[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19662-19681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8166]
[[Page 19661]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 67
April 7, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Response to Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions
From the Portland Generating Station; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19662]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081; FRL-9291-2]
RIN 2060-AQ69
Response to Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO2
Emissions From the Portland Generating Station
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes to make a finding that the coal-
fired Portland Generating Station (Portland Plant) in Upper Mount
Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, is emitting air
pollutants in violation of the interstate transport provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, EPA is proposing to find that
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the Portland Plant
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. This finding is proposed in response to
a petition submitted by the State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on September 17, 2010. In this action,
EPA is also proposing emission limitations and compliance schedules to
ensure that the Portland Plant will no longer significantly contribute
to nonattainment, and no longer interfere with maintenance of the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, thereby permitting continued operation of
the Portland Plant beyond the 3-month limit established by the CAA for
sources subject to such a finding.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2011.
Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held on April 27, 2011, in
the Pequest Trout Hatchery and Natural Resources Education Center
located in Oxford, Warren County, New Jersey 07863. Please refer to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment
period and the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0081 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081.
E-mail: [email protected]. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0081.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of 2 copies. Hand Delivery: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1301
Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0081. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 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, avoid any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations. gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Todd Hawes (919-541-5591),
[email protected], or Ms. Gobeail McKinley (919-541-5246),
[email protected], Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (C539-04), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this action will be
posted on EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
[[Page 19663]]
Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. How can I find information about the public hearing?
The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposal on April 27,
2011. The hearing will be held at the following location: Pequest Trout
Hatchery and Natural Resources Education Center located on 605 Pequest
Road in Oxford, New Jersey 07863. The public hearing will begin at 12
noon and continue until 8 p.m., or later if necessary depending on the
number of speakers. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all
speakers that arrive and register before 8 p.m. A dinner break is
scheduled from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. during the hearing. Oral testimony
will be limited to 5 minutes per commenter. The EPA encourages
commenters to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either
electronically or in paper copy. Verbatim transcripts and written
statements will be included in the rulemaking docket. If you would like
to present oral testimony at the hearing, please notify Ms. Pam S.
Long, Air Quality Policy Division (C504-03), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0641,
[email protected]. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony
should notify Ms. Long at least 2 days in advance of the public
hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. Long if they will need specific
equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing
comments at the public hearing. The EPA will provide equipment for
commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide
presentations if we receive special requests in advance. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically (via e-mail or CD) or in hard copy form. For
updates and additional information on the public hearing, please check
EPA's Web site for this rulemaking, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the
proposed rule. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral
presentations, but will not respond to the presentations or comments at
that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as
any oral comments and supporting information presented at a public
hearing.
D. How is the preamble organized?
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
C. How can I find information about a public hearing?
D. How is the preamble organized?
II. EPA's Proposed Decision on NJDEP's September 17, 2010 Section
126 Petition
III. Background
A. Section 126 of the Clean Air Act
B. Summary of Section 126 Petitions Submitted by NJDEP
1. NJDEP's May 13, 2010 Petition
2. NJDEP's September 17, 2010 Petition
C. EPA Extensions for Acting on the Section 126 Petitions
D. Background on the Portland Plant and Its Surrounding Area
E. Sulfur Dioxide and Public Health
IV. EPA's Methodology for Making the Proposed Section 126 Finding
for the Portland Plant
A. EPA's Approach for Determining Whether To Make a Section 126
Finding for the Portland Plant
1. CAA Section 126(b)
2. EPA's Approach To Evaluating NJDEP's Section 126 Petition
V. Summary and Assessment of the Modeling and Other Data Relevant to
EPA's Finding
A. Summary of the Modeling Submitted by NJDEP To Support the
Petition
B. EPA's Assessment of the Modeling Submitted by NJDEP
1. NJDEP's Model Selection
a. CALPUFF Alternative Model Justification
2. Emissions and Source Characteristics
3. Meteorological Data
4. Receptor/Terrain Data
5. AERMOD Results
C. Summary of NJDEP's Trajectory Analysis and the Columbia Lake
Monitor
VI. EPA's Decision on Whether To Make a Section 126 Finding or Deny
the Petition
VII. EPA's Proposed Remedy
A. Quantification of the Emission Reductions Necessary To
Eliminate the Portland Plant's Significant Contribution
1. Summary of EPA's Remedy Modeling for 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS
2. Model Selection
3. Meteorological Data
4. Receptor/Terrain Data
5. Portland Plant Emissions and Source Characteristics
6. Identification of Background Concentration To Use in the
Remedy Analysis
7. Summary of EPA's Modeling Results
a. Calculation of Emissions Limits Based on Maximum Modeled
Impacts From Units 1 and 2 Plus Background
VIII. Proposed Emission Limits and Compliance Schedules
A. Statutory Requirements for Sources for Which EPA Makes a
Section 126(b) Finding
B. Proposed Emission Limits
C. Proposed Compliance Schedules
D. Alternative Compliance Schedule
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
II. EPA's Proposed Decision on NJDEP's September 17, 2010 Section 126
Petition
EPA is proposing to grant the request in NJDEP's September 17,
2010, section 126 petition for a finding that emissions from the
Portland Plant significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.
EPA's proposed finding is based on EPA's review of NJDEP's air quality
modeling, EPA's independent assessment of the AERMOD \1\ dispersion
modeling, and
[[Page 19664]]
other technical analysis conducted by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AERMOD stands for the American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In granting this request, EPA is also proposing to allow the
continued operation of the plant and to establish specific emission
limitations and compliance schedules (including increments of progress)
to bring the plant into compliance as expeditiously as practicable with
the CAA prohibition of emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance. EPA is proposing to
require that the Portland Plant reduce its SO2 emissions to
a limit no greater than 1,105 lbs/hour for unit 1 and 1,691 lbs/hour
for unit 2. EPA proposes that the Portland Plant achieve and maintain
these emission limitations by no later than 3 years after the effective
date of the final rulemaking. EPA is taking comment on possible interim
emission reductions such as proposing that the Portland Plant reduce
its SO2 emissions to a level no greater than 2,910 lbs/hr
for unit 1, and 4,450 lbs/hr for unit 2, one year after the effective
date of the final rulemaking, and other compliance activities to
demonstrate appropriate increments of progress toward compliance. EPA
has identified a number of existing, proven control technologies, as
well as operational changes that can be employed to reduce emissions
from these units. Nevertheless, EPA is also taking comment on an
alternative compliance option should the Portland Plant decide to cease
operation at the units subject to the emission limits, and is
requesting comment on appropriate timeframes and measures for
increments of progress to include for that alternative compliance
option. EPA proposes that the emission limits and other measures
established along with this finding are sufficient to remedy the
Portland Plant's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in the impacted area in New Jersey.
III. Background
A. Section 126 of the Clean Air Act
The statutory authority for this action is provided by the CAA,
including but not necessarily limited to, sections 126 and
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Section 126(b) of the CAA provides, among other things, that any
State or political subdivision may petition the Administrator of EPA to
find that any major source or group of stationary sources in upwind
States emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the
prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),\2\ which we describe later in
detail. 42 U.S.C. 7426(b). Findings by the Administrator, pursuant to
this section, that a source or group of sources emit air pollutants in
violation of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prohibition are commonly
referred to as section 126 findings. Similarly, petitions submitted
pursuant to this section are commonly referred to as section 126
petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The text of section 126 codified in the United States Code
cross references section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) instead of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that this is a
scrivener's error and the correct cross reference is to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032,
1040-44 (DC Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 126(c) explains the impact of a section 126 finding and
establishes the conditions under which continued operation of a source
subject to such a finding may be permitted. Specifically, section
126(c) provides that it would be a violation of section 126 of the Act
and of the applicable State implementation plan: (1) For any major
proposed new or modified source subject to a section 126 finding to be
constructed or operate in violation of the prohibition of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i); or (2) for any major existing source for which such a
finding has been made to operate more than three months after the date
of the finding. 42 U.S.C. 7426(c). The statute, however, also gives the
Administrator discretion to permit the continued operation of a source
beyond three months if the source complies with emission limitations
and compliance schedules provided by EPA to bring about compliance with
the requirements contained in sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 3 years from the date of
the finding. Id.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, often referred to as the ``good
neighbor'' or ``interstate transport'' provision of the Act, requires
States to prohibit certain emissions from in-State sources if such
emissions impact the air quality in downwind States. Specifically,
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires all States, within 3 years of
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, to submit State implementation
plans (SIPs) that: contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any
air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State
with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard, or interfere with measures required to be included in
the applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility. (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)).
EPA has previously promulgated rules to quantify the specific
SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission reductions
required in certain eastern States by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). See 62 FR 57356 (NOX SIP Call); 70 FR
25162 (CAIR).\3\ EPA has also promulgated Federal rules to directly
require such reductions. See 71 FR 25318 [finalizing Federal
Implementation Plans for Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)]; 65 FR 2674
(making section 126 findings for numerous large EGUs and finalizing a
remedy for the affected sources). Most recently, EPA proposed the
Transport Rule to address significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 45210). Among other things,
this proposed rule identifies SO2 and NOX
reductions that will be needed in certain States to address
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance problems in other
States. See 75 FR 45129-21 (discussing the air quality problems and the
specific NAAQS addressed by the proposal). SO2 and
NOX are identified as the pollutants of concern because of
their impact on downwind States' ability to attain and maintain the
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. See 75 FR 45237, 45299.
SO2 and NOX are PM2.5 precursors and
NOX is also an ozone precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAIR was subsequently found unlawful and remanded to EPA
without vacatur, and thus remains in place while EPA responds to the
remand. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, modified on reh'g,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problems associated with high levels of SO2 in the
air, however, are separate and distinct from the problems associated
with high levels of PM2.5 and are addressed by a separate
NAAQS, namely the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 75 FR 35520 (Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide). The
Transport Rule will not seek to identify or quantify reductions
necessary to address significant contribution or interference with
maintenance with respect to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In other
words, the proposed Transport Rule does not address transport with
respect to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and thus does not address
the concern raised in NJDEP's section 126 petition. Similarly, State
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions relating to the ozone or
PM2.5 NAAQS would address only significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of those NAAQS and thus
would not address the concerns raised
[[Page 19665]]
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment and interference
with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
In addition, it is worth noting that the plain language of the
statute confirms that section 126 remedies can, and in some cases must,
be promulgated prior to the due date for good neighbor SIPs. Not only
does section 126 provide a very stringent deadline for EPA to respond
to section 126 petitions, but section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also calls for
remedies promulgated pursuant to section 126 to be included in the SIP
submissions that are due 3 years after a NAAQS is promulgated or
revised. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires State SIPs to contain
adequate provisions ``insuring compliance with the applicable
requirements of [CAA section 126]''. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D).
Consistent with the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(1), the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be required to adopt and submit to
the Administrator, by June 2013 (3 years after the promulgation of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS), a SIP that satisfies the requirements of
110(a)(2) including the interstate transport requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In other words, the statute requires the State SIP
submittal to include any emission limits promulgated by EPA pursuant to
section 126. The fact that Congress required the SIP submittals due 3
years after promulgation or revision of a NAAQS to include any emission
limits promulgated pursuant to section 126 is meaningful. If Congress
had intended to limit EPA's authority to act on section 126 petitions
until after the deadline for States to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIPs, it
could have done so. Instead, it provided a mechanism for section 126
remedies promulgated prior to the SIP submission deadline to be
incorporated into the State SIPs. EPA is bound by the language of the
CAA. Since the statute establishes firm deadlines for action on section
126 petitions, does not provide an exception for petitions submitted
prior to the good neighbor SIP submission deadline, and provides a
mechanism for incorporating reductions required in response to section
126 petitions into the State SIPs, EPA believes it does not have
discretion to delay action on a section 126 petition just because the
State SIP submission deadline has not yet passed. EPA requests comment
on this interpretation and all interpretations of section 126 in this
section.
EPA has received one prior petition, in 1979, asking for a section
126 finding with respect to a single source. In this petition, the Air
Pollution Control District of Jefferson County, Kentucky, requested
that EPA find, pursuant to the version of section 110(a)(2)(E)(I) of
the CAA in effect at that time, that emissions from the Gallagher Power
Station in southern Indiana were preventing attainment and maintenance
with respect to the 1971 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2
NAAQS.\4\ 47 FR 6624 (1982). The petition also sought a reduction of
SO2 emissions from the plant. EPA denied that petition
basing its decision, in part, on a modeling analysis concluding that
the Gallagher Power Station's modeled allowable emissions were
substantially below amounts that would prevent attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. In this proposal, EPA is also using modeling
analyses to decide whether to make a section 126 finding or deny the
petition. EPA's decision on the 1979 petition was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)(I) of the CAA was superseded by
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 1990 CAA amendments, in part to strengthen
the prohibitions of interstate transport of emissions (64 FR 28262).
The relevant wording under 110(a)(2)(E)(i)(I) was changed from
``prevent attainment or maintenance by any other State'' to
``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State'' under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\5\ See Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County,
Kentucky v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071, (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Section 126 Petitions Submitted by NJDEP
1. NJDEP's May 13, 2010 Petition
On May 13, 2010, EPA received from the NJDEP a section 126 petition
requesting that EPA make a finding that the Portland Plant is emitting
air pollutants in violation of the interstate transport provisions of
the CAA. The petition alleges that emissions from the Portland Plant
significantly contribute to nonattainment and/or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1971 3-
hour and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. That petition is
still under consideration and this action does not address the petition
submitted on May 13, 2010.
2. NJDEP's September 17, 2010 Petition
On September 17, 2010, EPA received another section 126 petition
from NJDEP requesting that EPA make a finding under section 126(b) of
the CAA that the Portland Plant is emitting air pollutants in violation
of the interstate transport provisions of the CAA with respect to the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS promulgated on June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520).
NJDEP stated that this petition provided additional documentation to
supplement the section 126 petition from May 13, 2010.
NJDEP also submitted a modeling and trajectory analysis to support
the assertions in the September 17, 2010, petition. This analysis, it
asserts, demonstrates that the Portland Plant causes violations of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon
Counties in New Jersey. NJDEP's petition asks EPA to directly regulate
the Portland Plant and requests the installation of appropriate air
pollution controls, such as a scrubber, which it asserts would provide
the necessary abatement. As an alternative to address the alleged
violations, NJDEP's petition suggests that the EPA could impose
emission limits no less stringent than New Jersey's Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) rules set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:27-
1.1 et seq.
C. EPA Extensions for Acting on the Section 126 Petition
Any action taken by EPA under section 126 to make a finding or deny
a petition is subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section
307(d). See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(N). One of these requirements is
notice-and-comment rulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(3). In light of
the time required for notice-and-comment rulemaking, CAA section
307(d)(10) provides for a time extension, under certain circumstances,
for rulemaking subject to section 307(d).
In accordance with section 307(d)(10), EPA determined that the 60-
day period afforded by section 126(b) for responding to the petition
from the NJDEP was not sufficient to allow the public and EPA adequate
opportunity to carry out the purposes of section 307(d). Specifically,
EPA determined that the 60-day period was insufficient for EPA to
develop an adequate proposal and allow time for notice-and-comment on
whether the Portland Plant contributes significantly to nonattainment
and/or maintenance problems in New Jersey. Based on these
determinations, on November 16, 2010, EPA published a notice extending
the deadline for action on the September 17, 2010, petition until May
16, 2011 (75 FR 69889). In this notice, EPA also explained its
conclusion that the September 17, 2010, petition submitted by NJDEP is
a new petition and not a supplement to the May 13, 2010, petition.
D. Background on the Portland Plant and Its Surrounding Area
The Portland Plant is a 427 megawatt (MW) coal-fired plant located
in Upper Mount Bethel Township in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. It
is within 500 feet of Knowlton Township in Warren County, New
[[Page 19666]]
Jersey, directly across the Delaware River. There are two main units,
unit 1 with a capacity of 160 MW and unit 2 with a capacity of 240 MW.
There is an auxiliary boiler which burns oil and 3 small turbines
(units 3, 4, and 5) which all burn oil and natural gas, and have very
small emissions.
Units 1, 2, and 5 utilize continuous emissions monitoring system
(CEMS). In 2009, SO2 emissions combined from units 1 and 2
at the plant were 30,465 tons and emissions from unit 5 were 0.3 tons
which are reported from CEMS data. Between 2007 and 2010, units 1 and 2
operated, on average, approximately 7,000 hours per year. Also, between
2007 and 2010, unit 5 operated for less than 100 hours per year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Facility unit data is available at the EPA Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) database available at http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The auxiliary boiler, unit 3, and unit 4 do not have CEMS, but
emissions data are available from the 2008 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI), Version 1. The auxiliary boiler, unit 3, and unit 4
SO2 annual emissions reported in the 2008 NEI were 0.01,
0.02, and 0.03 tons, respectively.
Other sources of SO2 emissions in the area include the
Martins Creek facility which is located approximately 10 km to the
south of the Portland Plant. There are two units at Martins Creek,
units 3 and 4, which averaged about 1,039 and 584 hours of operation
respectively. Those units each have a capacity of 850 MW and can burn
either oil or natural gas. The facility reported approximately 1,100
tons of SO2 emissions in 2009. There are also three cement
plants (Hercules, Keystone, and ESSROC) and several minor emitting
units in Pennsylvania located at distances generally greater than 30 km
away to the south and west of the Portland Plant. In 2009, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection emission inventory
database (PADEP eFACTS) reported 1,862 tons for Hercules, 685 tons for
Keystone, and 799 tons for ESSROC of SO2 emissions
respectively, all of which are relatively low compared to the
SO2 emissions from the Portland Plant.
The Delaware River transects the region, with higher terrain on
either side of the river valley where the Portland Plant is located.
There is elevated terrain, as high as or greater than Portland's
highest stacks, which rises 400 to 500 foot (ft) above the valley floor
near the Portland Plant. The 1500 ft high Kittatinny Ridge is located
within 7 kilometer (km) to the north and northwest of the Portland
Plant. Further south, near the Martins Creek Power Plant, major terrain
features such as Scotts Mountain to the east of the Delaware River rise
up to 1000 ft above the valley floor.
E. Sulfur Dioxide and Public Health
Current scientific evidence links health effects with short-term
exposure to SO2 ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours. Adverse
respiratory health effects include narrowing of the airways which can
cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma
symptoms. These effects are particularly important for asthmatics
during periods of faster or deeper breathing (e.g., while exercising or
playing). Studies show an association between short-term SO2
exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital
admissions for respiratory illnesses particularly in at-risk
populations including children, the elderly and asthmatics. EPA's NAAQS
for 1-hour SO2 is designed to protect against exposure to
the entire group of sulfur oxides (SOX). SO2 is
the component of greatest concern and is used to represent the larger
group of gaseous sulfur oxides. Other gaseous sulfur oxides (e.g.,
SO3) are found in the atmosphere at concentrations much
lower than SO2. Emissions that lead to high concentrations
of SO2 generally also lead to the formation of other
SOX. Control measures that reduce SO2 can
generally be expected to reduce people's exposure to all gaseous
SOX. Reducing SO2 emissions is expected to have
the important cobenefit of reducing the formation of fine sulfate
particles that pose significant public health threats. SOX
can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small
particles (e.g., PM2.5). These small particles penetrate
deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and can cause or worsen
respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and can
aggravate existing heart disease, leading to increased hospital
admissions and premature death.
IV. EPA's Methodology for Making the Proposed Section 126 Finding for
the Portland Plant
This section explains the analysis conducted by EPA to determine
whether it would be appropriate to find, in response to the petition
submitted by NJDEP, that the Portland Plant emits or would emit any air
pollutant in violation of the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
A. EPA's Approach for Determining Whether To Make a Section 126 Finding
for the Portland Plant
1. CAA Section 126(b)
Section 126 of the CAA provides a mechanism for States and other
political subdivisions to seek abatement of pollution in other States
that may be affecting their air quality; however, it does not identify
specific criteria or a specific methodology for the Administrator to
apply when deciding whether to make a section 126 finding or deny a
petition. Therefore, EPA has discretion to identify relevant criteria
and develop a reasonable methodology for determining whether a section
126 finding should be made. See, e.g., Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984); Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735, 744-45
(1996).
As an initial matter, EPA looks to see whether a petition
identifies or establishes a technical basis for the requested section
126 finding. EPA first evaluates the technical analysis in the petition
to see if that analysis, standing alone, is sufficient to support a
section 126 finding. EPA focuses on the analysis in the petition
because the statute does not require EPA to conduct an independent
technical analysis to evaluate claims made in section 126 petitions.
The petitioner thus bears the burden of establishing, as an initial
matter, a technical basis for the specific finding requested. EPA has
no obligation to prepare an analysis to supplement a petition that
fails, on its face, to include an initial technical demonstration. Such
a petition, or a petition that fails to identify the specific finding
requested, could be found insufficient. Nonetheless, the Agency may
decide to conduct independent technical analyses when such analyses are
helpful in evaluating the basis for a potential section 126 finding or
developing a remedy if a finding is made. As explained later, given our
view that it is necessary to make some technical adjustments to the
NJDEP modeling, we determined that it was appropriate to conduct
independent technical analysis to determine an appropriate remedy. Such
analysis, however, is not required by the statute and may not be
necessary or appropriate in other circumstances.
In this section, EPA explains the methodology used to evaluate the
technical analysis presented in NJDEP's petition and to determine
whether it would be appropriate to make the section 126 finding
requested. This methodology was developed to address the specific
allegations in the NJDEP petition and does not speak to how EPA
[[Page 19667]]
might evaluate petitions that raise different interstate transport
issues, such as collective contributions from multiple sources,
contributions to nonattainment areas in multiple States, or
contributions to different NAAQS. The methodology used to assess the
remedy is discussed in section VII.
2. EPA's Approach To Evaluating NJDEP's Section 126 Petition
Emissions from upwind States can, alone or in combination with
local emissions, result in air quality levels that exceed the NAAQS and
jeopardize the health of residents in downwind communities. Each State
is required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions from
activities within that individual State that would significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with downwind States'
maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a) of the CAA assigns to each State both the primary
responsibility for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS within such
State, and prohibiting emissions activities within the State that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in a downwind area. States fulfill these CAA obligations through the
SIP process described in section 110(a) of the CAA. States are required
to submit SIPs to prohibit those emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in downwind
States within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. See 42
U.S.C. 7410(a), 7410(a)(2)(D). The prohibition on these emissions is
intended to assist the downwind State as it designs strategies for
ensuring that the NAAQS are attained and maintained.
The NJDEP petition asserts and presents modeling that demonstrates
that emissions from one plant (the Portland Plant) by itself is
sufficient to cause downwind SO2 NAAQS violations in New
Jersey. The approach described later was developed by EPA to analyze
these specific claims in these particular circumstances and may not be
appropriate for evaluating other claims or those arising in different
circumstances for other actions.
In this case, EPA is proposing to define the Portland Plant's
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance as those emissions that must be eliminated to bring the
downwind receptors in New Jersey affected by the Portland Plant into
modeled attainment in the analysis year. While this approach would not
be appropriate in every circumstance, EPA believes it is appropriate
where, as here, the source's emissions are sufficient on their own to
cause downwind NAAQS violations and background levels of the relevant
pollutant are relatively low. EPA therefore developed a methodology to
identify the reductions necessary to bring the downwind receptors into
attainment.
EPA's methodology uses dispersion modeling to assess the impact of
emissions from the Portland Plant on SO2 concentrations at
downwind receptors. EPA modeled the emissions from the Portland Plant
and determined that the modeled concentrations from the Portland Plant,
when combined with the relatively low background concentrations [in the
manner described in section VII and in greater detail in the Modeling
Technical Support Document (TSD)], cause violations of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. We have determined it is
appropriate to use modeling in this case to determine whether downwind
air quality will attain the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the analysis
year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Historically, EPA has favored dispersion modeling to support
SO2 NAAQS compliance determinations for areas with
sources that have the potential to cause an SO2 NAAQS
violation, and EPA explained that for an area to be designated as
``attainment,'' dispersion modeling regarding such sources needs to
show the absence of violations even if monitoring does not show a
violation. This has been our general position throughout the history
of implementation of the SO2 NAAQS program. See 75 FR
35551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the modeling analysis, thousands of receptors are placed in New
Jersey to determine the area of maximum concentration from the Portland
Plant emissions. A design value concentration is calculated for each
receptor for comparison to the NAAQS. The design value concentration is
equal to the 99th percentile (4th-highest) daily maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentration. All receptors with modeled design value
concentrations that are greater than the NAAQS (196 [mu]g/m\3\) are
determined to be nonattainment receptors.
To quantify the emissions that constitute the Portland Plant's
significant contribution, we identify the level of emissions that need
to be reduced to ensure that no modeled concentration within the
affected area exceeds the level of the NAAQS (i.e., the 99th percentile
of the daily maximum 1-hour average of 196 [mu]g/m\3\).
The first step of the ``interfere with maintenance'' analysis is to
identify whether there are any maintenance receptors in the relevant
area. In considering maintenance, we are examining the receptors in the
analysis to determine if higher modeled concentrations may exist due to
variability in meteorology, emissions, and/or other factors.
Nonattainment receptors are already modeled to be above the NAAQS and
receptors with higher \8\ concentrations attributed to variability in
emissions or meteorology would be exceeding the NAAQS by an even
greater amount. Therefore, nonattainment receptors are by definition
also maintenance receptors. In addition to these nonattainment/
maintenance receptors, we also examine receptors that are modeled to be
attainment but due to variability in meteorology or emissions might be
at risk for nonattainment. In that case, any identified maintenance
receptors would not be nonattainment and would therefore be considered
``maintenance only'' receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Variability of emissions and meteorology could also lead to
lower concentrations; however, for purposes of identifying
interference with maintenance receptors, we would only be concerned
with concentrations that would be higher than those modeled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this particular case, due to the high modeled concentrations
from the Portland Plant emissions, all of the downwind modeled
receptors in the modeled receptor grid in New Jersey are modeled to be
nonattainment. In this application, it was not necessary to expand the
modeling grid to identify additional nonattainment or ``maintenance
only'' receptors because the modeling domain was centered on the
receptors with the maximum impact from the Portland Plant. In a primary
pollutant dispersion modeling application, emissions reductions from
the contributing source lead to a linear reduction in downwind
concentrations. Therefore, we can be certain that an emissions limit on
the Portland Plant that eliminates modeled violations at the maximum
concentration receptor will eliminate violations at all potential
receptors. Because there are no ``maintenance only'' receptors in the
area of concern, it was not necessary for us to consider the Portland
Plant's impact on maintenance only receptors.
We next consider whether the Portland Plant should be required to
make additional reductions, above and beyond those required to
eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment to ensure that
it does not interfere with maintenance at the nonattainment/maintenance
receptors. We identified an approach that we believe is appropriate for
the specific circumstances presented here.
Among other things, we considered the nature of the modeling used
to determine the appropriate remedy and the potential for
SO2 concentrations in New Jersey to be higher than those
[[Page 19668]]
modeled. Here are some of the relevant facts:
(1) There is only 1 year of site-specific meteorology available for
this analysis, so we are not able to examine the impact of year-to-year
variability of meteorology on downwind modeled concentrations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Due to constraints on data availability, our analysis is
appropriate in this instance; however, nothing here is intended to
suggest that, where sufficient data are available to examine year-
to-year variability, this should not be a relevant factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The remedy modeling used allowable emissions from the Portland
Plant. Since these are the highest emissions that are allowed to be
emitted by the facility, higher concentrations could not be expected to
occur in New Jersey due to the emissions from the Portland Plant.
(3) In the modeling analysis, we used a seasonal and hourly varying
background concentration that represents the high end of the
distribution (99th percentile) of hourly observed SO2
concentrations in the area. As indicated in the trajectory analysis
submitted by NJDEP, it is likely that direct SO2 impacts
from the Portland Plant contributed to high monitored concentrations at
the monitor located in Chester, New Jersey (Chester monitor).
Therefore, to avoid double counting of contributions from the Portland
Plant through both monitored and modeled emissions, it would not be
appropriate to consider higher background concentrations.
EPA believes that given the specific circumstances described
previously, there is no indication that concentrations higher than
those modeled from the Portland Plant would be likely to occur at the
nonattainment/maintenance receptors or anywhere in New Jersey. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude, under the circumstances, that any
remedy that eliminates the significant contribution to nonattainment
from the Portland Plant will also eliminate its interference with
maintenance with respect to year-to-year variability in emissions and
air quality.
As noted in the proposed Transport Rule, EPA believes that the
maintenance concept has two components: Year-to-year variability in
emissions and air quality, and continued maintenance of the air quality
standard over time. Consistent with the approach in the Transport Rule,
EPA examined both of these concepts in assessing ``interfere with
maintenance'' for NJDEP's section 126 petition regarding the Portland
Plant. Year-to-year variability is discussed above. Year-to-year
variability is appropriate to consider because data demonstrates that
year-to-year variations in air quality that stem from differences in
weather and emissions can determine whether or not the health-based
standard will be achieved in a particular location in the analyzed
year.
EPA separately considered whether further emissions reductions from
the Portland Plant are necessary to ensure continued lack of
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS over time, and believes that
the answer is no. The proposed requirements of this rule will prevent
the emissions of the Portland Plant from increasing over time relative
to the modeled scenario. Also, EPA does not have evidence that
background SO2 emissions from other sources affecting the
relevant New Jersey receptors will increase in the future, which--in
combination with residual Portland Plant emissions--in theory might
have raised the possibility of a future maintenance issue at those
receptors.
In conclusion, we are proposing to find that compliance by the
Portland Plant with the emission limits proposed in this action will
bring it into compliance with the prohibition on emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS as well as with the prohibition on emissions that interfere with
maintenance in a downwind area.
EPA requests comment on our approach to address interference with
maintenance with regard to this specific petition and whether the
proposed emission limits are sufficient to eliminate the Portland
Plant's interference with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in New Jersey.
V. Summary and Assessment of the Modeling and Other Data Relevant to
EPA's Finding
A. Summary of the Modeling Submitted by NJDEP To Support the Petition
NJDEP submitted several technical analyses in support of its
section 126 petition. Among the submitted materials were a summary of
the NJDEP dispersion modeling results, a modeling analysis for the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS using AERMOD, a modeling analysis for the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS using CALPUFF,\10\ and a trajectory analysis
of high SO2 episodes at a SO2 monitor in Chester,
New Jersey. In addition, the petition references a CALPUFF model
validation study, which was submitted by NJDEP along with the previous
(May 13, 2010) section 126 petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ CALPUFF is a non-steady-state puff dispersion model that
was originally developed for the California Air Resources Board.
\11\ NJDEP did not add background concentrations to any of the
modeled concentrations in the table.
\12\ Meteorological data used in the AERMOD modeling was based
on the only site-specific meteorological data available for the
Portland Plant, from July 1993 through June 1994, which satisfies
the recommendations in Section 8.3.1 of Appendix W regarding the
length of record for meteorological data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJDEP submitted two different modeling analyses of the
SO2 impacts from the Portland Plant on New Jersey. The first
analysis (Exhibit 2 to the NJDEP petition) used the AERMOD dispersion
model and the second analysis (Exhibit 3 to the NJDEP petition) used
the CALPUFF dispersion model. Both models were run with both actual and
allowable emissions rates and CALPUFF was also run with various
meteorological input data. Each NJDEP model run showed modeled
violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (i.e., showed annual 99th
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour SO2 values at or above
196 [mu]g/m\3\) in New Jersey.
Table V.A-1 summarizes the CALPUFF and AERMOD 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (196 [mu]g/m\3\, 99th percentile) modeling results submitted by
NJDEP.
Table V.A-1--Summary of Modeling Results Submitted by NJDEP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99th
Percentile
Maximum (4th high)
Model Emissions Meteorology modeled modeled
concentration concentration
([mu]g/m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\)
\11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AERMOD............................ Allowable............ July 1993-June 1994 3,700 1,402
\12\.
AERMOD............................ Estimated Actual..... July 1993-June 1994.. 1,713 467.3
CALPUFF........................... Allowable............ 2002 12km MM5........ 15,273 3,455
[[Page 19669]]
CALPUFF........................... Actual............... 2002 12km MM5........ 6,740 2,194
CALPUFF........................... Allowable............ 2003 4km MM5......... 18,643 2,468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen in the table V.A-1, each of the modeling analyses
submitted by NJDEP shows modeled violations of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The concentrations predicted by the CALPUFF model
tend to be higher than those predicted by the AERMOD model. In
addition, the model runs based on allowable emissions logically show
higher concentrations than those based on actual emissions. The
allowable emissions included in the NJDEP modeling are shown in Table
V.A-2.
Table V.A-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 3-hr
Allowable SO2 permit limit
Portland Plant unit rate (lb/hr) (tons per 3
hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 5,820 8.73
2....................................... 8,900 13.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also contained modeling of actual emissions for the
2002 MM5 (mesoscale meteorological model) based CALPUFF case and this
modeling run showed large exceedances of the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Actual emissions were also modeled with AERMOD for the 1993-1994
site-specific meteorology. As with the modeling based on allowable
emissions, the AERMOD results with actual emissions were much lower
than the CALPUFF results, but still showed significant exceedances of
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 2002 CALPUFF modeling with actual
emissions was based on actual SO2 emissions from CEMS data.
The 1993-1994 actual emissions used with AERMOD were estimated based on
monthly coal usage reports (CEMS data were not available for that
period).
The modeling submitted by NJDEP indicates actual emissions from the
Portland Plant alone cause air quality in New Jersey to exceed the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. The NJDEP modeling also indicates that the
Portland Plant's allowable emissions (i.e., the emissions the plant
would emit if it were to emit at the level currently allowed) cause air
quality in New Jersey to exceed the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
NJDEP AERMOD predictions of the 4th high daily 1-hour maximum
concentrations (99th percentile) based on allowable emissions show a
maximum concentration in New Jersey of 1,402 [mu]g/m\3\ (located on a
ridge at the Delaware Water Gap (in New Jersey) approximately 7
kilometers (km) from the Portland Plant stacks). The AERMOD modeling
submitted by NJDEP also demonstrates that actual emissions from the
Portland Plant are causing NAAQS exceedances in New Jersey. In
addition, the CALPUFF predictions of the 4th high daily maximum 1-hour
concentrations (99th percentile) based on allowable emissions are as
high as 3,455 [mu]g/m\3\.
The results of the NJDEP modeling based on both allowable and
actual emissions indicate that emissions reductions would be needed at
the Portland Plant in order to eliminate Portland's significant
contribution to nonattainment in New Jersey.
B. EPA's Assessment of Modeling Submitted by NJDEP
EPA evaluated several aspects of the NJDEP modeling to determine if
the analyses followed EPA regulations and guidance for dispersion
modeling. Among the key specific issues evaluated were the choice of
model(s), modeling of actual vs. allowable emissions, and the
application of site-specific meteorological data that were used as
inputs to the AERMOD model. Additional technical details regarding the
NJDEP modeling were also examined, as documented in the Modeling TSD.
1. NJDEP's Model Selection
EPA first evaluated which model is most appropriate for use in
these particular circumstances. As noted previously, NJDEP submitted
both AERMOD and CALPUFF model results. Given the significant
differences in the magnitude of predicted impacts associated with the
Portland Plant emissions based on the use of the AERMOD model versus
use of the CALPUFF model, identifying the most appropriate model for
use in these circumstances was a key aspect of EPA's assessment.
Section 4.2.2(b) of the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' published
as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 (commonly referred to as ``Appendix
W'') States that AERMOD is ``the recommended model'' ``[f]or a wide
range of regulatory applications in all types of terrain.'' \13\ The
modeling application under consideration in this section 126 petition
is covered under this section of Appendix W since the transport
distances of concern are less than 50 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Section 4.2.2 identifies other models that are recommended
for specific applications that do not apply for the Portland Plant,
e.g., the Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model is
recommended for cases where buoyant plume rise from line sources is
important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NJDEP petition acknowledges that AERMOD is the preferred model
for near-field applications such as this, but suggests the use of
CALPUFF may be appropriate under the alternative model provisions in
Section 3.2.2b of Appendix W. Section 3.2 of Appendix W lists three
separate conditions under which an alternative model may be approved
for use, as follows:
(1) If a demonstration can be made that the model produces
concentration estimates equivalent to the estimates obtained using a
preferred model;
[[Page 19670]]
(2) If a statistical performance evaluation has been conducted
using measured air quality data and the results of that evaluation
indicate the alternative model performs better for the given
application than a comparable model in Appendix A; or
(3) If the preferred model is less appropriate for the specific
application, or there is no preferred model.
The NJDEP modeling documentation suggests that NJDEP's use of the
CALPUFF model in support of this petition is based on condition (2) of
Section 3.2.2b. NJDEP claims that CALPUFF was shown to have ``performed
better and produced predictions of greater accuracy than AERMOD,'' \14\
and therefore satisfies condition (2) under Section 3.2.2b of Appendix
W. NJDEP also claims that the use of CALPUFF is more appropriate for
the specific application due to the complex winds addressed in Section
7.2.8 of Appendix W \15\ and is therefore justified under condition (3)
of Section 3.2.2b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See September 17, 2010 petition, Section IV, page 5.
\15\ See May 13, 2010, petition, Section V, subsection B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated later, EPA determines that AERMOD is the
appropriate modeling platform to use in these specific circumstances.
This conclusion is based on the particular circumstances presented here
and does not speak to whether it would be appropriate to use CALPUFF
modeling in other situations.
a. CALPUFF Alternative Model Justification
EPA issued a memo on August 13, 2008, providing ``Clarification of
Regulatory Status of CALPUFF for Near-field Applications,'' \16\ (which
applies to the application under review here). The key points
emphasized in that memo are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Clarification of Regulatory Status of CALPUFF for Near-
field Applications,'' memo from Richard A. Wayland, dated August 13,
2008, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/clarification%20of%20regulatory%20status%20of%20calpuff.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The EPA-preferred model for near-field regulatory applications
(less than 50 kilometers) for simple and complex terrain is AERMOD. The
AERMOD model should be used for all near-field regulatory applications,
unless an adequate determination is made that AERMOD is not appropriate
for that application or is clearly less appropriate than an alternative
model.
2. CALPUFF is not the EPA-preferred model for near-field
applications, but may be considered as an alternative model on a case-
by-case basis for near-field applications involving ``complex winds,''
subject to approval by the reviewing authority. The approval of CALPUFF
for near-field regulatory applications must be based on case-specific
justification, including necessary documentation and an adequate
determination that AERMOD is not appropriate or clearly less
appropriate than CALPUFF.
The impacts from a source such as the Portland Plant (tall stacks
with nearby terrain features) are likely to occur with ``line-of-
sight'' impacts of the elevated plumes on nearby terrain features for
which straight-line, steady-state assumptions are valid.
The AERMOD model has been evaluated for similar situations of tall
stacks in complex terrain settings for at least five separate data
bases and consistently shown to perform better than competing models
(Perry, et al., 2005; \17\ EPA, 2003 \18\). Therefore, EPA does not
agree with the argument that CALPUFF is more appropriate in this
situation due to the existence of complex winds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Perry, S.G., A.J. Cimorelli, R.J. Paine, R.W. Brode, J.C.
Weil, A. Venkatram, R.B. Wilson, R.F. Lee, and W.D. Peters, 2005.
AERMOD: A Dispersion Model for Industrial Source Applications. Part
II: Model Performance against 17 Field Study Databases. J. Appl.
Meteor., 44, pp. 694-708.
\18\ EPA, 2003. AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results.
EPA-454/R-03-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermod_mep.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thus turn to NJDEP's assertion that the use of CALPUFF as an
alternative model can be justified under condition (2) of Section
3.2.2b, based on a demonstration that CALPUFF performs better than
AERMOD. To evaluate this assertion, we evaluate whether there is
evidence to support NJDEP's assertion that CALPUFF performs better than
AERMOD. In the September 17, 2010, petition, NJDEP references a CALPUFF
validation study that was submitted with the May 13, 2010, petition.
EPA believes it is appropriate to consider this study because it was
explicitly referenced in the September 17, 2010, petition, and a copy
was provided with the prior petition.
We note again that the AERMOD model has undergone extensive peer
review and model validation as the basis for its promulgation as the
preferred model for a wide range of regulatory applications in all
types of terrain. Therefore, we would not determine CALPUFF to be a
more appropriate model in this case absent compelling evidence that
CALPUFF is clearly superior to AERMOD for this application.
Model validation is a complex process that entails several
technical challenges, including uncertainties regarding the accuracy
and representativeness of key input data that could affect results, as
well as a wide range of statistical methods and metrics that may be
applied to quantify model performance. In some cases subtle changes to
the evaluation methods can markedly affect the conclusions that might
be drawn from such studies. For these reasons, the importance of
establishing a consistent set of objective procedures to evaluate the
performance of dispersion models for use in regulatory modeling
applications and of comparing the relative performance of competing
models has long been recognized. Section 3.2.1 of Appendix W references
EPA's ``Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model'' \19\
document (EPA, 1992) that states it ``is available to assist in
developing a consistent approach when justifying the use of other-than-
preferred modeling techniques recommended in the Guideline. The
procedures in this protocol provide a general framework for objective
decision-making on the acceptability of an alternative model for a
given regulatory application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model'',
EPA-454/R-92-025, December 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/modleval.zip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the CALPUFF validation study submitted by NJDEP with the
May 13, 2010, petition cites EPA's Protocol as one of the references
for its model validation procedures, there were some key changes
implemented in the NJDEP model evaluation study relative to the methods
recommended and used by EPA in its evaluation of AERMOD model
performance. EPA's evaluation of NJDEP's changes to the protocol leads
us to believe that the NJDEP methods show relatively better model
performance for CALPUFF compared to AERMOD, without any clear technical
basis that would justify those changes. Further details on these
changes and their impacts on the results of the validations study are
provided in the Modeling TSD included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Furthermore, the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots \20\ included in the
NJDEP validation report provide a clear visual representation of model
performance that is very relevant to the regulatory application of
these models. These plots suggest that the performance of the
[[Page 19671]]
CALPUFF and AERMOD models on this database is in fact quite similar,
but that AERMOD shows slightly better overall agreement with
observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots compare modeled vs. monitored
concentrations on the basis of independently ranked distributions of
concentration, unpaired in time and space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another fundamental point in relation to NJDEP's overall
justification for the use of CALPUFF in this petition is that results
from the model validation study are not relevant to this application of
CALPUFF due to fundamental differences in the meteorological processing
used in the validation study compared to the modeling submitted in
support of the petition. The CALMET modeling for the validation study
made use of the site-specific meteorological data collected as part of
the field study so that the documented CALPUFF model performance is
largely dependent on the characterization of wind fields by CALMET that
are informed by that site-specific data. In contrast, the application
of CALPUFF to support the petition did not use any site-specific
meteorological data but relied on three different sets of MM5
prognostic meteorological data to inform the 3-dimensional wind fields
generated by CALMET. Performance of the CALPUFF model in this case
would rely upon the ability of the CALMET meteorological model to
adequately simulate the wind fields in the absence of such site-
specific data, and there have not been any such demonstrations that
would be relevant to this application.
We also note that the spatial distribution of 1-hour SO2
impacts predicted by CALPUFF (in the petition application) is very
different than the impacts predicted by AERMOD. The CALPUFF modeling
shows extremely high 1-hour SO2 concentrations very close to
the Portland Plant (see Figures 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit 3). The highest
impacts based on the 2002 CALPUFF modeling with allowable emissions of
3,455 [mu]g/m\3\ (99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour values)
occurs about 100 meters from units 1 and 2 at an elevation of only 3
meters above the stack base in Pennsylvania. These results are
physically unrealistic for buoyant plumes from tall stacks such as
units 1 and 2 at the Portland Plant, raising additional concerns
regarding the appropriateness of CALPUFF for this application.
Based on the discussion previously (and additional details
contained in the Modeling TSD), we conclude that NJDEP has not
adequately justified the use of CALPUFF in this application under
either conditions (2) or (3) of Section 3.2.2b of Appendix W, and that
AERMOD is the most appropriate model for this application.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA's discussion of the appropriate air quality model for
near field applications focuses on primary emissions from a
stationary source, such as the SO2 emissions from the
Portland Plant, at issue in NJDEP's petition. EPA is not suggesting
that AERMOD is the appropriate model to simulate the effects of
SO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions on secondary pollutants
formed in the atmosphere such as PM2.5 and ozone. See 70
FR 68,234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Emissions and Source Characteristics
As noted previously, NJDEP submitted dispersion modeling results
based on maximum allowable emissions as well as actual emissions. For
the reasons explained later, EPA has determined that it is reasonable
and appropriate to model allowable emissions when evaluating whether
the source ``emits or would emit'' any air pollutant in violation of
the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) under a section 126
petition. EPA interprets the term ``emits or would emit'' as a
reference to the source's current and potential future emissions. A
determination of whether the source ``emits'' pollutants in violation
of the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) could be based on
modeling of actual emissions. However, for the emissions the source
``would emit'' (i.e., its potential future emissions), it is
appropriate to consider the level at which the source could emit given
the existing constraints on its emissions--that is, the source's
allowable emissions.
For these same reasons, EPA believes it appropriate to model
allowable emissions when determining the appropriate remedy to
eliminate the source's significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance. In addition, as a practical matter, it
would be difficult to determine an appropriate remedy under a section
126 petition based on actual emissions given the potential variability
of actual emissions. Because the question posed is what additional
limits must be placed on the source's emissions to eliminate its
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance, it is appropriate to consider what its emissions could be
in the absence of such limits.
For these reasons, the rest of the review of NJDEP's modeling and
the methodology of EPA's remedy modeling is limited to modeled results
based on allowable emissions.
3. Meteorological Data
Aside from emissions data, meteorological data are the other key
input to dispersion models. The NJDEP AERMOD modeling was based on 1
year of site-specific meteorological data collected from a 100-meter
instrumented tower and sonic detection and ranging (SODAR) system
located about 2.2 kilometers west of the Portland Plant, for the period
July 1993 through June 1994.
Section 8.3 of Appendix W provides guidance regarding
meteorological data for use in dispersion modeling to demonstrate
compliance with the NAAQS. A key issue related to meteorological data
is the representativeness of the data for the particular application,
including spatial and temporal representativeness. Based on a review of
the data, we believe that the meteorological data from 1993-1994 \22\
meet the basic criteria for representativeness under Section 8.3.3 of
Appendix W, and therefore can be considered as site-specific data for
purposes of modeling impacts from the elevated stacks for the Portland
Plant's units 1 and 2. The 1993-1994 data also meet the minimum
criterion of at least 1 year of site-specific meteorological data
recommended in Section 8.3.1.2(b) of Appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The fact that the 1993-1994 meteorological data is nearly
20 years old is not relevant. The modeling was conducted with
allowable emissions from the Portland Plant. The meteorology needs
to be representative of typical meteorology that occurs in the area,
regardless of time period. The allowable emissions do not vary,
regardless of the meteorological data year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Portland Plant meteorological data meet the basic
criteria for representativeness, we note that there is a difference of
about 100 meters between the base elevation for the meteorological
tower and that of the stack base elevation. This raises concerns
regarding how the meteorological data were input to the AERMOD model in
the NJDEP modeling analysis, especially given that the stack heights
for units 1 and 2 are about 122 meters and that plume heights of
concern for units 1 and 2 are about 200 to 400 meters above stack base.
The modeling submitted by NJDEP used the measurement heights above
local ground for the meteorological data input to the model,
effectively assuming that the measured profiles of wind, temperature
and turbulence were ``terrain-following.''
We provide additional analysis of the impact on the tower height in
the EPA remedy modeling section and in the Modeling TSD. We believe an
adjustment to the meteorological data heights is warranted and EPA made
these adjustments in the supplemental technical analysis it conducted
to determine the appropriate remedy. These adjustments may play an
[[Page 19672]]
important role in determining the remedy, as explained later in section
VII. However, since the maximum design value concentration in the NJDEP
AERMOD modeling analysis was nearly seven times the NAAQS, we do not
expect these adjustments to change the overall conclusion that the
Portland Plant emissions are likely to cause or contribute to
violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.
4. Receptor/Terrain Data
Proper treatment of terrain information is important for this
analysis given the potential influence of elevated and complex terrain
on the modeling results. The NJDEP analysis was based on an initial
grid of coarsely spaced receptor locations across a large domain
covering all potentially important impact areas associated with
emissions from the Portland Plant, followed by a much smaller grid of
more closely spaced receptors focused on the area of expected worst-
case impacts from the plant. The initial grid included spacing of 250
meters in areas of expected high impacts with receptors spaced at 1,000
meter intervals covering the gaps between the 250-meter grids. The
initial coarse receptor grid included a total of 5,189 receptors. The
fine grid used by NJDEP in determining the controlling impact from the
Portland Plant for purposes of this petition included a total of 121
receptors in a 10 x 10 array spaced at 100-meter intervals covering a
portion of the Kittatinny Ridge on the New Jersey side of the Delaware
Water Gap.
5. AERMOD Results
NJDEP's AERMOD modeling shows maximum design value impacts from the
Portland Plant, based on allowable SO2 emissions of 1402
[mu]g/m\3\ in New Jersey.\23\ Since those concentrations are nearly
seven times the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (196 [mu]g/m\3\), and since
NJDEP's AERMOD modeling also showed significant exceedances of the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in NJ based on an estimate of actual
SO2 emissions, we conclude that the NJDEP has clearly shown
that SO2 emissions from the Portland Plant cause violations
of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The 1402 [mu]g/m\3\ impact from the Portland Plant did not
include background concentrations. In most modeling applications, a
representative background concentration would be added to the
modeled concentrations from the source being modeled. But since the
modeled concentration from the Portland Plant exceeded the NAAQS,
accounting for background does not make a difference to the finding
of violations. However, assumed background concentrations are needed
for the remedy modeling which is discussed in section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of NJDEP's Trajectory Analysis and the Columbia Lake Monitor
As a supplement to its supporting modeling analyses, NJDEP analyzed
winds using a trajectory model on days with the highest concentrations
of SO2 at a State operated ambient air monitoring site in
Chester, Morris County, New Jersey. NJDEP used the HYSPLIT \24\ model
to calculate the movement of air during these two episodes, which
covered three days (July 17-18, 2008 and December 7, 2009). The
monitoring site in Chester is about 36 kilometers east-southeast of the
Portland Plant. Concentrations of SO2 on one of these days
exceeded the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
The trajectories generated by HYSPLIT show that air from the Portland
Plant arrives in the vicinity of Chester about the time of the highest
concentrations of SO2, shown by running the model in two
modes: Forward from the facility and backward from the monitoring site.
When these high concentrations occurred, a review of available
emissions data showed that no other facility in the area had emissions
more than 1/1,000th the emissions of the Portland Plant. NJDEP asserts
that this trajectory analysis demonstrates that it is likely that the
Portland Plant is largely responsible for these recorded high
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
(HYSPLIT) model computes simple air parcel trajectories using a
three-dimensional grid. NJDEP used the HYSPLIT model using an ETA
meteorological model with a 12 km horizontal grid size for the
three-dimensional grid. See http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/ for more
details on the HYSPLIT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that 1-hour SO2 monitoring data have been
collected since September 23, 2010, at the NJDEP Columbia Lake Wildlife
Management Area (WMA) air quality monitor in Knowlton Township, Warren
County, New Jersey, located about 2 km northeast of the Portland Plant,
that show several exceedances of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
exceedances are shown during periods when prevailing winds (as measured
at the Allentown International Airport) would disperse emissions from
the Portland Plant in the general direction of the Columbia monitor.
VI. EPA's Decision on Whether To Make a Section 126 Finding or Deny the
Petition
Based on the results of the NJDEP modeling described previously,
EPA is proposing to grant the request in NJDEP's September 17, 2010,
petition that EPA make a finding that emissions from the Portland Plant
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
As explained previously, NJDEP conducted dispersion modeling of the
1-hour SO2 impacts using both the CALPUFF and AERMOD
dispersion models. NJDEP also submitted a trajectory analysis of two
particular episodes showing that elevated 1-hour SO2
measurements at the Chester monitor in Morris County, New Jersey, were
caused primarily by the Portland Plant. For the reasons explained
previously and in the TSD in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA
believes that the AERMOD analysis, submitted by NJDEP, provides a
reasonable basis for analyzing whether or not emissions from the
Portland Plant significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in Warren, Sussex, Morris, and Hunterdon Counties in
New Jersey. EPA has determined that the AERMOD modeling analysis
provides a more appropriate technical basis for this petition than the
modeling submitted based on the CALPUFF model, as explained in this
notice and in more detail in the Modeling TSD. EPA's review of the
NJDEP AERMOD analysis supports a finding that SO2 emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
In addition, the trajectory analysis submitted from NJDEP and the
preliminary air quality monitoring data collected from the Columbia
monitor in New Jersey are consistent with our proposed finding of
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. A
detailed review of the trajectory and monitoring data is included in
the Trajectory Analysis of High Sulfur Dioxide Episodes TSD, and the
Columbia Monitor in Warren County TSD contained in the docket for this
proposal.
VII. EPA's Proposed Remedy
A. Quantification of the Emission Reductions Necessary To Eliminate the
Portland Plant's Significant Contribution
EPA next conducted analyses to determine an appropriate remedy, as
required by section 126.
In the section 126 petition, NJDEP suggested that appropriate
remedies for the Portland Plant might be installation of scrubbers or
meeting the RACT limit that New Jersey has set for SO2
sources in its State. EPA's authority under section 126, however, is
limited to
[[Page 19673]]
establishing emission limits and compliance schedules (including
increments of progress) as needed to bring the Portland Plant into
compliance as expeditiously as practicable. EPA cannot apply New Jersey
law extraterritorially in Pennsylvania. In addition, we believe it is
better policy for EPA, where only directed by statute to provide
emission limits and compliance schedules, to allow the source the
flexibility to achieve compliance in the way it determines is most
reasonable and not to require the use of a specific technology.
Because section 126 allows continued operation of a major existing
source subject to a section 126 finding, only if the source complies
with emission limits and compliance schedules established by EPA to
bring about compliance with the requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as expeditiously as practicable but in no case
later than 3 years after the date of the finding. Thus, to determine
the appropriate remedy, EPA must quantify the reductions necessary to
eliminate the Portland Plant's significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.
We previously determined that due to the magnitude of the modeled
violations in the NJDEP AERMOD modeling, the NJDEP modeling was
sufficient to make a finding that the Portland Plant significantly
contributes to nonattainment and interferes with maintenance in New
Jersey. However, we noted some technical concerns with the NJDEP
modeling which may affect the degree to which emissions need to be
reduced to be able to meet the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New
Jersey. Therefore, EPA conducted an independent modeling assessment to
help determine the necessary and appropriate emissions limit for
Portland units 1 and 2.
1. Summary of EPA's Remedy Modeling for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
EPA completed AERMOD modeling of the Portland Plant units 1, 2, and
5 using the 1993-1994 Portland Plant on-site meteorological data. EPA
made several adjustments to the meteorological inputs (compared to the
NJDEP modeling) which it determined to be appropriate, as documented in
the Modeling TSD. The maximum modeled design value impact from the
Portland Plant in New Jersey based on EPA's modeling was 851.1 [mu]g/
m\3\. This included an impact from the Portland Plant of 811.8 [mu]g/
m\3\ plus a background concentration of 39.3 [mu]g/m\3\. The details of
the modeling setup are summarized later and in greater detail in the
Modeling TSD, which is in the docket for this proposal.
2. Model Selection
As discussed in Section V.B of this notice, Appendix W, Section
4.4.2(b) states that AERMOD is ``the recommended model'' ``[f]or a wide
range of regulatory applications in all types of terrain.'' The
modeling application under consideration in this section 126 petition
is generally covered under this section of Appendix W since the
transport distances of concern are less than 50 kilometers. Therefore,
EPA used AERMOD to determine the necessary remedy to eliminate the
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance in New Jersey.
3. Meteorological Data
Similar to the NJDEP AERMOD application, the EPA AERMOD modeling
was based on 1 year of site-specific meteorological data collected from
a 100-meter instrumented tower and SODAR located about 2.2 kilometers
west of the Portland Plant, for the period July 1993 through June 1994.
This is the same meteorological database used in the NJDEP AERMOD
analysis.
As noted earlier, there is a difference of about 100 meters between
the base elevation for the meteorological tower and the Portland Plant
stack base elevation. This raises concerns regarding how the
meteorological data should be input to the AERMOD model, especially
given that the stack heights for units 1 and 2 are about 122 meters and
that plume heights of concern for units 1 and 2 are about 300 to 400
meters above stack base. Given that the vertical variability of wind
directions in the Portland Plant area documented in Exhibit 11
submitted with NJDEP's May 13, 2010, petition, a key component of the
modeling analysis is the representativeness of the site-specific winds
for transport and dispersion of the Portland Plant emissions.
Therefore, to address the issues of representativeness for this
application, EPA made several adjustments to the meteorological data
for the EPA remedy modeling, compared to the data used by NJDEP.
Specifically, we made some adjustments to the measurement heights
for the Portland Plant site-specific meteorological data. Given that
the local terrain relief is about 100 meters, and assuming that local
terrain effects on flow would extend up to about 3 times the height of
the ``obstacles'', we conclude that we should apply a simple adjustment
based on the 100-meter difference in base elevations to measurement
heights at or above 300 meters. It is reasonable to assume that little
or no adjustment should be applied to the lowest level winds due to the
dominance of surface drag and other local influences. In addition to
the height adjustment, several other changes were made to the
meteorological data inputs (see the Modeling TSD for additional
details).
4. Receptor/Terrain Data
As noted in section V, EPA examined the terrain and receptor
processing from the NJDEP AERMOD analysis and concluded that NJDEP's
processing of terrain data based on several 7.5-minute (30-meter) DEM
terrain files and two 1-degree (90-meter) DEM files for use in AERMOD
was appropriate. However, EPA's AERMOD modeling was based on the
application of the AERMAP terrain processor using the National
Elevation Dataset (NED) format (USGS, 2002), which reflects updates to
the older DEM terrain data. Additional details can be found in the
Modeling TSD.
5. Portland Plant Emissions and Source Characteristics
The EPA AERMOD analysis used allowable SO2 emissions
rates for Portland Plant units 1, 2, and 5 along with stack parameters
shown in Table VII.A-1 \25\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The allowable emissions and stack parameters in Table
VII.A-1 for units 1 and 2 are the same as used by NJDEP. The
allowable emissions and stack parameters for unit 5 are based on a
2010 report regarding the Portland Plant prepared for RRI Energy.
Table VII.A-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitted Stack
Source emission rate Stack height Stack diameter temperature Stack velocity
(g/s) (m) (m) (K) (m/s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Plant Coal Unit 1...... 733.3 121.92 2.84 403.0 43.3
[[Page 19674]]
Portland Plant Coal Unit 2...... 1,121.0 121.72 3.79 406.0 36.2
Portland Plant Turbine 5........ 12.0 42.7 6.1 821.5 36.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Identification of Background Concentration To Use in the Remedy
Analysis
The dispersion modeling submitted by NJDEP with the September 17,
2010, petition only included emissions from units 1 and 2 at the
Portland Plant, and did not account for background concentrations of
SO2 from other sources. NJDEP did not offer any rationale
regarding the exclusion of any contribution from background
concentrations in the modeling.\26\ Therefore, we address it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Arguably, since the NJDEP modeling showed modeled
violations of the NAAQS without background concentrations, it was
not necessary for them to identify and/or add background
concentrations to the results. However, in order to develop a
remedy, it is necessary to consider background concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 8.2 of Appendix W provides guidance regarding the inclusion
of background concentrations in dispersion modeling demonstrations of
compliance with the NAAQS under PSD regulations. Appendix W defines
``background air quality'' as including ``pollutant concentrations due
to: (1) Natural sources; (2) nearby sources other than the one(s)
currently under consideration; and (3) unidentified sources.'' See
Section 8.2.1a. EPA recently issued additional clarification regarding
application of Appendix W guidance for the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS,\27\ indicating that portions of that guidance are equally
applicable to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Two topics addressed in
the March 1, 2011, guidance that are relevant here are the
determination of background concentrations and combining modeled
results with monitored background concentrations to determine
cumulative impacts. While the guidance does not explicitly address
dispersion modeling analyses in the context of a section 126 petition,
we believe that the guidance provides an appropriate basis for the
modeling conducted for the Portland Plant in support of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Additional Clarification Regarding Application of
Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' Memorandum from Tyler Fox, OAQPS/
AQAD, dated March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of SO2 emission sources within 50 km of the
Portland Plant identified 10 sources, located mostly in Pennsylvania
southwest of the Portland Plant. One of the closest sources is the PPL
Martins Creek Plant located about 14 km south-southwest of the Portland
Plant. Martins Creek emitted around 1,000 tons per year of
SO2 in 2009. The next closest sources with SO2
emissions of at least 2,000 tpy are two cement plants located in the
Lehigh Valley about 25-30 km southwest of the Portland Plant. A more
detailed discussion of nearby sources is provided in the Modeling TSD.
Of the SO2 emission sources identified for possible
inclusion in the modeling analysis, the Martins Creek Plant is the only
source that is large enough and close enough to the Portland Plant to
be considered for inclusion in the modeling analysis. However, the
SO2 emissions from the Martins Creek Plant are somewhat
intermittent (as noted earlier, Martins Creek units 3 and 4 averaged
about 1,039 and 584 hours of operation per year respectively). Even
more fundamentally, the purpose of this modeling is to determine the
impact of the Portland Plant itself on the downwind nonattainment
areas. Any intermittent impacts from Martins Creek would be in addition
to the impacts from the Portland Plant and the Portland Plant would
have no obligation to remedy any violations associated solely with
those emissions. This modeling uses actual monitored background levels
of SO2 such that it is reasonable to expect that the
contribution of intermittent emissions from Martins Creek and other
nearby sources is accounted for in EPA's analysis. This approach is
also consistent with the modeling analysis conducted by NJDEP. Further
details regarding our assessment of nearby SO2 sources are
provided in the Modeling TSD.
There are currently three operating SO2 monitors within
50 km of the Portland Plant, including the Chester monitor located
about 36 km southeast of the Portland Plant in Morris County, New
Jersey, the Easton monitor located about 27 km southeast in Northampton
County, Pennsylvania, and the Columbia Lake WMA monitor located about 2
km northeast in Warren County, New Jersey. The Columbia monitor has
only been in operation since September 23, 2010, while the Chester and
Easton(2) monitors have been in operation for several years.
Of the two long term SO2 monitors, the ambient
SO2 data from the Chester, New Jersey, monitor provides the
most representative background concentrations for this analysis since
the distribution of sources impacting the Chester monitor is more
similar to the distribution of sources around the Portland Plant. While
the Easton(2), Pennsylvania, monitor is better situated to capture
background concentrations upwind in relation to Portland Plant impacts
in New Jersey, the Easton(2) monitor is close enough to the Lehigh
Valley Cement Plants and other SO2 sources that monitored
SO2 levels at Easton(2) would overestimate background
concentrations applicable to this analysis.
The Columbia monitor data period is too short to serve as a source
of monitored background concentrations for this application. Given its
proximity to the Portland Plant, it is likely to capture ambient
SO2 impacts associated with the Portland Plant emissions
under appropriate meteorological conditions. The location of the
Columbia monitor also suggests that it may provide some useful insight
into background concentration levels within the area by examining the
concentration distribution during periods that are not affected by
emissions from the Portland Plant.
Based on an assessment of the available SO2 monitoring
data, we determined that the Chester monitor is the most appropriate
monitor to account for background SO2 concentrations for the
Portland Plant. Consistent with the March 1, 2011, guidance, we
included monitored concentrations based on the 99th-percentile by
season and hour-of-day from the Chester data for 2007 through 2009 (the
most recent data available) to account for background concentrations.
These background SO2 concentrations by season and hour-of-
day varied from 13 [mu]g/m\3\ to 60 [mu]g/m\3\. Examination of hourly
SO2 concentrations for both the Chester monitor and the
available data from the Columbia monitor indicates very low
concentrations (less than 3 ppb) during
[[Page 19675]]
the majority of the hours. However, we consider the background
concentrations used in our analysis (13 [mu]g/m\3\ to 60 [mu]g/m\3\) to
be appropriate for this application given that no other emission
sources were explicitly modeled. A more detailed discussion of our
assessment and use of monitored SO2 concentrations for this
analysis are provided in the Modeling TSD.
7. Summary of EPA's Modeling Results
The results of the AERMOD model runs relied on by EPA to determine
the appropriate remedy are described later and fully documented in the
Modeling TSD which is included in the docket.
EPA's modeling based on the NJDEP coarse receptor grids resulted in
a 1-hour SO2 modeled design value of 841 [mu]g/m\3\ (about
321 ppb) at a receptor located about 3 kilometers north-northeast of
the Portland Plant. Compared to the initial coarse grid analysis
conducted by NJDEP, EPA's modeled design value is about 32 percent
lower (compared to 1,236 [mu]g/m\3\) and occurs at a different location
within the modeling domain. While EPA's modeling showed peak impacts
much lower than NJDEP's peak design value, we note that EPA's modeled
peak design value of 841 [mu]g/m\3\ is about 90 percent higher than
NJDEP's modeled impact at EPA's peak receptor location. These
differences are likely due to the adjustments in the processing of
meteorological data input to the model. The adjustments to the
measurement heights could result in significant differences in the
transport direction for particular hours, as well as somewhat lower
wind speeds. Both of these factors could shift the modeled impact area
away from the higher terrain around the Delaware Water Gap toward a
different part of the domain. The inclusion of observed
[sigma]w data (standard deviation of the vertical velocity
fluctuations) from the SODAR in the EPA modeling could also account for
this shift in the maximum impact area from the Portland Plant. If
observed [sigma]w values are higher than the reference
values used in AERMOD in the absence of observations, then modeled
impacts near the Delaware Water Gap, which are associated with direct
plume impaction on the complex terrain, could be significantly lower.
In contrast, larger [sigma]w values would tend to increase
concentrations in the lower terrain, northeast of the Portland Plant,
by mixing the plume to the ground faster. This would result in maximum
impacts closer to the source.
Based on the results from the initial coarse grid analysis, EPA
developed a finer resolution receptor network that included two
separate grids with 100-meter horizontal resolution. The smaller of the
two fine resolution grids covers the impact area near the Delaware
Water Gap to the northwest, and is similar to NJDEP's 100-meter fine
grid, but is extended an additional 500 meters to the north and east.
The larger fine resolution grid is focused on the area surrounding the
maximum design value from the EPA's initial coarse grid model run, and
extends about 5 km north, 4 km east, 1 km south and 2 km west of the
Portland Plant.
EPA's modeling based on the 100-meter fine receptor grids resulted
in modeled design value (including background) of 851.1 [mu]g/m\3\
(about 325 ppb). The total concentration of 851.1 [mu]g/m\3\ consists
of the contribution from the Portland Plant of 811.8 [mu]g/m\3\ plus
39.3 [mu]g/m\3\ from background. This result is slightly higher than
(and near the location of) the controlling coarse grid result.
a. Calculation of Emissions Limits Based on Maximum Modeled Impacts
From Units 1 and 2 Plus Background
As detailed previously, the modeled maximum 99th percentile (4th-
highest) daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration (including
monitored background) from the Portland Plant in New Jersey was 851.1
[mu]g/m\3\. Table VII.A-2 shows the contribution from each of the
Portland Plant units to the design value concentration.
Table VII.A-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 5 Background Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
371.7 [mu]g/m\3\................ 439.2 [mu]g/m\3\.. 0.91 [mu]g/m\3\... 39.3 [mu]g/m\3\... 851.1 [mu]g/m\3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this result, EPA calculated the emissions reduction needed
to eliminate the Portland Plant's significant contribution to
nonattainment in New Jersey. The calculation is relatively simple in
this case because emissions from the Portland Plant alone cause
violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey and
background levels of SO2 are very low. If the modeled
concentration from the Portland Plant plus background is reduced to a
level that is below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, then there will be
no modeled violations of the NAAQS in New Jersey.
Based on the EPA modeling results, an 81 percent reduction in
allowable SO2 emissions from Portland Plant units 1 and 2 is
needed to reduce the Portland Plant contribution plus background to
below the NAAQS. The calculation is as follows: (Total modeled
concentration)--(NAAQS--background)/(total modeled concentration). This
calculation recognizes that the assumed background concentration cannot
be reduced. The actual calculation based on Table VII.A-2 is (811.8)-
(196-39.3)/811.8. This results in a reduction of 80.7 percent, which we
round to 81 percent.
In this calculation, the contribution from all modeled sources
(units 1, 2, and 5) is included in the total contribution. However, the
contribution from unit 5 is only 0.1 percent of the total contribution
(0.91 [mu]g/m\3\ contribution to the design value). A reduction in the
unit 5 contribution would provide a negligible reduction to the modeled
design value. Therefore, it can be assumed that unit 5 emissions do not
need to be reduced, and therefore can be added to the irreducible
background value. This alternative calculation gives an emissions
reduction of 80.8 percent (which is essentially the same as the
previous 80.7 percent calculation). Therefore, we conclude that only
emissions reductions from units 1 and 2 are needed in order to ensure
that the downwind area in New Jersey will be able to attain the NAAQS
and will not have maintenance problems and that a revised emissions
limit is not needed for unit 5.
While a total emissions reduction of 81 percent for both units 1
and 2 eliminates all modeled violations in New Jersey, an additional
question remains. Can the emissions limit be met by over controlling
one unit (by more than 81 percent) and under controlling the other unit
(by less than 81 percent)? Based on our analysis, there are many
different combinations of emissions limits for units 1 and 2 that would
eliminate violations of the SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey.
However, the stack parameters (exit velocity and stack diameter) of
units 1 and 2 are slightly different, which causes the maximum downwind
impacts from each unit to occur at slightly different locations at
[[Page 19676]]
different times. Therefore, the emissions limit has to be assigned to
each individual unit and cannot be a combined limit. There are many
different combinations of emissions limits for units 1 and 2 that would
eliminate violations of the SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey, but we
are not able to examine an unlimited number of combinations. Therefore
we are proposing an emissions limit based on an 81 percent reduction in
allowable emissions at both units 1 and 2. This leads to a proposed
SO2 emissions limit for unit 1 of 1105 lbs/hr (5820*0.19)
and a proposed SO2 emissions limit for unit 2 of 1691 lbs/hr
(8900*0.19).
As a final check on the remedy, EPA ran AERMOD again with the above
emissions limits on the Portland Plant's units 1 and 2 (and current
allowable emissions from unit 5). At these proposed emissions levels,
all receptors in New Jersey were below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
The modeled 99th percentile (4th-highest) daily maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentration was 192.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (including a
background concentration of 41.9 [mu]g/m\3\).
EPA is requesting comment on other possible combinations or
approaches in setting limits that are no less stringent than the
proposed limits, but also result in elimination of the modeled
violations while allowing for operating flexibility and load shifting.
For example, a combined limit could be set for both units 1 and 2, in
conjunction with individual limits, such as those proposed, for units 1
and 2. Similarly, a limit could be set for emissions from all relevant
units at the plant accompanied by individual limits for units 1 and 2.
EPA also requests comment on the proposed emissions limit calculations.
VIII. Proposed Emission Limits and Compliance Schedules
A. Statutory Requirements for Sources for Which EPA Makes a Section
126(b) Finding
Section 126(c) initially makes it unlawful for any major existing
source to operate more than 3 months after a section 126 finding has
been made with respect to it; yet also gives the Administrator
authority to permit continued operation under certain conditions.
Specifically, the statute provides that the Administrator ``may permit
the continued operation'' of such a source beyond the end of the three
month period ``if such source complies with such emission limitations
and compliance schedules (containing increments of progress) as may be
provided by the Administrator to bring about compliance with the
requirements contained in section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) of this title or
this section as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than
three years after the date of such finding.'' 72 U.S.C. 7426(c). Thus,
unless the Administrator affirmatively decides to permit continued
operation of the source and establishes emission limitations and
compliance schedules, an existing major source subject to a section 126
finding must shut down in three months. However, if the source complies
with the emission limitations and compliance schedules established by
the Administrator, it may continue operation.
Section 126, however, does not give the Administrator unlimited
discretion when establishing emission limitations and compliance
schedules. Instead, the statute provides that the emission limitations
and compliance schedules must bring about compliance with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act ``as expeditiously
as practicable'' but in no case later than 3 years from the date of the
finding. The use of the phrase ``as expeditiously as practicable''
allows for consideration of the time needed to implement a compliance
option in setting a compliance schedule. However, the length of time
needed to implement any given compliance option depends on the
compliance option to be implemented. Furthermore, EPA recognizes that
in some instances a source may choose to cease operation as its method
of compliance. EPA is therefore requesting comment on the meaning of as
``expeditious as practicable'' in this context.
EPA recognizes both that the statute requires that any compliance
schedule ensure compliance as ``expeditiously as practicable'' and also
that while the statute directs EPA to establish emission limits and
compliance schedules, it does not foreclose EPA from allowing the
source to select a compliance option. EPA thus seeks to balance the
statutory requirement of compliance as ``expeditiously as practicable''
with the goal of ensuring that the regulation does not unnecessarily
limit the options available to the source to achieve compliance within
the statutorily mandated timeframe. For these reasons, EPA has
determined that it would be reasonable to interpret the statute as
allowing EPA to develop different compliance schedules for different
compliance options. By doing so, EPA can both give flexibility to the
source to select an appropriate compliance option and ensure that
compliance is achieved as ``expeditiously as practicable.'' As
discussed later, EPA is also explicitly requesting comment on how to
interpret the term ``as expeditiously as practicable'' when the method
of compliance selected is to cease operations.
B. Proposed Emission Limits
As explained in this subsection, EPA is proposing specific emission
limitations and a specific compliance schedule that would apply unless
the Portland Plant decides to cease operation as its method of
compliance. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the emission limits
and compliance schedule discussed later.
Based on the NJDEP AERMOD dispersion modeling analysis and EPA's
independent assessment, EPA proposes to allow the continued operation
of the Portland Plant beyond the three months, provided that the
Portland Plant complies with a SO2 emission limit of 1105
lbs/hr for unit 1, and 1691 lbs/hr for unit 2, representing an 81
percent reduction from currently allowable SO2 emissions for
each unit, to eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment
and prevent it from interfering with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. The source would be required to
comply with this emission limit and the compliance deadlines and
schedules (including increments of progress) set by EPA in the final
rulemaking. EPA's proposed compliance schedules are discussed in more
detail in sections C and D of this section.
EPA believes that these proposed emission limits for units 1 and 2
are appropriate since AERMOD modeling performed as described in section
VII of this notice and in the TSD demonstrates that the Portland Plant
must reduce its SO2 emissions to these levels in order to
reduce the modeled SO2 concentration in New Jersey below the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS level of 196 [mu]g/m\3\. As also discussed
previously, EPA believes this is the appropriate remedy in this
particular circumstance where the modeling shows that emissions from a
single plant (the Portland Plant) are, by themselves, causing NAAQS
exceedances downwind and background concentrations of the relevant
pollutant are low. EPA requests comment on the emission limits proposed
for units 1 and 2.
EPA is not proposing to revise emission limits on the Portland
Plant's smaller units (i.e., units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler).
Based on our review of their emissions, EPA proposes revised emission
limits are not needed at units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler.
Portland Plant units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler have very small
emissions, in comparison to units 1 and 2. EPA's
[[Page 19677]]
modeling of unit 5 found a total contribution of only 0.1 percent
(i.e., 0.91 [mu]g/m\3\ contribution to the design value) so that
reductions in its contribution would provide a negligible reduction to
the modeled design value and thus do not need to be reduced. Annual
SO2 emissions reported in the 2008 NEI, Version 1 for the
auxiliary boiler, unit 3 and unit 4 were 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 tons,
respectively. Therefore, given the negligible modeled contribution from
unit 5, it can be assumed that emissions from these units do not need
to be reduced. Therefore, units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler can
continue to operate at their previous emissions limit. EPA requests
comment on its proposed determination not to establish emission limits
for units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler.
C. Proposed Compliance Schedules
Section 126 allows the Administrator to permit the continued
operation of a source if the source complies with emission limitations
and compliance schedules (including increments of progress) to bring
about compliance as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later
than 3 years after the date of the finding. See 42 U.S.C. 7426(c). EPA
proposes in this section the compliance schedule that would apply
unless the source opts to cease operation of the units subject to
emission limits. In subsection D later, EPA is requesting comment on an
alternate compliance schedule that would apply if the source opts to
cease operations at units subject to emission limits as its method of
compliance. As part of that, we are asking for comment on what would
constitute compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable'' if the source
decides to cease operation of the units subject to emission limits as
its method of compliance. The proposed compliance schedule and
increments of progress discussed in this subsection were developed
based on the assumption that the plant would need time to install
controls to reduce its emissions. They would not apply if the
compliance option selected is to cease operation of the units subject
to emission limits.
EPA proposes to require compliance with the emission limits
described in subsection VIII.B no later than 3 years from the effective
date of the section 126 finding. EPA is asking for comment on whether 3
years from the effective date of the section 126 finding is ``as
expeditious as practicable.'' In addition, EPA proposes a schedule of
interim reduction steps that will provide incremental progress toward
eventual compliance with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and a schedule of milestones that must be achieved to provide assurance
that the source is on track to achieve full compliance as expeditiously
as practicable and no later than the 3 year deadline.
EPA is proposing to include an interim reduction requirement
because section 126 calls for the establishment of a compliance
schedule ``including increments of progress,'' 42 U.S.C. 7426, and
interim reduction requirements constitute important increments of
progress towards full compliance. More specifically, EPA is proposing
to require the source to meet an SO2 emission limit of 2910
lbs/hr for unit 1 and 4450 lbs/hr for unit 2, representing a 50 percent
reduction from allowable SO2 emissions, after 1 year. EPA is
proposing this interim reduction because, as explained previously in
further detail, EPA's analysis supports that the Portland Plant's Units
1 and 2 are significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. EPA
has evaluated the emission reduction options available and has
determined that several potentially available options could provide
incremental reductions such as reagent injection, switching to lower
sulfur coal and load shifting. Information from the U.S. Department of
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey indicates lower sulfur coal may be
available in Pennsylvania.\28\ EPA's analysis of available control
technologies for coal-fired electric generating units and experience
with coal-fired electric generating units also support that reagent
injection can achieve emissions reductions at coal-fired electric
generating units in excess of fifty percent and can be installed and
operational on coal-fired electric generating units in less than 12
months.\29\ EPA requests comment on the proposed interim reduction
requirements for units 1 and 2, including achievability of limits in
the time proposed, and the impact of the reductions on the reliability
of the electric grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See information from the U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-763/#fig2.
\29\ See Summary Report, Trona Injection Tests, Mirant Potomac
River Station, Unit 1, November 12- December 23, 2005 at http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/mirant_012006_g.pdf; Kong,
Yougen and Davidson, Heidi, Dry Sorbent Injection of Sodium Sorbents
for SO2, HCl, and Mercury Mitigation, May 11-13, 2010 at
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec18/nawtec18-3560.pdf; ADA-ES, Inc, TOXECONTM Retrofit for
Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers, Topical
Report: Performance and Economic Assessment of Trona-Based
SO2/NOX Removal at the Presque Isle Power
Plant Prepared for We Energies and DOE/NETL, August 25, 2008 at
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/pubs/SOx-Ox%20Reduction%20at%20PIPP%20- 20Topical%20Report%20Final.pdf; and
ENSR Corporation, BART Analysis for the Kincaid Power Plant Prepared
for Dominion Energy, Inc., January 2009 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/drafts/regional-haze/bart-kincaid.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also proposes to establish the following milestones that the
source would be required to meet to demonstrate that it is on track to
achieving full compliance as expeditiously as practicable and no later
than the 3 year deadline.
(1) Within 3 months of EPA's finding, the Portland Plant shall
notify EPA whether it will continue to operate subject to the emission
limitations and compliance schedules established by EPA herein, whether
under the proposed emissions limits or under an alternative where the
plant would cease operation, such as the alternative compliance option
presented for comment later in this notice, in which the plant could
chooses to cease operation by a date certain, and meet certain interim
milestones for reducing emissions. If the plant plans to continue to
operate subject to emissions limits, the plant shall also indicate how
the plant intends to achieve full compliance with the emission limits
established in this notice. Specifically, the plant must indicate
whether it intends to cease or reduce operation at any emission unit
subject to emission limits as its method of compliance with such
limits. The Portland Plant must also include in this notice what
physical or operational changes, if any, the plant will implement as
its method of compliance with the emission limits and compliance
schedules EPA will establish in the section 126 finding, including
predicted emissions reductions and emission rates after changes are
implemented. EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposed
requirement, including on what specific information should be included
in this notification and the appropriate level of detail that should be
required.
(2) If the notice required by paragraph (1) above indicates that
the plant intends to continue operation of the plant past the three
month period, the plant must also comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (3)-(7) later.
(3) No later than 3 months from the date of the section 126
finding, the Portland Plant shall submit to EPA a modeling protocol,
consistent with EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, which is
codified at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W and other relevant modeling
guidance issued to support regulatory programs, for air modeling of the
selected remedy. The air modeling to be conducted by the source will
need
[[Page 19678]]
to demonstrate that, when that remedy is implemented, the Portland
Plant will no longer significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in New Jersey with respect to the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. All units at the Portland Plant (i.e., units 1
thru 5 plus the auxiliary boiler) shall be included in the modeling
analysis, in order to demonstrate that emissions from the Portland
Plant will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance with respect to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
(4) If EPA identifies deficiencies in the modeling protocol
submitted by the source, the Portland Plant will have 15 business days
to submit a revision to correct any deficiencies identified by EPA.
(5) No later than 6 months from the date of the section 126
finding, Portland Plant shall submit a modeling analysis for the
selected remedy performed in accordance with the modeling protocol.
(6) Beginning 6 months after the section 126 finding and continuing
every 6 months until the final compliance date, the Portland Plant
shall submit to EPA a progress report on the implementation of the
remedy, including status of design, technology selection, development
of technical specifications, awarding of contracts, construction,
shakedown, and compliance demonstration.
(7) No later than 3 years following EPA's final rulemaking, the
Portland Plant shall submit a final project report which demonstrates
compliance with the emission limits in the final rulemaking. The final
report shall include the date when full operation of controls was
achieved at the Portland Plant after shakedown; as well as a minimum of
1 month of CEMS data demonstrating compliance with the emission limits
in the final rulemaking.
EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposed compliance
schedule and the proposed increments of progress. Key issues EPA is
requesting comment on include: Whether the compliance schedule is
sufficient to achieve compliance as expeditiously as practicable;
whether additional increments of progress are necessary and, if so,
what they should be; what level of detail should be required in the
notices the Portland Plant will be required to submit; whether the
deadline for each increment of progress is appropriate or should be
sooner or later; whether continued periodic progress reports should be
required after the final compliance date; and whether the required
progress reports and final project reports are sufficient to document
and demonstrate compliance.
D. Alternate Compliance Schedule
As noted previously, EPA is also requesting comment on how to
interpret the phrase ``compliance as expeditiously as practicable''
when the source has selected to cease operation of either unit as its
method of compliance with the emission limit for that unit and
cessation cannot occur within 3 months of EPA's finding. If EPA
determines that it is appropriate to do so, EPA will include in the
final rule a compliance schedule and increments of progress that would
apply only if the source opts to cease operations at either unit
subject to an emission limit as its method of compliance with the
limit. EPA, therefore, is also requesting comment on what an
appropriate compliance schedule would be, what factors EPA should
consider in setting the compliance schedule, and what form the
increments of progress should take. Though not an exhaustive list of
relevant factors, EPA is taking comment on the following factors for
determining what ``compliance as expeditiously as practicable'' means
when compliance with an emission limit is to be achieved by ceasing to
operate the unit subject to the limit: Electricity grid reliability
issues; contracts that the source has with the electric utility
independent service operator (ISO); other contractual obligations that
the source has that would be impacted by a shutdown; whether the source
is designated as a reliability must-run unit for any purpose by the
ISO; whether some amount of electricity generating capacity at the
source could be shut down in a shorter time period without creating
reliability issues for the grid; what types of actions are required to
address grid reliability (if there are any such issues), such as
transmission line upgrades; how long it would take to address
reliability issues (if there are any such issues); and the continued
impact of interstate transport of emissions from the source on air
quality in the affected State. EPA is also taking comment on whether
other factors should be considered, and requests that commenters
identify any additional relevant factors. In light of the factors
enumerated previously as well as any other relevant factors, EPA is
requesting comment on what would be an appropriate compliance schedule,
that is as expeditious as practicable but no later than 3 years after
the date of such finding, if compliance with the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is to be achieved by ceasing operations of the
unit subject to the limit and cessation of operations cannot occur
within 3 months of EPA's finding.
In addition to these factors, EPA also requests comment on what
increments of progress should be established as part of the compliance
schedule discussed previously. EPA specifically requests comment on the
relevant milestones that should be included in a compliance schedule.
At a minimum the interim milestones discussed in paragraphs (1) through
(4) of section VIII.C would apply. That is, the Portland Plant would be
required to notify EPA whether it will cease to operate within 3 months
of EPA's finding or whether it will continue to operate subject to the
emission limitations and compliance schedules established by EPA
herein. The Portland Plant would also need to submit a protocol for and
later submit air quality modeling sufficient to demonstrate that
emissions from the plant, after implementation of the remedy, will no
longer significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. This
requirement would be waived only if the source opted to cease operation
of all emitting units at the Portland Plant.
EPA also specifically requests comment as to whether to include
interim emission reductions during the period of time that the plant
continues to operate after such a finding until the eventual shutdown.
And if so, EPA requests comment as to the appropriate level of emission
reductions.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and is therefore not
subject to review under EO 12866 or EO 13563.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed rule, if finalized, under section 126 of the CAA
will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens
but simply establishes a SO2 emission limit at the Portland
Plant. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
[[Page 19679]]
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
SO2 emission limits for the Portland Plant being proposed in
this notice do not impose any new requirements on small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The
costs necessary to comply with the emission limit proposed in this
notice are not expected to exceed $100 million or more for State,
local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private sector in
any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The requirements
for compliance in this action will be borne by a single, privately
owned source.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule primarily affects
private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
a substantial direct effect on Tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it proposes to improve a State
action for the implementation of a previously promulgated health or
safety based Federal standards. EPA believes that the proposed
emissions reductions in this rule will further improve air quality and
will further improve children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule limits emissions of
SO2 from the Portland Plant located in Northampton County,
Pennsylvania.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: March 31, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble part 52 of chapter I of
title 40
[[Page 19680]]
of the Code of Federal regulations are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN-- Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2039 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2039 Interstate transport.
EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air Act
that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the Portland
Generating Station in Northampton County, Upper Mount Bethel Township,
Pennsylvania significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere
with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. The owners and operators of the
Portland Generating Station shall either cease operations no later than
90 days from the effective date of the section 126 finding or comply
with the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(a) No later than 90 days from the effective date of the section
126 finding, the owners and operators of the Portland Generating
Station shall notify EPA whether the owners and operators will operate
the Portland Generating Station after the date 90 days after the
effective date of the section 126 finding in compliance with the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. If the
owners and operators will operate the Portland Generating Station after
such date, such notice must also specify the methods to be used to
ensure compliance with the emission limits in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section.
(b) The owners and operators of Portland Generating Station in
Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, shall
not, at any time later than three years after the effective date of the
section 126 finding, emit SO2 (as determined in accordance
with part 75 of this chapter) in excess of the following limits:
(1) 1,105 pounds per hour (``lbs/hr'') for unit 1 (identified with
source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) and
(2) 1,691 lbs/hr for unit 2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title
V Permit No. 48-0006).
(c) The owners and operators of the Portland Generating Station in
Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, shall
not, at any time later than one year after the effective date of the
section 126 finding, emit SO2 (as determined in accordance
with part 75 of this chapter) in excess of the following limits:
(1) 2,910 lbs/hr for unit 1 (identified with source ID 031 in Title
V Permit No. 48-0006); and
(2) 4,450 lbs/hr for unit 2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title
V Permit No. 48-0006);
(3) Provided that the limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of
this section shall not apply if the notice required by paragraph (a) of
this section indicates that the owners and operators of the Portland
Generating Station have decided to completely and permanently cease
operation of unit 1 (identified with source ID 031 in Title V Permit
No. 48-0006) and unit 2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title V
Permit No. 48-0006) as the method of compliance with the emission
limits in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) The owners and operators of the Portland Generating Station
shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Perform air modeling to demonstrate that, starting no later
than three years after the effective date of the section 126 finding,
emissions from the Portland Generating Station will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey, in accordance with the following
requirements:
(i) No later than 90 days after the effective date of the section
126 finding, submit to EPA a modeling protocol that is consistent with
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, as codified at 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W, and that includes all units at the Portland Generating
Station in the modeling.
(ii) Within 15 business days of receipt of a notice from EPA of any
deficiencies in the modeling protocol under paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section, submit to EPA a revised modeling protocol to correct any
deficiencies identified in such notice.
(iii) No later than 180 days after the effective date of the
section 126 finding, submit to EPA a modeling analysis, performed in
accordance with the modeling protocol under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and
(d)(1)(ii) of this section, for the compliance methods identified in
the notice required by paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Starting 180 days after the effective date of the section 126
finding and continuing every six months until the date three years
after the effective date of the section 126 finding, submit to EPA
progress reports on the implementation of the methods of compliance
identified in the notice required by paragraph (a) of this section,
including status of design, technology selection, development of
technical specifications, awarding of contracts, construction,
shakedown, and compliance demonstration. These reports shall include:
(i) An interim project report, submitted no later than one year
after the effective date of the section 126 finding, that demonstrates
compliance with the emission limits in paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) A final project report, submitted no later than three years
after the effective date of the section 126 finding, that demonstrates
compliance with the emission limits in paragraph (b) of this section
and that includes the date when full operation of controls was achieved
at the Portland Generating Station after shakedown.
(3) The requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section shall not apply if the notice required by paragraph (a) of this
section indicates that the owners and operators of the Portland
Generating Station have decided to completely and permanently cease
operation of unit 1 (identified with source ID 031 in Title V Permit
No. 48-0006) and unit 2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title V
Permit No. 48-0006) as the method of compliance with the emission
limits in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) If the notice required by paragraph (a) of this section
indicates that the owners and operators of the Portland Generating
Station have decided to completely and permanently cease operation of
unit 1 (identified with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006)
and unit 2 (identified with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48-
0006) as the method of compliance with the emission limits in paragraph
(b) of this section, the owners and operators shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) No later than 90 days after the effective date of the section
126 finding, submit to EPA an analysis of the time required to
completely and permanently cease operations at unit 1 (identified with
source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) and unit 2 (identified
with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) as expeditiously as
practicable.
(2) Within 15 business days of receipt of notice from EPA of any
deficiencies in the analysis under paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
submit to EPA a revised analysis to correct any deficiencies identified
by EPA.
(3) Completely and permanently cease operation of unit 1
(identified with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) by the
date that achieves, as determined by the Administrator,
[[Page 19681]]
expeditious as practicable cessation of operation.
(4) Completely and permanently cease operation of unit 2
(identified with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48-0006) by the
date that achieves, as determined by the Administrator, expeditious as
practicable cessation of operation.
[FR Doc. 2011-8166 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P