[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8156-8159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MA-35-1-6659b; A-1-FRL-5968-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major
Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval/limited disapproval of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and full approval of two other
SIP revisions submitted by Massachusetts. This revision establishes and
requires the implementation of reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The
intended effect of this action is to propose a limited approval/limited
disapproval of a regulation and the full approval of two source-
specific NOx RACT determinations. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Public comments on this document are requested and
will be considered before taking final action on this SIP revision.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203.
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment, at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston,
MA and the Division of Air Quality Control, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, at (617) 565-2773, or
by e-mail at: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 15, 1994, October 4, 1996, and
December 2, 1996, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (Massachusetts or MA DEP) submitted revisions to its SIP.
The revisions added 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx),'' as well as source-
specific NOx RACT determinations for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated
in Adams and Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in Springfield
on the above dates, respectively.
I. Background
The CAA requires States to develop RACT regulations for all major
stationary sources of NOx in areas which have been classified as
``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' and ``extreme'' ozone
nonattainment areas, and in all areas of the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). This
requirement is established by sections 182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of
the CAA. These sections, taken together, establish the requirements for
Massachusetts to submit a NOx RACT regulation for all major stationary
sources of NOx statewide.
These CAA NOx RACT requirements are further described by EPA in a
document entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' published November 25, 1992
(57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 document, also known as the NOx
Supplement, should be referred to for
[[Page 8157]]
more detailed information on NOx requirements. Additional EPA guidance
memoranda, such as those included in the ``NOx Policy Document for the
Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996), should also be
referred to for more information on NOx requirements.
Section 182(b)(2) requires States located in areas classified as
moderate ozone nonattainment areas to require implementation of RACT
with respect to all major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Additionally, section 182(f) states that, ``The plan provisions
required under this subpart for major stationary sources of volatile
organic compounds shall also apply to major stationary sources (as
defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the
section) of oxides of nitrogen.'' This RACT requirement also applies to
all major sources in ozone nonattainment areas with higher than
moderate nonattainment classifications.
Section 302 of the CAA generally defines ``major stationary
source'' as a facility or source of air pollution which has the
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of air pollution. This
definition applies unless another provision of the CAA explicitly
defines major source differently. Therefore, for NOx, a major source is
one with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more in marginal
and moderate areas, as well as in attainment areas in the OTR. However,
for serious nonattainment areas, a major source is defined by section
182(c) as a source that has the potential to emit 50 tons per year or
more. The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts is classified as a
serious nonattainment area for ozone. Thus, in Massachusetts, NOx RACT
is required from all sources with the potential to emit 50 tons per
year or more of NOx.
A. Regulatory Background
Massachusetts was notified in a January 23, 1991 letter from Region
I that ``The CAAAs mandate that within 2 years of enactment, states
submit a SIP revision which requires the implementation of RACT and NSR
requirements with respect to oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for all major
stationary sources * * * ``
On August 10, 1992, Massachusetts submitted a draft of 310 CMR 7.19
to EPA for comment. Region I met with MA DEP on August 26, 1992 and
provided informal oral comments on the draft. On January 5, 1993, EPA
Region I received proposed revisions to the Massachusetts SIP,
including 310 CMR 7.19. On February 8, 9, 10, and 12, 1993,
Massachusetts held public hearings on these proposed SIP changes.
Region I provided formal comments to Massachusetts on February 19,
1993.
In April 1994, Massachusetts proposed a number of minor changes to
310 CMR 7.19 and held a public hearing on those changes on May 6, 1994.
EPA submitted written comments on these changes on May 19, 1994. The
regulations were signed by the Secretary of State on July 1, 1994, and
became effective on that date. MA DEP submitted its adopted regulation
as a formal SIP submittal to EPA on July 15, 1994. After reviewing the
regulation for completeness, EPA sent a letter on July 15, 1995 stating
that Massachusetts' rule had been found to be administratively and
technically complete.
Additionally, in April 1994, Massachusetts proposed a number of
amendments to 310 CMR 7.19 and 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B(4) concerning
emissions averaging. Public hearings were held on May 6 and 10, 1994.
EPA provided written comments to Massachusetts on May 19, 1994. These
changes were signed by the Secretary of State on January 11, 1995 and
became effective on January 27, 1995. These adopted changes were
received by EPA on April 14, 1995. On September 11, 1995, EPA sent a
letter to Massachusetts deeming the submittal of these changes
administratively and technically complete. On August 8, 1996, EPA
approved these changes as part of the emissions averaging, banking, and
trading program (see 61 FR 41371).
On February 7, 1995, MA DEP proposed approval of the NOx RACT
emission control plan which defined NOx RACT for two lime kilns at
Specialty Minerals, Inc., in Adams, Massachusetts. The two kilns are
subject to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR 7.19(12). On
March 9, 1995, a public hearing was held on the proposed approval. EPA
submitted written comments to the public record on March 3, 1995
concerning this proposal. On June 16, 1995, MA DEP issued a final
approval of the NOx RACT emission control plan (transmittal
65843). On October 4, 1996, the final approval of the plan was
submitted to EPA for approval into the Massachusetts SIP. On February
6, 1997, EPA deemed the submittal administratively and technically
complete.
Similarly, on May 19, 1995, MA DEP proposed approval of the NOx
RACT emission control plan for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard
facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. On June 16, 1995, a public
hearing was held concerning the proposed approval. The proposed plan
approval defined NOx RACT for the stoker fired coal burning boiler at
Monsanto which is subject to the miscellaneous NOx RACT provisions of
310 CMR 7.19(12). EPA submitted written comments to the public record
on June 9, 1995. MA DEP proposed a final approval on September 12,
1996, and held a second hearing on the proposal on October 4, 1996. MA
DEP issued a final NOx RACT plan approval on October 28, 1996 and
submitted the final plan approval to EPA on December 2, 1996 for
approval into the Massachusetts SIP. On February 6, 1997, EPA deemed
the submittal administratively and technically complete.
B. Description of Submittal
Massachusetts' Regulation 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx),'' is divided
into fifteen sections. Section (1) defines the applicability of the
overall rule to a NOx emitting facility, although the applicability of
the rule to an individual emission unit is further determined in each
section, based on a unit's type and size. Basically, an emissions unit
is subject to the rule if it exceeds a minimum capacity rating and is
located at a major source.
Section (2) describes the general provisions of the regulation,
including the general criteria for source specific alternative RACT
limits, as well as general requirements for seasonal fuel-switching.
Section (3) describes the general applicability, notification,
elements, prohibitions, and approval of emission control plans for
certain types of RACT subject sources.
Section (4) describes the NOx RACT requirements for large boilers.
Large boilers are defined as having an energy input capacity of 100
million British thermal units (Btu) per hour or greater. This section
further defines NOx RACT emission limitations for the following types
of large boilers: dry bottom boilers burning coal, both tangentially
and face-fired; stoker fired boilers burning other solid fuels; boilers
burning either oil or oil and gas; and boilers burning only gas.
Section (4) also sets out the requirements for any large boiler owners
choosing to repower, as well as the emission rate limitations that the
repowered units must meet. Additionally, section (4) includes the
requirements for large boilers seeking alternative NOx RACT
determinations, procedures for determining the NOx standard when
multiple fuels are burned, and testing, monitoring, record keeping,
reporting, and emission control plan requirements. Also, section (4)
sets a carbon monoxide emission limitation for large boilers.
[[Page 8158]]
Section (5) describes the requirements for medium boilers. Medium
boilers are defined as boilers with energy input capacities of greater
than 50 million Btu per hour but less than 100 million Btu per hour.
This section sets NOx standards for the following types of boilers:
tangential, face fired, or stoker fired boilers burning solid fuels;
tangential or face fired boilers burning gas only, distillate oil or
distillate oil and gas, and residual oil or residual oil and gas; and
boilers which cofire multiple fuels. Additionally, section (5) sets a
carbon monoxide emission limitation for medium boilers.
Section (6) describes the NOx RACT requirements for boilers with
energy input capacities of less than 50 million Btu per hour and
greater than or equal to 20 million Btu per hour, i.e., small boilers.
Basically, this section describes the tune-up procedures which must be
followed for these boilers, as well as the applicable emissions record
keeping and reporting requirements.
Section (7) of the rule deals with stationary combustion turbines
having energy input capacities of 25 million Btu per hour or greater.
This section sets NOx emission standards for simple and combined cycle
stationary combustion turbines burning gas, oil, or gas and oil.
Section (8) of the rule describes the requirements for stationary
reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines with energy input
capacities greater than or equal to 3 million Btu per hour. This
section exempts engines which do not operate for more than 300 hours
per year and are not operated as load-shaving units, peak power units,
or standby engines in an energy assistance program. This section sets
emission standards for reciprocating internal combustion engines which
have operated for 1000 hours or more during a 12 month period since
1990. The specific standards apply to the following engine types: rich
burn, gas-fired; lean burn, gas-fired; and lean burn, oil-fired or dual
fueled. Section (8) requires ignition timing retard to be performed on
engines which have not operated more than 1000 hours per year since
1990.
Section (9) is reserved for NOx RACT requirements for incinerators.
Section (10) is also reserved.
Section (11) describes the requirements for glass melting furnaces
that have maximum production rates of 14 tons or greater of glass
removed per day.
Section (12) describes NOx RACT requirements for miscellaneous
emission units, i.e., emissions units with potential emissions of NOx
greater than or equal to 25 tons per year, before the application of
control equipment, at facilities having potential emissions greater
than or equal to 50 tons per year of NOx, for which 310 CMR 7.19 does
not set specific NOx emission standards. This section exempts emissions
units already subject to BACT or LAER. Section (12) requires that the
emission control plans for these miscellaneous NOx RACT sources be
approved by EPA as well as the State.
Section (13) establishes testing, monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting requirements for sources subject to sections 7.19(2)(b), (4),
(5), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), or (14). This section requires
certain sources to demonstrate compliance with NOx emission standards
by using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). These sources
include: boilers with energy input capacities greater than 250 million
Btu per hour, units involved in emissions averaging, combined cycle
combustion turbines with energy input capacities of greater than or
equal to 100 million Btu per hour, sources currently using CEMS, and
sources determined to need a CEMS as part of a miscellaneous or
alternative RACT plan. Section (13) also describes the specific CEMS
requirements. For other types of sources, section (13) describes the
stack-testing and record keeping requirements which must be met.
Section (14) deals with the averaging of emissions from multiple
units to achieve compliance. Massachusetts previously submitted this
section as part of the regulations concerning emissions averaging as
specified in 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B(4). These regulations were
approved in a separate rulemaking action.
Section (15) specifies the proration formula for determining the
applicable emission limitation when different fuels are burned either
simultaneously or during the same hour or same day if a 24 hour
averaging time is used (i.e., cofiring).
Additionally, Massachusetts submitted two case specific RACT
determinations for facilities with NOx emitting units that are subject
to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR 7.19(12). First, the
NOx RACT emission control plan for Specialty Minerals, Inc.
specifically defines NOx RACT for two lime kilns at the facility
located in Adams, Massachusetts. Similarly, the NOx RACT emission
control plan for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in
Springfield, Massachusetts specifically defines NOx RACT for the
facility's stoker fired coal burning boiler.
EPA's evaluation of the submitted regulations and source specific
RACT determinations is detailed in a memorandum, dated May 13, 1997,
entitled ``Technical Support Document for Massachusetts' Regulation 310
CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx), and Case-Specific NOx RACT for Monsanto Company's
Indian Orchard Plant in Springfield, and Specialty Minerals, Inc. in
Adams.'' Copies of the document are available, upon request, from the
EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
II. Issues
There are two issues associated with this rulemaking action. The
first issue is related to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR
7.19(12). Massachusetts proposed NOx RACT emission control plans for
four sources with processes subject to the miscellaneous NOx RACT
provisions of the rule: Lee Lime Corporation in Lee; Specialty
Minerals, Inc., in Adams; Indeck Energy Services of Turners Falls, Inc.
in Turners Falls; and, Monsanto Company, in Springfield. To date,
however, EPA has only received SIP submittals for Specialty Minerals,
Inc. and Monsanto Company. Therefore, Massachusetts must still submit
final NOx RACT emission control plans for the units subject to
miscellaneous NOx RACT provisions at Lee Lime and Indeck Energy.
Second, the July 15, 1994 SIP submittal for 310 CMR 7.19 did not
contain any emission limitations for incinerators with the potential to
emit greater than 50 tons of NOx per year, including municipal waste
combustors. According to the Massachusetts emissions inventory and
EPA's database in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS),
however, there are a number of incinerators of this size currently
operating in Massachusetts. Therefore, Massachusetts must either revise
section 7.19(9) to include a NOx emission limit for these categories of
units, or consider these units as subject to the miscellaneous RACT
section (i.e., 310 CMR 7.19(12)) of the rule and define source-specific
NOx limits for them. As miscellaneous RACT units, 310 CMR 7.19(12)
requires sources to submit emission control plans to MA DEP;
subsequently, the plan approvals must be submitted to and approved by
EPA as source-specific SIP revisions.
[[Page 8159]]
III. EPA Proposed Action
EPA's review of this material indicates that Massachusetts has
defined NOx RACT emission limitations or technology standards for a
number of source categories and individual sources. However, not all
major stationary sources of NOx have been covered by the regulations
and case specific determinations. Thus, by incorporating 310 CMR 7.19
and the submitted RACT determinations into the Massachusetts SIP, the
SIP is strengthened but does not meet the requirements of sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA.
Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited approval/limited disapproval
of the Massachusetts SIP revision for 310 CMR 7.19, which was submitted
on July 15, 1994. In light of the deficiencies discussed in the issues
section above, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule under
section 110(k)(3) and part D of the CAA. However, EPA may grant a
limited approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) and
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval
is limited because EPA's action also includes a limited disapproval.
EPA is also proposing full approval of the source specific RACT
determinations for Monsanto Company in Springfield, and Specialty
Minerals, Inc. in Adams, Massachusetts.
To receive full approval of 310 CMR 7.19, Massachusetts must submit
final emission control plans for Lee Lime Corporation in Lee and Indeck
Energy Services in Turners Falls, Massachusetts. Additionally,
Massachusetts must either revise section 7.19(9) to include NOx
emission limits for incinerators, or consider these units as subject to
the miscellaneous RACT section (i.e., 310 CMR 7.19(12)) of the rule and
define source-specific NOx limits for them. For full approval of 310
CMR 7.19, all of these limits must be approved by EPA.
As stated, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of this rule
under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA because the rule does
not meet the requirements of sections 182(b) and 182(f) of the Act.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission
under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in
section 179(b) unless the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of
the disapproval. Section 179(b) makes two sanctions available to the
Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-month period
referred to in section 179(a) will begin at the effective date
established in this limited disapproval. Moreover, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c).
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to
the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Limited SIP approvals and disapprovals under sections 110 and 301,
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements
but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP limited approval/limited disapproval
does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a significant
impact on any affected small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of
the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed limited approval/limited
disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 4, 1998.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 98-4004 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
