Proposed Rule2023-14535
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 10, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire. These revisions provide certifications that the State has adopted regulations meeting the requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We are also proposing approval of amendments to a related regulation that New Hampshire revised as part of its RACT certifications for these two NAAQS, a revision to the State's definition of emergency generator, and removal from the SIP of two previously issued RACT orders. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43483-43489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14535]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0188; FRL-11025-01-R1]
Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of New Hampshire. These revisions provide certifications that the
State has adopted regulations meeting the requirements for reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We are also proposing
approval of amendments to a related regulation that New Hampshire
revised as part of its RACT certifications for these two NAAQS, a
revision to the State's definition of emergency generator, and removal
from the SIP of two previously issued RACT orders. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0188 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or via email to:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c414f4f434242494040025e434e495e586c495c4d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="600d03030f0e0e050c0c4e120f02051214200510014e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>. For comments submitted at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. Publicly
available docket materials are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
[[Page 43484]]
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility closures due
to COVID-19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MD), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046, email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#412c22222e2f2f242d2d6f332e23243335012431206f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a1719191514141f1616540815181f080e3a1f0a1b541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittals
1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS
a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015
Ozone Standards
b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
2. Update to NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Regulation
3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator
4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New
Hampshire
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
States to implement RACT in areas classified as Moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires RACT in States located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
emission sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and for all sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA which
provides guidance to States when determining RACT for specific VOC
sources. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT), exists primarily for NO<INF>X</INF> control requirements. States
must submit RACT rules for sources covered by CTGs, or negative
declarations when no such sources exist for a CTG, but negative
declarations are not required for sources in ACT categories. However,
RACT must be imposed on major sources of NO<INF>X</INF>, and some of
those major sources may be within a category covered by an ACT
document.
In 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS, or standards) for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts
per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined
that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human
health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active
outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such
as asthma.
On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule that
outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the
2008 ozone standard needed to address. This rule, herein referred to as
the ``2008 ozone implementation rule,'' contained, among other things,
a description of EPA's expectations for States with RACT obligations.
The 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that States could meet
RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements
that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under a prior ozone
NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State
must submit a negative declaration in instances where, for a particular
CTG, there are no sources within the State covered by that CTG. On
February 3, 2017, EPA issued findings of failure to submit for a number
of required SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including RACT for
States within the OTR. See 82 FR 9158. By that action, New Hampshire
received a finding of failure to submit a RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, which it subsequently rectified with the submittal we are
proposing approval of in this action.
In 2015, the EPA promulgated another revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015.
Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, EPA published a final rule that
outlined the obligations that States in the OTR and areas found to be
in nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS needed to address, including
similar requirements for RACT as were contained in the 2008 ozone
implementation rule. See 83 FR 62998. We herein refer to this rule as
the 2015 ozone implementation rule.
In order to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS, the New Hampshire Air Resources Division submitted a RACT
certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS on September 6, 2018.
Under a separate cover letter, NH also submitted on September 6, 2018,
a revision to the State's previously approved NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
regulation, Env-A 1300, and a revision to the term ``emergency
generator'' as contained within the State regulation Env-A 100,
Purpose; Definitions. New Hampshire submitted an additional amendment
to Env-A 1300 on March 28, 2023. On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire
submitted a request to remove from their SIP two RACT orders containing
requirements that were superseded by more stringent requirements
contained within the State's September 6, 2018, submittal of revised
Env-A 1300, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT.
II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions
1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS
a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
On September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a demonstration that
its set of SIP approved VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> control regulations and
single source RACT orders issued to major stationary sources meets the
criteria for RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This submittal
rectified the finding of failure to submit that EPA issued on February
3, 2017, described above. New Hampshire's RACT submittal notes that its
prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1979 and 1997 ozone
standards resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major
sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF>, including RACT level controls.
Therefore, as allowed for within the 2008 and 2015 ozone implementation
rules, much of New Hampshire's submittal consists of a review of RACT
controls adopted under previous ozone standards and an indication of
whether those previously adopted controls still represent RACT for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal
also notes the substantial declines in NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions
from RACT sources that has occurred due to the implementation of RACT
for the prior ozone standards. For additional context, New Hampshire's
submittal notes that EPA designated all areas of the State as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that a
RACT submittal is only required pursuant to the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) requirements of section 184(b) of the Clean Air Act. New
Hampshire's submittal also notes that VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from sources subject to RACT have declined substantially in recent
years. For example, between 2005 and 2017, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from these sources declined
[[Page 43485]]
82%, and VOC emission declined 58%, due in part to New Hampshire's RACT
requirements for these facilities. More recently, information contained
within EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database for 2020
indicates only 1 stationary point source in New Hampshire emitted more
than 50 tons of VOC that year, and only 8 stationary point sources
emitted more than 50 tons of NO<INF>X</INF>.
The State's September 6, 2018 submittal identifies the specific
control measures that it previously adopted to control emissions from
major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for
some CTG categories, and describes updates New Hampshire made to
existing requirements to strengthen them so that they would continue to
represent RACT. Table 5-1 of New Hampshire's submittal contains a
detailed listing of the State regulations for each of the CTG and ACT
categories for which sources exist in the State. The table identifies
the specific State rule that is in place, the rule's effective date,
and the date that EPA approved the rule into the New Hampshire SIP. New
Hampshire notes that major sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> are
defined, for purposes of New Hampshire's RACT regulations, as sources
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of these
pollutants. For some CTG categories such as surface coating sources,
New Hampshire's rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent
with the relevant CTGs. New Hampshire's submittal includes the State's
response to EPA's issuance of new VOC RACT CTGs in 2006, 2007, and
2008, which included adoption of a number of new regulations. EPA
approved the State's SIP revisions addressing the 2006, 2007, and 2008
CTGs on November 8, 2012. See 77 FR 66921. Additionally, on December
17, 2019, New Hampshire submitted a negative declaration for a CTG that
EPA issued in 2016 regarding the oil and gas industry. EPA approved
that negative declaration on July 13, 2020. See 85 FR 41920.
As required, New Hampshire's submittal addresses NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions as well as VOC emissions. Section 5.2 of the State's
submittal identifies the control requirement or single source Order
that sets forth RACT for major sources of NO<INF>X</INF>. Specifically,
New Hampshire notes that major sources of NO<INF>X</INF> are subject to
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) RACT. This regulation
includes a NO<INF>X</INF> RACT emission limit applicable to municipal
waste combustors. New Hampshire reviewed Env-A 1300 and determined that
certain aspects of that regulation needed to be updated in order to
represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This determination
was informed by comments the State received from EPA within a letter
dated April 18, 2014. That EPA comment letter was sent in response to a
draft RACT certification SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that New
Hampshire had submitted to EPA for review. EPA's comment letter noted
that New Hampshire's draft RACT certification lacked adequate
justification as to how the State's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulations
represented a RACT level of control, and the correspondence also
provided information indicating that strengthening some aspects of
these regulations, in particular those limiting emissions from coal-
fired electric utility boilers and municipal waste combustors, was
likely needed in order to satisfy the State's RACT obligation. EPA's
comment letter is included in the docket for this action. Accordingly,
on September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of
Env-A 1300 as a SIP revision. The updated regulation includes a
tightened NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit for incinerators which is
applicable to municipal waste combustors in the State, lower
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for older gas and older oil-fired
engines, and lower NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for coal fired
utility boilers. Additionally, New Hampshire submitted updated single
source Orders containing NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for the
Anheuser Busch Company and for the Schiller Station electrical
generating station.
New Hampshire has adopted State regulations for the CTG categories
for which sources exist in the State and has reviewed and strengthened
portions of Env-A 1300, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT. In most cases New
Hampshire determined that sources already addressed by RACT
determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement primarily because RACT for the more recent standards is the
same control technology as required by the initial RACT determination
made under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because the fundamental control
techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still what is
reasonably available. New Hampshire did not receive any comments during
the public hearing process disagreeing with the State's conclusion that
it has adopted regulations governing major sources of VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> that constitute RACT.
New Hampshire's review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> thus concludes that upon completion of its
intended updates to Env-A 1300 and submittal of the single source
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Orders mentioned above, all major sources in the
State will be meeting the RACT requirements of the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards.
b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's determination that it has adopted
VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT and proposes to determine that the set of regulations
cited by the State within its September 6, 2018, certification SIP
submittals, along with the strengthening of the requirements contained
in Env-A 1300, the State's NO<INF>X</INF> control regulation,
constitute RACT for purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.
EPA's evaluation is explained in more detail below and is also
explained within a Technical Support Document (TSD) that can be found
in the docket for this action.
New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal documents the State's
VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> control regulations that have been adopted to
ensure that RACT level controls are required in the State. These
requirements include regulations within Env-A, Rules Governing the
Control of Air Pollution. Specifically, within New Hampshire's VOC RACT
regulation, Env-A 1200, the State has adopted regulations limiting VOC
emissions from sectors represented by 23 of EPA's CTGs, including the
CTGs EPA adopted in 2006, 2007, and 2008. These are the CTGs for which
the State has covered sources. EPA's analysis for these CTGs is
explained more below and also within the TSD. Further, New Hampshire's
submittal includes Table 5-3 listing negative declarations for the
other CTGs where the state determined that no covered sources are
located within its borders. To evaluate these negative declarations,
EPA reviewed facility location data by industry type using information
from the North American Industry Classification System. Based on that
review, EPA agrees with the State's conclusion regarding which CTGs
negative declarations are appropriate for.
Next, New Hampshire's RACT certification notes that the State has
adopted numerous single source RACT Orders for major sources of VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF>, and that these Orders have been submitted to EPA and
incorporated into the SIP. The sources covered by these orders must
submit a detailed evaluation of the economic and technical feasibility
of the VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> control options that were evaluated, the
control option selected and the corresponding emissions limit, and the
monitoring technique and/or test
[[Page 43486]]
method that will be used to demonstrate compliance for the State to
review. Prior to issuing a RACT determination for the source, New
Hampshire submits a draft RACT Order to the EPA's Region 1 office for
review and comment, after which the draft order undergoes a 30-day
public comment period. After considering any comments received during
the public hearing process, the State issues a final RACT Order to the
facility and subsequently submits it to EPA for incorporation into the
New Hampshire SIP.
As part of the development of its RACT certifications, New
Hampshire evaluated all previously issued VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
Orders based on the State's review of available control options
implemented at other facilities within the State and comparable RACT
emissions limits required by other States. The results of this review
are chronicled within Tables 5-2 and 5-5 of the State's submittal, and
the tables include a column explaining the results of the State's
review. Orders that the State determined did not satisfy the RACT
requirement, such as the Orders previously issued to Anheuser Busch and
Schiller Station, were revised and submitted to EPA for incorporation
into the New Hampshire SIP, which EPA accomplished via a final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2019 (84 FR 48068).
EPA reviewed the States documentation of its review of RACT Orders, and
also performed its own review of a number of orders that the State did
not update, and agree with the State's determination that these orders
represent a RACT level of control. For example, the VOC RACT orders for
Teleflex Medical and the Textile Tapes Corporation indicate that both
companies control VOC emissions to a minimum of 81% control efficiency
by operation of a thermal oxidizer, which is the control level
recommended in EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources that
control emissions by an alternative to what is otherwise required by
regulation. Other States, Delaware for example, require this same level
of control in such situation.\1\ EPA has reviewed and agrees with New
Hampshire's assessment that its RACT Orders sufficiently demonstrate a
RACT level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, Appendix A of Delaware's regulation 1124,
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, at section 10.5,
Control Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our most recent prior approval of a RACT certification SIP for New
Hampshire occurred on November 5, 2012, (77 FR 66388) for the 1997
ozone standard. Since then, EPA has approved numerous revisions to New
Hampshire's RACT requirements that further limited VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. These revisions include updates the State
made to its VOC RACT regulation to address the CTGs issued by EPA in
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2016 (see 77 FR 66922, and 85 FR 41920), and
minor updates to the State's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements (see 79
FR 49458).\2\ Additionally, New Hampshire submitted and EPA approved
single source Orders for the following facilities subsequent to EPA's
last RACT certification approval: Mectrol Corporation (see 77 FR
66388); Concord Litho, Sturm-Ruger, Gorham Paper, and Textile Tapes
(see 79 FR 49458); Parker Hannifin Corporation, Watts Regulator,
Textile Tapes, amended Order (see 81 FR 59139); Sturm-Ruger, amended
Order (see 83 FR 13668), and; Diacom Corporation (see 83 FR 45356).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New Hampshire has made more significant revisions to its
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation that we are proposing to approve as
discussed is section II.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further analyze whether New Hampshire's VOC control regulations
for sources covered by CTGs meet the RACT obligation, EPA reviewed
those regulations and compared them to other resources. Those resources
include control strategies adopted by two similar neighboring States,
Maine and Vermont, which are also attainment areas that implement RACT
due to their inclusion in the OTR, measures described in the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), EPA's Menu of Control Measures, and federal
regulations found in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 (New Source Performance
Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants). EPA's RBLC contains case-specific information on air
pollution technologies that have been required by State and local
permitting agencies to reduce air pollution from stationary sources and
was designed to help with the air permitting process. The Menu of
Control Measures provides State, local, and Tribal air agencies with
information on existing emissions reduction measures, as well as
relevant information concerning the efficiency and cost effectiveness
of the measures. The results of EPA's analysis are summarized within
the TSD prepared for this action and included in the docket.
Additionally, for informational purposes and context, a technical
supplement New Hampshire provided to its RACT certifications that is
included within the docket provides information regarding aspects of
the State's VOC regulations that contain requirements more stringent
than what is found within EPA's CTGs for wood furniture manufacturing,
graphic arts, bulk gasoline plants, and cutback and emulsified asphalt
application.\3\ For example, New Hampshire requires a control
efficiency of between 75 to 80% for control equipment used to reduce
emissions from rotogravure printing operations, whereas the comparable
requirement from EPA's CTG is 65 to 70%. Based on EPA's review, we are
proposing to find that New Hampshire's VOC requirements for sources
covered by CTGs, where such sources exist within the State, adequately
establish RACT. Although there are some differences amongst the State
regulations, for example, regarding applicability criteria, work
practice standards inspection frequency and other matters, these
differences did not impact EPA's conclusions regarding New Hampshire's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See RACT Certification: Follow-up to NH's Submission on
September 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Env-A 1222, Miscellaneous and Multicategory Stationary
VOC Sources, facilities with the potential to emit 50 tons or more from
activities that don't fit into a CTG category but are able to meet the
default control options within that regulation are governed by the
control options within it, such as, for example, achievement of an 81%
overall control efficiency for add-on equipment as recommended within
EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources. EPA reviewed the
control options within Env-A 1222 and agree that they continue to
represent RACT.
Next, New Hampshire recently re-evaluated its NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
regulation and determined that a number of NO<INF>X</INF> requirements,
as described below, should be updated to be consistent with
requirements in other States. The updates New Hampshire made to its
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation resulted in the development of tighter
NO<INF>X</INF> limits for municipal waste combustors (MWCs), lower
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for oil and gas fired engines, and
lower NO<INF>X</INF> limits for coal fired boilers. New Hampshire's SIP
submittal further indicates some portions of Env-A 1300 were not
revised, and the State provided its rationale for not revising these
sections in the technical supplement to the original submittal
mentioned above. New Hampshire determined that portions of Env-A 1300
pertaining to asphalt plant rotary dryers, wallboard manufacturing
facilities, auxiliary boilers, and miscellaneous sources did not need
revision based on its review of various factors as noted within the
[[Page 43487]]
supplement. For example, there are no longer any asphalt plant rotary
dryers or industrial boilers sized 100 mmBTU/hr or greater in the
State, and so requirements for such equipment were not changed. New
Hampshire also notes that there are minimal emissions from wallboard
manufacturing facilities and auxiliary boilers, with only 34 tons of
annual NO<INF>X</INF> emitted from these two sectors collectively. New
Hampshire's conclusion that their current regulations for these
facilities constitutes RACT is reasonable when considering their
current emissions, the existing requirement for controls, and the
anticipated costs of achieving additional reductions. For example, New
Hampshire's existing RACT requirements contain a requirement for the
use of low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners by both types of facilities, and
EPA's ``Menu of Control Measures'' indicates that low-NO<INF>X</INF>
burners typically achieve a 50 percent NO<INF>X</INF> emission
reduction. Adding additional combustion controls such as flue gas
recirculation or overfire air can nominally increase the control
efficiency to 60 to 70%, but those controls can be costly and the added
cost to achieve this incremental emission reduction is likely to be
economically infeasible. Therefore, we agree with the State's
conclusion that additional NO<INF>X</INF> controls are not needed for
RACT for wallboard manufacturing and auxiliary boilers. The State's
technical supplement to the RACT certification submittal contains
additional information regarding the portions of the State's
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements that were not revised.
We note that New Hampshire's certification also mentions the
State's adoption of regulations recommended by the Ozone Transport
Commissions OTC that limit VOC emissions from consumer products and
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings regulations. Although
these rules will assist New Hampshire in its efforts to remain in
attainment of the ozone standard by lowering VOC emissions in the
State, they are not required for EPA's approval of the RACT
certification as they do not apply to major stationary sources or to
sources covered by a CTG. The OTC periodically makes recommendations to
its member States regarding ozone control strategies that the States
should consider adopting. The OTC's Stationary Source committee has
focused mostly on VOC area source and NO<INF>X</INF> point source
categories, but they did identify a VOC control strategy that is
applicable to both the VOC point and area source sectors, and New
Hampshire adopted this requirement. The specific provision is found
within New Hampshire's VOC RACT regulation at section Env-A 1221.02,
Compliance Standards for Cold Cleaning. It precludes use of solvents
with a vapor pressure of 1.0 millimeters of mercury or greater within a
cold cleaning machine, which is a restrictive requirement not found
within EPA's CTG for this sector.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents;
September, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the State's submittals and propose to agree that
the VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> stationary source control regulations which
New Hampshire has cited as meeting RACT satisfy the RACT obligation for
purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards and we are therefore
proposing to approve the State's September 6, 2018, RACT certification
SIPs.
2. Update to NOX RACT Regulation
As mentioned above, New Hampshire performed an initial review of
its VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulations in 2014 and concluded that
its VOC RACT regulation, Env-A 1200, and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
regulation, Env-A 1300, contained sufficient requirements to satisfy
RACT and submitted its draft RACT analysis to EPA for comment. EPA's
review of New Hampshire's 2014 draft RACT submittal identified portions
of the State's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements which were not likely
to meet RACT for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and transmitted these
findings via a letter dated April 18, 2014. Specifically, EPA found
that the State's NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for electric utility
boilers and municipal waste combustors should be strengthened in order
to represent a RACT level of control. Accordingly, on September 6,
2018, New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision that requested that an
updated version of the State's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation, entitled
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), be approved into the SIP. Env-A 1300
contains New Hampshire's NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits and other
requirements for the various types of combustion equipment found in the
State as identified within section 1301.02 of the rule. The primary
changes New Hampshire made to the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rule consist of
adoption of stricter NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for MWCs and coal
fired utility boilers as EPA recommended in its 2014 comment letter,
and also additional, strengthened NO<INF>X</INF> requirements
applicable to peak shaving oil and gas fired engines.
On March 28, 2023, New Hampshire submitted amendments to Env-A 1300
to revise a requirement applicable to coal-fired electric utility
boilers operating under ``low-load'' conditions to restrain such
operation to testing required under 40 CFR part 75. The revision also
included additional recordkeeping requirements for coal-fired electric
utility boilers that are applicable during periods of startup and
shutdown.
Regarding MWCs, New Hampshire lowered the existing NO<INF>X</INF>
emission limit for incinerators (MWCs are a type of incinerator) to 150
ppm within Env-A 1309.03. The State's one remaining MWC facility, the
Wheelabrator-Concord Company located in Concord, NH, meets this
emissions limit by operating a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
system to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Appendix D of a report
produced in February of 2017 by the Ozone Transport Commission \5\
(OTC) indicates that this NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit is amongst the
lowest of all of the limits for MWC units in the OTR. For example, the
150 ppm NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit is equivalent to or more
stringent than similar restrictions adopted by the three other New
England States with mass-burn waterwall MWC units similar to the type
operated in New Hampshire.\6\ An alternative emission limit of 205 ppm
is allowed during periods of startup or shutdown, which are limited in
time to no more than 3 hours per event.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State
Regulations for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Eight Stationary
Source Categories; Ozone Transport Commissions; Final Draft, 02/10/
2017.
\6\ For MWC NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits for Massachusetts,
see 310 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, section 7.08: U
Incinerators, at 7.08(f), Table 3; for Connecticut, see the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies at Section 22a-174-38,
Municipal Waste Combustors, paragraph (c), Table 38-2; for Maine,
see Chapter 138, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT, of Maine's Air Rules at
138(G).
\7\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limit of
205 ppm using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined
in EPA's guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations
during periods of startup and shutdown and determined the emission
limit meets CAA requirements for SIP provisions. See Section VII.B
of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's evaluation of the alternative
emission limit is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding peak shaving engines, New Hampshire lowered the
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit for gas-fired rich burn engines from 2.0
to 1.5 grams per brake-horsepower hour (bhp-hr), and lowered the
emission limit for lean burn gas-fired engines from 3.0 to 2.5 grams
bhp-hr. New Hampshire also lowered the emission limit for oil-fired
engines from 9.0 grams per bhp-hr to a range of between 4.0 grams and
6.4 grams per bhp-hr depending on engine size. As can be seen by
information within
[[Page 43488]]
Appendix C of the OTC White Paper, these limits are consistent with
limits adopted by other States within the OTR.\8\ For example, the
State's limit for gas-fired rich burn engines is equal to the most
stringent limit of other States, and the limits for gas-fired lean burn
and for oil-fired engines are within the range of rates adopted by the
other OTC States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note that the emissions limits shown within Appendix C
for diesel and for dual-fuel units for NH of 8.0 grams/hp-hr were
subsequently lowered by the oil-fired limits noted within this
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), New
Hampshire significantly lowered the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for
the State's two remaining operating coal-fired EGUs, those being units
MK1 and MK2 operated by Granite Shore Power at its facility located in
Bow, New Hampshire. New Hampshire's revised NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
regulation lowers the NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate for unit MK1 from
0.92 lbs per million british thermal units (mmBTU) of heat input to
0.22 lbs per mmBTU, based on a 24-hour averaging time. For MK2, New
Hampshire's revised NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation also lowers the
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit to 0.22 lbs per mmBTU, down from a
previous limit of 1.4 lbs per mmBTU, and this limit is also based on a
24-hour averaging time. The emission units subject to these
requirements are cyclone boilers, and boilers of this configuration
have the highest uncontrolled emission rates of all coal-fired boiler
types listed within EPA's emission factor reference document referred
to as ``AP-42''.\9\ Table 1.1-3 of AP-42 provides an uncontrolled
emission rate for cyclone boilers of 33 pounds of NO<INF>X</INF> per
ton of coal burned, which is more than six times higher than the lowest
uncontrolled rate shown in the table. To reduce NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions from these high-emitting boilers, each unit is equipped with
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems which is a highly
effective means of controlling NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from combustion
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Volume 1, Section 1.1, Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal
Combustion, of AP-42, available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.1_bituminous_and_subbituminous_coal_combustion.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.1_bituminous_and_subbituminous_coal_combustion.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past decade, the two emissions units subject to these
requirements have been called upon less frequently to produce
electricity. For example, in 2010 unit 1 operated on 286 days and
emitted 1,071 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> for the year. The unit recorded 7
start-up events during that year. Unit 2 operated 290 days in calendar
year 2010 and emitted 2,342 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> for the year. The
unit recorded 6 startup events that year. By 2020, the facilities'
utilization had fallen considerably. In 2020, unit 1 operated on only
25 days, emitting 52 tons for the year, but experienced 10 start-up
events, more than it had in 2010. Unit 2 operated on only 21 days,
emitting 112 tons. Unit 2 experienced 8 start-up events in 2020, also
more start-up events than it had 10 years earlier. Given that
operations during start-up and shut-down modes now represent a larger
part of the facilities' overall operations, and recognizing that the
units cannot effectively run SCR controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions during these period, New Hampshire's revised regulation
provides, in addition to an emissions rate of 0.22 lbs per million BTU
that must be met on a 24-hour calendar day basis under normal operating
conditions, daily NO<INF>X</INF> mass-based emissions caps which are
applicable on days when startup, shutdown, and periodic testing \10\
occurs. The daily mass emission limits were derived to ensure the daily
mass emissions on startup, shutdown, or testing days are no more than
25% higher than the maximum mass emissions otherwise permitted. New
Hampshire developed these daily mass emission limits by reviewing unit-
specific data on the average time each unit spent in start-up and shut-
down modes, as well as NO<INF>X</INF> emitted in each mode, and set the
daily mass-based limits to ensure that the units could not spend
inordinate amounts of time starting up or shutting down. This approach
avoids the potential of a unit spending excessive amounts of time in
SCR-off mode. The units cannot ``hover'' in start-up or shut-down mode
to avoid utilizing their SCR to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> because they
would violate the daily mass limit if they remain in those modes for
longer than is truly necessary to transition the unit to normal
operations or to shut it down. New Hampshire chose this approach as the
preferred alternative to providing a higher emissions rate that would
have been needed if emissions during start-up and shut-down were
included within one overarching emissions rate covering all modes of
operation. Pursuant to Env-A 1303.04(c), the facility must keep a log
of each start-up and shut-down event that records the date of each
event and time spent in these modes, and the emissions that occur
during them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Testing performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 that
require operation at low load levels that do not allow the requisite
SCR operational temperature to be met.
\11\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limits
during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction for cyclone boilers
using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined in EPA's
guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations, and
determined the emission limit meets CAA requirements for SIP
provisions. See Section VII.B of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's
evaluation of the alternative emission limits is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the revisions to Env-A 1300 described above, and
other less substantive revisions that New Hampshire made to the
regulation and determined that the tightening of emissions limits for
coal-fired EGUs, gas and oil-fired engines, and municipal waste
combustors will significantly reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the
equipment subject to these requirements and is consistent with RACT
limits adopted by other States for similar equipment.
3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator
New Hampshire's September 6, 2018, submittal of its updated
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation, Env-A 1300, also included a revision to
a term within the State's definitions regulation found at Env-A 101,
Purpose; Definitions. In that revision, New Hampshire modified the
existing definition of ``emergency generator'' to make it consistent
with a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia \12\ that vacated provisions for emergency engines to operate
for demand-response purposes. Because of the Court's decision, engines
used for such purposes are subject to Federal requirements regarding
emission controls and other requirements for non-emergency engines.
Therefore, New Hampshire modified its definition of ``emergency
generator'' to make it consistent with the Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental
Control v. EPA, 785 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit; 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New Hampshire
On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a request that
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Order ARD-97-001, issued in 1997, and
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Order ARD-98-001, issued in 1998, both of which had
been issued to the Public Service Corporation of New Hampshire, be
withdrawn from the SIP. The State made this request because the
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits contained within the orders had been
superseded by more stringent limits within the State's revised Env-A
1300, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT, which the State subsequently submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision request on September 6, 2018. We agree that the
emissions units covered by these orders are now subject to the more
restrictive limits within the revised version of Env-A 1300 that we
[[Page 43489]]
are proposing approval of elsewhere in this action, and therefore for
regulatory clarity we are proposing to grant the State's request to
remove Orders ARD-97-001 and ARD-98-001 from the New Hampshire SIP if
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the associated revision of Env-A
1300.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the following items into the New
Hampshire SIP: a RACT certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards, revisions to New Hampshire's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulation,
Env-A 1300, a revision to the term ``emergency generator'' as used
within the State's air pollution control regulations, and withdrawal
from the New Hampshire SIP of NO<INF>X</INF> RACT Orders ARD-97-001 and
ARD-98-001. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this proposed rule. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The
proposed changes are described in sections I. and III. of this
preamble. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire regulation Env-A
1300, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT, and the term ``emergency generator'' as
defined within Env-A 100 of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative
Rules. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at the EPA
Region 1 Office. Please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 5, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-14535 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 10, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.