[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35451-35454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783; FRL-9965-45-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for
Verso Luke Paper Mill
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision pertains to a best available retrofit technology (BART)
alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill (the Mill) submitted
by the State of Maryland. Maryland requests new emissions limits for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
for power boiler 24 at the Mill and a SO2 cap on tons
emitted per year for power boiler 25, while also requesting removal of
the specific BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX
from power boiler 25. The alternative BART measure will provide greater
reasonable progress for SO2 and NOX for regional
haze by resulting in additional emission reductions of 2,055 tons per
year (tpy) of SO2 and an additional 804 tpy of
NOX than would occur through the previously approved BART
measure for power boiler 25, a BART subject source. No comments were
received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking notice published on
May 30, 2017. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by air pollution, principally by fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), 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 PM2.5 (e.g. sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g.
SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
In the 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. 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 towards improving visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.\1\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders,
there are several Class I areas nearby including Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia;
Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains National
Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face and
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; Linville Gorge in North
Carolina; and Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to
contain emission limitations representing best available retrofit
technology (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. The
requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
In addition to demonstrating greater reasonable progress towards
improving
[[Page 35452]]
visibility, among other things, the RHR also requires that all
necessary emission reductions from a BART alternative take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze (i.e.,
2008-2018) and requires a demonstration that the emission reductions
from the alternative measure will be surplus to the reductions from
measures adopted to meet CAA requirements as of the baseline date of
the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The baseline date for regional haze SIPs
is 2002. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf. See 79 FR 56322,
56328-29 (September 19, 2014) (proposing approval of alternative BART
for Arizona SIP).
Maryland's regional haze SIP was submitted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012 and approved
by EPA in June 2012. See 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). This regional
haze SIP included, among other measures, BART emission limits for power
boiler 25 at the Verso Luke Paper Mill because power boiler 25 was a
BART subject source. The BART emission limits which EPA had approved in
June 2012 for power boiler 25 were 0.44 pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for SO2, a 30-day rolling limit of
0.40 lb/MMBtu for NOX, and 0.07 lb/MMBtu for particulate
matter (PM).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While EPA's approval of Maryland's regional haze SIP in 2012
included a PM limit for power boiler 25 of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, Maryland
is not seeking to revise that PM limit for BART on power boiler 25
and thus the PM limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu remains on power boiler 25.
See 77 FR 39938. This rulemaking action pertains to adjusting the
BART limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24614), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed
approval of the BART alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill.
No comments were received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking
notice. The formal SIP revision (#16-14) was submitted by the State of
Maryland on November 28, 2016.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The SIP revision seeks to revise the BART strategy for the Verso
Luke Paper Mill, specifically the emission limits for power boiler 25
for SO2 and NOX. MDE states that Verso Luke Paper
Mill is eliminating the use of coal as a source of fuel used in power
boiler 24 and replacing it with natural gas. MDE's SIP revision
submittal seeks alternative BART emission limits for SO2 and
NOX for power boiler 24, and seeks to remove the previously
approved BART requirements for SO2 and NOX from
power boiler 25 and replace them with new, alternative emission
requirements. Specifically, for power boiler 24 at the Mill, Maryland's
SIP revision seeks to establish (1) a new BART emission limit of 0.28
lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average for SO2; (2) a new
BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/MMBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling
average for NOX; and (3) associated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For power boiler 25, this SIP
revision seeks to: (1) Remove the SO2 BART emission limit
approved by EPA in June 2012 and seeks to establish an annual
SO2 cap of 9,876 tons measured on a 12-month rolling
average; (2) remove the NOX BART emission limit but retain
existing requirements under COMAR 26.11.14.07 applicable to the power
boiler; and (3) impose associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. The BART requirements for PM approved by EPA in
June 2012 on power boiler 25 would remain unchanged.
MDE's analysis demonstrates that the alternative SO2
BART measure (i.e. new SO2 emission limit on power boiler
24; removal of approved SO2 BART limit and new annual
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) would provide an additional
2,055 tpy in SO2 emissions reductions (or 20% more emission
reductions) than the tons per year to be reduced by the currently
approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. MDE's analysis also
shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on power boiler
24 (with removed BART limit on power boiler 25) would provide an
additional 804 tpy in NOX emission reductions than the
currently approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. Finally, MDE's
analysis shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on
power boiler 24 would provide a 227 tons per ozone season
NOX benefit than would the currently approved BART
requirements on power boiler 25.
Thus, with the additional SO2 and NOX
emission reductions per year, EPA finds that the alternative
SO2 and NOX BART emission limits on power boiler
24 (with the SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) will provide
for greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility
conditions than would be achieved through the currently approved BART
emission limits on power boiler 25. EPA also finds the emission
reductions from the new limits on power boiler 24 (and SO2
tpy cap on power boiler 25) have been implemented before the end of the
first regional haze planning period (i.e. 2018). In addition, the
emission reductions from the proposed BART emission limits for power
boiler 24 for SO2 and NOX are surplus to
reductions resulting from CAA requirements as of the baseline date of
the SIP or 2002. More information on Maryland's SIP submittal and on
EPA's analysis of emission reductions from the alternative BART measure
(including discussion of the reductions as implemented and surplus) is
provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available
online at www.regulations.gov for this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA finds
Maryland's SIP revision for the alternative BART emission limits for
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (and
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) meet the requirements for an
alternative BART measure in accordance with CAA section 169A and as
established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) in the RHR.
In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision, which seeks to
remove BART SO2 and NOX emission limits for power
boiler 25 from the approved Maryland regional haze SIP, meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or
any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA finds that Maryland has
demonstrated that additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions will be achieved each year with the alternative BART
emission limits on power boiler 24 and SO2 tpy cap on power
boiler 25, and as such, no interference with reasonable further
progress or any NAAQS is expected. As discussed previously, the
alternative BART emission limits on power boiler 24 meet other CAA
requirements in section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Other specific
requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained
in the NPR as well as the technical support document (TSD) under Docket
ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783, available online at www.regulations.gov,
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the
NPR.
III. Final Action
EPA has reviewed Maryland's SIP revision seeking an alternative
BART measure and emission limits for power boiler 24 (and
SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) compared to EPA's previously
federally enforceable BART limits for SO2 and NOX
on power boiler 25. EPA finds that the alternative BART measure for
Verso Luke Paper Mill with SO2 and NOX limits as
alternative BART on
[[Page 35453]]
power boiler 24 will result in greater emission reductions in
SO2 and NOX from the facility and provide greater
reasonable progress and greater visibility improvement than the
currently approved BART measure which applies solely to power boiler
25. Specifically, the conversion of power boiler 24 from a coal-burning
boiler to a natural gas power boiler with new emission limits contained
within a federally enforceable permit is expected to result in fewer
SO2 and NOX emissions from the Mill. MDE's
analysis shows that in comparison to the currently approved BART
requirements on power boiler 25, the alternative BART measure on power
boiler 24 of 0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average for
SO2 and 0.4 lb/MMBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling average
for NOX with the 9,876 SO2 cap on power boiler
25, would provide (1) an additional 2,055 tpy in SO2
emissions reductions; (2) an additional 804 tpy in NOX
emission reductions; and (3) a 227 tons per ozone season NOX
benefit. In addition, EPA finds that the alternative BART emission
limits will result in reductions surplus to CAA requirements as of 2002
and will be implemented prior to the end of 2018. EPA is approving the
November 28, 2016 SIP submittal as it meets the requirements in CAA
section 169A and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA is also incorporating by
reference the permit requirements for power boilers 24 and 25 issued
August 17, 2016 for the Mill, which include alternative emission
requirements, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
EPA also finds that this SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(l) and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance
of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA
requirement. Therefore, EPA is approving Maryland's November 28, 2016
SIP revision submittal as it meets CAA requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to alternative BART emission limits for
Verso Luke Paper Mill may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 13, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
0
2. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Maryland Regional Haze Plan'' directly below the existing
``Maryland Regional Haze Plan'' entry that has a state submittal date
of 2/13/2012 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 35454]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State Additional
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maryland Regional Haze Plan... Statewide........... 11/28/2016 7/31/2017 [insert Establishes the
Federal Register alternative BART
citation]. limits for Verso
Luke Paper Mill
power boiler 24 of
0.28 lb/MMBtu,
measured as an
hourly average for
SO2; and 0.4 lb/
MMBtu, measured on a
30-day rolling
average for NOX; and
9,876 SO2 cap on
power boiler 25.
Also incorporates by
reference
monitoring,
recordkeeping and
reporting
requirements. These
requirements replace
BART measure
originally approved
on 2/13/12 for Luke
Paper Mill.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2017-15979 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P