[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 220 (Monday, November 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70718-70721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29175]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0398: FRL-9937-11-Region 10]
Approval of Regional Haze BART Alternative Measure: Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) alternative measure
for the BP Cherry Point Refinery located near Ferndale, Washington. The
BART alternative measure increases the oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emission limit from the R-1 HC Reactor Heater (R-1
Heater), a BART-eligible source currently subject to BART emission
limits on NOX. To offset the increase in NOX
emissions from this emission unit, the NOX emission limits
on the 1st Stage Hydrocracker Fractionator Reboiler (R-1 Reboiler),
also a BART-eligible source subject to BART emission limits on
NOX, will be reduced. The net effect of these changes is a
decrease of 10.4 tons per year (tpy) of allowable NOX
emissions from sources subject to BART at the BP Cherry Point Refinery.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0398, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2015-
[[Page 70719]]
0398. The 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 the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the 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 the 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, the 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 the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the 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 docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information,
the disclosure of which 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. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle WA, 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at (206) 553-0782,
[email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures
III. Washington's State Implementation Plan Revision Submittal
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revision Submittal
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established
a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national
parks and wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the
visibility provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the
problem of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. The EPA promulgated
regional haze regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement sections 169A and
169B of the CAA. These regulations require states to develop and
implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward improving
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 \1\ (Class I areas).
See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); sec also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and
71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by air pollution, principally fine particulate, produced by numerous
sources and activities, located across a broad regional area. The
sources include but are not limited to, major and minor stationary
sources, mobile sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic
sources. These sources and activities may emit fine particles
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), NOX, and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particulate can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication. See
64 FR at 35715. Data from the existing visibility monitoring network,
the ``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments''
(IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by
air pollution occurs virtually all the time in most national parks and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas in the
western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air
pollution.\2\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by
season depending on variations in meteorology and emission rates. The
deciview (dv) is the metric by which visibility is measured in the
regional haze program. A change of 1 dv is generally considered the
change in visual range that the human eye can perceive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to
contain emission limitations representing BART and schedules for
compliance with BART for each source subject to BART, unless the state
demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions.
II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures
The RHR contains provisions whereby a state may choose to implement
an alternative measure as an alternative to BART if the state can
demonstrate that the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable
progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions than would be
achieved through the installation, operation and maintenance of BART.
The requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). As explained in the RHR, the state must demonstrate that
all necessary emission reductions will take place during the first long
term strategy period (i.e., by 2018) and that the emissions reductions
resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)
and (iv). Sources subject to BART must be in compliance with the BART
emission limitations as expeditiously as practical but no later than 5
years after EPA approves the implementation plan revision. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
III. Washington's State Implementation Plan Revision Submittal
On December 22, 2010, Washington submitted to the EPA for approval
a
[[Page 70720]]
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (2010 RH SIP) to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. The SIP submittal covers the planning
period of 2008 through 2018 and, among the other required elements,
includes a BART determination for the BP Cherry Point Refinery located
near Ferndale Washington. On June 11, 2014, the EPA approved certain
BART-related provisions of Washington's 2010 RH SIP, including the
final BART determination for the BP Cherry Point Refinery. See 79 FR
33438. That approval incorporated by reference specified conditions of
Administrative Order No. 7836 issued by Washington to BP Cherry Point
Refinery on July 7, 2010 (Original BART Order). See 40 CFR 52.2470(d).
On May 8, 2015, the State submitted a revision to the 2010 RH SIP
that includes a BART alternative measure for the BP Cherry Point
Refinery. This BART alternative measure is contained in Administrative
Order 7836, Revision 2-Inclusion of BART Alternative, dated May 13,
2015 (Revision 2). The BART alternative measure would revise the BART
emission limits in Conditions 2.6.1.2 and 2.7.1 of the original BART
Order that apply to the R1-Heater and R1-Boiler, respectively, and are
currently incorporated by reference into the Federally-approved SIP for
Washington. The current Federally-approved Condition 2.6.1.2 limits
NOX emissions from the R1-Heater to 3.6 pounds per hour (lb/
hr) based on a 24-hour rolling average. Condition 2.5.1.2 of Revision 2
increases the NOX emission limit on the R1-Heater to 4.9 lb/
hr based on a 24-hour rolling average.
To offset the NOX emissions increase at the R1-Heater,
Revision 2 contains a BART alternative measure. Revision 2 decreases
the NOX emission limits for the R1-Boiler associated with
the hydrocracker to reflect the installation of ultra-low
NOX burners that were installed after Washington's
submission of the 2010 RH SIP. Condition 2.7.1 of the original BART
Order currently approved in the SIP limits NOX emissions
from the R1-Boiler to 0.07 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/MMBtu) and 56.2 tpy. Condition 2.6.2 of Revision 2 reduces these
limits to 0.05 lb/MMBtu and 9.9 lb/hr.
Revision 2 also: (1) Adds language clarifying that when an emission
unit subject to BART is decommissioned and permanently taken out of
service, the BART emission limits no longer apply to that unit and, (2)
allows the State to revise the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements through issuance of a regulatory order, rather than
through a revision of the BART order, provided the revised monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provide equal or better information on the
compliance status of the emission unit in question.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Between issuing the original BART Order that was
incorporated into the SIP and submission of BART Order Revision 2,
Washington issued BP a BART Order Revision 1 in May 2013 (Revision
1). Revision 1 removed from the Original BART Order the conditions
for Boilers #6 and #7, two units that were not BART-eligible.
Boilers #6 and #7 replaced Boilers #1 and #3 that were subject to
BART. This action resulted in a renumbering of conditions in the
order. The original BART Order required that Boilers #1 and #3 be
decommissioned by no later than March 27, 2010. Boilers #6 and #7
were subject to New Source Review and are not subject to BART. The
Conditions in the Original BART Order applicable to Boilers #6 and
#7 were not incorporated into the SIP, see 79 FR 33440, and Revision
1 was not submitted by Washington to the EPA as a SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revision Submittal
A. BART Alternative Measure
The EPA evaluated the emission reductions associated with the BART
alternative measure. The BART alternative measure revises the 24-hour
maximum mass emission limit for the R-1 Heater, but does not revise the
concentration limit for this unit. The concentration limit remains 26
parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
based on a 24-hour rolling average. However, Washington requests
approval to revise the Federally-approved NOX BART mass
emission limit on the R1-Heater from 3.6 lb/hr to 4.9 lb/hr of
NOX, reflecting an increase in operation of the burners from
88 mmBTU/hr to 120 mmBTU/hr. This change results in an increase in the
hourly average mass emission limit from the R-1 Heater of 1.3 lb/hr of
NOX. The increase in annual emissions is 5.7 tons of
NOX per year.
The increase in the allowable mass NOX emissions from
the R-1 Heater is offset by a decrease in the emission limit for the R-
1 Reboiler. This decrease results from the installation of ultra-low
NOX burners on the R-1 Reboiler. The emission limit is
reduced from the current 0.07 lb/MMBtu and 12.8 lb/hr to 0.05 lb/MMBtu
and 9.9 lb/hr. The net emission reduction in allowable NOX
emissions as a result of the BART alternative measure is 1.6 lb/hr, on
a 24-hour rolling average. These emission reductions are not otherwise
required by the CAA as of the baseline date of Washington's regional
haze SIP and thus may be considered surplus.
These are emission reductions that are achieved at the same
location and for the same visibility impairing pollutant,
NOX. Thus, because the BART alternative measure in
Washington's submission results in a greater emissions reduction than
BART, the BART alternative measure is deemed to achieve greater
reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). With reduced
NOX emissions, reduced visibility impairment from the
formation of secondary nitrate would be expected.
The EPA believes the BART alternative measure submitted by
Washington as a SIP revision meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) and proposes to approve it.
B. Decommissioned BART Units
Condition 9 of Revision 2 is a new provision that states the BART
requirements for an emission unit specifically listed in Revision 2 do
not apply after the BP Cherry Point Refinery has certified in writing
to Washington and the local air pollution authority that the named BART
emission unit ``has been permanently taken out of service and
dismantled.'' The State explains in its submittal that any replacement
unit would be subject to new source review and would not be subject to
BART. Ecology's SIP meets the requirements for new source review under
40 CFR 51.307 and will ensure that new subject sources will not have an
adverse impact on visibility and will be consistent with making
reasonable further progress towards the national visibility goal, as
applicable. See WAC 173-400-117.
Although not a BART requirement on the BP Cherry Point Refinery,
this condition results in a clear statement that BART requirements no
longer apply to an emission unit once subject to BART that has been
permanently taken out of service and dismantled. The EPA therefore
proposes to approve Condition 9.
C. Revisions to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
As discussed above, Revision 2 includes a provision authorizing the
State to revise the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in Revision 2 in a regulatory order. See Revision 2,
Condition 10. Washington explains that any revised monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements approved by the State under
Condition 10 will need to be submitted to, and approved by, the EPA as
a SIP revision in order to become the applicable federally-enforceable
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Thus, in the
interim, both sets of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements apply to the source and must be included in the Title V
permit. The EPA agrees with this assessment.
[[Page 70721]]
The EPA has a longstanding interpretation of the CAA that prohibits
``director's discretion'' provisions in SIPs if they provide unbounded
discretion to allow what would amount to a case-specific revision of
the SIP without meeting the statutory requirements of the CAA for SIP
revisions. See 80 FR 33840, 22874-75 (June 12, 2015); see also 40 CFR
52.2476 (specifically providing that any change of a provision to the
Washington SIP must be submitted by the State for approval by the EPA
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.104). Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to
not approve Condition 10.
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to approve the BART alternative measure for the BP
Cherry Point Refinery located near Ferndale, Washington by
incorporating by reference the conditions of Revision 2 identified
below. The EPA proposes to remove the BP Cherry Point Refinery, BART
Compliance Order No. 7836 currently in the Federally approved SIP at 40
CFR 52.2470(d) and replace it with provisions of the BP Cherry Point
Refinery, BART Compliance Order No. 7836 Revision 2. The EPA is also
proposing to approve new Condition 9 of the BART Compliance Order 7836
Revision 2 relating to decommissioned units. The conditions of the BP
BART Compliance Order Revision 2 that are proposed for incorporation by
reference are:
Condition 1: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2;
Condition 2: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1,
2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.2.1, 2.5, 2.5.1,
2.5.1.1, 2.5.1.2, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.7,
2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3, 2.8.4, 2.8.5,
2.8.6;
Condition 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4;
Condition 4, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4;
Condition 5, 5.1, 5.2;
Condition 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3;
Condition 7; and
Condition 9.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing
to revise our incorporation by reference located in 40 CFR 52.2470(d)--
``EPA-Approved State Source-Specific Requirements--Washington'' to
reflect the proposed approval of the BART alternative measure for the
BP Cherry Point Refinery and the provision relating to decommissioned
units. Due to the fact that the conditions in the original BART Order
were renumbered in Revision 1, which was not submitted as a SIP
revision, the EPA is proposing to remove the original IBR entry for
``BP Cherry Point Refinery'' in its entirety and incorporate in its
place the specified conditions of Revision 2 included in the docket for
this action. The end result is that all of the conditions in the
Original BART order remain in the SIP (but with different numbers)
except as discussed above with respect to the BART alternative measure
and the addition of Condition 9. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian reservations in the State or to any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 3, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-29175 Filed 11-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P