[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38898-38905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0353; FRL-9997-89-Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Massachusetts; Transport Element for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
interstate transport SIP requirements, referred to as the good neighbor
provision, for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the CAA that
[[Page 38899]]
the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions from
Massachusetts from having certain adverse air quality effects in other
states. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of
the infrastructure SIP submission that certifies that the Massachusetts
SIP contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the
Commonwealth will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hubbard, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suit 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1614, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis
A. Massachusetts's Analysis
B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
of the NAAQS
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ Whenever the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. This particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to
as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable. Due to ambiguity
in some of the language of CAA section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that
it is appropriate to interpret these provisions in the specific context
of acting on infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA has previously
provided comprehensive guidance on the application of these provisions
through a guidance document for infrastructure SIP submissions and
through regional actions on infrastructure submissions.\2\ Unless
otherwise noted below, we are following that existing approach in
acting on this submission. In addition, in the context of acting on
such infrastructure submissions, the EPA evaluates the submitting
state's SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements, not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ The EPA
has other authority to address any issues concerning a state's
implementation of the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that
comprise its SIP. One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
\2\ The EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including the EPA's
prior action on Massachusetts's infrastructure SIP to address the
1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 NAAQS (see 81 FR 93627, December 21, 2016).
\3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which
are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the February 9,
2018 Massachusetts submission, which certifies that the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP contains adequate provisions related to prong 1 and
prong 2, i.e., to ensure that air emissions in the Commonwealth will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS have been addressed in a separate rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the EPA's final action on other elements of
Massachusetts's SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 81 FR 93627
(December 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted PM2.5 and the
precursors to ozone and PM2.5,
[[Page 38900]]
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions sources
usually do not have long range SO2 impacts. The transport of
SO2 relative to the 1-hour NAAQS is more analogous to the
transport of Pb relative to the Pb NAAQS in that emissions of
SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant impacts of possible
concern only near the emissions source. However, ambient 1-hour
concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with
distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb,
because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as
are Pb particles and because SO2 typically has a higher
emissions release height than Pb. Emitted SO2 has wider
ranging impacts than emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging
impacts that treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5
would be appropriate. Accordingly, while the approaches that the EPA
has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally
focused, the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to
the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and
requires a different approach.
In SO2 transport analyses, we focus on a 50 km-wide zone
because the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with
distance. Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA
selected the ``urban scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to
50 kilometers (km) from point sources--given the usefulness of that
range in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the
effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point
sources.\5\ Furthermore, the American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) is the EPA's
preferred modeling platform for regulatory purposes for near-field
dispersion of emissions for distances up to 50 km (Appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51). As such, the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from
point sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air quality that
might impact downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, and 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section III of this proposed action, the EPA first
reviewed Massachusetts's analysis to assess how the Commonwealth
evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of
information the Commonwealth used in the analysis, and the conclusions
drawn by the Commonwealth. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, including review of the Massachusetts submission and other
available information, including ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, and emission trends within the
Commonwealth and neighboring states to which it could potentially
contribute or interfere.
III. Massachusetts's Submission and the EPA's Analysis
In this section, we provide an overview of Massachusetts's 2010
SO2 transport analysis included in its February 9, 2018
submission that addresses the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as well as the EPA's evaluation of prongs 1
and 2.
A. Massachusetts's Analysis
Massachusetts conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine
whether SO2 emissions from Massachusetts significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts
evaluated air monitoring data from ambient air monitoring stations in
Massachusetts, as well in neighboring and downwind states.
Massachusetts assessed whether SO2 emissions from sources
located within 50 km of Massachusetts's borders may have contributed
significantly to nonattainment or interfered with maintenance in
neighboring and downwind states. Massachusetts's analysis included
source-specific SO2 emissions data from Massachusetts
sources located within 50 km of Massachusetts's border and having
SO2 emissions over 100 tons per year (tpy). Massachusetts
included the most recent stationary source SO2 emissions
data, which was from 2015. These sources included: Brayton Point Energy
LLC (1446 tpy SO2, located 2 km from the Rhode Island
border), which shutdown in 2017; Mystic Station (729 tpy
SO2, located 39 km from the New Hampshire border); Solutia
Inc (523 tpy SO2, located 13 km from the Connecticut
border), which permanently switched from coal to natural gas in 2016;
NRG Canal LLC (492 tpy SO2, located 53 km to Rhode Island
border); Wheelabrator Millbury Inc (224 tpy SO2, located 20
km from the Connecticut border); SEMASS Partnership (192 tpy
SO2, located 32 km to the Rhode Island border); and Veolia
Energy Boston Inc (117 tpy SO2, located 43 km from the New
Hampshire border).
The largest SO2 point source in Massachusetts, Brayton
Point Energy LLC, permanently ceased operations in 2017. Massachusetts
noted that SO2 emissions have declined in the last 15 years,
and that SO2 levels at all monitors in the Commonwealth are
below the 75 ppb SO2 NAAQS. The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) certifies that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
neighboring state.
B. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
The EPA has analyzed the ambient air quality data, data from
SO2 emission sources, distance from neighboring states, and
emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states,
i.e., Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.\6\ Based on that analysis and discussed in greater detail
below, the EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts's SIP meets the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prong 1 for the 2010 NAAQS, and Massachusetts will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For this analysis, though Maine does not share a border with
Massachusetts, the EPA is analyzing SO2 transport impacts
of Massachusetts sources on ambient air in Maine, because Maine is
located approximately 24 km from Massachusetts at its nearest point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 includes the most recent air quality design value for each
active SO2 monitor in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or
downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border. These monitors
were reviewed to see if there are any sites that show elevated
SO2 concentrations which may warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from
Massachusetts emission sources near any given monitor.
[[Page 38901]]
Table 1--SO2 Monitor Values in Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to 2016-2018
State/city or town Site ID Massachusetts design value
border (km) * (ppb)[dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut/Cornwall............................................ 09-005-0005 25 2
Massachusetts/Fall River........................................ 25-005-1004 2 7
Massachusetts/Ware.............................................. 25-015-4002 31 3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................ 25-025-0002 41 3
Massachusetts/Boston............................................ 25-025-0042 43 4
Massachusetts/Worcester......................................... 25-027-0023 26 4
New Hampshire/Peterborough...................................... 33-011-5001 18 2
New Hampshire/Suncook........................................... 33-013-1006 46 14
New Hampshire/Portsmouth........................................ 33-015-0014 24 13
New Hampshire/Londonderry....................................... 33-015-0018 17 3
New York/Loudonville............................................ 36-001-0012 41 3
New York/Millbrook.............................................. 36-027-0007 36 2
Rhode Island/East Providence.................................... 44-007-1010 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
[dagger] Data retrieved from the EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report on July
24, 2019.
As seen in the Table 1, there are no violating monitored design
values in Massachusetts or neighboring or downwind states. The data
presented in Table 1 show that Massachusetts's network of
SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour
SO2 design values that monitored 1-hour SO2
levels in Massachusetts range between 4% and 10% of the 75 ppb level of
the NAAQS. As shown above, all five Massachusetts SO2
monitors are located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border.
Seven monitors with data sufficient to calculate a design value for the
2016-2018 period in neighboring or downwind states are located within
50 km of the Massachusetts border, and these monitors recorded
SO2 design values ranging between 2% and 19% of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by
themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring states.
However, the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all
locations of high SO2 concentrations. Therefore, this
observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at monitored
locations, but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of
impact at all locations in the neighboring and downwind states. Given
this, the EPA has also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
As mentioned previously, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in
Massachusetts in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the source.
The EPA assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to
evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality. The list of sources with 2015 emissions equal to or greater
than 100 tpy \7\ SO2 within 50 km from Massachusetts borders
is shown in Table 2, based on Massachusetts's submission. The EPA has
also included 2017 SO2 emissions for those sources in the
table, which were collected from MassDEP and transmitted to the EPA for
incorporation into the National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Massachusetts limited its analysis to Massachusetts sources
of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy in 2015. We agree with
Massachusetts's choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in
the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby
larger source or unusual factors, Massachusetts sources emitting
less than 100 tpy can appropriately be assumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS. The
EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy
SO2, with the next highest source (Wheelabrator Saugus
Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO2. Ardagh Glass Inc. has
permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given these
facts, the EPA finds MassDEP's analysis of SO2 sources
above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO2 transport
impacts to neighboring and downwind states.
Table 2--Massachusetts SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 emissions
Distance (km) (tons) for the
to nearest nearest
2015 SO2 2017 SO2 Distance to neighboring neighboring or
Massachusetts source emissions emissions Massachusetts state SO2 source downwind state
(tons) (tons) border (km) emitting over source
100 tons in 2017 emitting over
100 tons *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brayton Point Energy LLC (shut 1,446 552 2 150 (Public 263
down in May 2017). Service of New
Hampshire
(PSNH) Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
Mystic Station................ 729 354 39 82 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
SEMASS Partnership............ 192 301 32 140 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
Solutia Inc (ceased burning 523 0 13 104 (Monadnock 101
coal as of December 2016). Paper Mills
Inc--Bennington
, New
Hampshire).
Veolia Energy Boston Inc...... 117 0 43 85 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
[[Page 38902]]
Wheelabrator Millbury Inc..... 224 187 20 88 (PSNH 263
Schiller
Station--Portsm
outh, New
Hampshire).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data were obtained using the EPA's 2017 NEI Draft.
Table 2 shows the distance from each Massachusetts source emitting
at least 100 tpy SO2 in 2015 to the nearest out-of-state
source emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 in 2017. As shown,
six facilities in Massachusetts are within 50 km of the border with
another state and are at a distance of 82 km or greater from the
nearest out-of-state SO2 source emitting over 100 tpy. The
nearest SO2 source emitting greater than 100 tpy in
Massachusetts to a neighboring state, Brayton Point Energy LLC (2 km
from Rhode Island), permanently ceased operations on May 31, 2017.
Solutia Inc (13 km from Connecticut) converted its coal-fired unit to
natural gas in 2016 and is no longer permitted to burn fuels that would
result in emissions equal to or greater than 100 tpy. The EPA has
reviewed the data Massachusetts submitted and agrees with the
determination that the closure of Brayton Point Energy LLC and fuel
switching at Solutia Inc have significantly lowered SO2
emissions in Massachusetts and are not having downwind impacts in
violation of prongs 1 and 2.
For the remaining active Massachusetts point sources emitting over
100 tpy of SO2, i.e., Mystic Station, SEMASS Partnership,
Veolia Energy Boston Inc, and Wheelabrator Millbury Inc, the nearest
SO2 source in a neighboring state is PSNH Schiller Station
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The EPA has assessed potential
SO2 impacts from Massachusetts sources on the New Hampshire
area with SO2 sources near the Massachusetts border,
specifically the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area and the Central New
Hampshire nonattainment area, by examining monitoring and modeling
information. These assessments are presented as follows for the Central
New Hampshire nonattainment area and the Portsmouth, New Hampshire
area.
First, the EPA assessed information presented by Massachusetts
regarding the State's impacts in the Central New Hampshire
nonattainment area. Massachusetts reviewed potential SO2
impacts on the Central New Hampshire area, which includes parts of
Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham counties, and was designated as
a nonattainment area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on August 5,
2013. The nonattainment designation was related to a monitored
violation of the NAAQS at a monitoring station in Pembroke, New
Hampshire and caused primarily by SO2 emissions from nearby
Merrimack Generating Station in Bow, New Hampshire.\8\ The Merrimack
Generating Station facility installed an emissions control system in
response to a New Hampshire requirement, and the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) established stringent
emissions limits and other conditions for the facility on September 1,
2016. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the Central New
Hampshire area on January 31, 2017, which relied mainly on the
emissions limits and other conditions established for the facility, and
the EPA approved that plan on June 5, 2018.\9\ New Hampshire's
attainment plan and demonstration relies on air dispersion modeling of
the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent to the
federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions limit
for the Merrimack Generating Station, in addition to monitored
background concentrations. These measured background concentrations
account for contributions from Massachusetts. The New Hampshire
modeling analysis demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack
Generating Station, in addition to the background levels, will not
cause a violation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The attainment
plan did not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and
relied solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to
address the nonattainment. Therefore, the EPA concludes that sources in
Massachusetts do not contribute significantly to SO2
nonattainment in the Central New Hampshire area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR part 81 Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013).
\9\ See the EPA's final action on the Central New Hampshire
Nonattainment Area Plan for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at 83 FR
25922 (June 5, 2018).
\10\ On July 31, 2019, the EPA published a proposal to formally
redesignate the Central New Hampshire SO2 Nonattainment
Area to attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (84 FR 37187).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the EPA has assessed information, including both monitoring
and modeling information, for the area around Portsmouth, New Hampshire
during the third round of SO2 designations.\11\ For
monitoring information, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data in
the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area. There is one SO2 monitor
(Site ID 33-015-0014--See Table 1) in the area, located 4 km southeast
of PSNH Schiller Station. As shown, this monitor recorded a design
value of 13 ppb from 2016-2018. This design value indicates that
SO2 levels are low (17% of the NAAQS) in areas of
Portsmouth. An additional monitor sited at Sawgrass Lane in Eliot,
Maine (Site ID 23-031-0009), was located 1.1 miles to the northeast of
PSNH Schiller Station and collected ambient SO2 data from
October 24, 2014 to April 1, 2016. The maximum 1-hour SO2
concentration observed from this monitor was 37.7 ppb on January 8,
2015, when winds came from the direction of PSNH Schiller Station and
the power plant was operating at near-maximum capacity.\12\ While the
[[Page 38903]]
Portsmouth SO2 monitor is not sited to determine maximum
impacts from PSNH Schiller Station, the Sawgrass Lane monitor measured
combined impacts from PSNH Schiller Station and background
concentrations for the area that generally include contributions from
sources emitting upwind in Massachusetts. Additionally, Massachusetts
noted air quality modeling by the State of New Hampshire. New
Hampshire's air quality modeling indicates that allowable emissions
from PSNH Schiller Station combined with background levels that include
contributions from sources emitting SO2 in Massachusetts
will not cause a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\13\ The
EPA has previously evaluated that modeling and agrees that the modeling
supports Massachusetts's conclusion. Therefore, the EPA concludes that
sources in Massachusetts would not contribute significantly to
SO2 nonattainment in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A full assessment of New Hampshire's modeling for the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire area is provided in the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017).
\12\ The Sawgrass Lane monitor was sited in an area expected to
experience peak SO2 impacts from PSNH Schiller Station
based on modeling information submitted by the Town of Eliot.
Additional background and results of the Sawgrass Lane monitoring
study are described in the report, ``Review of 2014-2016 Eliot,
Maine Air Quality Monitoring Study,'' EPA, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, and NH DES (September 2016).
\13\ See EPA's final action of New Hampshire's SIP revision at
83 FR 64470 (December 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed sources in neighboring and downwind states
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km
of the Massachusetts border (see Table 3). This is because elevated
SO2 levels, to which an SO2 source in
Massachusetts may contribute, are most likely to be found near such
sources. Massachusetts based its analysis on 2015 SO2
emissions, and the EPA has included updated 2017 emissions as part of
the weight of evidence analysis. As shown in Table 3, the shortest
distance between a source emitting at least 100 tpy SO2 in
Massachusetts and one in another state is 82 km. Given the localized
range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, this indicates that
there are no additional locations in neighboring and downwind states
that would warrant further investigation with respect to Massachusetts
SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Table 3--Neighboring and Downwind State SO2 Sources Greater Than 100 tpy and Within 50 km of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to
nearest Massachusetts
2015 SO2 2017 SO2 Distance to Massachusetts source 2015
Source emissions emissions Massachusetts SO2 source emissions
(tons) * (tons) border (km) greater than 100 (tons)
tpy (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge North America--Ravena 4,806 63 36 107 (Solutia 523
(Ravena, New York). Inc--Springfiel
d).
Monadnock Paper Mills Inc [dagger] 80 101 36 88 (Wheelabrator 224
(Bennington, New Hampshire). Millbury Inc--
Millbury).
Norlite Corp (Cohoes, New [dagger][dagge 60 34 117 (Solutia 523
York). r] 117 Inc--Springfiel
d).
Northeast Solite Corporation [dagger][dagge 303 39 121 (Solutia 523
(Glasco, New York). r] 222 Inc--Springfiel
d).
PSNH--Merrimack Station (Bow, 636 144 49 90 (Mystic 729
New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
PSNH--Newington Station 294 41 25 82 (Mystic 729
(Newington, New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
PSNH--Schiller Station 858 263 26 82 (Mystic 729
(Portsmouth, New Hampshire). Station--Everet
t).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data retrieved, unless otherwise noted, by the EPA from its Emissions Inventory System gateway, available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway, on July 22, 2019 for
2015 emissions as submitted by MassDEP, New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection.
[dagger] Emissions data reported by NHDES.
[dagger][dagger] Emissions data reported by NYDEC.
The EPA also assessed previous modeling information available for
the Lafarge North America--Ravena facility in Ravena, New York. This
modeling information was available based on the technical support
document for the EPA's intended Round 3 air quality designations for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (82 FR 41903, September 5, 2017). The
Lafarge North America--Ravena facility had its kiln replaced in 2016,
resulting in considerably lower emissions than those emitted prior to
the kiln replacement. The Lafarge North America--Ravena facility was
modeled using new allowable emissions rather than previous actual
emissions and the modeling indicated the area around the facility would
not violate the NAAQS. New York's modeling, which the EPA found
accurately characterized air quality in the area of analysis, included
monitored background concentrations for the area. Based on this
information, the EPA concludes that combined impacts from Lafarge North
America--Ravena and background levels will not cause a violation of the
NAAQS.
Massachusetts asserted that because there are no large sources of
SO2 emissions that significantly affect any neighboring
state, and because monitored SO2 levels in Massachusetts and
adjacent states are substantially below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
sources in Massachusetts do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment areas in any neighboring states. The EPA agrees with this
conclusion.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, the EPA reviewed
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission
sources both within Massachusetts and in neighboring and downwind
states. Based on this analysis, the EPA proposes to determine that
Massachusetts will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
C. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance of the
NAAQS
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion
that Massachusetts will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
The EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to
require an
[[Page 38904]]
evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that
are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment
areas (and thus current maintenance areas). Therefore, in addition to
the analysis presented by Massachusetts, the EPA has also reviewed
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission
trends to evaluate the Commonwealth's conclusion that Massachusetts
will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically,
because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2
in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the EPA is
proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near
the Massachusetts border do not indicate any inability to maintain the
SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in
Massachusetts.
As shown in Table 1 in section III.B. of this notice, the EPA
reviewed 2016-2018 SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2
design values in Massachusetts and neighboring states. There are no
violating monitored design values in Massachusetts or neighboring or
downwind states.
Table 4 shows emission trends for Massachusetts along with
neighboring and downwind states (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island, and Vermont).
Table 4--Statewide SO2 Data (tpy) for Massachusetts and Neighboring and Downwind States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
State 2000 2005 2010 2017 2000-2017 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts................... 208,146 139,937 57,892 15,100 93
Connecticut..................... 60,309 34,638 16,319 11,379 81
Maine........................... 57,906 32,397 17,020 10,447 82
New Hampshire................... 68,768 63,634 35,716 6,401 91
New York........................ 543,868 386,568 170,247 38,641 93
Rhode Island.................... 8,976 7,356 4,416 3,399 62
Vermont......................... 9,438 7,038 3,659 1,512 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4, the statewide SO2 emissions from
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states have decreased
substantially over time, per the EPA's review of emissions trends data
for these states.\14\ From 2000 to 2017, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by the following proportions: Massachusetts (93%
decrease), Connecticut (81% decrease), Maine (82% decrease), New
Hampshire (91% decrease), New York (93% decrease), Rhode Island (62%
decrease), and Vermont (84%). This trend of decreasing SO2
emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Massachusetts
and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope
of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they
are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these
reductions suggest there is very low likelihood that a strong upward
trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in
attainment to violate the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in Massachusetts's submission, sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Massachusetts's SIP-approved
SO2 control programs. These programs include the low sulfur
fuel rule, emissions standards for power plants, SO2 limits
on municipal waste combustors, and a statewide permitting program. The
low sulfur fuel rule reduces the sulfur content of oil combusted in
stationary sources and requires the use of low sulfur fuel for large
stationary engines and turbines based on EPA requirements for diesel
fuel.\15\ Massachusetts notes in the submission that sulfur emissions
from stationary sources will continue to decrease over time due to
MassDEP's fuel rule. The State's Emissions Standards for Power Plants
regulation establishes a facility-wide rolling 12-month SO2
emissions rate of 3.0 pounds per megawatt-hour and a monthly average
emissions rate of 6.0 pounds per megawatt-hour.\16\ The State's 310 CMR
7.08 regulations establish limits on municipal waste combustors and
requires such facilities to establish emission control plans and places
limits on SO2.\17\ MassDEP's statewide permitting program
establishes a pre-construction Plan Approval for sources that require
Best Available Control Technology for pollutants will be emitted,
including SO2, and ensures that projects requiring Plan
Approvals will limit SO2 emissions.\18\ These regulations
will help ensure that sulfur emissions from stationary sources will
continue to decrease over time, and that new or modified stationary
sources in Massachusetts will not cause exceedances of the
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See the EPA's final action of the regional haze portions in
Massachusetts's SIP, at 78 FR 57487 (September 21, 2013).
\16\ Id.
\17\ See the EPA's final action of the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) of nitrous oxides in Massachusetts's SIP,
at 64 FR 48095, September 13, 1999.
\18\ See the EPA's final action of the Massachusetts ``U
Restricted Emission Status'' regulation into the SIP, at 60 FR
17226, April 5, 1995. Massachusetts has delegation of the Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program (See CFR 40
52.1165).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA reviewed
additional information about emissions trends, Massachusetts
regulations that limit SO2 sources, and the technical
information considered for interstate transport prong 1. The EPA finds
that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states, the distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Massachusetts and neighboring and
downwind states, and Massachusetts regulations that limit
SO2 sources indicate no interference with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS from Massachusetts. Accordingly, the EPA
proposes to determine that Massachusetts SO2 emissions
sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
[[Page 38905]]
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts's February 9, 2018
submission of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-17000 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P