each of the source categories covered by that rule, as well as for
major sources of NOX for which single-source RACT
determinations were made pursuant to 310 CMR 7.19(12). Additionally,
the Commonwealth certifies in Tables RACT-1 and RACT-2 that current
Massachusetts NOX RACT constitutes 8-hour NOX
RACT under the 1997 ozone standard for the NOX categories
listed and for the facilities for which single-source RACT
determinations were made.
Within their submittal, the Commonwealth notes that certain
NOX emitting sectors are controlled by additional sections
of Massachusetts' air pollution control regulations. First,
Massachusetts notes that electric generation units (EGUs) and large
industrial boilers, in addition to requirements contained within 310
CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR 7.28, ``NOX Allowance
Trading Program,'' and 310 CMR 7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air
Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).'' In addition, Massachusetts notes that a
subset of the largest fossil fuel-fired EGUs in Massachusetts are also
subject to NOX emission limitations under 310 CMR 7.29,
``Emissions Standards for Power Plants,'' adopted in 2001. Lastly, the
Commonwealth notes that municipal waste combustors, in addition to
requirements contained within 310 CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR
7.08, ``Incinerators.''
Massachusetts' review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NOX thus concludes that, with the adoption of
revised rules for solvent cleaning, Stage II vehicle refueling, and
cutback asphalt, all major sources in the state are subject to RACT
under the 1997 ozone standard.
III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
EPA has reviewed Massachusetts' determination that it has adopted
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT, and determined that the set of regulations cited by
the Commonwealth constitute RACT for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additionally, we are proposing to approve updates to two VOC
RACT regulations submitted by Massachusetts on June 1, 2010.
a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements
Massachusetts' submittal documents the set of VOC control
regulations that have been adopted to ensure that RACT level controls
are required in the state. These requirements include: 310 CMR 7.18,
``Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds;'' and 310 CMR 7.24,
``Organic Material Storage and Distribution.'' Table RACT-1 of the
Commonwealth's submittal indicates that Massachusetts has either
adopted a regulation that has been incorporated into the SIP to address
EPA's pre-2006 CTGs, or submitted a negative declaration in instances
where no facilities exist in the state for certain CTGs identified in
the submittal. Massachusetts' review of these VOC RACT regulations
revealed that several could be strengthened in order to continue to
meet RACT, and we address the disposition of those updates further
below.
Additionally, Massachusetts has adopted numerous single source RACT
orders for major sources of VOC that are not covered by one of EPA's
CTGs, and these orders have been submitted to EPA and incorporated into
the SIP. They are identified within the Commonwealth's submittal in
Table RACT-2. Also, as noted above, Massachusetts adopted, and we are
proposing to approve into the Massachusetts SIP, updates to two
existing VOC RACT rules, namely the state's existing solvent metal
cleaning and Stage II motor vehicle refueling regulations.
The Commonwealth's submittal documents a substantial downward trend
in VOC emissions from stationary sources, a portion of which is
attributable to RACT controls implemented by Massachusetts. Data
collected by Massachusetts from its annual survey of industrial point
source emitters reveals that between 1996 and 2002, VOC emissions from
industrial point sources declined by 63%. This decline in emissions was
brought about,
[[Page 10586]]
in part, by the RACT program implemented by Massachusetts.
We are proposing approval of updates to the following two VOC RACT
regulations described below, which Massachusetts has strengthened such
that they continue to represent RACT under the 1997 ozone standard.
Although Massachusetts's RACT certification submittal indicates that
three existing VOC rules were to be updated in such fashion, only two
were updated. Massachusetts updated its existing rules limiting
emissions from solvent cleaning (metal degreasing) and emissions from
storage tanks at gasoline service stations, but did not update its
existing cutback asphalt regulation. These three regulations are
discussed individually, as follows.
Solvent Degreasing Rule
Massachusetts updated its previously SIP-approved (58 FR 34911)
solvent cleaning rule primarily to include a new requirement limiting
the vapor pressure for cold cleaning solvents, as recommended within
the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) 2001 model rule for this
activity. The requirement applies to cold cleaning degreasers that hold
more than one liter of solvent. The Commonwealth's proposed revision
includes exemptions for cold cleaning degreasers used in special and
extreme metal cleaning, for devices located in a permanent total
enclosure with an overall VOC control efficiency of at least 90
percent, and for facilities that receive an approval from the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to use a non-compliant
solvent due to unsafe operating conditions. We note that with the new
vapor pressure limit, the revised rule is more stringent than the
previously SIP-approved version of the rule. In particular,
Massachusetts estimated that the revised rule would reduce VOC
emissions by 7 tons per summer day in 2009 compared to the previously
regulated levels.\3\ Therefore, the revised rule meets the requirements
of section 193 of the CAA, which provides that ``[n]o control
requirement in effect * * * before November 15, 1990, in any area which
is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after
November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.'' For
similar reasons, the revisions meets the requirements of section 110(l)
of the CAA, which prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision ``if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other
applicable requirement of [the Clean Air Act].'' Additionally, we note
that the limited number of exemptions from the new vapor pressure
requirement is acceptable given that this requirement is above and
beyond the RACT recommendation within the EPA's CTG \4\ for this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Background Information and Technical Support Document
for Proposed Amendments To 310 CMR 7.00 et seq., 310 CMR 7.18,
Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds, Solvent Metal
Degreasing,'' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
October 17, 2008, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
\4\ See ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent
Metal Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022; 1977/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage II Rule
The Commonwealth updated its previously adopted, SIP-approved (65
FR 78974) Stage II Vapor Recovery regulation, 310 CMR 7.24(6),
primarily to require the use of PV vent caps on vapor balance systems
installed on underground gasoline storage tanks to further reduce
evaporative emissions from vehicle refueling. A number of additional
updates were also made to the rule, including the following items.
The Commonwealth revised definitions for the terms ``isolate,''
``minor modification,'' ``routine maintenance,'' and ``substantial
modification,'' and also proposed new language clarifying requirements
that ensure timely repair of Stage II systems. Massachusetts
incorporated requirements that compel compliance testing companies to
notify the DEP of any facilities that fail a compliance test, and also
revised existing requirements for compliance testing companies.
Experience gained from operation of the Stage II program revealed
that the compliance benefit attributed to the 120 day in-use compliance
testing and certification requirement for vacuum assist systems could
be achieved by the weekly visual and annual compliance testing
requirement, and so the Commonwealth eliminated the 120 day in-use
compliance testing requirement. Additionally, Massachusetts' revisions
include an allowance for a facility to commence operation immediately
upon passing applicable testing requirements.
When Massachusetts initially adopted its Stage II rule in 1989, it
adopted a more stringent applicability level than subsequently required
by the CAA amendments of 1990 \5\ that resulted in essentially all
dispensing of gasoline to be subject to the regulation. Because of
this, very small levels of gasoline dispensing activity such as that
which occurs at salvage yards was covered by the regulation. Therefore,
the Commonwealth's revised rule exempts motor vehicle salvage yards
that dispense recovered fuel on-site to employee vehicles. By including
this exemption, Massachusetts believes that the air quality protections
afforded by the rule will not be adversely affected. Given the minimal
amount of gasoline that will receive this exemption in comparison to
the statewide use of motor vehicle fuel, we agree with the
Commonwealth's conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires Stage II controls at
gasoline dispensing facilities which dispense 10,000 gallons or more
per month or 50,000 gallons per month in the case of independent
small business marketers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth's revisions to the Stage II regulation include
several provisions relating to requirements put in place by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). These include an allowance for
the installation of CARB approved above ground storage tanks,
references to CARB Stage II approval letters, and an update to the list
of CARB approved Stage II systems to incorporate recently adopted CARB
Executive Orders.
Massachusetts also made a number of minor revisions to existing
recordkeeping and testing requirements applicable to Stage II system
operators. We note that, with the addition of the new PV vent valve
requirements, the revised rule is more stringent than the previously
SIP-approved rule, even after accounting for the new exemption for
motor vehicle salvage yards that dispense recovered fuel on-site to
employee vehicles. Therefore, the revision meets the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA.
The Commonwealth submitted its updated Stage II vapor recovery and
solvent cleaning rules to EPA on June 1, 2010, and we are proposing
approval of them within this action.
Cutback Asphalt Rule
The Commonwealth's January 31, 2008 submittal indicated that
updates were also intended for 310 CMR 7.18(9), the existing cutback
asphalt paving rule. However, on January 18, 2013, Massachusetts
submitted a letter withdrawing portions of the January 31, 2008
submittal, including the commitment to revise the cutback asphalt rule.
The Commonwealth noted in its January 18, 2013 withdrawal letter that
on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31496), EPA issued a final determination that
Eastern Massachusetts had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and
on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36404) issued a similar determination for the
Western Massachusetts nonattainment area. Therefore, the Commonwealth
indicated
[[Page 10587]]
that it now believes that its existing SIP-approved (58 FR 3495)
cutback asphalt regulation continues to represent RACT. Given the
circumstances cited above, we concur with this conclusion.
b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements
Massachusetts' submittal documents the set of NOX
control regulations that have been adopted to ensure that RACT level
controls are required in the state. These requirements include the
following sections of title 310 of the Code of Massachusetts
Regulations:
7.08, ``Incinerators;''
7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources
of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);''
7.28, ``NOX Allowance Trading Program;''
7.29, ``Emission Standards for Power Plants;'' and,
7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).''
Table RACT-1 of the Commonwealth's submittal indicates the
regulation that the Commonwealth has adopted, where appropriate, to
address EPA's ACTs for NOX source categories. We note that
we have not updated any of the ACT documents noted within Table RACT-1.
Massachusetts' submittal addresses NOX RACT for all major
sources in the Commonwealth. For the following sectors for which EPA
has published ACT guidelines, Massachusetts's submittal indicates that
there are no major sources of NOX within the Commonwealth:
nitric and adipic acid plants; cement plants; and iron and steel
manufacturing facilities. Major NOX sources do exist in
Massachusetts for the ACT categories noted within Table RACT-1, and
this Table identifies the NOX RACT regulations the
Commonwealth has adopted to address them. These ACT categories include
combustion turbines, process heaters, internal combustion engines,
industrial-commercial-institutional boilers, and glass manufacturing
facilities. Massachusetts' RACT submittal certifies that these
regulations represent RACT for purposes of EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additionally, Massachusetts has adopted three single source
RACT orders for major sources of NOX that are not covered by
one of EPA's ACTs, and these orders, identified in Table RACT-2, have
been submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP. See 40 CFR
52.1167. Table RACT-1 also lists regulations adopted by the
Commonwealth to further control NOX emissions from electric
utility boilers and municipal waste combustors (MWCs), and we discuss
these two sectors separately below.
Municipal Waste Combustors
MWCs represent one of the largest NOX emitting sectors
in the Commonwealth, and EPA previously approved RACT requirements for
these units within 310 CMR 7.19(9), which became effective in 1995. See
64 FR 48095. More recently, in 2000, the Commonwealth tightened
emission limits for eleven of the seventeen MWC units in the
Commonwealth via a strengthening of 310 CMR 7.08(2), Incinerators.
Massachusetts submitted the updated rule to us, and we approved it as
part of the Commonwealth's plan for controlling MWC emissions from
existing large MWC plants under Section 111(d) of the CAA on October 9,
2002 (67 FR 62894). Massachusetts noted that the update to section
7.08(2) established emission limits that were equivalent to those
within 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb, which refers to EPA's emission guideline
entitled, ``Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors that are Constructed on or Before September
20, 1994.'' The Commonwealth's RACT certification further noted that
one unit in Massachusetts is subject to the New Source Performance
Standard located at 40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb. In light of the above, we
find that the controls on 12 of the 17 units as specified above, in
addition to the initial baseline adoption of RACT for MWCs in 1995
pursuant to CMR 7.19(9), demonstrates that the Commonwealth has
required an overall RACT level of control for these units.
Electric Utility Boilers
EPA's Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule mentioned above addressed
various statutory requirements, including the requirement for RACT
level controls for sources located within nonattainment areas
generally, and controls for NOX emissions from EGUs in
particular. EPA indicated its determination that the regional
NOX emissions reductions that result from either the
NOX SIP Call or the CAIR would meet the NOX RACT
requirement for EGUs located in states included within the respective
NOX SIP Call or the CAIR geographic regions. Thus, EPA
concluded that: ``[t]he State need not perform a NOX RACT
analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap-and-trade
program where the cap-and-trade program has been adopted by the State
and approved by EPA as meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements
or, in States achieving the CAIR reductions solely from electric
generating units (EGUs), the CAIR NOX requirements.'' \6\
Based in part on this existing EPA rule at that time, the Commonwealth
certified that the NOX sources regulated by its
NOX SIP Call and CAIR rules meet the 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements for purposes of the 1997 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 70 FR 71617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in November 2008, several parties challenged EPA's Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule. In particular, they challenged EPA's
determination that compliance with the NOX SIP Call and/or
the CAIR could satisfy NOX RACT requirements for EGUs in
nonattainment areas and EPA's determination that compliance with the
CAIR could satisfy NOX RACT for EGUs in ozone nonattainment
areas. As a result of this litigation, the Court decided that the
provisions in the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule indicating that a
state need not perform (or submit) a NOX RACT analysis for
EGU sources subject to a cap-and-trade program that meets the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call are inconsistent with the
statutory requirements of section 172(c)(1).\7\ The Court specifically
held that the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule allowing use of the
NOX SIP call to constitute RACT without any locally
applicable analysis regarding the equivalence of NOX SIP
Call and RACT reductions: ``is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act * *
* in allowing participation in a regional cap-and-trade program to
satisfy an area-specific statutory mandate.'' The Court emphasized
that: ``the RACT requirement calls for reductions in emissions from
sources in the area; reductions from sources outside the nonattainment
area do not satisfy the requirement * * * Accordingly, participation in
the NOX SIP call would constitute RACT only if participation
entailed at least RACT-level reductions in emissions from sources
within the nonattainment area.'' In view of its decision in North
Carolina v. EPA, in which the Court had previously remanded the CAIR,
the court deferred consideration of the litigant's challenge to the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule insofar as they related to the CAIR
program. In light of the above, as well as a 2007 petition for
reconsideration that EPA granted on this issue as it pertains to
CAIR,\8\ we do not consider the NOX SIP call or CAIR to
equal NOX RACT. Rather, consistent
[[Page 10588]]
with the above ruling, we have prepared a locally applicable analysis
of whether electric utility boilers in the Commonwealth are subject to
a RACT level of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
\8\ See Earthjustice Petition for Reconsideration of the Clean
Air Fine Particle Rule, June 25, 2007. See also April 25, 2011
letter from Lisa P. Jackson to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, responding
to the June 25, 2007 petition for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric utility boilers are subject to the Commonwealth's initial
NOX RACT regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, which was adopted in the
mid-1990s. We previously determined that the emission limits within 310
CMR 7.19 required a RACT level of control on these units for purposes
of our 1-hour ozone standard. See 64 FR 48095. Massachusetts
subsequently acted to further reduce NOX emissions from
these units by participation in several NOX budget trading
programs, and also by enactment of 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emission Standards
for Power Plants.''
Regarding NOX budget trading programs, between 1999 and
2002, Massachusetts participated in the OTC's NOX Budget
Program. Massachusetts implemented this program by adopting 310 CMR
7.27, ``NOX Allowance Program,'' and submitted this
regulation to EPA which we incorporated into the Massachusetts SIP on
December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81743). In 2003, the sources covered by the
NOX Allowance Program were transitioned to the Federal
NOX budget program (also referred to as the ``NOX
SIP call'') which Massachusetts implemented by adopting 310 CMR 7.28,
``NOX Allowance Trading Program.'' Massachusetts submitted
this regulation to EPA, and we approved it into the Massachusetts SIP
on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67854). The Federal NOX budget
program achieved significant additional NOX reductions
within Massachusetts from the sources subject to its requirements. In
particular, emissions from units within Massachusetts subject to the
Federal NOX budget program reduced ozone season
NOX emissions from 9,265 tons in 2003 to 3,232 tons by 2008,
representing a 65% reduction in emissions. Massachusetts then acted to
further reduce NOX emissions from these units by adopting
310 CMR 7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).''
Massachusetts submitted this program to EPA, and we approved it into
the SIP on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67854). By 2011, ozone season
NOX emissions from units within the Commonwealth subject to
the CAIR rule decreased by an additional 46%, falling from 3,232 tons
in 2008 to 1,760 tons in 2011. The substantial decrease in
NOX emissions from sources in the Commonwealth subject to
the Federal NOX budget and CAIR programs was brought about,
in part, by the installation of various types of NOX
emission control equipment of the variety listed in Table 1, below.
Although the CAIR program was subject to a number of court challenges,
a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued on August 21, 2012 which vacated the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) provided that until the CSAPR litigation is
resolved, the CAIR program remains in effect. (EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., v. EPA, No. 11-1302. (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
Regarding 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emission Standards for Power Plants,''
the Commonwealth adopted this regulation in 2001, and submitted it to
EPA for incorporation into the SIP within a submittal made on December
30, 2011, to address regional haze requirements. We approved the
state's submittal, including 310 CMR 7.29, within a final rulemaking
signed by the Regional Administrator on September 12, 2012 and
forwarded for publication in the Federal Register. A copy of the signed
approval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP is available in the
docket for this action. This rule covers the largest fossil fuel-fired
EGUs in Massachusetts and required individual emissions units to
install additional add-on controls to comply with output-based
NOX emission limits between 2000 and 2008. As of 2009, six
operating facilities were subject to this regulation containing 13
EGUs. Annual NOX emissions for these six facilities dropped
from 30,352 tons in 2000 to 7,009 tons in 2009, a drop of 77%. The
NOX controls installed on each unit at these facilities, as
listed in their Title V Operating Permit, is contained in Table 1,
below. Within Table 1, the following abbreviations are used: LNB for
low NO burners; OFA for over-fire air; FGR for flue gas recirculation;
SCR for selective catalytic reduction; and SNCR for selective non-
catalytic reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RACT requirements for Unit 7 are located at 310 CMR
7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(i), which requires a NOX emission limit
of 0.25 lbs/mmBtu when burning oil, and pursuant to 310 CMR
7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(ii) which requires a NOX emission limit
of 0.20 lbs/mmBtu when burning gas. Between 2010 and 2012, the unit
was well within these limits, emitting NOX within a range
of 0.06 to 0.08 lbs/mmBtu.
Table 1--NOX Controls at Facilities Governed by 310 CMR 7.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Unit NOX controls installed Operating status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brayton Point........................... 1 LNB, OFA, SCR.............. Operating.
Brayton Point........................... 2 LNB, OFA................... Operating.
Brayton Point........................... 3 LNB, OFA, SCR.............. Operating.
Brayton Point........................... 4 LNB........................ Operating.
Canal Station........................... 1 LNB, OFA, FGR, SCR......... Operating.
Canal Station........................... 2 LNB, OFA, FGR, combustion Operating.
tuning, SNCR.
Mount Tom............................... 1 LNB, OFA, SCR.............. Operating.
Mystic.................................. 7 None \9\................... Operating.
Salem Harbor............................ 1 LNB, SNCR.................. Retired 1/15/12.
Salem Harbor............................ 2 SNCR....................... Retired 1/15/12.
Salem Harbor............................ 3 LNB, OFA, SNCR............. Operating.
Salem Harbor............................ 4 LNB........................ Operating.
Somerset................................ 8 OFA, Natural Gas Reburn Retired 1/2/10.
System, SNCR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, Massachusetts adopted a set of regulations
to address NOX RACT for the 1-hour ozone standard, and we
approved those requirements into the Commonwealth's SIP. Since then,
Massachusetts has acted to further reduce NOX emissions from
the two largest NOX emitting sectors in the state, namely
municipal waste combustors and electric utility boilers. In light of
the above regulatory actions and NOX control equipment
installations and the resulting decrease in NOX emissions
within Massachusetts, in addition to the initial baseline adoption of
RACT in CMR 7.19, EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' January
31, 2008 SIP certification that the state has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent NOX RACT for purposes of
[[Page 10589]]
compliance with our 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Our decision is also
based, in part, on the fact that both nonattainment areas within the
Commonwealth have attained our 1997 8-hour ozone standard by their
attainment date of June 15, 2010 as noted in Section IV, Proposed
Action.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' January 31, 2008 SIP
submittal that demonstrates that the state has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval
of two revised regulations submitted by Massachusetts on June 1, 2010:
310 CMR 7.18(8), ``Solvent Metal Degreasing;'' and 310 CMR 7.24(6),
``Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel.''
EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX stationary source
control regulations which Massachusetts contends meets RACT for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and determined that a level of control
consistent with RACT has been implemented in the state for purposes of
the 1997 ozone standard. We do not anticipate any difficulties with
enforcing the state's standards, as EPA has previously approved the
rules Massachusetts cites as the means by which RACT is implemented. We
have determined that these regulatory elements and the resulting
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from major sources
demonstrate that a RACT level of control for both pollutants has been
implemented in the state. EPA has previously determined that
Massachusetts' two 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas attained the 1997
ozone standard by their attainment date, based on quality-assured air
monitoring data. This determination was published on May 29, 2012 (77
FR 31496) for the Eastern Massachusetts nonattainment area, and on June
19, 2012 (77 FR 36404) for the Western Massachusetts nonattainment
area. The improvements in air quality represented by these clean data
determinations were brought about, in part, by the RACT program
implemented by Massachusetts.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 5, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-03472 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P