Proposed Rule2023-28573
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
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
January 10, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Massachusetts on July 22, 2021, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. Massachusetts' SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1482-1505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28573]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0185; FRL-11616-01-R1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by Massachusetts on July 22, 2021, as satisfying applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. Massachusetts' SIP
submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also
addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 9, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0185 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</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>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mackintosh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, (Mail code 5-MO), Boston, MA 02109-3912, at 617-918-1584, or
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db96bab8b0b2b5afb4a8b3f59fbaadb2bf9bbeabbaf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a072b292123243e253922640e2b3c232e0a2f3a2b642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Massachusetts' First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. Massachusetts' Second Implementation Period SIP Submission
and the EPA's Evaluation
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Massachusetts' Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
[[Page 1483]]
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' Response to the Six
MANE-VU Asks and Compliance With Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On July 22, 2021, supplemented on June 15, 2022, the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) submitted a revision
to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation
period. MassDEP made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of
the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B
and 40 CFR 51.308. The EPA is proposing to find that the Massachusetts
regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and thus proposes
to approve Massachusetts' submission into its SIP.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs the EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, the EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase
of the EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990,
Congress added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility
impairment, specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA 169B. The
EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR
51.308,\2\ on July 1, 1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). These regional
haze regulations are a central component of the EPA's comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used to for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters (Mm-1).
The EPA's Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period (``2019 Guidance'') offers the
flexibility for the use of light extinction in certain cases. Light
extinction can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews,
since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at
16, 19, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>, The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (August
20, 2019). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1).
40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \4\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). Under the CAA,
each SIP submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years)
strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal,'' CAA 169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also
had to address the statutory requirement that certain older, larger
sources of visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best
available retrofit technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR
51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December
17, 2007, 40 CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing
updated long-term strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every
ten years thereafter. (64 FR at 35768, July 1, 1999). The EPA
established in the 1999 RHR that all states either have Class I areas
within their borders or ``contain sources whose emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area''; therefore, all states must submit regional haze SIPs.\5\ Id. at
35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\5\ In addition to each of the fifty states, the EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also
submit regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area
or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at
[[Page 1484]]
the end of the implementation period including from implementation of
states' long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were
required to provide for an improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period. In establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the
state was required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life of any potentially affected sources. CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five-
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\6\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that States'
long-term strategies must include the ``enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance, schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In
establishing their long-term strategies, states are required to consult
with other states that also contribute to visibility impairment in a
given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain their
shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section 51.308(d) also contains seven additional
factors states must consider in formulating their long-term strategies,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing monitoring and
other implementation plan requirements. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally,
the 1999 RHR required states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP
revisions due every five years that contain information on states'
implementation of their regional haze plans and an assessment of
whether anything additional is needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s)
\7\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class I area according to the
requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assessing the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' (82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017).
\7\ The EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and
streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the
regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation
periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the
2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR
Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second
implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021,
clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and
the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements
on the days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as
opposed to the days with the most visibility impairment overall. The
EPA also revised requirements of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second implementation period regional haze
SIP submissions are addressed in detail below.
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\8\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum containing
``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\9\
Additionally, the EPA further clarified the recommended procedures for
processing ambient visibility data and optionally adjusting the URP to
account for international anthropogenic and prescribed fire impacts in
two technical guidance documents: the December 2018 ``Technical
Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation
Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance''),\10\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program'' and associated Technical Addendum (``2020
Data Completeness Memo'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\9\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>. The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\10\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional</a>. The EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park.
(December 20, 2018).
\11\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program</a>. The EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second implementation period of the regional haze program
to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress
[[Page 1485]]
are state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See
generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, as further emission
reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I
areas throughout the country.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, states
need to develop strategies in coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\13\
which include representation from state and tribal governments, the
EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the first
implementation period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from State and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other
pollutants leading to regional haze, and help states meet the
consultation requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments (listed alphabetically) include
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont. The Federal partner members of MANE-VU are EPA, U.S. National
Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, Sec. 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which states determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps
in the reasonable progress analysis \14\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state
first must identify the Class I areas within the state and determine
the Class I areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected
by emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR 51.308(f),
(f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state must then
calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions for
that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the
URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Additionally, as
further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \15\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies. A state evaluates potential
emission reduction measures for those selected sources and determines
which are necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are
then incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state
has developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the baseline
visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is being made
towards the statutory goal of preventing any future and remedying any
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\15\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in Sec.
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA
[[Page 1486]]
169(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the
Agency and the public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to
make a required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is
incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and
explained that the statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low
triggering threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be
required to engage in air quality planning and analysis as a
prerequisite to determining the need for control of emissions from
sources within their State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.
2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I
areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions
information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in Sec.
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \16\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under Sec. 51.308(f)(1)--specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
<a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf">https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment).\17\ 40 CFR 51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\18\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then calculate,
for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the baseline
period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve in order
to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ This notice also refers to the 20% clearest and 20% most
anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and ``most
impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\18\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement per year, measured in
deciviews, that would need to be achieved during each implementation
period in order to achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of
2064. The URP is used in later steps of the reasonable progress
analysis for informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable
benchmark against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\19\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA
provided states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the
URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United
States and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires.
These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to
avoid any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not
necessary for reasonable progress. 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in Sec. 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
[[Page 1487]]
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined
pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount
of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the
four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of
potential control options for sources of visibility impairing
pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor'' analysis. The
outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction measures that a
particular source or group of sources needs to implement in order to
make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress may be either new, additional control measures
for a source, or they may be the existing emission reduction measures
that a source is already implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures must be represented by
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures'' (i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a state's long-
term strategy in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is
which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA
previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period,
EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo at
4. A state that chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants
should demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) at 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\21\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply in order to
satisfy the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR at 3091. Thus,
for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\22\ a state
must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id.
at 3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably
pick and justify the measures that it will consider, recognizing that
there is no statutory or regulatory requirement to consider all
technically feasible measures or any particular measures. A range of
technically feasible measures available to reduce emissions would be
one way to justify a reasonable set.'' 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\22\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their four-factor
analyses, as in many cases
[[Page 1488]]
such improvements are reasonable given that they typically involve only
additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, the 2021
Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a higher
emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially achieve
using its existing measures should also consider lower emission rates
as potential control options. That is, a state should consider a
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing
measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a
control option for reducing emissions. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7.
The EPA's recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements
and achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have
been selected for four-factor analysis and those that have forgone a
four-factor analysis on the basis of existing ``effective controls.''
See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\23\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a four-factor
analysis. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA
explained that while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while
states have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine
what level of control is needed, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . .
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
measure for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\24\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment. See CAA
169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that
no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's
existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy in order to
prevent future emission increases and future visibility impairment.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and
guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\25\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004); Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165
(3d Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction
[[Page 1489]]
measures for selected sources must be included in a state's long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40
CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors''
\26\ that states must consider in developing their long-term
strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. The 2019
Guidance provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by
considering these additional factors in the process of selecting
sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that analysis, or
both, and that not every one of the additional factors needs to be
considered at the same stage of the process. See 2019 Guidance at 21.
EPA provided further guidance on the five additional factors in the
2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should generally not
reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions since the first planning period
owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs or merely because
visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient
progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new
controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor analyses.
2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or adopt
certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines those
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that state must
document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). The EPA will consider the technical
information and explanations presented by the submitting state and the
state with which it disagrees when considering whether to approve the
state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all circumstances, a
state must document in its SIP submission all substantive consultations
with other contributing states. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the
public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term
strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in deciviews--
one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two
RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of
days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I
area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their
long-term strategies for the second implementation period.\27\ The RPGs
also account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations
for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are
developing their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as
well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. 2019
Guidance at 47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to
achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better
than the baseline period and show no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility
[[Page 1490]]
were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period
of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a
``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR at 3093,
3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i),
(f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20%
most anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every
year at each Class I area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\28\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019
Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its compliance
with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51 Subpart
A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of future projected emissions, a state
may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were developed for use
in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I areas.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at 55.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at Sec. 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \30\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, the state must include
in its SIP revision for the second implementation period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119,
January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, Sec.
51.308(g)(3) requires states
[[Page 1491]]
with Class I areas within their borders to first determine current
visibility conditions for each area on the most impaired and clearest
days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate the difference
between those current conditions and baseline (2000-2004) visibility
conditions in order to assess progress made to date. See 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the changes in visibility
impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since they submitted
their first implementation period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different states submitted their
first implementation period progress reports at different times, the
starting point for this assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of
whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving
visibility relative to what the state projected based on its long-term
strategy for the first implementation period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs
120 days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will
be deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for the EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on Massachusetts' First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
MassDEP submitted its regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period to the EPA on July 28, 2009, and supplemented it
on December 9, 2010, March 2, 2011, and December 7, 2011. The EPA
approved Massachusetts' first implementation period regional haze SIP
submission on September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57487). EPA's approval
included, but was not limited to, the portions of the plan that address
the reasonable progress requirements, Massachusetts' implementation of
Best Available Retrofit Technologies on eligible sources, and
Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.05 ``Fuels All Districts;'' Sulfur in Fuels
rule. The requirements for regional haze SIPs for the first
implementation period are contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). 40 CFR
51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Massachusetts was also
responsible for submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP
revision for the first implementation period, which it did on February
9, 2018. The EPA approved the progress report into the Massachusetts
SIP on March 29, 2019 (84 FR 11885).
B. Massachusetts' Second Implementation Period SIP Submission and the
EPA's Evaluation
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on July 22, 2021,\31\ Massachusetts submitted a revision to
the Massachusetts SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the
second implementation period, which runs through 2028. Massachusetts
made a draft Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment
on April 7, 2021. Massachusetts has included the public comments and
its responses to those comments in the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Massachusetts supplemented its SIP submission on June 15,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe Massachusetts' SIP submission,
including analyses conducted by MANE-VU and Massachusetts'
determinations based on those analyses, Massachusetts' assessment of
progress made since the first implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at nearby Class I areas. This notice also contains
EPA's evaluation of Massachusetts' submission against the requirements
of the CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional
haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
Massachusetts has no mandatory Class I Federal area within its borders.
For the second implementation period, MANE-VU performed technical
analyses \32\ to help assess source and state-level contributions to
visibility impairment and the need for interstate consultation. MANE-VU
used the
[[Page 1492]]
results of these analyses to determine which states' emissions ``have a
high likelihood of affecting visibility in MANE-VU's Class I areas.''
\33\ Similar to metrics used in the first implementation period,\34\
MANE-VU used a greater than 2 percent of sulfate plus nitrate emissions
contribution criteria to determine whether emissions from individual
jurisdictions within the region affected visibility in any Class I
areas. The MANE-VU analyses for the second implementation period used a
combination of data analysis techniques, including emissions data,
distance from Class I areas, wind trajectories, and CALPUFF dispersion
modeling. Although many of the analyses focused only on SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions and resultant particulate sulfate contributions to visibility
impairment, some also incorporated NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to estimate
particulate nitrate contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The contribution assessment methodologies for MANE-VU Class
I areas are summarized in MA RH SIP Appendix 16 of the docket.
``Selection of States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
(2018),'' MANE-VU TSC. September 5, 2017.
\33\ Id.
\34\ See docket EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0025 for MANE-VU supporting
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One MANE-VU analysis used for contribution assessment was CALPUFF
air dispersion modeling. The CALPUFF model was used to estimate sulfate
and nitrate formation and transport in MANE-VU and nearby regions
originating from large electric generating unit (EGU) point sources and
other large industrial and institutional sources in the eastern and
central United States. Information from an initial round of CALPUFF
modeling was collated for the 444 EGUs that were determined to warrant
further scrutiny based on their emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF>. The list of EGUs was based on an enhanced ``Q/d''
analysis \35\ that considered recent SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the
eastern United States and an analysis that adjusted previous 2002 MANE-
VU CALPUFF modeling by applying a ratio of 2011 to 2002 SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions. This list of sources was then enhanced by including the top
five SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission sources for 2011 for
each state included in the modeling domain. A total of 311 EGU stacks
(as opposed to individual units) were included in the CALPUFF modeling
analysis. Initial information was also collected on the 50 industrial
and institutional sources that, according to 2011 Q/d analysis,
contributed the most to visibility impact in each Class I area. The
ultimate CALPUFF modeling run included a total of 311 EGU stacks and 82
industrial facilities. The summary report for the CALPUFF modeling
included the top 10 most impacting EGUs and the top 5 most impacting
industrial/institutional sources for each Class I area and compiled
those results into a ranked list of the most impacting EGUs and
industrial sources at MANE-VU Class I areas.\36\ Overall, MANE-VU found
that emission sources located close to Class I areas typically show
higher visibility impacts than similarly sized facilities further away.
But visibility degradation appears to be dominated by the more distant
emission sources due to their larger emissions. Massachusetts had five
EGUs and one industrial source that were identified in the MANE-VU
CALPUFF modeling as having a magnitude of emissions located close
enough to a Class I area that they could have the potential for
visibility impacts.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility-impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
\36\ See appendix 8 ``2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling
Report--CALPUFF Modeling of
Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources.''
MANE-VU TSC. April 4, 2017.
\37\ See Section 5.4, page 68, Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP
Revision for 2018-2028 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the six sources, four were units at Brayton Point Power Station,
a coal-fired EGU facility (ORISPL 01619; MassDEP AQID 1200061). All
four units at Brayton Point ceased operation in 2017 and the permits
were revoked on December 6, 2017.
Canal Station (ORISPL 1599; MassDEP AQID 1200054) operates the
other EGU (Unit 1) identified by the modelling, and its greatest impact
was to Acadia. Unit 1 is a Babcock & Wilcox boiler that fires No. 6
fuel oil, with a permitted maximum sulfur content of 0.5 percent by
weight (wt%) as the sole operational fuel, with No. 2 fuel oil as a
startup/ignition fuel. Unit 1 has an approximate maximum heat input
rate of 5,083 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and a
generating capacity of approximately 560 (net) megawatts (MW). Unit 1
is equipped with low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners, overfire air ports, flue
gas recirculation (FGR), and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for
the control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. PM emissions are controlled by
an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP).
The emission controls installed on Unit 1 are necessary to achieve
compliance with the applicable emission limits under 310 CMR 7.29 and
Air Plan Approvals (i.e., state air permits) issued pursuant to 310 CMR
7.02
Massachusetts concludes that visibility impairing pollutants from
Canal Unit 1 are currently well controlled; however, Canal has
committed to purchasing 0.3 wt% No. 6 fuel oil following the depletion
of the current fuel inventory. Therefore, Massachusetts asked the owner
of Canal Unit 1 to submit an application to modify its plan approval to
require use of 0.3% sulfur content oil. Massachusetts approved the plan
application May 26, 2022, and submitted the plan approval to EPA for
approval into the SIP as a supplement to the Regional Haze SIP Revision
for Massachusetts on June 15, 2022. If Canal Unit 1 should operate
above 10% capacity factor in the future, existing NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
regulations (310 CMR 7.19) will further limit the NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions. From 2013 through 2022, Canal Unit one capacity had a
weighted average of 2% capacity per year, with a low of 0.1% to a high
of 7% capacity utilization by year and emitted an average of 42 tons of
NO<INF>X</INF> per year, ranging from a low of 2 tons to a high of 201
tons per year. Massachusetts will evaluate any changes in the operation
of Canal Unit 1 in the next progress report.
The only Massachusetts industrial source deemed by MANE-VU to have
the potential for significant impact on Class I areas in 2011 was
Solutia, Inc., which at the time was a coal- and oil-fired chemical
plant. Solutia's greatest impact was to Lye Brook, and it ranked 14th
in the list of industrial/institutional sources that had potential
impacts on Lye Brook, based primarily on its SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
MANE-VU estimated maximum extinction for Solutia at Lye Brook to be
less than 1 Mm-1. As reflected in the current Title V permit for the
facility (Permit Transmittal No.: X229245), Solutia has since repowered
from coal/oil to natural gas and is therefore no longer a significant
source of SO<INF>2</INF>.
As explained above, the EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all
[s]tates contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR at 35721, and
this determination was not changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the
statute and regulation both require that the cause-or-contribute
assessment consider all emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
from a state, as opposed to emissions of a particular pollutant or
emissions from a certain set of sources. Consistent with these
requirements, the 2019 Guidance makes it clear that ``all types of
anthropogenic sources are to be included in the determination'' of
whether a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to result in any
visibility impairment. 2019 Guidance at 8.
[[Page 1493]]
The screening analyses on which MANE-VU relied are useful for
certain purposes. MANE-VU used information from its technical analysis
to rank the largest contributing states to sulfate and nitrate
impairment in the seven MANE-VU Class I areas and three additional,
nearby Class I areas.\38\ The rankings were used to determine upwind
states that were deemed important to include in state-to-state
consultation (based on an identified impact screening threshold).
Additionally, large individual source impacts were used to target MANE-
VU control analysis ``Asks'' \39\ of states and sources both within and
upwind of MANE-VU.\40\ The EPA finds the nature of the analyses
generally appropriate to support decisions on states with which to
consult. However, we have cautioned that source selection methodologies
that target the largest regional contributors to visibility impairment
across multiple states may not be reasonable for a particular state if
it results in few or no sources being selected for subsequent analysis.
2021 Clarifications Memo at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Class I areas analyzed were Acadia National Park in
Maine, Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey, Great Gulf Wilderness
and Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness in New Hampshire, Lye
Brook Wilderness in Vermont, Moosehorn Wilderness in Maine,
Roosevelt Campobello International Park in New Brunswick, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia, James River Face Wilderness in Virginia,
and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wildernesses in West Virginia.
\39\ As explained more fully in Section IV.E.a, MANE-VU refers
to each of the components of its overall strategy as an ``Ask ``of
its member states.
\40\ The MANE-VU consultation report (Appendix 20) explains that
``[t]he objective of this technical work was to identify states and
sources from which MANE-VU will pursue further analysis. This
screening was intended to identify which states to invite to
consultation, not a definitive list of which states are
contributing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the analysis and determinations regarding
Massachusetts' contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state
Class I areas, the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of
visibility impacts from certain Massachusetts emissions on other nearby
Class I areas. However, the analyses did not account for all emissions
and all components of visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, Q/d analyses with a relatively simplistic
accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF applied to a very limited
set of EGUs and major industrial sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> are not scientifically rigorous tools capable of
evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all emissions in
a state. The EPA agrees that the contribution to visibility impairment
from Massachusetts' emissions at nearby out-of-state Class I areas is
smaller than that from numerous other MANE-VU states.\41\ While some
MANE-VU states noted that the contributions from several states outside
the MANE-VU region are significantly larger than its own, we again
clarify that each state is obligated under the CAA and RHR to address
regional haze visibility impairment resulting from emissions from
within the state, irrespective of whether another state's contribution
is greater. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 3. Additionally, we note
that the 2 percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to
determine whether Massachusetts emissions contribute to visibility
impairment at a particular Class I area may be higher than what EPA
believes is an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' intended by the
statute and regulations. In sum, based on the information provided, EPA
generally agrees with the State's conclusions that emissions from
Massachusetts contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I areas
in Maine and New Brunswick and have relatively small contributions to
the other nearby Class I areas. However, due to the low triggering
threshold implied by the Rule and the lack of rigorous modeling
analyses, we do not necessarily agree with the level of the State's 2%
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Because MANE-VU did not include all of Massachusetts'
emissions or contributions to visibility impairment in its analysis,
we cannot definitively state that Massachusetts' contribution to
visibility impairment is not the most significant. However, that is
very likely the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless, Massachusetts did determine that sources and emissions
within the state contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas
in Maine and New Brunswick. Furthermore, the state took part in the
emission control strategy consultation process as a member of MANE-VU.
As part of that process, MANE-VU developed a set of emissions reduction
measures identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress in
the seven MANE-VU Class I areas. This strategy consists of six Asks for
states within MANE-VU and five Asks for states outside the region that
were found to impact visibility at Class I areas within MANE-VU.\42\
Massachusetts' submission discusses each of the Asks and explains why
or why not each is applicable and how it has complied with the relevant
components of the emissions control strategy the MANE-VU states laid
out. Massachusetts worked with MANE-VU to determine potential
reasonable measures that could be implemented by 2028, considering the
cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources. As discussed in further detail below,
the EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has submitted a
regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)
related to the development of a long-term strategy. Thus, we propose to
find that Massachusetts has nevertheless satisfied the applicable
requirements for making reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas that may be affected by emissions from the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Section 6.3 Implementing the 2017 MANE-VU Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Although Massachusetts has no Class I areas, emissions from
Massachusetts sources contribute to visibility impairment in MANE-VU
Class I areas. MANE-VU Class I areas as well as other nearby Class I
areas that MANE-VU examined, are listed below. MANE-VU used certain
areas (as noted below) to represent nearby Class I areas where monitors
do not exist.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANE-VU (prepared by Maine
Department of Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021
revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANE-VU Class I Areas are Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Vermont),
Great Gulf Wilderness Area (New Hampshire) (used to represent
Presidential Range--Dry River Wilderness Area), Presidential Range--Dry
River Wilderness Area (New Hampshire), Acadia National Park (Maine),
Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge (Maine) (used to represent Roosevelt
[[Page 1494]]
Campobello International Park), Roosevelt Campobello International Park
(New Brunswick, Canada), Brigantine Wildlife Refuge (New Jersey).
Nearby Class I Areas consist of Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (West
Virginia) (used to represent Otter Creek Wilderness Area), Otter Creek
Wilderness Area (West Virginia), Shenandoah National Park (Virginia),
and James River Face Wilderness Area (Virginia).
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
a. Massachusetts' Response to the Six MANE-VU Asks
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. CAA Sec. 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section
of this notice, reasonable progress is achieved when all states
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each
state's long-term strategy must include the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new
(i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of four-factor
analyses are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis and other
measures necessary to make reasonable progress is that no new measures
are reasonable for a source, that source's existing measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate
that the source will continue to implement those measures and will not
increase its emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In
developing its long-term strategies, a state must also consider the
five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
The following section summarizes how Massachusetts' SIP submission
addressed the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i); specifically, it
describes MANE-VU's development of the six Asks and how Massachusetts
addressed each. Massachusetts considers the six Asks to comprise its
long-term strategy for the second planning period to address regional
haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area
affected by emissions from Massachusetts. When developing the Asks with
the other MANE-VU states and applying them to sources in Massachusetts,
the Commonwealth considered the four statutory factors and the
additional regulatory factors and identified emissions control measures
necessary to make reasonable progress towards the goal of preventing of
any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic visibility
impairment in Class I areas affected by emissions from Massachusetts.
The EPA's evaluation of Massachusetts' long-term strategy is contained
in the following Section IV.E.b. Massachusetts' SIP submission
describes how it plans to meet the long-term strategy requirements
defined by the state and MANE-VU as the ``Asks.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP submission at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and
to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation
requirements under Sec. 51.308(f). Where an RPO has performed source
selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five
additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
Massachusetts is a member of the MANE-VU RPO and participated in
the RPO's regional approach to developing a strategy for making
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal in the MANE-VU
Class I areas. MANE-VU's strategy includes a combination of: (1)
Measures for certain source sectors and groups of sectors that the RPO
determined were reasonable for states to pursue, and (2) a request for
member states to conduct four-factor analyses for individual sources
that it identified as contributing to visibility impairment. MANE-VU
refers to each of the components of its overall strategy as an Ask of
its member states. On August 25, 2017, the Executive Director of MANE-
VU, on behalf of the MANE-VU states and tribal nations, signed a
statement that identifies six emission reduction measures that comprise
the Asks for the second implementation period.\45\ The Asks were
``designed to identify reasonable emission reduction strategies that
must be addressed by the states and tribal nations of MANE-VU through
their regional haze SIP updates.'' \46\ The statement explains that
``[i]f any State cannot agree with or complete a Class I State's Asks,
the State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement
in the Regional Haze SIP.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See appendix 15 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU's recommendations as to the appropriate control measures
were based on technical analyses documented in the RPO's reports and
included as appendices to or referenced in Massachusetts' regional haze
SIP submission. One of the initial steps of MANE-VU's technical
analysis was to determine which visibility-impairing pollutants should
be the focus of its efforts for the second implementation period. In
the first implementation period, MANE-VU determined that sulfates were
the most significant visibility impairing pollutant at the region's
Class I areas. To determine the impact of certain pollutants on
visibility at Class I areas for the purpose of second implementation
period planning, MANE-VU conducted an analysis comparing the pollutant
contribution on the clearest and most impaired days in the baseline
period (2000-2004) to the most recent period (2012-2016) \48\ at MANE-
VU and nearby Class I areas. MANE-VU found that while SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions were decreasing and visibility was improving, sulfates still
made up the most significant contribution to visibility impairment at
MANE-VU and nearby Class I areas. According to the analysis,
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have begun to play a more significant role in
visibility
[[Page 1495]]
impacts in recent years as SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have decreased. The
technical analyses used by Massachusetts are included in their
submission and are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The period of 2012-2016 was the most recent period for
which data were available at the time of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 2016 Updates to the Assessment of Reasonable Progress for
Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas (MA Appendix 6);
<bullet> Impact of Wintertime SCR/SNCR Optimization on Visibility
Impairing Nitrate Precursor Emissions. November 2017. (MA Appendix 17);
<bullet> High Electric Demand Days and Visibility Impairment in
MANE-VU. December 2017. (MA Appendix 18);
<bullet> Benefits of Combined Heat and Power Systems for Reducing
Pollutant Emissions in MANE-VU States. March 2016. (MA Appendix 7);
<bullet> 2016 MANE-VU Source Contribution Modeling Report--CALPUFF
Modeling of Large Electrical Generating Units and Industrial Sources
April 4, 2017 (MA Appendix 8);
<bullet> Contribution Assessment Preliminary Inventory Analysis.
October 10, 2016. (MA Appendix 11);
<bullet> Four-Factor Data Collection Memo. March 2017. (MA Appendix
14);
<bullet> Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the 2008 MANE-VU Ask.
July 2016. (MA Appendix 10).
To support development of the Asks, MANE-VU gathered information on
each of the four statutory factors for six source sectors it
determined, based on an examination of annual emission inventories,
``had emissions [of SO<INF>2</INF> and/or NO<INF>X</INF>] that were
reasonabl[y] anticipated to contribute to visibility degradation in
MANE-VU:'' electric generating units (EGUs), industrial/commercial/
institutional boilers (ICI boilers), cement kilns, heating oil,
residential wood combustion, and outdoor wood combustion.\49\ MANE-VU
also collected data on individual sources within the EGU, ICI boiler,
and cement kiln sectors.\50\ Information for the six sectors included
explanations of technically feasible control options for SO<INF>2</INF>
or NO<INF>X</INF>, illustrative cost-effectiveness estimates for a
range of model units and control options, sector-wide cost
considerations, potential time frames for compliance with control
options, potential energy and non-air-quality environmental impacts of
certain control options, and how the remaining useful lives of sources
might be considered in a control analysis.\51\ Source-specific data
included SO<INF>2</INF> emissions \52\ and existing controls \53\ for
certain existing EGUs, ICI boilers, and cement kilns. MANE-VU
considered this information on the four factors as well as the analyses
developed by the RPO's Technical Support Committee when it determined
specific emission reduction measures that were found to be reasonable
for certain sources within two of the sectors it had examined--EGUs and
ICI boilers. The Asks were based on this analysis and looked to either
optimize the use of existing controls, have states conduct further
analysis on EGU or ICI boilers with considerable visibility impacts,
implement low sulfur fuel standards, or lock-in lower emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See appendix 14 ``MANE-VU Four Factor Data Collection
Memo,'' at 1, March 30, 2017.
\50\ See appendix 6 ``2016 Updates to the Assessment of
Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas, Jan.
31, 2016.''
\51\ Id.
\52\ See appendix 14 ``Four Factor Data Collection Memo.''
\53\ See appendix 10 ``Status of the Top 167 Stacks from the
2008 MANE-VU Ask. July 2016.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 1 is ``Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with a
nameplate capacity larger than or equal to 25 MW with already installed
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or SO<INF>2</INF> controls--ensure the most
effective use of control technologies on a year-round basis to
consistently minimize emissions of haze precursors or obtain equivalent
alternative emission reductions.'' MANE-VU observed that EGUs often
only run NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls to comply with ozone season
trading programs and consequently, NO<INF>X</INF> sources may be
uncontrolled during the winter and non-peak summer days. MANE-VU found
that: (1) running existing installed controls [selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)] is one of
the most cost-effective ways to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from
EGUs; and (2) that running existing controls year round could
substantially reduce the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in many of the states
upwind of Class I areas in MANE-VU that lead to visibility impairment
during the winter from nitrates. MANE-VU included this as an emission
management strategy because large EGUs had already been identified as
dominant contributors to visibility impairment and the low cost of
running already installed controls made it reasonable.
Massachusetts identified 53 EGU units that meet the criteria of 25
MW or larger with installed controls.\54\ Massachusetts explained that
all of these units have NO<INF>X</INF> controls and that the permits
for these units set short-term NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits in lbs/
hr or concentration, which are promulgated in MA 310 CMR 7.19 and
approved into the MA SIP on October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65236). The permits
also require the performance of the unit and its controls to be
verified. Therefore, Massachusetts concluded that it has met this Ask-1
strategy and represented that it will continue to do so for new units
that begin operation during the second planning period based on the
rules now in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See appendix 23 ``Massachusetts Facilities Subject to Ask
1: EGUs >= 25MW with Controls.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 2 consists of a request that states ``Emission sources
modeled by MANE-VU that have the potential for 3.0 Mm-1 or greater
visibility impacts at any MANE-VU Class I area, as identified by MANE-
VU contribution analyses . . . perform a four-factor analysis for
reasonable installation or upgrade to emission controls.''
Massachusetts explained that, after examining the visibility impact
modeling results (described in Section 5 of Massachusetts' submittal),
MANE-VU concluded that a 3 Mm-1 cutoff captured the group of sources
contributing the largest percentage of visibility impairing pollutants
to Class I areas and that the determination of reasonability for
controls on each unit was left to the individual states to allow for
unit-specific consideration of the four factors.
MANE-VU's analysis identified 2 units in Massachusetts with
potential impacts of 3.0 Mm-1 or greater based on 2015 emissions:
Brayton Point 4 and Canal Station 1. Brayton Point was a coal-fired EGU
facility (ORISPL 01619; MassDEP AQID 1200061). Massachusetts notes that
all units at Brayton Point ceased operation in 2017 and the permits
were revoked on December 6, 2017. Canal Station (ORISPL 1599; MassDEP
AQID 1200054) operates two steam electric generating units. Unit 1 is a
Babcock & Wilcox boiler that fires No. 6 fuel oil, with a permitted
maximum sulfur content of 0.5 percent by weight (wt%) as the sole
operational fuel, with No. 2 fuel oil as a startup/ignition fuel. Unit
1 has an approximate maximum heat input rate of 5,083 million British
thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and a generating capacity of
approximately 560 (net) megawatts (MW). Unit 1 is equipped with low-
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, overfire air ports, flue gas recirculation
(FGR), and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for the control of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. PM emissions are controlled by an
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). In recent years, Unit 1 has operated
with a capacity factor well below 10%
The emission controls installed on Unit 1 are necessary to achieve
compliance with the applicable emission limits under 310 CMR 7.29 and
Air Plan Approvals issued pursuant to 310 CMR 7.02. The governing
NO<INF>X</INF>,
[[Page 1496]]
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM emission limits for Unit 1 are summarized in
Table 6-1 of the MA SIP submission.
The NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emission limits are readily met through
the use of the installed emission controls. The sulfur content of No. 6
oil is limited to 0.5 wt% in accordance with 310 CMR 7.05 but the
facility purchases 0.3 wt% sulfur No. 6 to meet the 6.0 lbs/MW-hr
monthly, 3.0 lbs/MWhr rolling 12-month SO<INF>2</INF> limit applicable
under 310 CMR 7.29.
Table 6-2 in the State's submittal shows Canal Unit 1's actual
emissions in 2015 along with much lower emissions MANE-VU projected for
2028 and lower still for 2028 emissions under Ask 2.
Massachusetts requested and received a four-factor analysis from
the owner of the facility.\55\ Based on that analysis, Massachusetts
concluded that visibility impairing pollutants from Canal Unit 1 are
currently well controlled with low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners, overfire air
ports, flue gas recirculation (FGR), Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) and an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). In addition to these
existing controls, however, Canal committed to purchase only 0.3 wt%
No. 6 fuel oil, following the depletion of the current fuel inventory,
which has at times contained No. 6 fuel oil with a sulfur content
greater than 0.3 wt%. EPA expects that this commitment will further
reduce its SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. As a result, Massachusetts
requested and received from the owner of Canal Unit 1 an application to
modify its plan approval to require use of 0.3% sulfur content oil.
Massachusetts approved the application and submitted the Plan approval
to EPA as a supplement to the Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Revision
in a letter dated June 15, 2022.\56\ Massachusetts further notes that,
if Canal Unit 1 should operate above 10% capacity factor in the future,
existing SIP-approved NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulations (310 CMR 7.19)
will further limit the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Massachusetts states
that it will evaluate any changes in the operation of Canal Unit 1 in
future regional haze planning and reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Appendix 31, ``Four Factor Analysis Canal Unit 1, Canal
Generating Station, Sandwich, MA . . .''
\56\ See MassDEP letter to EPA ``Subject: Regional Haze SIP
Revision for Massachusetts--supplement'' and its attachment MassDEP
letter to Canal Generating LLC, Air Quality Plan Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 3 is: ``Each MANE-VU State that has not yet fully
adopted an ultra-low sulfur fuel oil standard as requested by MANE-VU
in 2007--pursue this standard as expeditiously as possible and before
2028, depending on supply availability, where the standards are as
follows: a. distillate oil to 0.0015% sulfur by weight (15 ppm); b. #4
residual oil within a range of 0.25 to 0.5% sulfur by weight; and c. #6
residual oil within a range of 0.3 to 0.5% sulfur by weight.'' MANE-VU
included the low sulfur fuel measure in the 2017 Ask because some
states had not implemented it yet and the justifications for it
determined in the first implementation period remained valid. As
described in Section 3 of the Massachusetts SIP submittal, MassDEP met
the requirements of Ask 3 during the first implementation period by
generally adopting low-sulfur oil regulations in the first planning
period. Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.05, ``Fuels All Districts''
which was approved by EPA into the Massachusetts SIP on September 19,
2013 (78 FR 57487).
MANE-VU Ask 4 is: ``EGUs and other large point emission sources
larger than 250 MMBTU per hour heat input that have switched operations
to lower emitting fuels--pursue updating permits, enforceable
agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates for
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM. The permit, enforcement
agreement, and/or rule can allow for suspension of the lower emission
rate during natural gas curtailment.'' Massachusetts explains that
MANE-VU chose this measure because the lower cost of natural gas had
made switching to natural gas reasonable for many facilities resulting
in significant visibility improvements. Also, the FLMs recommended
during consultation that MANE-VU secure these visibility gains.
The threshold of 250 MMBTU per hour heat input was based on prior
BART analysis. Because there are no longer any large coal burning units
in Massachusetts, this Ask pertains only to oil burning units.
Massachusetts identified no dual/multi-fuel units larger than 250
MMBTU/hr that had made a physical change to switch to a cleaner fuel.
All such dual/multi-fuel units are either continuing to burn a mix of
fuels or are choosing to maintain their ability to do so in the future.
MANE-VU Ask 5 is: ``Where emission rules have not been adopted,
control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for peaking combustion turbines that
have the potential to operate on high electric demand days by: a.
Striving to meet NO<INF>X</INF> emissions standard of no greater than
25 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for natural gas and 42 ppm at 15%
O<INF>2</INF> for fuel oil but at a minimum meet NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions standard of no greater than 42 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for
natural gas and 96 ppm at 15% O<INF>2</INF> for fuel oil; b. Performing
a four-factor analysis for reasonable installation or upgrade to
emission controls; or c. Obtaining equivalent alternative emission
reductions on high electric demand days.''
Massachusetts explains that ``High electric demand days are days
when higher than usual electrical demands bring additional generation
units online, many of which are infrequently operated and may have
significantly higher emission rates than the rest of the generation
fleet. Peaking combustion turbine is defined for the purposes of this
`Ask' as a turbine capable of generating 15 megawatts or more, that
commenced operation prior to May 1, 2007, is used to generate
electricity all or part of which is delivered to the electric power
distribution grid for commercial sale and that operated less than or
equal to an average of 1752 hours (or 20%) per year during 2014 to
2016; MANE-VU found a correlation between high electric demand days
(HEDDs) and the 20% most impaired days at Class I areas. Because
smaller turbines have the ability to respond to peak electrical demand
and some of these units are not well controlled by existing rules
(i.e., have a higher emission rate per unit of energy), MANE-VU found
that controlling these units (or providing equivalent reductions on
HEDDs) was a reasonable strategy for reducing NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
on the most impaired days.''
Massachusetts identified 25 turbines rated at 15 MW or higher that
were operational prior to 2007 that sold electricity to the grid and
that operated less than an average of 1752 hours per year during 2014-
2016. These 25 turbines are listed in Table 6-3 along with their
current emission limits. On March 9, 2018, MassDEP revised 310 CMR 7.19
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides of
Nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) to establish more stringent emissions limits
for stationary turbines at major sources. With these revisions
Massachusetts RACT now meets Ask 5 ``striving'' limits for combined
cycle turbines and ``minimum'' limits for simple cycle turbines.
However, the 2018 RACT rule also included an exemption for units with a
capacity factor less than 10% based on the most recent 3-year average,
as codified in 310 CMR 7.19(1)(d).
Almost all the turbines subject to Ask 5 fall below the 10%
capacity factor because they all run very infrequently. If in the
future, they exceed the 10% capacity factor limit then they will be
subject to the SIP-approved RACT limits of 310 CMR 7.19 and will
therefore meet Ask 5 (except for Woodland 10 and Doreen 10 which are
not located at
[[Page 1497]]
facilities that are major sources and are therefore not subject to 310
CMR 7.19). The turbines that are exempt from the 2018 RACT limits are
still subject to MassDEP's 1995 RACT limits, however. Table 6-4 in
MassDEP's submission compares the 1995 and 2018 RACT limits to Ask 5,
showing that the 1995 RACT limits meet the Ask 5 minimum limits for
combined cycle turbines, although not for simple cycle turbines.
MassDEP explains that, as a result, 14 of the 25 turbines therefore
meet the Ask 5 limits through either 1995 RACT limits for combined
cycle turbines or through BACT permit limits. For the remaining 11
turbines that do not meet the Ask 5 limits, Massachusetts has chosen to
address the Ask by demonstrating emission reductions from Brayton Point
Station (Units 1, 2, and 3) and Solutia that more than offset the
emissions from these 11 turbines,\57\ as allowed under the Ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP Submission at 83-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANE-VU Ask 6 is: ``Each State should consider and report in their
SIP measures or programs to: (a) decrease energy demand through the use
of energy efficiency, and (b) increase the use within their state of
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and other clean Distributed Generation
technologies including fuel cells, wind, and solar.''
Massachusetts has taken numerous actions to decrease energy demand
through energy efficiency and has been named the most energy efficient
state in the nation by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (ACEEE) for nine consecutive years. Massachusetts ranks second
in electric efficiency program spending per capita (at over four times
the national average). Massachusetts energy efficiency efforts will
continue through the second regional haze implementation period and
will achieve emissions reductions beyond those required in the MANE-VU
Statement. Key features of the Massachusetts energy efficiency strategy
and efforts to expand non-polluting sources of energy and include
energy efficiency, clean energy, solar carve-out, Solar Massachusetts
Renewable Target (SMART) Program, Clean Energy Standard (310 CMR 7.75),
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), combined heat and power
(CHP), clean peak energy standard (CPS), offshore wind power, and
hydroelectric power. Though not part of the SIP, these programs and
initiatives have already achieved substantial emissions reductions and
will continue to contribute to visibility improvements in Class I areas
through 2028 and beyond.
b. The EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' Response to the Six MANE-VU
Asks and Compliance with Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i)
The EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and
determining the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors. We are
proposing to find that Massachusetts has satisfied the four-factor
analysis requirement through its analysis and actions to address MANE-
VU Asks 2 and 3. We also propose to find that Massachusetts reasonably
concluded that it satisfied all six Asks.
As explained above, Massachusetts relied on MANE-VU's technical
analyses and framework (i.e., the Asks) to select sources and form the
basis of its long-term strategy. MANE-VU conducted an inventory
analysis to identify the source sectors that produced the greatest
amount of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2011;
inventory data were also projected to 2018. Based on this analysis,
MANE-VU identified the top-emitting sectors for each of the two
pollutants, which for SO<INF>2</INF> include coal-fired EGUs,
industrial boilers, oil-fired EGUs, and oil-fired area sources
including residential, commercial, and industrial sources. Major-
emitting sources of NO<INF>X</INF> include on-road vehicles, non-road
vehicles, and EGUs.\58\ The RPO's documentation explains that ``[EGUs]
emitting SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and industrial point sources
emitting SO<INF>2</INF> were found to be sectors with high emissions
that warranted further scrutiny. Mobile sources were not considered in
this analysis because any ask concerning mobile sources would be made
to EPA and not during the intra-RPO and inter-RPO consultation process
among the states and tribes.'' \59\ EPA proposes to find that
Massachusetts reasonably evaluated the two pollutants--SO<INF>2</INF>
and NO<INF>X</INF>--that currently drive visibility impairment within
the MANE-VU region and that it adequately explained and supported its
decision to focus on these two pollutants through its reliance on the
MANE-VU technical analyses cited in its submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Appendix 2 ``Contributions to Regional Haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Contribution Assessment. NESCAUM. August
2006.''
\59\ See Appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANE-VU (prepared by Maine
Department of Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021
revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to evaluate and determine
the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress by applying the four statutory factors to sources in a control
analysis. As explained previously, the MANE-VU Asks are a mix of
measures for sectors and groups of sources identified as reasonable for
states to address in their regional haze plans. Several of the Asks
include analyses of emissions controls, and Massachusetts identifies
numerous existing controls that are in the SIP and are included in the
long-term strategy. Additionally, Ask 2 (requesting four-factor
analyses be conducted) and Ask 3 (requesting adoption of low-sulfur
fuel oil) specifically demonstrate Massachusetts' consideration of the
statutory factors and together allow the EPA to determine that
Massachusetts' SIP is sufficient to satisfy (f)(2)(i). For example,
Massachusetts provided information on the four statutory factors for
the identified source that continues to operate--an oil-fired EGU and
included new fuel sulfur limits for that source in the SIP. See ``Four
Factor Analysis Canal Unit 1, Canal Generating Station, Sandwich, MA''
in Appendix 31. While MANE-VU formulated the Asks to be ``reasonable
emission reduction strategies'' to control emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants,\60\ EPA believes that Asks 2 and 3, in
particular, engage with the requirement that states determine the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress through consideration of the four factors. As laid out in
further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find that MANE-VU's four-
factor analysis conducted to support the emission reduction measures in
Ask 3 (ultra-low sulfur fuel oil Ask), in conjunction with
Massachusetts' supplemental analysis and explanation of how it has
complied with Ask 2 (perform four-factor analysis) satisfy the
requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(i). The emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress must be included in the
long-term strategy, i.e., in Massachusetts' SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts asserted that it satisfies Ask 1 because its SIP-
approved regulations applicable to EGU boilers include year-round
emission limits and because it already requires that controls be run
whenever technically feasible. Air Plan Approvals that MassDEP has
issued for these units set short-term NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits
in lbs/hr or
[[Page 1498]]
concentration. EPA thus proposes to find that Massachusetts reasonably
concluded that it has satisfied Ask 1.
Ask 2 addresses the sources MANE-VU determined have the potential
for larger than, or equal to, 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact at
any MANE-VU Class I area; the Ask requests MANE-VU states to conduct
four-factor analyses for the specified sources within their borders.
This Ask explicitly engages with the statutory and regulatory
requirement to determine reasonable progress based on the four factors;
MANE-VU considered it ``reasonable to have the greatest contributors to
visibility impairment conduct a four-factor analysis that would
determine whether emission control measures should be pursued and what
would be reasonable for each source.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See Appendix 20 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, EPA does not generally agree that 3.0
Mm<SUP>-1</SUP> visibility impact is a reasonable threshold for source
selection. The RHR recognizes that, due to the nature of regional haze
visibility impairment, numerous and sometimes relatively small sources
may need to be selected and evaluated for control measures in order to
make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. As
explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion
to choose any source selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a]
state that relies on a visibility (or proxy for visibility impact)
threshold to select sources for four-factor analysis should set the
threshold at a level that captures a meaningful portion of the state's
total contribution to visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3. In this case, the 3.0 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>
threshold identified only two sources in Massachusetts (and only 22
across the entire MANE-VU region), indicating that it may be
unreasonably high.
MANE-VU identified two units in Massachusetts with potential
impacts of 3.0 Mm-1 or greater based on 2015 emissions: Brayton Point
Unit 4 and Canal Station Unit 1. Brayton Point was a coal-fired EGU
facility (ORISPL 01619; MassDEP AQID 1200061). All four of the coal-
fired units at Brayton Point, including Unit 4, ceased operation in
2017 and the permits were revoked on December 6, 2017.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Appendix 37, MassDEP letter from Thomas Cushing, Chief,
Permit Section, Bureau of Air & Waste to Robert Vasconcelos,
Director, Brayton Point Energy, LLC. December 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canal Station (ORISPL 1599; MassDEP AQID 1200054) operates two
steam electric generating units. Unit 1 is a Babcock & Wilcox boiler
that fires No. 6 fuel oil, with a permitted maximum sulfur content of
0.5 percent by weight (wt%) as the sole operational fuel, with No. 2
fuel oil as a startup/ignition fuel. Unit 1 has an approximate maximum
heat input rate of 5,083 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/
hr) and a generating capacity of approximately 560 (net) megawatts
(MW). Unit 1 is equipped with low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners, overfire air
ports, flue gas recirculation (FGR), and Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) for the control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. PM emissions are
controlled by an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). The emission
controls installed on Unit 1 are necessary to achieve compliance with
the applicable emission limits under 310 CMR 7.29 and Air Plan
Approvals issued pursuant to 310 CMR 7.02. The governing
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM emission limits for Unit 1 are
summarized in Table 6-1 of the Massachusetts SIP submittal.
Pursuant to Ask 2, MassDEP requested a four-factor analysis from
the owner of Canal Unit 1, which the owner submitted on September 19,
2020.\63\ With respect to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the analysis
concludes that Canal Unit 1's existing controls (low NO<INF>X</INF>
burners, overfire air ports, FGR, and SCR) are the most stringent
available and that there are no other add-on controls commercially
available to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Canal Unit 1. The
analysis explains that Canal Unit 1 has operated well below 10%
capacity factor in recent years, is subject to NO<INF>X</INF> emission
limits pursuant to 310 CMR 7.29 when operating at this level and is not
expected to increase its capacity factor in the future. If Canal Unit 1
did exceed 10% capacity factor, the higher number of hours would result
in better performance of the SCR and, thereby, reduce NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions rates by at least 50% below the current permitted
NO<INF>X</INF> limits. Furthermore, if Canal Unit 1 exceeded 10%
capacity factor, it would automatically become subject to the lower
NO<INF>X</INF> limit in MassDEP's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT regulations (310
CMR 7.19). Infrequent operation limits the effectiveness of the
existing controls, however. At its current and expected low capacity
factor, meeting NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits below the existing 310
CMR 7.29 limits would be unreasonable due to emissions that occur
during startup prior to operation of the SCR. The analysis concludes
that no further NO<INF>X</INF> control measures at Canal Unit 1 are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Appendix 31, ``Four Factor Analysis Canal Unit 1, Canal
Generating Station, Sandwich, MA . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the four-factor analysis
concludes that conversion to natural gas is not technically feasible
due to supply limitations but that use of 0.3% sulfur No.6 fuel oil
(rather than the 0.5% sulfur allowed under Massachusetts' low sulfur
fuel regulations at 310 CMR 7.05) is technically feasible and reduces
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 40% at a cost of $10,000 per ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> reduced. While the analysis concludes that the cost of
using 0.3 wt% sulfur No. 6 oil would not be considered reasonable, the
owner nonetheless committed to purchasing 0.3 wt% No. 6 fuel oil
following the depletion of the current fuel inventory because the
MANEVU Regional Haze Consultation Report identifies sulfates from
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions as the primary driver behind visibility
impairment in the region. See June 15, 2022, MassDEP Regional Haze SIP
Revision for Massachusetts Supplement.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See MassDEP letter to EPA ``Subject: Regional Haze SIP
Revision for Massachusetts--supplement'' and its attachment MassDEP
letter to Canal Generating LLC, Air Quality Plan Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four-factor analysis also evaluates the use of ultra-low sulfur
diesel (ULSD) and retrofitting with a spray dry absorber for
SO<INF>2</INF> control and concludes that, while technically feasible,
the costs of compliance in each case (beginning at $21,000 per ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> reduced) mean that neither measure is necessary for
reasonable progress. The analysis also evaluated particulate matter
emissions and concludes that they are well controlled with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and burning 0.3 wt% sulfur fuel. While
adding a fabric filter and using ULSD is feasible, the costs are
$50,000 and $170,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced, respectively
and, the ESP would reduce the efficiency of the unit by 0.5% and
generate 52 tons of waste per year.
Based on Canal's commitment to use 0.3% sulfur content fuel oil,
MassDEP requested that the Permittee submit a permit application to
require its use. Subsequently, MassDEP modified Canal's Plan Approval
to provide that the sulfur content of No. 6 fuel oil purchased for Unit
1 shall not exceed 0.3% by weight. MassDEP has requested that EPA
approve it into the SIP, which EPA proposes to do in today's action.
The EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts reasonably determined
it has satisfied Ask 2. As explained above, we do not generally agree
that a 3.0 Mm<SUP>-</SUP>\1\ threshold for selecting sources for four-
factor analysis results in a set of sources to evaluate that will
result in
[[Page 1499]]
potential and meaningful reduction of the state's contribution to
visibility impairment. MANE-VU's threshold identified two sources, only
one of which continues to operate and combust the same fuel. However,
in this particular instance we propose to find that Massachusetts'
additional information and explanation indicate that the state has
conducted a reasonable examination of its sources, reasonably concluded
that the four-factor analysis for its remaining impacting source is
satisfactory, and accurately concluded the additional SO<INF>2</INF>
controls further limiting fuel oil sulfur content are reasonable
emission reductions. EPA is basing this proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating EGU and ICI sources, at the time
of SIP submission, and on the emissions from and controls that apply to
those sources, as well as on Massachusetts' existing SIP-approved
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> rules that effectively control
emissions from the largest contributing stationary-source sectors.
Ask 3, which addresses the sulfur content of heating oil used in
MANE-VU states, is based on a four-factor analysis for the heating oil
sulfur reduction regulations contained in that Ask; specifically, for
the control strategy of reducing the sulfur content of distillate oil
to 15 ppm. As described in Section 3 of the Massachusetts SIP
submittal, MassDEP met the requirements of Ask 3 during the first
implementation period by generally adopting low-sulfur oil regulations
in the first planning period. Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.05,
``Fuels All Districts.'' The regulation limited the Statewide sulfur
content of distillate oil to 500 parts per million (ppm) from July 1,
2014, through June 30, 2018, and then to 15 ppm starting July 1, 2018.
The regulation also sets the sulfur in fuel limit for No. 6 residual
oil, starting July 1, 2018, at 0.5% by weight Statewide, except for the
Berkshire Air Pollution Control District (APCD), which encompasses the
Towns and Cities in Berkshire County, the westernmost county in the
Commonwealth. The Berkshire APCD has a 1974 legislative exemption
allowing sources in this district to burn up to 2.2% sulfur residual
oil.\65\ Therefore, the regulation does not explicitly require lower
sulfur residual oil in the Berkshire APCD due to the existing law. A
legislative change would be needed for MassDEP to apply the lower
sulfur residual oil limits for this district. Despite the existing
legislative exemption, however, MassDEP expects that the majority of
residual oil burned in the Berkshire APCD will have a reduced sulfur
content because the suppliers in Massachusetts and the surrounding
states will need to supply lower sulfur residual oil for sale in those
other APCDs and states. See also 77 FR 30932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Massachusetts Chapter 353 of the Acts of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts reasonably relied on
MANE-VU's four-factor analysis for a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation,
which engaged with each of the statutory factors and explained how the
information supported a conclusion that a 15 ppm-sulfur fuel oil
standard for fuel oils is reasonable. Massachusetts' SIP-approved
ultra-low sulfur fuel oil rule is consistent with Ask 3's sulfur
content standards for the three types of fuel oils (distillate oil, #4
residual oil, #6 residual oil). EPA therefore proposes to find that
Massachusetts reasonably determined that it has satisfied Ask 3.
Massachusetts concluded that no additional updates were needed to
meet Ask 4, which requests that MANE-VU states pursue updating permits,
enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-in lower emission rates
for sources larger than 250 MMBtu per hour that have switched to lower
emitting fuels. As explained above, Massachusetts has asserted that
there are no longer any large coal burning units in Massachusetts,
meaning that this Ask pertains only to oil burning units. MA identified
no dual/multi-fuel units larger than 250 MMBTU/hr that had made a
physical change to switch to a cleaner fuel. All such dual/multi-fuel
units are either continuing to burn a mix of fuels or are choosing to
maintain their ability to do so in the future. In addition, modified
units in Massachusetts are required to amend their permits through the
New Source Review (NSR) process if they plan to switch back to coal or
a fuel that will increase emissions. A change in fuel, unless already
allowed in the permit, would be a modification.
Thus, given the permitting and regulatory requirements outlined
above, including the fact that sources that have switched fuel are
required to revise their permits to reflect the change, that state
rules make any proposed reversion difficult by requiring permitting and
other control analyses, including NSR, the EPA proposes to find that
Massachusetts reasonably determined it has satisfied Ask 4.
Ask 5 addresses NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from peaking combustion
turbines that have the potential to operate on high electric demand
days. Massachusetts explains that it has SIP-approved regulations to
control peaking combustion turbines that have the potential to operate
on high electric demand days. The Ask requests states to ``strive'' for
NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards of no greater than 25 ppm for natural
gas and 42 ppm for fuel oil, or at a minimum, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
standards of no greater than 42 ppm for natural gas and 96 ppm at for
fuel oil. Massachusetts RACT requirements approved into the MA SIP on
October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65236) meet Ask 5 ``striving'' limits for
combined cycle turbines and ``minimum'' limits for simple cycle
turbines. However, the 2018 RACT rule also included an exemption for
units with a capacity factor less than 10% based on the most recent 3-
year average. As shown in Table 6-3 of the Massachusetts SIP submittal,
most of the turbines subject to Ask 5 fall below the 10% capacity
factor because they all run very infrequently. If in the future they
exceed the 10% capacity factor limit, then they will be subject to the
RACT limits of 310 CMR 7.19 and will therefore meet Ask 5 (except for
Woodland 10 and Doreen 10 which are not located at facilities that are
major sources and are therefore not subject to 310 CMR 7.19). The
turbines that are exempt from the 2018 RACT limits are still subject to
MassDEP's 1995 RACT limits. For combined cycle turbines, the 1995 RACT
limits meet Ask 5 minimum required limits for oil and gas, but the
simple cycle limits are slightly higher at 100 ppm compared to the Ask
5 minimum of 96 ppm.
Ask 5 included an option to achieve equivalent alternative emission
reductions for those combustion turbines whose limits do not match the
``minimum'' limits in the Ask. The retirement of Brayton Point 1-2-3
and repowering of Solutia Boiler 11 each provide alternative
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions, respectively, on
HEDDs that are far larger than any NO<INF>X</INF> reductions possible
from the turbines that do not already meet Ask 5 (156 and 128 tons/year
vs. 25 tons/year). Furthermore, the annual SO<INF>2</INF> emission
reductions from Brayton Point 1-2-3 (785 tons/year) and Solutia Boiler
11 (847 tons/year combined SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) are each
sufficiently large to offset all the annual turbine NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions (51 tons per year).
Therefore, the permanent retirement of Brayton 1-2-3 and repowering
of Solutia Boiler 11 each satisfies the Ask for the remaining 11
turbines not covered by the most recent MassDEP RACT rule. Because the
Solutia Boiler 11 repowering and Brayton 1-2-3 retirements offset over
100% of the emissions from the 11 turbines on HEDDs, they exceed the
visibility improvement requirements of Ask 5. In
[[Page 1500]]
addition, because MassDEP has permitted new units (e.g., Footprint \1/
2\, Canal 3, and West Medway \4/5\) that are much cleaner than the 11
turbines, these new units likely will displace some of the power
generating capacity of the older turbines units and thereby further
reduce HEDD emissions from the turbines that do not meet Ask 5.
For the majority of combustion turbines identified in the Ask, the
RACT levels adopted by Massachusetts comply with the minimum requested
by this Ask. For those turbines that do not meet the minimum limits,
MassDEP has identified alternative emission reductions obtained through
the retirement of Brayton 1-2-3 and the repowering of Solution Boiler
11 that more than make up the difference. Therefore, EPA proposes to
find that Massachusetts reasonably concluded that its existing
regulations comply with Ask 5.
Finally, with regard to Ask 6, Massachusetts has taken numerous
actions to decrease energy demand through energy efficiency and has
been named the most energy efficient state in the nation by the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) for nine
consecutive years. The EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has
satisfied Ask 6's request to consider and report in its SIP measures or
programs related to energy efficiency, cogeneration, and other clean
distributed generation technologies.
In sum, the EPA is proposing to find--based on Massachusetts'
participation in the MANE-VU planning process, how it has addressed the
Asks, and the EPA's assessment of Massachusetts' emissions and point
sources--that Massachusetts has complied with the requirements of Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(i). Specifically, Massachusetts's application of MANE-VU
Asks 1 2, and 3 engages with the requirement that states evaluate and
determine the emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable
progress by considering the four statutory factors.
EPA is proposing to find the state's approach meets the regulatory
requirements for several reasons. Massachusetts reasonably evaluated
and explained its decision to focus on SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> to address visibility impairment within the MANE-VU
region. Massachusetts also adequately supported that decision through
reasonable reliance on the MANE-VU technical analyses cited in its
submission. In addition, Massachusetts selected the sources with the
greatest modeled impacts on visibility and also adequately responded to
comments to consider sources identified by the FLMs through the
consultation process. Massachusetts's submittal also includes four-
factor analyses and demonstrates that the sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> within the state that would be expected to contribute to
visibility impairment have small emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF>, are subject to stringent SIP-approved emission control
measures, or both. In addition, Massachusetts's SIP-approved sulfur in
fuel rule sets stringent limits for sulfur content and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions for fuels. The Massachusetts SIP submittal also includes a
plan approval for Canal Generating Station, requiring fuel oil
purchased for EU1 be restricted to 0.3% sulfur content limit.
EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts's SIP submittal satisfies
the requirements that states determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four
factors, and that their long-term strategies include the enforceable
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures
necessary to make reasonable progress.
c. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Massachusetts participated in and provided documentation of the
MANE-VU intra- and inter-RPO consultation processes, which included
consulting with both MANE-VU and non-MANE-VU states about emissions
from Massachusetts reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas within the MANE-VU area and in adjacent
areas. The consultations addressed developing coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress at the Class I areas. Massachusetts addressed
the MANE-VU Asks by providing information on the measures it has in
place that satisfy each Ask.\66\ While Massachusetts did not receive
any requests from non-MANE-VU states to consider additional measures to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas outside MANE-VU, MANE-VU
documented disagreements that occurred during consultation. For
instance, MANE-VU noted in its Consultation Report that upwind states
expressed concern regarding the analyses the RPO utilized for the
selection of states for the consultation. MANE-VU agreed that these
tools, as all models, have their limitations, but nonetheless deemed
them appropriate. Additionally, there were several comments regarding
the choice of the 2011 modeling base year. MANE-VU agreed that the
choice of base year is critical to the outcome of the study. MANE-VU
acknowledged that there were newer versions of the emission inventories
and the need to use the best available inventory for each analysis.
However, MANE-VU disagreed that the choice of these inventories was not
appropriate for the analysis. Additionally, upwind states noted that
they would not be able to address the MANE-VU Asks until they finalize
their SIPs. MANE-VU believed the assumption of the implementation of
the Asks from upwind states in its 2028 control case modeling was
reasonable, and Massachusetts included both the 2028 base case and
control case modeling results in its SIP, representing visibility
conditions at Acadia National Park (Maine) assuming upwind states do
not and do implement the Asks, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Appendix 20 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation
Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Massachusetts participated in the MANE-VU intra- and inter-
RPO consultation and included in its SIP submittal the measures
identified and agreed to during those consultations, thereby satisfying
Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B). Massachusetts satisfied Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by participating in MANE-VU's consultation process,
which documented the disagreements between the upwind states and MANE-
VU and explained MANE-VU's reasoning on each of the disputed issues.
Based on the entirety of MANE-VU's intra- and inter-RPO consultation
and MANE-VU's and Massachusetts' responses to comments on the SIP
submission and various technical analyses therein, we propose to
determine that Massachusetts has satisfied the consultation
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states
[[Page 1501]]
may meet their obligations to document the technical bases on which
they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long as the
process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' As explained
above, Massachusetts chose to rely on MANE-VU's technical information,
modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-term
strategy. The MANE-VU technical analyses on which Massachusetts relied
are listed in the state's SIP submission and include source
contribution assessments, information on each of the four factors and
visibility modeling information for certain EGUs, and evaluations of
emission reduction strategies for specific source categories.
Massachusetts also provided supplemental information to further
demonstrate the technical bases and emission information on which it
relied on to determine the emission reductions measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Based on the documentation
provided by the state, we propose to find Massachusetts satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data. Massachusetts' SIP submission included 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data for NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM, VOCs and NH<INF>3</INF> and 2017 Air Markets
Program Data (AMPD) emissions for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.
Based on Massachusetts' consideration and analysis of the 2017 and 2019
emission data in their SIP submittal, the EPA proposes to find that
Massachusetts has satisfied the emissions information requirement in
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
We also propose to find that Massachusetts reasonably considered
the five additional factors in Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its
long-term strategy. Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A),
Massachusetts noted that existing and ongoing state and federal
emission control programs that contribute to emission reductions
through 2028 would impact emissions of visibility impairing pollutants
from point and nonpoint sources in the second implementation period.
Massachusetts included in its SIP a comprehensive lists of control
measures identifying the source category and corresponding Code of
Massachusetts Regulations provisions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See tables 6-13 of the MassDEP Regional Haze SIP--Final
July 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts' consideration of measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities as required by Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B)
includes, in section 6.6 of its SIP submission, measures that
Massachusetts has implemented to mitigate the impacts from such
activities. Massachusetts has implemented standards that reduce
fugitive dust emissions from construction, rules to address exhaust
emissions including rules to limit the idling of vehicles and
equipment, rules to reduce allowable smoke from on-road diesel engines,
and general conformity rules.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), source retirements and
replacement schedules are addressed in section 6.7 of Massachusetts'
submission. Source retirements and replacements were considered in
developing the 2028 emission projections, with on the books/on the way
retirements and replacements included in the 2028 projections. The EGU
point sources included in the inventories used in the MANE-VU
contribution assessment and that were subsequently retired are
described in Section 4 of the Massachusetts' submission.
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Massachusetts explained, in section 6.8 of its
submission, that it addresses smoke management through its air
regulation at 310 CMR 7.07, which bans open burning in 22 urban
municipalities and prohibits the use of open burning to clear
commercial or institutional land for non-agricultural purposes.
Prescribed burning is allowed upon specific permission from MassDEP.
Massachusetts considers these efforts to be sufficient to protect
visibility in the Class I areas affected by emission from Massachusetts
source, including agricultural and forestry smoke.
Massachusetts considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by discussing,
in Section 6.9 of its submission, the photochemical modeling for the
2018-2028 period it conducted in collaboration with MANE-VU. The two
modeling cases run were a 2028 base case, which considered only on-the-
books controls, and a 2028 control case that considered implementation
of the MANE-VU Ask. The results of that modeling are shown as RPGs on
the graphs in Section 2 and detailed in the presentation of RPGs in the
MANE-VU visibility report. The 2028 inventory projections demonstrate a
substantial reduction in emissions. The modeling shows that projected
visibility at all potentially impacted Class I areas will remain well
below the URP line in 2028 for the most impaired days and that there
will be no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days.
Because Massachusetts has reasonably considered each of the five
additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because Massachusetts does not host a Class I
area, it is not subject to either Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(i) or
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that, if a
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state and the RPG
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the
upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
Table 2-1 of Massachusetts' SIP submittal summarizes baseline
visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions during the baseline
period) for the most impaired and clearest days and the 2028 RPG for
the most impaired days for Class I areas in or adjacent to the MANE-VU
Region, as well as information on natural visibility conditions, the
rate of progress described by the URP in 2017 and 2028, and the modeled
2028 base case (representing visibility conditions in 2028 with
existing controls). These visibility conditions, as well as the 2028
reasonable progress goal for the clearest days, are also included in
Appendix 21 of Massachusetts' SIP submission. As noted in the
submission, the RPGs for all of the Class I areas in or adjacent to the
MANE-VU region are well below their respective URP glidepaths.
Therefore, Sec. 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) is not applicable to
Massachusetts.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. Since Massachusetts does not contain any Class I
areas, it is not required to submit the monitoring strategy referenced
in 51.308(f)(6), nor
[[Page 1502]]
are the requirements in 51.308(f)(6)(i), (ii), and (iv) applicable.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii), however, applies to states with no Class
I areas (such as Massachusetts) and requires them to include in their
Regional Haze SIPs procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from
within the state to visibility impairment at Class I areas in other
states. Monitoring in Massachusetts that contributes data for assessing
visibility is described in section 2.1 of the Massachusetts SIP
submission. Visibility data analysis procedures are described in the
MANE-VU visibility data report.\68\ Other procedures and data used for
determining Massachusetts contribution to visibility impairment are
described in section 5 of the Massachusetts SIP and the MANE-VU
documents referenced. Two IMPROVE monitors in Massachusetts provide
data to assess current visibility, track changes in visibility, and
help determine the causes of visibility impairment in Class I areas in
the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Appendix 22 ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility
Data, 2004-2019 (2nd RH SIP Metrics). MANE-VU (prepared by Maine
Department of Environmental Protection). January 21, 2021
revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Massachusetts provides for emissions
inventories and estimates for future projected emissions by
participating in the MANE-VU RPO and complying with EPA's Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires
states to submit updated emissions inventories for criteria pollutants
to EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) every three years. The
emission inventory data is used to develop the NEI, which provides for,
among other things, a triennial state-wide inventory of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment.
Section 4 of Massachusetts' submission includes tables of NEI data.
The source categories of the emissions inventories included are: (1)
Point sources, (2) nonpoint sources, (3) non-road mobile sources, and
(4) on-road mobile sources. The point source category is further
divided into AMPD point sources and non-AMPD point sources.
Massachusetts included NEI emissions inventories for the following
years: 2002 (one of the regional haze program baseline years), 2008,
2011, 2014, and 2017; and for the following pollutants: SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF>.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Massachusetts relied on the MANE-VU 2028
emissions projections for MANE-VU states. MANE-VU completed two 2028
projected emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case that considers
only on-the-books controls and a 2028 control case that considers
implementation of the MANE-VU Asks.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See appendix 21 ``OTC MANE-VU 2011 Based Modeling Platform
Support Document October 2018--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described above, including
through its continued participation in the MANE-VU RPO and its on-going
compliance with the AERR, and that no further elements are necessary at
this time for Massachusetts to assess and report on visibility pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Massachusetts' SIP submittal also includes
a commitment to update the statewide emissions inventory periodically.
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' Regional Haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
any Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I
areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and
requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report. This provision further specifies the year or years through
which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the
platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally,
Sec. 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state that have occurred since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report, including whether such
changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded
expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
Massachusetts' submission describes the status of measures of the
long-term strategy from the first implementation period. As a member of
MANE-VU, Massachusetts considered the MANE-VU Asks and adopted
corresponding measures into its long-term strategy for the first
implementation period. The MANE-VU Asks were: (1) Timely implementation
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements; (2) EGU
controls including Controls at 167 Key Sources that most affect MANE-VU
Class I areas; (3) Low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and (4) Continued
evaluation of other control measures. Massachusetts met all the
identified reasonable measures requested during the first
implementation period. During the first planning period for regional
haze, programs that were put in place focused on reducing
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The reductions achieved led to vast
improvements in visibility at the MANE-VU Federal Class I Areas due to
reduced sulfates formed from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Massachusetts
describes the control measures that help control the emissions of VOCs,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM and SO<INF>2</INF> from a wide range of sources in
Section 3 of the Massachusetts' SIP submission and identifies BART and
Alternative to BART requirements in Table 3-1. The state included
periodic emission data that demonstrate a decrease in VOCs,
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions throughout the state.
The EPA proposes to find that Massachusetts has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because its SIP submission
describes the measures included in the long-term
[[Page 1503]]
strategy from the first implementation period, as well as the status of
their implementation and the emission reductions achieved through such
implementation.
Pursuant to Sec. 51.308(g)(4), in Section 4 of its submittal,
Massachusetts provided a summary of emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> from all sources and activities, including from point,
nonpoint, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources, for the time
period from 2002 to 2017 in Section 4. With respect to sources that
report directly to the EPA, Massachusetts also included AMPD state
summary data for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for 2018
and 2019.
The reductions achieved by Massachusetts emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Massachusetts' SIP
submission, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have continuously declined in
Massachusetts from 2002 through 2017, especially in the point, nonroad
and onroad mobile sectors. NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are expected to
continue to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more
polluting vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.
Emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> have shown a decline of 96% in
Massachusetts over the period 2002 to 2017, particularly in the point,
nonroad and onroad mobile sectors. Massachusetts attributes the
reductions in point emissions to controls on EGUs that were part of the
first implementation period, fuel switching from coal and oil to
natural gas, MassDEP's low sulfur fuel rule, and the retirement of
several large older coal and oil burning EGUs in the state. Since some
components of the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel strategy were not implemented
until 2018, and as MANE-VU states continue to adopt rules to implement
the strategy, additional SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions have
likely been obtained since 2017 and are expected to continue into the
future.
In Massachusetts' submission, table 4-3 shows a summary of
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from all NEI data categories point, nonpoint,
non-road, and onroad for the period from 2002 to 2017 in Massachusetts.
In Massachusetts, PM<INF>10</INF> emissions steadily decreased in the
point, nonpoint, and nonroad categories for the period from 2002 to
2017. The apparent increase in the onroad emissions is due to changes
in emission inventory calculation methodologies, which resulted in
higher particulate matter estimates. The variation in emissions in the
nonpoint category is due to changes in calculation methodologies for
residential wood burning and fugitive dust categories, which have
varied significantly.
Table 4-4 of Massachusetts' submission shows a summary of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
from 2002 to 2017 in Massachusetts. PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions steadily
decreased in the nonroad category for the period from 2002 to 2014. The
majority of reductions came from the nonpoint category, which
Massachusetts attributes to fuel combustion switching from oil to
natural gas. The decrease in nonroad PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions is
because of Federal new engine standards for nonroad vehicles and
equipment. There is an overall decrease in onroad emissions due to
Federal and State regulations. The increase in emissions in the onroad
category from 2002 to 2008 is due to changes in emission inventory
calculation methodologies and a model change, as previously explained,
which resulted in higher fine particulate matter estimates.
Table 4-7 of Massachusetts' submission shows VOC emissions from all
NEI data categories for the period 2002 to 2017 in Massachusetts. VOC
emissions have shown a steady decline in Massachusetts over this
period. VOC decreases were achieved in all sectors due to Federal new
engine standards for onroad and nonroad vehicles and equipment, the
National and State low emission vehicle programs, SIP-approved area
source rules such as consumer products, portable fuel containers,
paints, autobody refinishing, asphalt paving applications, and solvent
cleaning operations, and point source controls.
Table 4-8 of Massachusetts' submission shows ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>) emissions from all NEI data categories for the period
2002 to 2017 in Massachusetts. Ammonia decreases were achieved in the
onroad sector due to Federal new engine standards for vehicles and
equipment. Nonpoint increases and decreases from 2002 to 2017 are due
to reporting, grouping and methodology changes. There was little change
to nonroad ammonia emissions. Overall, ammonia emissions have decreased
from 2008 to 2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has satisfied the
requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> broken down by type of source.
Massachusetts uses the emissions trend data in the SIP submission
to support the assessment that anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant
emissions in Massachusetts have decreased during the reporting period
and that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The data
Massachusetts presents for NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>,
PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> show
consistently declining emissions of those pollutants. Massachusetts
concludes that no significant changes have occurred that have impeded
progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility during the
reporting period. The EPA is proposing to find that Massachusetts has
met the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, section
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully
inform the state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, but the opportunity for consultation must be
provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also requires that the
consultation include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and their
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how
they addressed FLMs' comments.
The states in the MANE-VU RPO conducted FLM consultation early in
the planning process concurrent with the state-to-state consultation
that formed the basis of the RPO's decision making process. As part of
the consultation, the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and
comment on the technical documents developed by MANE-VU. The FLMs were
invited to attend the intra- and inter-RPO consultations calls among
states and at least one FLM representative was documented to have
attended seven intra-RPO meetings and all inter-RPO
[[Page 1504]]
meetings. Massachusetts participated in these consultation meetings and
calls.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Appendix 20 ``MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation Report
and Consultation Documentation--Final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of this early engagement with the FLMs, on April 12, 2018,
the NPS sent letters to the MANE-VU states requesting that they
consider specific individual sources in their long-term strategies.\71\
NPS used an analysis of emissions divided by distance (Q/d) to estimate
the impact of MANE-VU facilities. To select the facilities, NPS first
summed 2014 NEI NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and
SO<INF>4</INF> emissions and divided by the distance to a specified NPS
mandatory Class I Federal area. NPS summed the Q/d values across all
MANE-VU states relative to Acadia, Mammoth Cave and Shenandoah National
Parks, ranked the Q/d values relative to each Class I area, created a
running total, and identified those facilities contributing to 80% of
the total impact at each NPS Class I area. NPS applied a similar
process to facilities in Maine but relative to just Acadia National
Park. NPS merged the resulting lists of facilities and sorted them by
their states. NPS suggested that a state consider those facilities
comprising 80% of the Q/d total, not to exceed the 25 top ranked
facilities. The NPS identified 10 facilities in Massachusetts in this
letter.\72\ Massachusetts included the NPS initial letter in its
proposed SIP.\73\ In a subsequent letter dated October 22, 2018, NPS
identified four municipal waste combustor facilities for which more
control information was desired.\74\ Massachusetts detailed the
emission controls and updates to the facilities to address the NPS's
request for more information, as discussed previously.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Id.
\72\ Id.
\73\ Id.
\74\ See Appendices 24 and 25.
\75\ See Appendix 43, ``Summary of Public Comments and MassDEP
Responses'' at page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 13, 2020, Massachusetts submitted a draft Regional Haze
SIP to the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service for a 60-day review and comment period
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Massachusetts received comments from
the Forest Service and from the National Park Service by January 15,
2021. Massachusetts responded to the FLM comments and included a
summary of the responses in Section 7.3 of its submission to EPA, in
accordance with Sec. 51.308(i)(3). In satisfaction of Sec.
51.308(i)(4), Massachusetts explains that it will continue to consult
with the FLMs through MANE-VU's planning process (including
participation in regular Technical Support Committee meetings that
include FLM participation in the development of progress reports and
the regional strategy for future RH SIP revisions), MassDEP regulatory
and permit notification emails (which provide notification of air
quality regulation amendments, SIP revisions, major new source review
permits, ambient air monitoring plans), and MassDEP air quality
advisory committee meetings.
On April 7, 2021, MassDEP issued a notice of public hearing and
comments and the availability of the draft Regional Haze SIP revision
for 2018-2028 on MassDEP's Public Notices and Hearings web page and on
its SIP web page and emailed the notice to parties that have registered
for the MassDEP public notice email list. The notice announced two
video conference call public hearings on May 11, 2021 and the
opportunity to submit written comments until May 14, 2021. Appendix 43
of the Massachusetts SIP submittal contains a summary of public
comments received and MassDEP's responses.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA proposes to find that
Massachusetts has satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to
consult with the FLMs on its regional haze SIP for the second
implementation period.
J. Other Required Commitments
Massachusetts' July 22, 2021, SIP submission includes a commitment
to revise and submit a regional haze SIP in 2028, and every ten years
thereafter. The state's commitment includes submitting periodic
progress reports in accordance with Sec. 51.308(f) and a commitment to
evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be
affected by emissions from within the state in accordance with Sec.
51.308(g).
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the ``Massachusetts Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan Revision for the Second Planning Period
(2018-2028)'', submitted July 22, 2021 and ``Regional Haze SIP Revision
for Massachusetts--Supplement'' source specific requirements for Canal
Generating Station, submitted May 26, 2022 as collectively satisfying
the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g), and (i).
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference ``Regional Haze SIP Revision for Massachusetts--Supplement''
source specific requirements for Canal Generating Station (Permit
number 21-AQ02F-011-APP), submitted May 26, 2022. 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).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 proposes to approve 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); and
[[Page 1505]]
<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 CAA.
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to
Massachusetts regional haze SIP submission for the second planning
period, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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. 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 20, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-28573 Filed 1-9-24; 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 January 10, 2024.
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.