[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60170-60178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22571]
[[Page 60170]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0598; FRL-9062-02-R3]
Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the
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 rule
action, EPA is approving source-specific RACT determinations (``case-
by-case'' or alternative NOX emissions limits) for sources
at nine major NOX and VOC emitting facilities located in
Philadelphia County. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (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 December 1, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0598. 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: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is (215) 814-2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 9, 2021, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 86 FR 8743. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations or alternative NOX emissions limits for
sources at nine facilities in Philadelphia County, as EPA found that
the RACT controls for these sources met the CAA RACT requirements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. PADEP, on behalf of Philadelphia Air
Management Services (AMS), submitted the SIP revisions for sources at
these facilities on May 7, 2020.
Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for both major sources of
NOX and VOC and any source covered by control technique
guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS. Which NOX and VOC
sources in Pennsylvania are considered ``major,'' and are therefore
subject to RACT, 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
the area's current classification(s). In Pennsylvania, sources located
in any ozone nonattainment areas outside of moderate or above are
subject to source thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy) because of the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR) requirements in CAA section 184(b)(2).
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
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 source VOC and 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 as previously approved in
Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be implemented as RACT.\1\ On
September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a letter, dated September 22, 2017,
which committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in
PADEP's 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 this rule, certain
source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by more
stringent 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 letter.\2\ 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 NOX emissions
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 (i.e., by May 9, 2020). Through multiple
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP has submitted to EPA for
approval various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case
determinations and NOX averaging plan limits. This rule is
based on EPA's review of one of these SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated three provisions of Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule
applicable to certain coal-fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA,
No. 19-2562 (3rd Cir. August 27, 2020). None of the sources in this
rule are subject to the presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in
the Sierra Club decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP revisions in this action only establish 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS RACT requirements. Applicable RACT requirements under the CAA for
sources located in Philadelphia for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS were
previously satisfied. See 81 FR 69687 (October 7, 2016).
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
NOX averaging plan limits and/or case-by-case RACT
requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania
[[Page 60171]]
subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or 129.99. Among the Pennsylvania SIP
revisions submitted by PADEP were case-by-case RACT determinations and
alternative NOX emissions limits for certain sources in
Philadelphia County, which PADEP submitted on behalf of AMS. PADEP's
submission included SIP revisions pertaining to source-specific RACT
requirements for the existing emissions units at each of the major
sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a source-specific
RACT determination or alternative NOX emissions limits for
major sources seeking such limits.
In the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP on
behalf of AMS, an evaluation was completed to determine if previously
SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emissions limits or operational
controls were more stringent than the new RACT II presumptive or case-
by-case requirements. If more stringent, the previously approved RACT
requirements will continue to apply to the applicable source and are
included in the new RACT II permit. If the new case-by-case RACT II
requirements are more stringent than the previously approved RACT
requirements, then the RACT II requirements will supersede the prior
RACT requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT permit will remain part of
the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT II
requirements through the RACT II permit, which will also contain any
more stringent requirements from the previously approved RACT
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In AMS' RACT determinations involving NOX averaging, an
evaluation was completed to determine that the aggregate NOX
emissions emitted by the air contamination sources included in the
facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions averaging plan
using a 30-day rolling average are not greater than the NOX
emissions that would be emitted by the group of included sources if
each source complied with the applicable presumptive limitation in 25
Pa. Code 129.97 on a source-specific basis.
Here, EPA is approving SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case
RACT requirements and alternative NOX emissions limits for
sources at nine major NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities in
Philadelphia County, as summarized in Table 1 in this document.
Table 1--Nine Major NOX and/or VOC Emitting Facilities in Pennsylvania Subject to Source-Specific RACT II
Determinations Under the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 8-hour ozone
Major source (county) RACT source? Major source pollutant RACT II permit (effective date)
(RACT I) (NOX and/or VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals Yes.............. NOX and VOC.............. IP16-000276 (3/5/2020).
LLC--Frankford Plant
(formerly Honeywell
International--Frankford
Plant).
Exelon Generation Company-- Yes.............. NOX...................... IP16-000246 (4/20/2020).
Richmond Generating Station.
Grays Ferry Cogeneration Yes.............. NOX...................... IP-16-000250 (3/4/2020).
Partnership--Schuylkill
Station.
Vicinity Energy Philadelphia-- Yes.............. NOX...................... IP16-000249 (3/4/2020).
Schuylkill Station (formerly
Veolia Energy Philadelphia--
Schuylkill Station).
Kinder Morgan Liquids Yes.............. VOC...................... IP16-000233 (4/20/2020).
Terminals, LLC--Philadelphia
Terminal.
Naval Surface Warfare Center-- Yes.............. NOX...................... IP16-000235 (3/20/2020).
Philadelphia Division
formerly Naval Surface
Warfare Center--Carderock
Division, Ship Systems
Engineering Station).
Newman and Company, Inc Yes.............. NOX...................... IP-000223 (3/31/2020).
(formerly Paperworks
Industries, Inc).
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Yes.............. NOX and VOC.............. IP-16-00269 (4/24/2020).
Refining and Marketing LLC.
Philadelphia Shipyard Inc..... No............... VOC...................... IP16-000300 (4/8/2020).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP, on behalf
of AMS, consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available controls
at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting
in an AMS determination of what specific emissions limit or control
measures satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emissions 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 AMS to the source. Similarly, AMS' determinations of
alternative NOX emissions limits are included in RACT II
permits. These RACT II permits have been submitted as part of the
Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's approval into 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-2019-0657.\4\ EPA is
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emissions limits and control measures and
alternative NOX emissions limits under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for certain major sources of NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this rule are
redacted versions of the facilities' federally enforceable permits.
They reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the
Pennsylvania SIP via this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Final Action
PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate AMS' determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Philadelphia, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation or where included in a NOX averaging plan. After
thorough review and evaluation of the information provided by AMS in
the SIP revision submittals for sources at nine major NOX
and/or VOC emitting facilities in Philadelphia, EPA found that: (1)
AMS' 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, (2) AMS' determinations on alternative NOX
emissions limits demonstrate that emissions under the averaging plan
are equivalent to emissions if the individual sources were operating in
accordance with the applicable presumptive limit, and (3) AMS'
determinations are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and
applicable EPA guidance.
[[Page 60172]]
AMS, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
prior RACT 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 requirements would result in equivalent or
additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further
progress, or other applicable requirements under section 110(l) of the
CAA.
Other specific requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS case-by-
case RACT determinations and alternative NOX emissions
limits and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained more
thoroughly in the NPRM, and its associated technical support document
(TSD), and will not be restated here.
III. EPA's Response to Comments Received
EPA received comments from three commenters on the February 9, 2021
NPRM. 86 FR 8743. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are
discussed in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the
docket for this rule action.
Comment 1: The commenter claims that EPA cannot approve the
proposed Pennsylvania RACT II case-by-case (CbC) determinations under
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the CAA section 110(l) analysis is
inadequate. In particular, the commenter focuses on the proposed
NOX limitations and whether they will cause or contribute to
violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. (The 2010 1-hour
NAAQS is for oxides of nitrogen, as measured by nitrogen dioxide
(NO2).) The commenter argues that under CAA section
110(k)(1)(a) and 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.2(d), a state must
demonstrate that the NAAQS are protected if a SIP is to be approved and
that Pennsylvania has not made an adequate demonstration under section
110(l) related to the potential impact of these RACT determinations on
the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. The commenter then suggests that
EPA is unable to approve Pennsylvania's CbC RACT II determinations
unless such a demonstration has been made, even though the rules reduce
NOX emissions. The commenter highlights their concern by
including results from air dispersion modeling of NOX
emissions from the Bighorn well pad in Colorado that they claim shows
the potential impact of NOX emissions on 1-hour
NOX NAAQS violations. The commenter states that EPA must
undertake a modeling analysis to determine if the proposed CbC RACT II
determinations will cause or contribute to 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS violations. The commenter indicates that EPA must repropose this
action and allow for comment on any such modeling information or other
information utilized in the demonstration that the NAAQS will be
protected.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This summary of the comment includes supplemental
information provided by the commenter in a similar comment to EPA's
proposed rulemaking in EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: As described in the proposed rulemaking, Pennsylvania
was required through implementation of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to determine RACT II requirements for major NOX and
VOC emitting sources within the Commonwealth. PADEP had previously
established CbC RACT requirements under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\
PADEP finalized its overall RACT II program, which included presumptive
RACT for certain sources, and it was conditionally approved by EPA.\7\
As part of the EPA's conditional approval, PADEP was required to
complete source-specific RACT II determinations for subject
NOX or VOC sources that could not meet the presumptive
requirements or for which a presumptive limit did not exist. For
subject sources located in Philadelphia, the City of Philadelphia's AMS
is the government agency responsible for making such determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
\7\ 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required by Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations, AMS then
conducted, for sources seeking a CbC determination, an analysis
examining what air pollution controls were available for those
individual sources to determine the lowest emissions limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technologically and
economic feasibility.\8\ For sources seeking an alternative
NOX emissions limit, AMS reviewed the NOX
averaging plan to determine that the alternative NOX
emissions limits demonstrated that the emissions under the averaging
plan were equivalent to emissions as if the individual sources were
operating in accordance with the applicable presumptive limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its source-specific RACT II determinations, AMS has
established NOX and VOC limits and requirements for various
sources that either reaffirm existing emissions limits or makes the
limits more stringent. PADEP, on behalf of AMS, submitted those
determinations to EPA as bundled packages of individual SIP revisions.
EPA is now approving the RACT II CbC SIP revisions for individual
NOX and VOC sources at nine facilities in Philadelphia
County. For the reasons explained below, EPA concludes that the
arguments presented by the commenter do not prohibit approval of these
SIP revisions.
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if
the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are
in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not
have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l)
demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of
the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more
appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing
SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions
increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration.
However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either
retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one.
For these reasons, EPA did not include a detailed section 110(l)
analysis at the proposal stage. Since the commenter raised the issue,
EPA is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval
is consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened
or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally
recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may
demonstrate through an air quality modeling analysis that the revision
will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement. This is the approach the
commenter claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP
revisions. Second, a state may substitute equivalent or greater
emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to ensure
actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve status
quo air quality. A showing that the substitute measures
[[Page 60173]]
preserve status quo air quality is generally sufficient to demonstrate
noninterference through this alternative approach. Courts have upheld
EPA's approval of a SIP revision based on a state's use of substitute
measures. Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th
Cir. 2006); Indiana v. EPA, 796 F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015).
Both the Kentucky Resources and Indiana cases involved
circumstances where a state sought to revise provisions within its SIP
related to its vehicle emissions testing program. In both situations,
the petitioners were concerned with increased emissions that might
occur due to the changes to the testing program. In both cases, the
state justified its SIP revision, in part, by demonstrating that it had
substitute emission reductions that would fully compensate for the
expected emissions increase caused by the modifications to the testing
program. In both Kentucky Resources and Indiana, the court upheld EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l), which allows states to substitute
equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan
to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus
preserve status quo air quality. However, again, these two cases are
most relevant in circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being
weakened or a net emissions increase is expected, which are not the
circumstances presented by the SIP revisions that EPA is approving
here.
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). There, the court rejected a
challenge to an EPA action approving a regional haze plan and concluded
that WildEarth Guardians had identified ``nothing in [the] SIP that
weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely
maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \9\ For that reason, the court concluded
that WildEarth Guardians failed to show that EPA's approval of the SIP
contravened section 110(l). The court's holding demonstrates that a SIP
approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would not
violate section 110(l). The WildEarth Guardians decision informs the
approach to section 110(l) EPA is taking to approve the Pennsylvania
CbC RACT SIP revisions. Here, contrary to the commenter's
characterization, AMS is not relaxing standards or eliminating a
program; rather, AMS is only re-evaluating the technical and economic
feasibility of air pollution controls for subject air pollution sources
as required by implementation of the 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Based on that
review, AMS, as explained in more detail below, has made determinations
that either retain or make more stringent existing NOX
emissions limits. Emissions are not expected to increase, and will
likely decrease, as a result of AMS' RACT II NOX CbC
determinations and EPA's approval hereof. Under these circumstances,
AMS' demonstration to meet the requirements of section 110(l) for its
source-specific RACT II determinations is not one of modeling or
identifying equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for or offset
an emissions increase because the revisions are not resulting in
emissions increases, but rather to establish that its new source-
specific NOX RACT determinations are preserving the status
quo air quality or achieving additional reductions beyond the status
quo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 759 F.3d at 1074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this rule action, EPA is only approving revisions that add
specific NOX and VOC source-specific RACT II determinations
to the Pennsylvania SIP. In the subject RACT II source-specific
determinations, AMS has made an adequate showing that its source-
specific determinations for individual sources at the nine facilities
at issue not only preserve the status quo air quality, but likely
reduce the cumulative NOX emissions from the subject
sources. As described in its technical review memoranda and related
documents, which are included in the docket for this rule, AMS
evaluated both the technical and economic feasibility of various
control equipment for these sources and used that evaluation to
determine the RACT II requirements. AMS also considered the prior RACT
I requirements to determine whether the RACT II requirements were as
stringent as the previously established standards. In circumstances
where the RACT I requirements were more stringent, they were retained
and remain effective. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, this
demonstration included in the documents in the docket satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The record supporting EPA's
approval of AMS' source-specific RACT II SIP revisions is sufficient,
so there is no need to supplement the record. As such, commenter's
reference to EPA's inability to supplement the record, and to Ober v.
U.S. EPA, 84 F.3d 304,312 (9th Cir. 1996), is not applicable to EPA's
current action.
The facilities in this rule identified as objectionable in the
comment break down into the categories listed below. As explained in
the proposed rulemaking document, EPA views each facility as a
separable SIP revision, and that should it receive comment on one
facility but not others, EPA may take separate, final action on the
remaining facilities.
Facilities with only VOC sources--Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals,
LLC is a major source VOC emitting facility that is a minor source of
NOX. As such, individual VOC sources at this facility must
comply with RACT II requirements. EPA's approval in this rule for this
facility only relates to specific CbC VOC RACT II determinations. EPA's
approval of the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revision for sources at
for this facility does not involve NOX emissions, maintains
the status quo in VOC emissions, and does not result in an increase in
VOC or NOX emissions. Therefore, as explained previously,
EPA has determined this SIP revision will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA pursuant to
section 110(l).
Facilities with CbC NOX Sources--The following
facilities are major NOX emitting sources and contain
individual sources subject to CbC NOX requirements that EPA
is taking final action on here. More specific information on those
individual facilities follows:
Exelon Generation Company--Richmond Generating Station--EPA
proposed to approve AMS' RACT II CbC NOX determination for
two combustion turbines at this facility. After determining that there
were no new technically and economically feasible NOX
controls for these sources, AMS has determined that the RACT II
NOX is continuing to comply with the existing NOX
emissions limits and capacity factor.\10\ Through retention of the
existing emissions limits and restrictions, AMS has demonstrated that
the status quo in NOX emissions has been maintained. As
such, EPA's approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the
individual sources at this facility is adequately justified under
section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See AMS' InterOffice Memo, dated April 20, 2020, which is
part of the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership--Schuylkill Station (GFCP) and
Vicinity Energy Philadelphia--Schuylkill Station (Vicinity)--The two
facilities hold separate operating permits, but they share a geographic
[[Page 60174]]
location and are considered a single source for title V and New Source
Review purposes. EPA proposed to approve AMS' RACT II determination
related to a facility-wide NOX averaging plan for three
sources at this facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 129.98(a). The
averaging plan provision authorized in section 129.98 allows a facility
to establish an alternative facility-wide or system-wide NOX
emissions limit as long as it demonstrates that the resulting
NOX emissions using a 30-day rolling average would not be
greater than NOX emissions from the group of included
sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive
NOX RACT emissions limit as individual sources. GFCP and
Vicinity will be averaging the NOX emissions for three
sources to meet the RACT II requirements, an alternative emissions
limit, that will be at least as stringent as the presumptive emissions
limits, which were conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rule.
Additionally, AMS has retained all of the individual emissions limits
from the prior RACT approval.\11\ AMS' approval of the alternative
NOX emissions limit ensures that total NOX
emissions from these sources will be no greater than the total
individual emissions from each source if each were to comply with the
existing presumptive emissions limit. The alternative NOX
emissions limit does not eliminate the prior individual emissions
limits. Through these measures, AMS has demonstrated that the status
quo for NOX emissions has been maintained. As such, EPA's
approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the individual sources at
these facilities is adequately justified under section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) as to EPA's conditional
approval of the presumptive limit and AMS' Inter Office Memo, dated
March 4, 2020, which is part of the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC (PES)--EPA
proposed to approve AMS' RACT II CbC NOX determinations for
numerous sources at this facility and its alternative NOX
emissions limits for a number of heaters and boilers. At the time AMS
issued the current RACT Plan Approval to PES in April 2020, which
incorporated its RACT II NOX determinations, refining
operations at the PES facility had been shut down. The refinery has
been closed since June 2019, and the facility has been sold to a new
owner. AMS' proposed RACT II SIP revision does not authorize new
operations at the facility, but rather incorporates RACT requirements
for major NOX and VOC sources in operation as of 2012 into
the SIP.
For the CbC NOX sources at the facility, AMS has
determined that all proposed 2008 NOX RACT requirements
(such as emissions limits, control technologies like selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) and low NOX burners, continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMs), combustion tuning, and good
combustion practices), are at least as stringent as the prior 1997 8-
hour NOX RACT requirements and has included them in the new
2020 RACT permit, which will be incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP
through this action. At the same time, AMS also approved for a group of
heaters and boilers alternative NOX emissions limits through
the use of three NOX averaging plans pursuant to 25 Pa. Code
129.98(a). The averaging plan provision authorized in section 129.98
allows a facility to establish an alternative facility-wide or system-
wide NOX emissions limit as long as it demonstrates that the
resulting NOX emissions using a 30-day rolling average would
not be greater than the NOX emissions from the group of
included sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive
NOX RACT emissions limit as individual sources. The facility
is required to average the NOX emissions for three groups of
sources to meet the RACT II requirements, an alternative emissions
limit, that will be at least as stringent as the presumptive emissions
limit, which was conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rule.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) as to EPA's conditional
approval of the presumptive limit and AMS' Inter Office Memo, dated
April 24, 2020, which is part of the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through retention of the existing emissions limits and the approval
of the alternative NOX emissions limits at the facility, AMS
has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has
been maintained. As such, EPA's approval of the Pennsylvania SIP
revision for the individual sources at this facility is adequately
justified under section 110(l).
As described above, EPA determined that AMS adequately justified
its RACT II CbC NOX determinations and alternative
NOX emissions limits. EPA also concluded, under section
110(l), that the status quo in NOX emissions had been
maintained, if not improved, and that there is no need to conduct the
modeling suggested by the commenter. As noted previously, the commenter
included an air dispersion modeling analysis of NOX
emissions from a well pad at the Bighorn Pad Facility in Colorado to
highlight an alleged potential of NOX emissions to cause or
contribute to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. The
NAAQS for nitrogen oxides is a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb
based on the 3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2 concentrations. In
2012, EPA designated areas within Pennsylvania as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 standard.\13\ The modeling analysis
provided by the commenter indicated that NOX emissions from
the well pad area in Colorado could have NO2 impacts within
50 kilometers of the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This modeling data analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need
for EPA, Pennsylvania, or AMS to conduct modeling on the impact of
NOX emissions from each individual source at issue in this
rule in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions. First, as
discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to
satisfy section 110(l) requirements. Second, the differences in the
meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the Bighorn
well pad and the Philadelphia RACT II sources are too significant to
rely on the Bighorn facility modeling results to serve as surrogate
modeling indicating that the Philadelphia RACT II sources have the
potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS
in Pennsylvania. The commenter has not provided any comparison or
information to show why the Bighorn Pad Facility modeling results
should apply to these specific RACT II sources in Philadelphia.
Further, the commenter has not presented any specific information
suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX determinations or alternative
NOX emissions limits for these specific sources could
somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS.
Without a more specific allegation from the commenter about the sources
in question, the commenter's allegations are too speculative in nature
to prevent EPA from approving AMS' RACT II CbC NOX
determinations or alternative NOX emissions limits for
sources at the five subject facilities.
Comment 2: The commenter states that minor errors are present in
the technical and economic feasibility analysis of available controls
throughout the proposed rulemaking. The commenter asserts that in
several instances, the discussion of costs incorrectly led to the
conclusion that certain controls were technically infeasible, rather
than identifying those controls as technically feasible and then
evaluating the cost issues in the economic analysis. The specific
[[Page 60175]]
instances in which commenter claims there are minor errors are in the
evaluation of a fuel switch to natural gas, water/steam injection, and
SCR for boilers.
The commenter also raises concern with the use, in the economic
feasibility analysis, of outdated interest rates that are not
reflective of current economic conditions and the consumer price index
(CPI) to adjust air pollution control costs to current dollar values.
Ultimately, the commenter acknowledges that if the RACT evaluations
were redone in a manner to address the identified concerns, the control
technologies determined to be RACT would not change.
Response 2: The commenter correctly asserts that an evaluation of
the technical feasibility of available controls should be conducted
before evaluating the economic feasibility of the remaining available
controls. 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b) and 129.99(d)(1). The TSD, which is
included in the docket file for this action, explains the basis for
EPA's approval of the RACT determinations included in this rule. From
its review of the specific RACT determinations made by AMS in this
rule, EPA cannot locate a source where there was a determination where
water/steam injection was identified as technically infeasible.
Similarly, except for two heaters at the PES facility, there are no
determinations where SCR on a boiler was identified as technically
infeasible. For the two exceptions, Heaters 860-2H8 and 864-PH7, SCR
was determined to be infeasible because of physical space constraints,
not due to the use of ammonia or urea as identified by the commenter.
As to the commenter's remarks about fuel switching, it appears that
they may apply to the Exelon Generating Company--Richmond Station where
a fuel switch to natural gas was determined to be technically
infeasible for Combustion Turbine #91 and #92. In this instance, Exelon
identified the large-scale costs and related regulatory requirements as
technical impediments to installing a natural gas line to the facility,
and AMS agreed with this analysis and determined that it was not
technically feasible. Whether or not AMS' conclusion on the technical
feasibility analysis was sufficient does not change the final
conclusion on the overall feasibility of the potential use of fuel
switching for the sources at this facility. EPA agrees with the
commenter that determining fuel switching as a technically feasible
control would not change the determination that this control is
ultimately infeasible as RACT for the sources at hand and is finalizing
AMS' proposed RACT requirements.
EPA also agrees with the commenter that choosing suitable interest
rates and cost escalation factors is a requirement of RACT
determinations. Per 25 Pa. Code 129.92(b)(4), the cost effectiveness
evaluation must be consistent with the OAQPS Control Cost Manual
(Fourth Edition) EPA 450/3-90-006 January 1990 (Control Cost Manual)
and subsequent revisions.\14\ The Control Cost Manual addresses
appropriate use of the CPI and lays out general principals to make
accurate escalation calculations and choose appropriate interests
rates. However, the Control Cost Manual in its current form does not
specifically prohibit use of the CPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The OAQPS Control Cost Manual referenced in 25 Pa. Code
129.92(b)(4) is also known as the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual. OAQPS is the acronym for EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter did not specify which economic feasibility
determinations in this rule contain questionable interest rates or cost
escalations but recognizes that updates to such factors in the economic
analysis would not necessarily change the final RACT determinations.
These factors are among many other values used in a complex, multi-
factor cost analysis. EPA agrees it is not clear that revised interest
rate or cost escalations in the economic analysis would change the
final conclusions of the determinations contained in this rule. Without
a more specific allegation from the commenter about the sources in
question, the commenter's allegations are too general and speculative
in nature to prevent EPA from approving AMS' RACT II CbC determinations
for sources at the nine subject facilities.
Comment 3: The commenter raises concern with the Grays Ferry
Cogeneration Partnership and Vicinity Energy NOX averaging
plan and the Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC
(PES) NOX averaging plan. Specifically the commenter
asserts: (1) In order to be protective of the 8-hour average of the
2008 ozone NAAQS, particularly during ozone season, these RACT
determinations should include short term emissions limits on a calendar
day basis (as is done in New Jersey and other states), rather than a 30
operating day rolling average; (2) Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership
and Vicinity Energy should be required to evaluate control options of
combusting only natural gas, replacing No. 6 oil with No. 2 oil, and
additional NOX controls; and (3) due to the recent events at
PES, including shutting down operations, bankruptcy, and sale, EPA
should not approve the proposed SIP revision until a new owner begins
operations at the facility.
More generally, the commenter asserts that EPA should establish
term limits for RACT plan approvals and ensure that facilities re-
evaluate RACT plans to incorporate any future advancements in
technology as is required by New Jersey RACT rules.
Response 3: In its conditional approval of Pennsylvania's overall
RACT II program at 25 Pa. Code 129.96-129.100 (84 FR 20274, May 9,
2019), EPA explained that under 25 Pa. Code 129.98, affected major
sources unable to meet the applicable presumptive RACT emissions
limitation may choose to comply with alternative NOX
requirements based on averaging NOX emissions from multiple
sources. Specifically, EPA explained that averaging plans pursuant to
Pennsylvania's RACT II regulations are intended to demonstrate that the
resulting NOX emissions using a 30-day rolling average would
not be greater than NOX emissions from the group of included
sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive
NOX RACT emissions limit. Thus, the use of a 30-day rolling
average for NOX averaging plans under Pennsylvania's RACT II
program was previously approved by EPA.
EPA guidance does highlight the need for emission controls that are
reasonably consistent with protecting a short-term NAAQS such as ozone.
However, in those cases where an emissions limit for a RACT control can
be quantified, EPA guidance states that averaging periods for such
limits should be as short as practicable and in no case longer than 30
days. See the January 20, 1984 EPA guidance memorandum titled
``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emissions Limits--SIP
Revision Policy.''
In the instance of Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership and
Vicinity Energy, the facilities are using an averaging plan to limit
NOX emissions from the combustion turbine, Boiler #25, and
Boiler #26 to no greater than the NOX emissions that would
have resulted had each individual source complied with the presumptive
RACT limits of 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(2)(i)(A) and (B) and
129.97(g)(1)(i) and (ii). PES is using averaging plans to limit
emissions from Heaters 137 F-1, 137 F-2, 137 F-3, 1332 H-400, and 1332
H-401 and #3 Boilerhouse Boilers #37, #39, and #40 to no greater than
the NOX emissions that would have resulted had each
individual source complied with the presumptive RACT limits of 25 Pa.
Code 129.97(g)(1)(iv). In each instance,
[[Page 60176]]
the 30-day rolling average used for demonstrating compliance is
consistent with the requirements contained in Pennsylvania's previously
approved RACT II program.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that Grays Ferry Cogeneration
Partnership and Vicinity Energy should evaluate the technical and
economic feasibility of certain alternative control options. The
evaluation of alternative controls is only a requirement for sources
opting for case-by-case RACT evaluation under 25 Pa. Code 129.99.
Sources at the subject facilities are complying with RACT through the
NOX emission averaging plan provisions under 25 Pa. Code
129.98. Accordingly, they are not required to evaluate potential
alternative control options as required by the case-by-case option.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to
disapprove the NOX averaging plan for the PES facility and
wait for action by a new owner. EPA acknowledges the commenter's
references to the shutdown of refining operations at the PES facility
in June 2019, the subsequent bankruptcy filing by PES, and the
prospective sale of the facility. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania's RACT II
requirements apply to major NOX and VOC emitting facilities
that were in existence on or before July 20, 2012. 25 Pa. Code 129.96.
Proposed NOX averaging plans were required to be submitted
to the government by October 24, 2016. 25 Pa. Code 129.98. As AMS'
approval of the NOX averaging plans for certain sources at
PES was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, meets the requirements of
Pennsylvania's RACT II NOX averaging provisions, and has not
been withdrawn, EPA is finalizing the proposed RACT II requirements for
those sources.
Finally, EPA declines to establish term limits for RACT plan
approvals to ensure the periodic re-evaluation of technologies as
required by New Jersey's RACT rules. 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 approving RACT are those in the statute, EPA's
regulations, and the SIP-approved Pennsylvania implementing
regulations. Term limits for RACT plan approvals for periodic re-
evaluation of technologies is not a statutory or regulatory requirement
for approval of these RACT determinations. Even without such term
limits, RACT is periodically reevaluated in non-attainment areas after
the promulgation of a new ozone NAAQS.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the case-by-case RACT determinations and/or
alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at nine major
NOX and VOC emitting facilities in Philadelphia, as required
to meet obligations pursuant to the 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 and NOX averaging plan limits
under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of VOC and
NOX in Philadelphia County. 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule
[[Page 60177]]
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 January 3, 2022. 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 nine facilities for 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: October 8, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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 ``Exelon Generation Company--Richmond
Generating Station''; ``Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership--
Schuylkill Station''; ``Honeywell International--Frankford Plant'';
``Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, LLC''; ``Naval Surface Warfare
Center--Carderock Division, Ship Systems Engineering Station (NSWCCD-
SSES)''; ``Paperworks Industries, Inc''; ``Philadelphia Energy
Solutions--Refining and Marketing, LLC''; and ``Veolia Energy
Philadelphia--Schuylkill Station'';
0
b. Adding entries at the end of the table for ``AdvanSix Resins &
Chemicals LLC--Frankford Plant (formerly referenced as Honeywell
International--Frankford Plant)''; ``Vicinity Energy Philadelphia--
Schuylkill Station (formerly referenced as Veolia Energy Philadelphia--
Schuylkill Station)''; ``Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, LLC--
Philadelphia Terminal (formerly referenced as Kinder Morgan Liquid
Terminals, LLC)''; ``Naval Surface Warfare Center--Philadelphia
Division (formerly referenced as Naval Surface Warfare Center--
Carderock Division, Ship Systems Engineering Station) (NSWCCD-SSES))'';
``Newman and Company, Inc (formerly referenced as Paperworks
Industries, Inc)''; ``Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and
Marketing LLC (formerly referenced as Philadelphia Energy Solutions--
Refining and Marketing, LLC)''; and ``Philadelphia Shipyard Inc.''; and
0
c. Adding additional entries at the end of the table for ``Exelon
Generation Company--Richmond Generating Station'' and ``Grays Ferry
Cogeneration Partnership--Schuylkill Station''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
explanations/
State EPA approval Sec. Sec.
Name of source Permit No. County effective date 52.2063 and
date 52.2064
citations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Exelon Generation Company-- PA-51-4903...... Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/07/16, 81 FR Supersedes
Richmond Generating Station. 69691. previously
approved RACT
permit. See
also
52.2064(f)(2).
Grays Ferry Cogeneration PA-51-4944...... Philadelphia.... 1/09/15 10/7/16, 81 FR Source is
Partnership--Schuylkill 69691. aggregated
Station. with Veolia
Energy
Efficiency,
LLC and Veolia
Energy--Schuyl
kill Station.
See also
52.2064(f)(3).
Honeywell International-- PA-51-1151...... Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/07/16, 81 FR Supersedes
Frankford Plant. 69691. previously
approved RACT
permit. Source
was formerly
Sunoco
Chemicals,
Frankford
Plant. See
also
52.2064(f)(1).
Kinder Morgan Liquid PA-51-5003...... Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/7/16, 81 FR Supersedes
Terminals, LLC. 69691. previously
approved RACT
permit. Source
was formerly
GATX Terminal
Corporation.
See also
52.2064(f)(5).
Naval Surface Warfare Center-- PA-51-9724...... Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/7/16, 81 FR Supersedes
Carderock Division, Ship 69691. previously
Systems Engineering Station approved RACT
(NSWCCD-SSES). permits.
Source was
formerly U.S.
Navy, Naval
Surface
Warfare
Center,
Carderock
Division
(NSWCCD). See
also
52.2064(f)(6).
Paperworks Industries, Inc... PA-51-1566...... Philadelphia.... 1/09/15 10/7/16, 81 FR Supersedes
69691. previously
approved RACT
permit. Source
was formerly
Jefferson
Smurfit, Corp./
Container
Corp. of
America. See
also
52.2064(f)(7).
Philadelphia Energy PA-51-01501; PA- Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/7/2016, 81 Supersedes
Solutions--Refining and 51-01517. FR 69691. previously
Marketing, LLC. approved RACT
permit. Source
was formerly
Sunoco Inc.
(R&M)--Philade
lphia. See
also
52.2064(f)(8).
* * * * * * *
Veolia Energy Philadelphia-- PA-51-4942...... Philadelphia.... 02/09/16 10/7/16, 81 FR Supersedes
Schuylkill Station. 69691. previously
approved RACT
permit. Source
was formerly
TRIGEN--Schuyl
kill Station.
Source is
aggregated
with Grays
Ferry
Cogeneration
Partnership
and Veolia
Energy
Efficiency,
LLC. See also
52.2064(f)(4).
[[Page 60178]]
* * * * * * *
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals IP16-000276..... Philadelphia.... 3/5/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(1).
LLC--Frankford Plant [insert
(formerly referenced as Federal
Honeywell International-- Register
Frankford Plant). citation].
Vicinity Energy Philadelphia-- IP16-000249..... Philadelphia.... 3/4/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(4).
Schuylkill Station (formerly [insert
referenced as Veolia Energy Federal
Philadelphia--Schuylkill Register
Station). citation].
Kinder Morgan Liquid IP16-000233..... Philadelphia.... 4/20/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(5).
Terminals, LLC--Philadelphia [insert
Terminal (formerly Federal
referenced as Kinder Morgan Register
Liquid Terminals, LLC). citation].
Naval Surface Warfare Center-- IP16-000235..... Philadelphia.... 3/20/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(6).
Philadelphia Division [insert
(formerly referenced as Federal
Naval Surface Warfare Register
Center--Carderock Division, citation].
Ship Systems Engineering
Station (NSWCCD-SSES)).
Newman and Company, Inc IP16-000223..... Philadelphia.... 3/31/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(7).
(formerly referenced as [insert
Paperworks Industries, Inc). Federal
Register
citation].
Philadelphia Energy Solutions IP-16-00269..... Philadelphia.... 4/24/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(8).
Refining and Marketing LLC [insert
(formerly referenced as Federal
Philadelphia Energy Register
Solutions--Refining and citation].
Marketing, LLC).
Philadelphia Shipyard Inc.... IP16-000300..... Philadelphia.... 4/8/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(9).
[insert
Federal
Register
citation].
Exelon Generation Company-- IP16-000246..... Philadelphia.... 4/20/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(2).
Richmond Generating Station. [insert
Federal
Register
citation].
Grays Ferry Cogeneration IP-16-000250.... Philadelphia.... 3/4/2020 11/1/2021, 52.2064(f)(3).
Partnership--Schuylkill [insert
Station. Federal
Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 (f) 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).
* * * * *
(f) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for the 2008 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard for the facilities
listed in this paragraph are incorporated as specified. (Rulemaking
Docket No. EPA-OAR-2020-0598).
(1) AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC--Frankford Plant--Incorporating
by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP16-000276, revised and effective
March 5, 2020, which supersedes the prior RACT Plan Approval effective
February 9, 2016. See also the Federal Register of October 7, 2016, for
prior RACT approval.
(2) Exelon Generation Company--Richmond Generating Station--
Incorporating by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP16-000246,
effective April 20, 2020 which supersedes the prior RACT Plan Approval,
effective February 9, 2016. See also the Federal Register of October 7,
2016, for prior RACT approval.
(3) Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership--Incorporating by
reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP-16-000250, effective March 4, 2020,
which supersedes RACT Plan Approval, effective January 9, 2015. See
also the Federal Register of October 7, 2016, for prior RACT approval.
(4) Vicinity Energy Philadelphia--Schuylkill Station--Incorporating
by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP16-000249, effective March 4,
2020, which supersedes RACT Plan Approval, effective February 9, 2016.
See also the Federal Register of October 7, 2016, for prior RACT
approval.
(5) Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC--Philadelphia Terminal--
Incorporating by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP16-000233,
effective April 20, 2020, which supersedes RACT Plan Approval,
effective February 9, 2016. See also the Federal Register of October 7,
2016, for prior RACT approval.
(6) Naval Surface Warfare Center--Philadelphia Division--
Incorporating by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP16-000235,
effective March 20, 2020, which supersedes the prior RACT Plan
Approval, effective February 9, 2016. See also the Federal Register of
October 7, 2016, for prior RACT approval.
(7) Newman and Company, Inc.--Incorporating by reference RACT Plan
Approval No. IP16-000223, effective March 31, 2020, which supersedes
RACT Plan Approval, effective January 9, 2015. See also the Federal
Register of October 7, 2016, for prior RACT approval.
(8) Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC.--
Incorporating by reference RACT Plan Approval No. IP-16-00269,
effective April 24, 2020, which supersedes the RACT Plan Approval
effective February 9, 2016. See also the Federal Register of October 7,
2016, for prior RACT approval.
(9) Philadelphia Shipyard Inc.--Incorporating by reference RACT
Plan Approval No. IP16-000300, effective April 8, 2020.
[FR Doc. 2021-22571 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P