[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74750-74753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25803]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0520; FRL-9952-65-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that addresses regional
haze (RH) for the first planning period. This revision was submitted to
address deficiencies identified in a previous action regarding
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's
rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing
man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program'').
This action concerns Best Available Retrofit Technology for certain
sources.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 28,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0520, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
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, please contact Jennifer Huser, 214-665-
7347, [email protected]. For 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.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Huser, 214-665-7347,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
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 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\ (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714
(July 1, 1999); see 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 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 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 (PM
2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than 250 tons per
year (tpy) or more of any visibility impairing pollutant in order to
address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make
[[Page 74751]]
reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \3\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'', as determined by the state
or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the
CAA. Under the Regional Haze rule, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We promulgated regulations addressing Regional Haze in 1999, 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\4\ These
regulations require all states to submit implementation plans that,
among other measures, contain either emission limits representing BART
for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative
measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir.
2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions
of the regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to
address the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA's Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional Haze
On June 13, 2008, Louisiana submitted a SIP to address regional
haze. EPA acted on that submittal in two separate actions. The first
was a limited disapproval (77 FR 33641) because of deficiencies in the
state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to the EPA of the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The second was a partial limited approval/
partial disapproval (77 FR 39425) because the SIP revision met some but
not all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations
as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, but as a whole, the SIP revision strengthened the SIP. The
deficiencies included inadequate Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) determinations for four facilities. These four facilities are
the only non-electric generating unit (EGU) facilities in Louisiana
that were identified as being subject to BART and are referred to as
the non-EGU facilities.
On August 11 2016, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision intended to
address the deficiencies related to BART for the four non-EGUs.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
A. Introduction to the Four Non-EGU Facilities: Summary
The four non-EGU facilities are: Phillips 66 Company-Alliance
Refinery; Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Uncle Sam Plant; Eco-Services
Operations Corp.; and Sid Richardson Carbon Co., Addis Plant. For three
facilities (Phillips 66, Eco-Services, and Sid Richardson), LDEQ had
submitted a BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of
these facilities, we determined, in our July 3, 2012 notice, that the
BART analysis satisfied part, but not all, of the requirements. We also
found that LDEQ had erred in exempting Mosaic from BART by using future
controls and visibility impacts rather than assessing controls that
were in place at the time of the SIP submittal.
In its August 11, 2016 SIP submittal, LDEQ provided revised BART
analyses for the three facilities to address the deficiencies noted in
the previous Regional Haze SIP action. LDEQ has also provided a BART
analysis for Mosaic. A summary of our proposed findings for these
facilities is provided below. For more details, please see our
evaluation of the BART determination for each of these four subject-to-
BART sources in the TSD.
A. Sid Richardson Carbon Co.
The Sid Richardson Carbon Company's Addis Plant is located in West
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. For the BART eligible units at the
facility, LDEQ submitted in the original Regional Haze SIP a BART
engineering analysis; for particulate matter the LDEQ determined that
the high efficiency fabric filters already in use at the facility are
BART. EPA found that the LDEQ acted within its discretion in making
this determination and that the analyses met the BART requirements.
However, the EPA found that the BART analysis for NOX and
SO2 were deficient. While LDEQ indicated that no controls
were technically feasible, EPA found that the record did not provide a
sufficient basis for this conclusion. Based on this, the NOX
and SO2 BART determination for the Addis Plant was deemed
deficient (77 FR 11851).
The original modeling that was performed showed that the facility
had an impact that was above the contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview
level for determining which sources are subject to BART. The Addis
plant model results were 0.756 deciviews.
In response to the EPA action, Sid Richardson revised the BART
analysis and updated the modeling. The facility requested permission to
perform a new round of modeling using the same emissions parameters
that were used in the original model but utilizing the newest EPA
approved methods and guidance documents. EPA reviewed and concurred
with the methodology and modeling results provided by Sid Richardson.
Based on this analysis, LDEQ concluded that the facility is not
subject-to-BART because its model visibility impact was less than 0.5
deciviews. We have evaluated LDEQ's submittal and propose to approve
the Sid Richardson BART analysis and modeling and the LDEQ's finding
that the Addis plant is not subject-to-BART.
B. Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Refinery (Formerly ConocoPhillips)
The Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66) owns and operates the
Alliance Refinery near Belle Chasse, Louisiana, which is a subject-to-
BART source.\5\ On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the United States
of America and the State of Louisiana, entered into a Consent Decree
(CD) \6\ as part of the National Refinery Initiative for the Belle
Chasse (Alliance) Refinery. In our previous action, we found that the
BART engineering analysis provided by Phillips 66 utilized emission
reductions that are mandated per the CD for the fluidized catalytic
cracker (FCCU), the process refinery flares and the crude unit heater.
However, the LDEQ did not provide a complete BART evaluation for these
units. In the August 11, 2016 SIP revision, LDEQ provided a complete
BART determination for these units. Controls and conditions required by
the CD include a wet gas scrubber on the FCCU, selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) on the FCCU and crude unit heater, flare gas recovery
for the process refinery flares, and compliance with the Standards of
Performance for Petroleum Refineries as prescribed in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart J for the low pressure and high pressure flares, CO boilers,
and crude unit heaters. Implementation of these control projects as per
the CD emissions reduction requirements have resulted in reducing the
overall site visibility impacts. In the previous
[[Page 74752]]
action, we also found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions
limits as part of the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits
are now included in an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) No. AE-
AOC-14-00211A between LDEQ and Phillips 66 and were provided in the
August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the
Alliance Refinery was owned and operated by ConocoPhillips.
Ownership of the Alliance Refinery transferred to Phillips 66 on
April 26, 2012. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution
Agreement between the companies, responsibility for compliance with
the environmental permits now resides with Phillips 66 Company.
\6\ Civil Action No. H-05-0285. A copy of this CD is available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our initial action on Louisiana Regional Haze, we approved
LDEQ's BART determinations for several other subject to BART units at
the Alliance Refinery. These units include the cooling water tower,
gas-fired heaters, loading docks, and the coke transfer and storage
area. See 77 FR at 39432. However, at that time, LDEQ did not submit
the BART emissions limits for approval into the SIP. The BART emissions
limits for these units are also included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00211A.
EPA proposes to find that the current controls installed and
operating conditions at these subject to BART units constitute BART.
The emissions limits for all of the subject to BART units at the
Alliance Refinery are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA approval of this portion of the Regional Haze
SIP submittal, the AOC becomes federally enforceable. We propose to
approve the BART analysis and the emission limits for Phillips 66 as
meeting the BART requirements.
C. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, owns and operates the Uncle Sam Plant
(Mosaic) in St. James Parish, Louisiana and produces phosphoric acid
and sulfuric acid. In our previous action, we partially disapproved
Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP for failure to identify Mosaic as subject
to BART and failure to submit a BART determination for Mosaic.
In Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ used a
contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are
subject to BART, and we approved this threshold in our previous action.
See, 77 FR at 11849. The Regional Haze Rule states that a BART eligible
source can only be exempted from being subject to BART if its
visibility impacts at the time the SIP is developed are less than the
screening value. See, 70 FR 39118; 77 FR at 11849.
In the original Regional Haze SIP submittal, the LDEQ properly
identified Mosaic as a BART eligible source consistent with the BART
Guidelines. However, LDEQ's initial SIP submittal inappropriately
allowed Mosaic to screen out based on controls that were not installed
at the time of the submittal. LDEQ accepted Mosaic's modeling, which
was based on future controls that were to be installed on the A-Train
Sulfuric Acid Stack. Based on the modeling results, the LDEQ listed the
facility as passing both the screening modeling as well as the refined
modeling. As such, LDEQ erroneously determined that the facility was
not subject to BART and, therefore, was not required to perform a BART
analysis.
In our final action (77 FR at 39429), we determined that the state
should have identified the Mosaic facility as being subject to BART and
submitted a BART determination for the source. Mosaic entered into a CD
with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties on December 23, 2009.\7\ The CD
required the installation of controls on the Sulfuric Acid Trains A, D,
and E, including a scrubber system on the A Train and process
improvements on the D Train. These controls resulted in a reduction in
SO2 emissions of over 10,000 tons per year. In its SIP
revision, LDEQ provided a complete BART analysis concluding that
additional control beyond those required by the consent decree would
not be necessary to meet BART. Based on a review of the BART analysis
and LDEQ's determination, EPA agrees that Mosaic, with its current
controls and operating conditions, has satisfied BART. The emissions
limits for Mosaic under current controls and operating conditions are
included in AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A which was included in the August
11, 2016 SIP revision in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(4)(e). Upon EPA
approval of this portion of the Regional Haze SIP submittal, the AOC
becomes federally enforceable. We propose to approve the BART analysis
and the emission limits for Mosaic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Civil Action No. 09-6662. A copy of this CD is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Eco-Services Operations Corp (Formerly Rhodia)
The Eco-Services Operations Corp facility (Eco-Services) is a
sulfuric acid plant located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.\8\ The plant
produces sulfuric acid by using two sulfuric acid production trains,
Unit 1 and Unit 2, but only Unit 2 is subject to BART.\9\ Effective
July 23, 2007, the EPA, LDEQ and other parties entered into a CD with
Eco-Services due to violations associated with excess emissions of
sulfuric acid mist and sulfur dioxide. The CD required a scrubber to be
installed on each of the units to control SO2 emissions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ At the time of Louisiana's initial Regional Haze SIP, the
facility was owned and operated by Rhodia. Effective October 1,
2013, Rhodia Inc. changed its company name and the name of the
facility from Rhodia Inc. to Solvay USA Inc. The LDEQ Office of
Environmental Services acknowledged the name change in
correspondence, dated November 1, 2013. On December 1, 2014, Solvay
USA Inc. transferred ownership and operation of the facility to Eco
Services Operations LLC. Pursuant to the agreement between the
companies and the Department's approval of the permit transfer,
responsibility for compliance with the terms and conditions of
Permit No. 0840-00033-V5 now resides with Eco Services Operations
LLC. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement between
the companies, responsibility for compliance with the environmental
permits now resides with Eco-Services.
\9\ Under the CAA, BART only applies to a unit that was ``in
existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in operation for
more than fifteen years as of such date.'' 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A);
CAA 169A(b)(2)(A). Unit 1 was constructed in 1953, which is outside
the BART timeframe. However, Unit 2 was constructed in 1968.
\10\ Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this CD is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 23, 2012 action (77 FR at 39426), EPA found that with
the selected control strategy, the Eco-Services units met the BART
requirements at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y.OV.D.1.9.\11\ However, EPA
found that the LDEQ failed to submit the emissions limits as part of
the SIP revision as required. The emissions limits are included in the
AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00957 between LDEQ and Eco-Services, which was
provided in the August 11, 2016 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We acknowledge that compliance with the BART Guidelines in
40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y is not mandatory for Eco-Services because
Eco-Services is a non-EGU source. However, following these
Guidelines is one option for subject-to-BART non-EGUs to ensure BART
determinations are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the BART analysis, Eco-Services identified both a short term and
long term limit control level for SO2. The long term
emissions limits for Eco-Services under current controls and operating
conditions are included in the AOC in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(4)(e) and are federally enforceable. The short term limit
provided in the BART analysis is 3 lbs/ton, consistent with the limits
established in the Consent Decree. The long term limit in the Consent
Decree includes an exemption for emissions during startup shutdown and
malfunction. However, the short term emissions are limited by the New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR
part 60, subpart H). This short term limit is applicable at all times
and is adequate to meet BART during periods of startup and shutdown.
EPA concurs with LDEQ's evaluation and findings that the current
controls in place, along with the federally enforceable limits
established in the AOC and through applicability to
[[Page 74753]]
the NSPS standard, constitutes BART. We propose to approve the BART
analysis and the emission limits for Eco-Services. Upon approval the
limits in the SIP these limits will be federally enforceable.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve Louisiana's Regional Haze SIP revision
submitted on August 11, 2016. Specifically, we are proposing to find
that the following elements have satisfied the federal requirement:
the State's identification of BART-eligible sources,
the State's determination that Sid Richardson Addis Plant
is not subject to BART,
the State's BART determinations for Phillips 66, Eco-
Services, and Mosaic.
IV. 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 action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze,
Best available control technology.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 11, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-25803 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P