[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66257-66264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21438]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189; FRL-10014-98-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to 
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
for individual major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action, 
EPA is only approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-
case'') RACT determinations for four major sources. These RACT 
evaluations were submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA 
is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing 
regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch 
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 
The telephone number is (215) 814-5273. Ms. Bertram can also be reached 
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 5, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 85 FR 26647. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case 
RACT determinations for four sources in Pennsylvania for the 1997 and 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT determinations for these 
four sources were included in SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on 
November 21, 2017, April 26, 2018, June 26, 2018, and October 29, 2018.
    Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP 
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of 
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has 
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS. 
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered 
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is 
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth. 
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major 
source'' definitions established under the CAA based on their 
classification. In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any 
areas outside of moderate or above nonattainment areas, as part of the 
Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are subject to source thresholds of 50 
tons per year (tpy). CAA section 184(b).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT 
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. 
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain 
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX 
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested 
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT 
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the 
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II 
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control 
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX 
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources 
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule 
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be 
implemented.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental 
SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address 
various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016 
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania 
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through the current rule, 
certain source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by 
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section II of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based 
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental 
SIP revision. See 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA 
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP 
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan 
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT 
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting 
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final 
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revisions 
addressed in this rule are part of PADEP's efforts to meet the 
conditions of its supplemental SIP revision and EPA's conditional 
approval of the RACT II Rule.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional 
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-case 
RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. 
Code

[[Page 66258]]

129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a case-
by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of 
these major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a 
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an 
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred 
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than 
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more 
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the 
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are 
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II 
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part 
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT 
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing 
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements for four major sources of NOX and/or 
VOC in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1.

 Table 1--Four Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under
                                      the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Major source
        Major source (county)          1-Hour ozone RACT source?   pollutant (NOX and/or      RACT II permit
                                               (RACT I)                    VOC)              (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transco--Salladasburg Station 520     Yes.......................  NOX and VOC...........  41-00001 (06/06/17).
 (Lycoming).
Novipax (Berks).....................  Yes.......................  VOC...................  06-05036 (12/19/2017).
Sunoco Partners Marketing &           Yes.......................  NOX and VOC...........  23-00119 (01/20/17).
 Terminals (Delaware).
Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.      Yes.......................  VOC...................  46-00037 (03/10/17).
 (Montgomery).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of 
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of 
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP 
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if 
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new, 
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing 
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new 
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits) 
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or 
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been 
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's 
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT 
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1 
of this preamble, along with the permit effective date, and are part of 
the docket for this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189.\3\ EPA is 
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II 
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures 
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of 
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's 
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT 
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major 
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units 
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT 
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information 
provided by PADEP in its five SIP revision submittals for four major 
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to 
find that PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions 
establish limits and/or controls on individual sources that are 
reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically 
feasible controls.
    PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those 
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the 
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to 
previously SIP approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent 
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The 
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment or reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or 
interfere with other applicable CAA requirements in section 110(l) of 
the CAA.
    Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for 
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM and its associated 
technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received comments from seven commenters on the May 5, 2020 
NPRM. 85 FR 26647. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are 
discussed in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can 
be found in the docket for this rule.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that water/steam injection is a 
control option for Transco Station 520's simple cycle turbines that was 
inappropriately determined to be technically infeasible and indicates 
that this control option is found on EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 
(RBLC) as technically feasible in at least 10 natural gas fired simple 
cycle turbines over the last 20 years. The commenter further states 
that EPA had made a similar comment for the public record on the 
technical feasibility of water/steam injection and had arbitrarily 
reversed its position in the NPRM. The commenter claims that the 
reasons given for technical infeasibility such as water/steam supply, 
storage tanks, the source of water, and water treatment and 
pretreatment are economic, and not technical, feasibility issues. For 
these reasons, the commenter states that EPA should disapprove PADEP's 
RACT

[[Page 66259]]

determination for Transco Station 520 and reevaluate the economic 
feasibility of water/steam injection.
    Response 1: The commenter is correct in stating that EPA made prior 
comments suggesting that water/steam injection was a technically 
feasible control option for natural gas fired simple cycle turbines in 
gas transmission service that should be evaluated for economic 
feasibility. However, EPA disagrees that it has arbitrarily changed its 
position in proposing to approve the case-by-case RACT requirements for 
the two Transco Station 520 simple cycle turbines. Both the facility 
and PADEP responded to EPA's comment explaining why the water/steam 
injection control option was not technically feasible at this specific 
site.
    PADEP conducted its case-by-case RACT analysis of potential 
controls for Transco's natural gas fired simple cycle turbines pursuant 
to the requirements of Pennsylvania's RACT regulations. The case-by-
case RACT II analysis requirements are set forth in 25 PA Code 
129.99(c), which then references the RACT proposal requirements 
identified in 25 Pa Code 129.92. As identified in Section 129.92(b)(1), 
``[a]vailable control options are air pollution control technologies 
with a reasonable potential for application at the source.'' Section 
129.29(b)(2) further identifies that ``[a] determination of technical 
infeasibility shall identify technical difficulties which would 
preclude the successful use of the control option on the source.''
    The water/steam injection control option requires a large volume of 
purified water. The Transco facility is located in a remote location 
without a viable on-site source of clean water. In order to have the 
needed purified water on-site for water/steam injection, Transco would 
need to drill an on-site well or transport water to an on-site water 
purification facility. A water study would be needed to determine 
whether and how an on-site well could be drilled. Transporting water to 
the site would require the installation of a water purification 
facility and large on-site storage tanks. The need to transport water 
to the site for the use of water/steam injection also introduces 
unreliability and the risk of insufficient water due to the 
unpredictable nature of weather and transportation. The uncertainties 
created by the need to transport water to the site increases the risk 
of system failure because the Transco turbines are peaking units. Given 
the nature of peak demand, these turbines are required to operate 
immediately when necessary with little advanced notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See email dated May 18, 2017 from Williams to PADEP and 
PADEP memorandum dated May 22, 2017, which are both part of the 
record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the RACT analysis determined that water/steam 
injection was technically infeasible for the Transco turbines. Lacking 
an on-site water source or a reliable off-site source of on-demand 
water, it was reasonable for PADEP to conclude that water/steam 
injection was not an available control option with a ``reasonable 
potential application at the source.'' While the need to install a 
water purification system and large on-site storage tanks may be 
factors that can be evaluated through an economic feasibility analysis, 
the lack of an on-site water source and the risks and uncertainties of 
an insufficient water supply due to the potential need for the on-
demand trucking of water are issues far more fundamental to determining 
initially whether using water/steam injection is truly an available 
control technology for these sources at this site. These circumstances 
present ``technical difficulties which would preclude the successful 
use of the control option on the affected source.'' After reviewing the 
responses from the company and PADEP, EPA concluded that PADEP's RACT 
determination that water/steam injection is not technically feasible 
for the Transco Station 520 peaking turbines was a reasonable 
conclusion based on Pennsylvania's RACT requirements.
    Comment 2: The commenter complains that the Transco Station 520 
redacted permit consists of non-uniform pages, where one added page is 
in color and the remaining pages are in black and white. The commenter 
claims that EPA illegally altered the state's submittal to correct a 
mistake made by the state. The commenter refers to a prior proposed 
rulemaking, EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290, where the redacted permit for 
Transco station 520, included in the docket for that proposed 
rulemaking, did not include the 79.3 lbs/hr and 95.6 tpy RACT emission 
limits. However, the commenter notes that the redacted permit in the 
current docket does contain such RACT limits. The commenter states that 
EPA must remit the SIP back to Pennsylvania to incorporate enforceable 
RACT limitations.
    Response 2: The commenter's concern relates to the RACT emission 
limits for Source ID 106 in the Transco Station 520 Permit No. 41-
00001, Section D, I., Condition #004. The commenter notes that, in a 
proposed rule from 2017, EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290 which was never 
finalized, this permit condition was not included in the redacted 
permit to be incorporated into the SIP.\5\ This was an inadvertent 
error because the emission limits contained in the permit condition 
were always intended to be part of Pennsylvania's RACT determination 
for this source. See, for example, the PADEP technical review memo, 
dated February 22, 2017, the EPA TSD, and the full Transco Station 520 
Permit No. 41-00001, all of which were in the docket for the 2017 
proposed action. EPA, subsequently notified PADEP that the SIP 
submittal for Transco Station 520 contained an incorrectly redacted 
permit. On April 6, 2020, PADEP supplemented their SIP submittal with 
the correctly redacted permit.\6\ The docket for the proposal for the 
current rulemaking included a correctly redacted permit, which included 
the 79.3 lbs/hr and 95.6 tpy RACT emission limits.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA never took any final action under the EPA-R03-OAR-2017-
0290 proposed rulemaking because of CBI issues with the docket. See 
discussion in Supplementary Information section of this preamble.
    \6\ PADEP supplemented its SIP revision submittal with a 
corrected version of the redacted permits for Transco via email on 
April 6, 2020. The revised redacted permit was appropriately added 
to the supporting materials for the current proposed rulemaking. The 
email from PADEP to EPA Region 3, dated April 6, 2020, is now being 
added to the final docket along with the Final Rule Notice.
    \7\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for Transco 
Station 520, Novipax, SPTM, and Global Advanced Metals, included 
some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those 
facilities. EPA wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such 
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because PADEP analyzed what 
should be RACT under operating conditions that included annual 
limits from the existing facility permit, and PADEP included those 
requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those 
annual limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the 
purpose of SIP strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter agrees with EPA's proposed approval of 
PADEP's determination to avoid the use of the blowing agent 152a when 
considering RACT alternatives to the use of pentane. The commenter 
explains that coal is not the only substance that is bad for the 
environment and claims that blowing agent 152a is an extremely 
dangerous compound that is harmful to the environment because it is a 
potent greenhouse gas, a carcinogen and produces carbon dioxide.
    Response 3: While the commenter does not identify a specific 
facility, we believe the commenter's comment applies to the Novipax 
facility, where the blowing agent 152a was discussed in the RACT 
analysis. EPA appreciates the support of the commenter for the Novipax 
RACT determination.

[[Page 66260]]

    Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA should require more 
controls for Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals (SPMT), including 
controls that exceed Pennsylvania's cost thresholds of $2,800/ton or 
other states' $5,000/ton cost thresholds. The commenter claims that 
facilities such as SPMT, which causes millions of dollars in 
environmental damage and makes millions of dollars, can afford to do 
more and should be required to do more. The commenter explains that the 
area in which SPMT is located is historically poor, damaged by 
industrial pollution, and is a neighborhood of black and brown people. 
The commenter claims that EPA has a duty to consider environmental 
justice and should disapprove the RACT determination for SPMT and 
require PADEP to use a higher cost threshold and force RACT level 
controls to be installed.
    Response 4: There are seven emission units that required case-by-
case RACT determinations at the SPMT facility. The RACT determinations 
are governed by the requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99, which requires 
a technical and economic feasibility analysis of available control 
options. Three of these emission units are the auxiliary boilers. The 
SPMT auxiliary boilers are dual-fueled, burning both natural gas and 
refinery gas. They are currently controlled with low NOX 
burners and flue gas recirculation. PADEP's case-by-case RACT II 
determination require these boilers to achieve a 0.05 lb 
NOX/MMBtu emission limit, which will be incorporated into 
the SIP through the current rule. This new limit tightens the prior 
RACT I limit of 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu emission limit. Although 
there are no presumptive RACT requirements that apply to SPMT's dual-
fired boilers, the RACT II limit of 0.05 lb NOX/MMBtu is at 
least twice as stringent as the presumptive RACT requirements at 25 Pa. 
Code 129.97(g)(1) for combustion units equal to or greater than 50 
MMBtu heat input. Because the SPMT boilers are already controlled and 
achieve relatively low NOX emissions, additional controls 
were found to be economically infeasible. The cost effectiveness 
evaluation of the technically feasible control options for these 
boilers determined a range of costs from $12,126 to $52,331/ton of 
NOX reduced, a cost level well above the higher $5,000 cost 
threshold identified by the commenter.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, L.P., RACT II 
Proposal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth emission unit subject to case-by-case RACT is the marine 
vessel loading operation that is currently subject to the requirements 
of 25 Pa. Code Sec.  129.81 and 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y, the National 
Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, which 
contains additional requirements for vapor collection and leak 
detection. All marine vessel loading at the facility is currently 
controlled by a marine vapor recovery (MVR) system which captures gases 
and directs them to the fuel gas system to be combusted as a fuel in 
the auxiliary boilers. The RACT analysis of the marine vessel loading 
operations concluded that there is no feasible control with a greater 
control efficiency than the current MVR control technology. Because 
there were no technically feasible controls better than the current 
controls, a cost effectiveness analysis was not required.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fifth emission unit subject to case-by-case RACT is a single 
cooling tower, which has a potential to emit 4.6 tpy VOC. There were no 
technically or economically feasible control options for this source in 
addition to what is already required under prior RACT SIP approvals, 
which are equipment inspection and monitoring.\10\ The sixth and 
seventh emission units subject to case-by-case RACT are fugitive leaks 
from valves and fugitive leaks across the facility. Again, the RACT 
analysis identified that there were no technically feasible controls 
for these sources. For both of these sources, PADEP is requiring as 
RACT compliance with 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV, Standards of 
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic 
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (or VVa as appropriate), which 
minimizes leaks from valves, flanges, and tanks through the use of 
specified equipment, work practices and inspections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As identified in this preamble, PADEP followed the RACT analysis 
requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99 and for only three sources was it 
able to identify additional technically feasible control options. For 
those sources, the three auxiliary boilers, the cost of added emission 
reduction well exceeded even the higher cost effectiveness threshold 
identified by the commenter. In its approval capacity, EPA shall 
approve a state's proposed RACT proposal if it meets the statutory and 
regulatory requirements of the program. CAA Section 110(k)(3). In this 
case, EPA determined that PADEP's proposed RACT SIP was reasonable and 
met the statutory and regulatory requirements.
    The commenter also urges EPA to consider environmental justice as 
part of the RACT determination for this facility. The Clean Air Act and 
the requirements to implement RACT are designed to protect public 
health and the environment. However, the only factors EPA is legally 
required to consider for determining RACT are those in the statue and 
regulations, and environmental justice is not a statutory or regulatory 
factor in the RACT analysis. As described in this preamble and in our 
proposal document we believe it is appropriate to fully approve PADEP's 
SIP submittal with respect to RACT for SPMT.
    Comment 5: One commenter asserts that ``other neighboring states 
such as New York and New Jersey both have cost effectiveness thresholds 
set at or above $5,000 per ton, but here EPA arbitrarily allows a lower 
dollar per ton threshold!'' The commenter goes on to question EPA's 
approval of a lower cost threshold in Pennsylvania. Further, the 
commenter states that ``EPA must retract their proposed approval and 
set a uniform dollar per ton threshold based on, and consistent with, 
past EPA actions'' and ``that the cost per ton threshold should at 
least be consistent in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).'' Lastly, the 
commenter claims that ``EPA is arbitrary and capricious when approving 
two different states RACT SIPs with inconsistent cost thresholds'' and 
that ``EPA needs to set the bar, not let the states waffle in the wind 
and never install controls.''
    Response 5: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states, 
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing 
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission 
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement. 
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are 
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each 
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these 
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish 
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is 
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\12\ Instead, it 
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold

[[Page 66261]]

of $2,800 per ton of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of 
VOC controlled for RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even 
evaluating control technology options with an additional 25% margin, an 
upper bound cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton 
NOX controlled and $7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not 
affect the add-on control technology decisions required by RACT. Id. 
Pennsylvania determined that these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds 
did not impact the determination of what add on control technology was 
feasible. Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by 
other states: Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, 
$2,500-$3,000 per ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton 
NOX; Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, 
$5,000-$5,500 per ton NOX.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \13\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final 
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and 
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's 
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels 
achieved by the application and consideration of available control 
technologies, after considering both the economic and technological 
circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286 
(May 9, 2019).
    Comment 6: The commenter notes that good operating practices are 
determined to be RACT for several sources at Global Advanced Metals. 
However, the commenter claims that for Source IDs 102, 124, and 201, 
those good operating practices are not defined in the permit.
    Response 6: The commenter is correct, in part, in stating that good 
operating practices have been determined as VOC RACT for Source IDs 
102, 124, and 201. However, they are only one aspect of the overall 
RACT II requirements imposed on the sources. For all three sources, 
PADEP conducted a VOC RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99, concluding 
that the additional control technologies evaluated were either 
technically and/or economically infeasible and that RACT would, among 
other requirements, be operation and maintenance of the source in 
accordance with manufacturers' specifications and good air pollution 
control practices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This identical permit condition can be found in Global 
Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, Section D, Source 
102, VI. Condition #013; Source ID 124, VI. Condition #010; and 
Source ID 201, I. Condition #002, which is part of the record of 
this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, PADEP imposed additional RACT requirements on 
these sources based on existing permit conditions, which were 
considered in the RACT analysis. For instance, Global Advanced Metals 
currently utilizes a recovery unit to control methyl isobutyl ketone 
(MIBK) emissions from Source ID 124, the extraction process in Building 
74, and PADEP has imposed the requirement to operate this recovery unit 
as a RACT requirement. The RACT II permit also includes efficiency 
restrictions on the control device and extensive recordkeeping 
requirements on operational factors such as flow rates, pressure drops, 
MIBK content in influent and effluent, and maintenance downtime.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, 
Section D, Source ID 124, I. Condition #003 and IV. Conditions #006, 
#007 and #010; which is part of the record of this docket and will 
be incorporated into the SIP through this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIBK recovery system also helps to limit emissions from Source 
ID 102, the tantalum salts process in Building 19.\16\ While the RACT 
II permit does not specifically include the operation of the MIBK 
recovery unit for Source 102, the recovery unit's operation is required 
in the RACT II permit under Source 124, as identified in this preamble. 
PADEP also imposed on Source 102 a throughput restriction on the number 
of batches.\17\ Additionally, the RACT II for Source ID 201, the 
wastewater treatment plant, included a requirement to provide PADEP 
with relevant records found in the facility's National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, upon request.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Global Advanced Metals' Alternative RACT Compliance 
proposal, dated October 2016, which is part of the record for this 
docket.
    \17\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, 
Section D, Source 102, I. Conditions #004, which is part of the 
record for this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through 
this action.
    \18\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, 
Section D, Source ID 201, I. Condition #001, which is part of the 
record for this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA concluded that ``good operating practices,'' which was 
determined as VOC RACT for these three sources by PADEP, is adequately 
defined in the facility's permit as ``operating and maintaining the 
source in accordance with manufacturers' specifications.'' The 
requirement to operate the source in accordance with the manufacturer's 
specifications holds the facility accountable for operating and 
maintaining each of these three sources per the guidance established by 
the manufacturer specifically for that particular source. The good 
operating practices requirement is further clarified and strengthened 
by the additional RACT requirements for recovery unit operation, 
operational restrictions, and recordkeeping included in the redacted 
permit to be incorporated into the SIP.
    Comment 7: The commenter notes that EPA is approving particulate 
matter (PM) limits for Global Advanced Metals as part of the facility's 
RACT determination. The commenter asks why and what relationship these 
PM limits have in setting NOX and/or VOC RACT emission 
limits for the source.
    Response 7: While the commenter does not provide a specific 
reference to the PM limits in question, EPA assumes the commenter is 
referring to the PM limit of ``not to exceed 0.02 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot'' as a control device efficiency restriction for 
the RotoClone wet dust collector.\19\ The RotoClone wet dust collector 
was not one of the control technologies examined by PADEP for the 
control of VOCs from Source 109. Rather, it is a control technology for 
PM. The PM limits were established under other regulatory programs and 
not the RACT program. It was identified as an ongoing facility 
requirement while reviewing the VOC RACT requirements for the fugitive 
emissions from ethanol transfer and storage operations. The commenter's 
concern about PM is warranted. The PM limits are not included in the 
source's permit to address RACT requirements and therefore should not 
be incorporated into the SIP through the current rule. PADEP has 
subsequently submitted a revised redacted permit that does not include 
the PM requirements for incorporation into the SIP.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, 
Section D., Source ID 109, Condition #003(b)(2).
    \20\ See August 21, 2020 email from PADEP to EPA identifying 
changes to redacted RACT II permit for Global Advanced Metals and 
attaching the revised redacted permit. Both documents have been 
added to the docket in this matter and the revised redacted permit 
will be incorporated into the SIP. At the same time, PADEP has also 
revised the original RACT II permit by deleting requirements for 
Source 102 related to hydrogen flouride and hydrogen chloride for 
similar reasons. Those facility requirements were not related to VOC 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: The commenter notes that for Source ID 201 at Global 
Advanced Metals, the RACT determination includes the submission of 
records required under the facility's NPDES permit. The commenter 
claims that neither EPA nor PADEP provide justification or explanation 
as to why submission of these records is necessary. The commenter 
claims that EPA has no authority under the CAA to require submission of 
records under the Clean Water Act (CWA), stating that the

[[Page 66262]]

Information Collection Request (ICR) approved for these records makes 
no mention of allowing them to be used for purposes outside of the 
NPDES program. The commenter claims that in order for EPA to require 
submission of these records for CAA purposes, EPA would have to go 
through the ICR process and calculate the burden on these sources to do 
so.
    Response 8: The commenter is correct that among the RACT 
requirements for Source ID 201, the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), 
Condition #001 requires the facility to ``provide to the DEP, upon 
request, copies of records required by the NPDES permit.'' \21\ This 
condition is determined to be part of the source's VOC RACT 
determination per 25 Pa. Code 129.100(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, 
Section D, Source ID 201, Condition #001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter that there is insufficient 
justification or explanation as to why these records are relevant to 
the VOC RACT determination for the WWTP. In its VOC RACT analysis, 
PADEP explained that the constituents of the wastewater at Global 
Advanced Metals include dissolved VOCs, which may be emitted to some 
extent to the atmosphere in the treatment process.\22\ Knowledge of the 
wastewater constituents informs PADEP's knowledge as to the 
effectiveness of the wastewater treatment process in removing VOC 
emissions at this source. Information on such constituents is contained 
in the regular testing of total suspended solids and total dissolved 
solids performed by Global Advanced Metals pursuant to its NPDES 
permit. Therefore, this information is directly related to the control 
of VOC air emissions from the WWTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See PADEP's technical review memo, dated March 6, 2017, 
which is included as part of the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's contentions about the use 
of NPDES records for RACT purposes and believes the commenter may have 
misinterpreted the nature of EPA's proposed action. In this SIP action, 
EPA is not relying on any CWA information collection authorization and 
is not adding such into the SIP. Rather, it is approving a legitimate 
permit term established by PADEP, under its own independent authority 
(the Air Pollution Control Act) to collect air emissions data, into the 
Pennsylvania SIP. Data that is collected under the NPDES program 
related to dissolved VOC constituents in a facility's wastewater is 
such data and referring to the NPDES permit merely helps the facility 
identify the required data but is not the authority being used to 
collect it. The reference to the NPDES permit helps to identify that 
the information needed to be supplied for compliance with the 
Pennsylvania air permit is the same as the information being collected 
under the CWA. It is merely a convenient way of identifying the data 
needed to be reported under the air permit and is not the basis for the 
state's authority to include it in the permit.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for four sources 
in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997 
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III 
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further 
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). 
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in 
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are 
fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 
the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be 
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP 
compilation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory 
action 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the

[[Page 66263]]

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 
804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: 
Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management 
or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice 
that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular 
applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding 
this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC 
RACT requirements for four case-by-case facilities for the 1997 and 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``W.R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div''; `` W. R. 
Grace and Co.--Reading Plant''; ``Cabot Performance Materials--
Boyertown''; ``Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook Plant''; and 
``Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation'' (Permit No. PA-41-0005A); 
and
0
b. Adding the following entries at the end of the table: ``Transco--
Salladasburg Station 520 (formerly referenced as Transcontinental Gas 
Pipeline Corporation)''; ``Novipax (formerly referenced as W. R. Grace 
and Co.--FORMPAC Div and W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading Plant)''; 
``Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals (formerly referenced as Sunoco, 
Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook Plant)''; and ``Global Advanced Metals USA, 
Inc. (formerly referenced as Cabot Performance Materials--Boyertown)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Additional
                                                                                                                                     explanations/  Sec.
          Name of source                  Permit No.                 County            State effective date     EPA approval date    Sec.   52.2063 and
                                                                                                                                     52.2064  citations
                                                                                                                                             \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
W. R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div.  PA-06-1036.............  Berks..................  5/12/95................  5/16/96, 61 FR 24706  See also
                                                                                                                                     52.2064(b)(2).
W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading       PA-06-315-001..........  Berks..................  6/4/92.................  5/16/96, 61 FR 24707  See also
 Plant.                                                                                                                              52.2064(b)(2).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cabot Performance Materials--      OP-46-0037.............  Montgomery.............  4/13/99................  12/15/00, 65 FR       See also
 Boyertown.                                                                                                    78418.                52.2064(b)(4).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook    CP-23-0001.............  Delaware...............  6/8/95, 8/2/01.........  10/30/01, 66 FR       See also
 Plant.                                                                                                        54699.                52.2064(b)(3).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline      PA-41-0005A............  Lycoming...............  8/9/95.................  8/24/05, 70 FR 49496  See also
 Corporation.                                                                                                                        52.2064(b)(1).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Transco--Salladasburg Station 520  41-00001...............  Lycoming...............  6/6/17.................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(1).
 (formerly referenced as                                                                                       [INSERT FEDERAL
 Transcontinental Gas Pipeline                                                                                 REGISTER CITATION].
 Corporation).
Novipax (formerly referenced as    06-05036...............  Berks..................  12/19/17...............  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(2).
 W. R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div                                                                              [INSERT FEDERAL
 and W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading                                                                              REGISTER CITATION].
 Plant).
Sunoco Partners Marketing &        23-00119...............  Delaware...............  1/20/17................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(3).
 Terminals (formerly referenced                                                                                [INSERT FEDERAL
 as Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus                                                                                 REGISTER CITATION].
 Hook Plant).

[[Page 66264]]

 
Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.   46-00037...............  Montgomery.............  3/10/17................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(4).
 (formerly reference as Cabot                                                                                  [INSERT FEDERAL
 Performance Materials--                                                                                       REGISTER CITATION].
 Boyertown).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *


0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2064   EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *
    (b) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008 
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities 
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket 
No. EPA-OAR-2020-0189).
    (1) Transco--Salladasburg Station 520--Incorporating by reference 
Permit No. 41-00001, issued June 6, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania, 
which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 41-0005A, issued August 9, 
1995, except for Conditions 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, and 18, which remain as 
RACT requirements applicable to the three 2050 hp Ingersoll Rand 
engines #1, 2, and 3 (Source IDs P101, P102, P103). See also Sec.  
52.2063(d)(1)(i) for prior RACT approval.
    (2) Novipax--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 06-05036, issued 
December 19, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the 
prior RACT Plan Approval No. 06-1036, issued May 12, 1995 to W. R. 
Grace and Co. FORMPAC Division, except for Conditions 3, 4 (applicable 
to two pentane storage tanks, Source IDs 101 and 101A), 5 (applicable 
to extruders, Source ID 102, and facility wide to Source IDs 103, 104, 
105, 106, 106B, 106C, 107, and 108), 7 (applicable to Source IDs 101, 
101A, and 102) and 8 (applicable to Source IDs 101, 101A, and 102), 
which remain as RACT requirements applicable to the indicated sources, 
and Plan Approval No. 06-315-001, issued June 4, 1992 to W. R. Grace 
and Co.--Reading Plant, except for Conditions 4 (applicable to Source 
ID 102), 5 (applicable to Source IDs 101 and 101A), and 6 (applicable 
to Source IDs 101, 101A, and 102), which remain as RACT requirements 
applicable to the indicated sources. See also Sec.  
52.2063(c)(108)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approvals.
    (3) Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals--Incorporating by 
reference Permit No. 23-00119, issued January 20, 2017, as redacted by 
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Compliance Permit No. CP-
23-0001, issued June 8, 1995 and amended on August 2, 2001, except for 
Conditions 5E (applicable to diesel engine and stormwater pumps, Source 
ID 113), 6A (applicable to marine vessel loading, Source ID 115), 6B 
(tank truck loading), 6C (applicable to cooling tower 15-2B, Source ID 
139), and 6D (applicable to waste water treatment, Source 701), which 
remain as RACT requirements applicable to the indicated sources. See 
also Sec.  52.2063(c)(179)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approval.
    (4) Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.--Incorporating by reference 
Permit No. 46-00037, issued March 10, 2017, as redacted by 
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-46-0037, 
issued April 13, 1999, except for condition 15, which remains as a RACT 
requirement applicable to the tantalum salts process (Source ID 102), 
the extraction process (Source ID 124), the wastewater treatment plant 
(Source ID 201), and fugitive emissions from ethanol transfer and 
storage (Source 109). See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(20) for 
prior RACT approval.

[FR Doc. 2020-21438 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P