19662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081; FRL–9291–2] 

RIN 2060–AQ69 

Response to Petition From New Jersey 

Regarding SO2 Emissions From the 

Portland Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes 

to make a finding that the coal-fired 

Portland Generating Station (Portland 

Plant) in Upper Mount Bethel 

Township, Northampton County, 

Pennsylvania, is emitting air pollutants 

in violation of the interstate transport 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

find that emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) from the Portland Plant 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in New Jersey. This finding is proposed 

in response to a petition submitted by 

the State of New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on 

September 17, 2010. In this action, EPA 

is also proposing emission limitations 

and compliance schedules to ensure 

that the Portland Plant will no longer 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, and no longer interfere 

with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, thereby permitting continued 

operation of the Portland Plant beyond 

the 3-month limit established by the 

CAA for sources subject to such a 

finding. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before May 27, 2011. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing will 

be held on April 27, 2011, in the 

Pequest Trout Hatchery and Natural 

Resources Education Center located in 

Oxford, Warren County, New Jersey 

07863. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional information 

on the comment period and the public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0081. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of 2 copies. Hand 

Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1301 

Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0081. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, avoid any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://www.regulations. 

gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://www. 

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Todd Hawes (919–541–5591), 

hawes.todd@epa.gov, or Ms. Gobeail 

McKinley (919–541–5246), 

mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov, Air Quality 

Policy Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (C539–04), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

action will be posted on EPA’s Web site 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19663 

1AERMOD stands for the American 

Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection 

Agency Regulatory Model. 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. How can I find information about the 

public hearing? 

The EPA will hold a public hearing 

on this proposal on April 27, 2011. The 

hearing will be held at the following 

location: Pequest Trout Hatchery and 

Natural Resources Education Center 

located on 605 Pequest Road in Oxford, 

New Jersey 07863. The public hearing 

will begin at 12 noon and continue until 

8 p.m., or later if necessary depending 

on the number of speakers. The EPA 

will make every effort to accommodate 

all speakers that arrive and register 

before 8 p.m. A dinner break is 

scheduled from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. 

during the hearing. Oral testimony will 

be limited to 5 minutes per commenter. 

The EPA encourages commenters to 

provide written versions of their oral 

testimonies either electronically or in 

paper copy. Verbatim transcripts and 

written statements will be included in 

the rulemaking docket. If you would 

like to present oral testimony at the 

hearing, please notify Ms. Pam S. Long, 

Air Quality Policy Division (C504–03), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

0641, long.pam@epa.gov. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

should notify Ms. Long at least 2 days 

in advance of the public hearing. 

Commenters should notify Ms. Long if 

they will need specific equipment, or if 

there are other special needs related to 

providing comments at the public 

hearing. The EPA will provide 

equipment for commenters to show 

overhead slides or make computerized 

slide presentations if we receive special 

requests in advance. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide EPA 

with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via e-mail or CD) or in 

hard copy form. For updates and 

additional information on the public 

hearing, please check EPA’s Web site for 

this rulemaking, http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg/new.html. The public hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

rule. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations or comments at that time. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at a public hearing. 

D. How is the preamble organized? 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

C. How can I find information about a 

public hearing? 

D. How is the preamble organized? 

II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on NJDEP’s 

September 17, 2010 Section 126 Petition 

III. Background 

A. Section 126 of the Clean Air Act 

B. Summary of Section 126 Petitions 

Submitted by NJDEP 

1. NJDEP’s May 13, 2010 Petition 

2. NJDEP’s September 17, 2010 Petition 

C. EPA Extensions for Acting on the 

Section 126 Petitions 

D. Background on the Portland Plant and 

Its Surrounding Area 

E. Sulfur Dioxide and Public Health 

IV. EPA’s Methodology for Making the 

Proposed Section 126 Finding for the 

Portland Plant 

A. EPA’s Approach for Determining 

Whether To Make a Section 126 Finding 

for the Portland Plant 

1. CAA Section 126(b) 

2. EPA’s Approach To Evaluating NJDEP’s 

Section 126 Petition 

V. Summary and Assessment of the Modeling 

and Other Data Relevant to EPA’s 

Finding 

A. Summary of the Modeling Submitted by 

NJDEP To Support the Petition 

B. EPA’s Assessment of the Modeling 

Submitted by NJDEP 

1. NJDEP’s Model Selection 

a. CALPUFF Alternative Model 

Justification 

2. Emissions and Source Characteristics 

3. Meteorological Data 

4. Receptor/Terrain Data 

5. AERMOD Results 

C. Summary of NJDEP’s Trajectory 

Analysis and the Columbia Lake Monitor 

VI. EPA’s Decision on Whether To Make a 

Section 126 Finding or Deny the Petition 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Remedy 

A. Quantification of the Emission 

Reductions Necessary To Eliminate the 

Portland Plant’s Significant Contribution 

1. Summary of EPA’s Remedy Modeling for 

1-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

2. Model Selection 

3. Meteorological Data 

4. Receptor/Terrain Data 

5. Portland Plant Emissions and Source 

Characteristics 

6. Identification of Background 

Concentration To Use in the Remedy 

Analysis 

7. Summary of EPA’s Modeling Results 

a. Calculation of Emissions Limits Based 

on Maximum Modeled Impacts From 

Units 1 and 2 Plus Background 

VIII. Proposed Emission Limits and 

Compliance Schedules 

A. Statutory Requirements for Sources for 

Which EPA Makes a Section 126(b) 

Finding 

B. Proposed Emission Limits 

C. Proposed Compliance Schedules 

D. Alternative Compliance Schedule 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. EPA’s Proposed Decision on NJDEP’s 

September 17, 2010 Section 126 Petition 

EPA is proposing to grant the request 

in NJDEP’s September 17, 2010, section 

126 petition for a finding that emissions 

from the Portland Plant significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in New Jersey. EPA’s proposed 

finding is based on EPA’s review of 

NJDEP’s air quality modeling, EPA’s 

independent assessment of the 

AERMOD 1 dispersion modeling, and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2The text of section 126 codified in the United 

States Code cross references section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

instead of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have 

confirmed that this is a scrivener’s error and the 

correct cross reference is to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 

1040–44 (DC Cir. 2001). 

3CAIR was subsequently found unlawful and 

remanded to EPA without vacatur, and thus 

remains in place while EPA responds to the 

remand. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 

modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2006). 

other technical analysis conducted by 

EPA. 

In granting this request, EPA is also 

proposing to allow the continued 

operation of the plant and to establish 

specific emission limitations and 

compliance schedules (including 

increments of progress) to bring the 

plant into compliance as expeditiously 

as practicable with the CAA prohibition 

of emissions that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance. EPA is proposing to 

require that the Portland Plant reduce 

its SO2 emissions to a limit no greater 

than 1,105 lbs/hour for unit 1 and 1,691 

lbs/hour for unit 2. EPA proposes that 

the Portland Plant achieve and maintain 

these emission limitations by no later 

than 3 years after the effective date of 

the final rulemaking. EPA is taking 

comment on possible interim emission 

reductions such as proposing that the 

Portland Plant reduce its SO2 emissions 

to a level no greater than 2,910 lbs/hr for 

unit 1, and 4,450 lbs/hr for unit 2, one 

year after the effective date of the final 

rulemaking, and other compliance 

activities to demonstrate appropriate 

increments of progress toward 

compliance. EPA has identified a 

number of existing, proven control 

technologies, as well as operational 

changes that can be employed to reduce 

emissions from these units. 

Nevertheless, EPA is also taking 

comment on an alternative compliance 

option should the Portland Plant decide 

to cease operation at the units subject to 

the emission limits, and is requesting 

comment on appropriate timeframes 

and measures for increments of progress 

to include for that alternative 

compliance option. EPA proposes that 

the emission limits and other measures 

established along with this finding are 

sufficient to remedy the Portland Plant’s 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in the impacted area in 

New Jersey. 

III. Background 

A. Section 126 of the Clean Air Act 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by the CAA, including but 

not necessarily limited to, sections 126 

and 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 126(b) of the CAA provides, 

among other things, that any State or 

political subdivision may petition the 

Administrator of EPA to find that any 

major source or group of stationary 

sources in upwind States emits or 

would emit any air pollutant in 

violation of the prohibition of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i),2 which we describe later 

in detail. 42 U.S.C. 7426(b). Findings by 

the Administrator, pursuant to this 

section, that a source or group of 

sources emit air pollutants in violation 

of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prohibition 

are commonly referred to as section 126 

findings. Similarly, petitions submitted 

pursuant to this section are commonly 

referred to as section 126 petitions. 

Section 126(c) explains the impact of 

a section 126 finding and establishes the 

conditions under which continued 

operation of a source subject to such a 

finding may be permitted. Specifically, 

section 126(c) provides that it would be 

a violation of section 126 of the Act and 

of the applicable State implementation 

plan: (1) For any major proposed new or 

modified source subject to a section 126 

finding to be constructed or operate in 

violation of the prohibition of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i); or (2) for any major 

existing source for which such a finding 

has been made to operate more than 

three months after the date of the 

finding. 42 U.S.C. 7426(c). The statute, 

however, also gives the Administrator 

discretion to permit the continued 

operation of a source beyond three 

months if the source complies with 

emission limitations and compliance 

schedules provided by EPA to bring 

about compliance with the requirements 

contained in sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

126 as expeditiously as practicable but 

no later than 3 years from the date of the 

finding. Id. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA, often 

referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ or 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provision of the 

Act, requires States to prohibit certain 

emissions from in-State sources if such 

emissions impact the air quality in 

downwind States. Specifically, section 

110(a)(2)(D) requires all States, within 3 

years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, to submit State 

implementation plans (SIPs) that: 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other State with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or interfere with measures required to 

be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other State 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)). 

EPA has previously promulgated rules 

to quantify the specific SO2 and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission 

reductions required in certain eastern 

States by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the NAAQS for ozone and 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). See 62 

FR 57356 (NOX SIP Call); 70 FR 25162 

(CAIR).3 EPA has also promulgated 

Federal rules to directly require such 

reductions. See 71 FR 25318 [finalizing 

Federal Implementation Plans for Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)]; 65 FR 2674 

(making section 126 findings for 

numerous large EGUs and finalizing a 

remedy for the affected sources). Most 

recently, EPA proposed the Transport 

Rule to address significant contribution 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 1997 

ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS (75 FR 45210). Among other 

things, this proposed rule identifies SO2

and NOX reductions that will be needed 

in certain States to address PM2.5

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in other States. See 75 FR 

45129–21 (discussing the air quality 

problems and the specific NAAQS 

addressed by the proposal). SO2 and 

NOX are identified as the pollutants of 

concern because of their impact on 

downwind States’ ability to attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. 

See 75 FR 45237, 45299. SO2 and NOX

are PM2.5 precursors and NOX is also an 

ozone precursor. 

The problems associated with high 

levels of SO2 in the air, however, are 

separate and distinct from the problems 

associated with high levels of PM2.5 and 

are addressed by a separate NAAQS, 

namely the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 75 FR 

35520 (Primary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide). 

The Transport Rule will not seek to 

identify or quantify reductions 

necessary to address significant 

contribution or interference with 

maintenance with respect to the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. In other words, the 

proposed Transport Rule does not 

address transport with respect to the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS and thus does not 

address the concern raised in NJDEP’s 

section 126 petition. Similarly, State 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions relating 

to the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS would 

address only significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of those NAAQS and thus 

would not address the concerns raised 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19665 

4Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)(I) of the CAA was 

superseded by 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 1990 CAA 

amendments, in part to strengthen the prohibitions 

of interstate transport of emissions (64 FR 28262). 

The relevant wording under 110(a)(2)(E)(i)(I) was 

changed from ‘‘prevent attainment or maintenance 

by any other State’’ to ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, 

any other State’’ under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

5See Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson 

County, Kentucky v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071, (U.S. 

Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit). 

regarding significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

In addition, it is worth noting that the 

plain language of the statute confirms 

that section 126 remedies can, and in 

some cases must, be promulgated prior 

to the due date for good neighbor SIPs. 

Not only does section 126 provide a 

very stringent deadline for EPA to 

respond to section 126 petitions, but 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) also calls for 

remedies promulgated pursuant to 

section 126 to be included in the SIP 

submissions that are due 3 years after a 

NAAQS is promulgated or revised. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires State 

SIPs to contain adequate provisions 

‘‘insuring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of [CAA section 

126]’’. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D). 

Consistent with the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(1), the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania will be required to adopt 

and submit to the Administrator, by 

June 2013 (3 years after the 

promulgation of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS), a SIP that satisfies the 

requirements of 110(a)(2) including the 

interstate transport requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In other words, the 

statute requires the State SIP submittal 

to include any emission limits 

promulgated by EPA pursuant to section 

126. The fact that Congress required the 

SIP submittals due 3 years after 

promulgation or revision of a NAAQS to 

include any emission limits 

promulgated pursuant to section 126 is 

meaningful. If Congress had intended to 

limit EPA’s authority to act on section 

126 petitions until after the deadline for 

States to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIPs, it 

could have done so. Instead, it provided 

a mechanism for section 126 remedies 

promulgated prior to the SIP submission 

deadline to be incorporated into the 

State SIPs. EPA is bound by the 

language of the CAA. Since the statute 

establishes firm deadlines for action on 

section 126 petitions, does not provide 

an exception for petitions submitted 

prior to the good neighbor SIP 

submission deadline, and provides a 

mechanism for incorporating reductions 

required in response to section 126 

petitions into the State SIPs, EPA 

believes it does not have discretion to 

delay action on a section 126 petition 

just because the State SIP submission 

deadline has not yet passed. EPA 

requests comment on this interpretation 

and all interpretations of section 126 in 

this section. 

EPA has received one prior petition, 

in 1979, asking for a section 126 finding 

with respect to a single source. In this 

petition, the Air Pollution Control 

District of Jefferson County, Kentucky, 

requested that EPA find, pursuant to the 

version of section 110(a)(2)(E)(I) of the 

CAA in effect at that time, that 

emissions from the Gallagher Power 

Station in southern Indiana were 

preventing attainment and maintenance 

with respect to the 1971 3-hour, 24- 

hour, and annual SO2 NAAQS.4 47 FR 

6624 (1982). The petition also sought a 

reduction of SO2 emissions from the 

plant. EPA denied that petition basing 

its decision, in part, on a modeling 

analysis concluding that the Gallagher 

Power Station’s modeled allowable 

emissions were substantially below 

amounts that would prevent attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS. In this 

proposal, EPA is also using modeling 

analyses to decide whether to make a 

section 126 finding or deny the petition. 

EPA’s decision on the 1979 petition was 

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit.5

B. Summary of Section 126 Petitions 

Submitted by NJDEP 

1. NJDEP’s May 13, 2010 Petition 

On May 13, 2010, EPA received from 

the NJDEP a section 126 petition 

requesting that EPA make a finding that 

the Portland Plant is emitting air 

pollutants in violation of the interstate 

transport provisions of the CAA. The 

petition alleges that emissions from the 

Portland Plant significantly contribute 

to nonattainment and/or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and the 1971 3-hour and 24- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. That 

petition is still under consideration and 

this action does not address the petition 

submitted on May 13, 2010. 

2. NJDEP’s September 17, 2010 Petition 

On September 17, 2010, EPA received 

another section 126 petition from NJDEP 

requesting that EPA make a finding 

under section 126(b) of the CAA that the 

Portland Plant is emitting air pollutants 

in violation of the interstate transport 

provisions of the CAA with respect to 

the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS promulgated on 

June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520). NJDEP 

stated that this petition provided 

additional documentation to 

supplement the section 126 petition 

from May 13, 2010. 

NJDEP also submitted a modeling and 

trajectory analysis to support the 

assertions in the September 17, 2010, 

petition. This analysis, it asserts, 

demonstrates that the Portland Plant 

causes violations of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in Warren, Sussex, Morris, and 

Hunterdon Counties in New Jersey. 

NJDEP’s petition asks EPA to directly 

regulate the Portland Plant and requests 

the installation of appropriate air 

pollution controls, such as a scrubber, 

which it asserts would provide the 

necessary abatement. As an alternative 

to address the alleged violations, 

NJDEP’s petition suggests that the EPA 

could impose emission limits no less 

stringent than New Jersey’s Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

rules set forth at N.J.A.C. 7:27–1.1 et 

seq. 

C. EPA Extensions for Acting on the 

Section 126 Petition 

Any action taken by EPA under 

section 126 to make a finding or deny 

a petition is subject to the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 307(d). See 

42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(N). One of these 

requirements is notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. See 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(3). In 

light of the time required for notice-andcomment rulemaking, CAA section 

307(d)(10) provides for a time extension, 

under certain circumstances, for 

rulemaking subject to section 307(d). 

In accordance with section 307(d)(10), 

EPA determined that the 60-day period 

afforded by section 126(b) for 

responding to the petition from the 

NJDEP was not sufficient to allow the 

public and EPA adequate opportunity to 

carry out the purposes of section 307(d). 

Specifically, EPA determined that the 

60-day period was insufficient for EPA 

to develop an adequate proposal and 

allow time for notice-and-comment on 

whether the Portland Plant contributes 

significantly to nonattainment and/or 

maintenance problems in New Jersey. 

Based on these determinations, on 

November 16, 2010, EPA published a 

notice extending the deadline for action 

on the September 17, 2010, petition 

until May 16, 2011 (75 FR 69889). In 

this notice, EPA also explained its 

conclusion that the September 17, 2010, 

petition submitted by NJDEP is a new 

petition and not a supplement to the 

May 13, 2010, petition. 

D. Background on the Portland Plant 

and Its Surrounding Area 

The Portland Plant is a 427 megawatt 

(MW) coal-fired plant located in Upper 

Mount Bethel Township in 

Northampton County, Pennsylvania. It 

is within 500 feet of Knowlton 

Township in Warren County, New 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6Facility unit data is available at the EPA Clean 

Air Markets Division (CAMD) database available at 

http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard. 

Jersey, directly across the Delaware 

River. There are two main units, unit 1 

with a capacity of 160 MW and unit 2 

with a capacity of 240 MW. There is an 

auxiliary boiler which burns oil and 3 

small turbines (units 3, 4, and 5) which 

all burn oil and natural gas, and have 

very small emissions. 

Units 1, 2, and 5 utilize continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS). In 

2009, SO2 emissions combined from 

units 1 and 2 at the plant were 30,465 

tons and emissions from unit 5 were 0.3 

tons which are reported from CEMS 

data. Between 2007 and 2010, units 1 

and 2 operated, on average, 

approximately 7,000 hours per year. 

Also, between 2007 and 2010, unit 5 

operated for less than 100 hours per 

year.6

The auxiliary boiler, unit 3, and unit 

4 do not have CEMS, but emissions data 

are available from the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), Version 1. 

The auxiliary boiler, unit 3, and unit 4 

SO2 annual emissions reported in the 

2008 NEI were 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 tons, 

respectively. 

Other sources of SO2 emissions in the 

area include the Martins Creek facility 

which is located approximately 10 km 

to the south of the Portland Plant. There 

are two units at Martins Creek, units 3 

and 4, which averaged about 1,039 and 

584 hours of operation respectively. 

Those units each have a capacity of 850 

MW and can burn either oil or natural 

gas. The facility reported approximately 

1,100 tons of SO2 emissions in 2009. 

There are also three cement plants 

(Hercules, Keystone, and ESSROC) and 

several minor emitting units in 

Pennsylvania located at distances 

generally greater than 30 km away to the 

south and west of the Portland Plant. In 

2009, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection emission 

inventory database (PADEP eFACTS) 

reported 1,862 tons for Hercules, 685 

tons for Keystone, and 799 tons for 

ESSROC of SO2 emissions respectively, 

all of which are relatively low compared 

to the SO2 emissions from the Portland 

Plant. 

The Delaware River transects the 

region, with higher terrain on either side 

of the river valley where the Portland 

Plant is located. There is elevated 

terrain, as high as or greater than 

Portland’s highest stacks, which rises 

400 to 500 foot (ft) above the valley floor 

near the Portland Plant. The 1500 ft 

high Kittatinny Ridge is located within 

7 kilometer (km) to the north and 

northwest of the Portland Plant. Further 

south, near the Martins Creek Power 

Plant, major terrain features such as 

Scotts Mountain to the east of the 

Delaware River rise up to 1000 ft above 

the valley floor. 

E. Sulfur Dioxide and Public Health 

Current scientific evidence links 

health effects with short-term exposure 

to SO2 ranging from 5 minutes to 24 

hours. Adverse respiratory health effects 

include narrowing of the airways which 

can cause difficulty breathing 

(bronchoconstriction) and increased 

asthma symptoms. These effects are 

particularly important for asthmatics 

during periods of faster or deeper 

breathing (e.g., while exercising or 

playing). Studies show an association 

between short-term SO2 exposure and 

increased visits to emergency 

departments and hospital admissions 

for respiratory illnesses particularly in 

at-risk populations including children, 

the elderly and asthmatics. EPA’s 

NAAQS for 1-hour SO2 is designed to 

protect against exposure to the entire 

group of sulfur oxides (SOX). SO2 is the 

component of greatest concern and is 

used to represent the larger group of 

gaseous sulfur oxides. Other gaseous 

sulfur oxides (e.g., SO3) are found in the 

atmosphere at concentrations much 

lower than SO2. Emissions that lead to 

high concentrations of SO2 generally 

also lead to the formation of other SOX. 

Control measures that reduce SO2 can 

generally be expected to reduce people’s 

exposure to all gaseous SOX. Reducing 

SO2 emissions is expected to have the 

important cobenefit of reducing the 

formation of fine sulfate particles that 

pose significant public health threats. 

SOX can react with other compounds in 

the atmosphere to form small particles 

(e.g., PM2.5). These small particles 

penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of 

the lungs and can cause or worsen 

respiratory disease, such as emphysema 

and bronchitis, and can aggravate 

existing heart disease, leading to 

increased hospital admissions and 

premature death. 

IV. EPA’s Methodology for Making the 

Proposed Section 126 Finding for the 

Portland Plant 

This section explains the analysis 

conducted by EPA to determine whether 

it would be appropriate to find, in 

response to the petition submitted by 

NJDEP, that the Portland Plant emits or 

would emit any air pollutant in 

violation of the prohibition of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

A. EPA’s Approach for Determining 

Whether To Make a Section 126 Finding 

for the Portland Plant 

1. CAA Section 126(b) 

Section 126 of the CAA provides a 

mechanism for States and other political 

subdivisions to seek abatement of 

pollution in other States that may be 

affecting their air quality; however, it 

does not identify specific criteria or a 

specific methodology for the 

Administrator to apply when deciding 

whether to make a section 126 finding 

or deny a petition. Therefore, EPA has 

discretion to identify relevant criteria 

and develop a reasonable methodology 

for determining whether a section 126 

finding should be made. See, e.g., 

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 

837, 842–43 (1984); Smiley v. Citibank, 

517 U.S. 735, 744–45 (1996). 

As an initial matter, EPA looks to see 

whether a petition identifies or 

establishes a technical basis for the 

requested section 126 finding. EPA first 

evaluates the technical analysis in the 

petition to see if that analysis, standing 

alone, is sufficient to support a section 

126 finding. EPA focuses on the analysis 

in the petition because the statute does 

not require EPA to conduct an 

independent technical analysis to 

evaluate claims made in section 126 

petitions. The petitioner thus bears the 

burden of establishing, as an initial 

matter, a technical basis for the specific 

finding requested. EPA has no 

obligation to prepare an analysis to 

supplement a petition that fails, on its 

face, to include an initial technical 

demonstration. Such a petition, or a 

petition that fails to identify the specific 

finding requested, could be found 

insufficient. Nonetheless, the Agency 

may decide to conduct independent 

technical analyses when such analyses 

are helpful in evaluating the basis for a 

potential section 126 finding or 

developing a remedy if a finding is 

made. As explained later, given our 

view that it is necessary to make some 

technical adjustments to the NJDEP 

modeling, we determined that it was 

appropriate to conduct independent 

technical analysis to determine an 

appropriate remedy. Such analysis, 

however, is not required by the statute 

and may not be necessary or appropriate 

in other circumstances. 

In this section, EPA explains the 

methodology used to evaluate the 

technical analysis presented in NJDEP’s 

petition and to determine whether it 

would be appropriate to make the 

section 126 finding requested. This 

methodology was developed to address 

the specific allegations in the NJDEP 

petition and does not speak to how EPA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19667 

7Historically, EPA has favored dispersion 

modeling to support SO2 NAAQS compliance 

determinations for areas with sources that have the 

potential to cause an SO2 NAAQS violation, and 

EPA explained that for an area to be designated as 

‘‘attainment,’’ dispersion modeling regarding such 

sources needs to show the absence of violations 

even if monitoring does not show a violation. This 

has been our general position throughout the 

history of implementation of the SO2 NAAQS 

program. See 75 FR 35551. 

8 Variability of emissions and meteorology could 

also lead to lower concentrations; however, for 

purposes of identifying interference with 

maintenance receptors, we would only be 

concerned with concentrations that would be 

higher than those modeled. 

might evaluate petitions that raise 

different interstate transport issues, 

such as collective contributions from 

multiple sources, contributions to 

nonattainment areas in multiple States, 

or contributions to different NAAQS. 

The methodology used to assess the 

remedy is discussed in section VII. 

2. EPA’s Approach To Evaluating 

NJDEP’s Section 126 Petition 

Emissions from upwind States can, 

alone or in combination with local 

emissions, result in air quality levels 

that exceed the NAAQS and jeopardize 

the health of residents in downwind 

communities. Each State is required by 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit 

emissions from activities within that 

individual State that would significantly 

contribute to downwind nonattainment 

or interfere with downwind States’ 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA assigns to 

each State both the primary 

responsibility for attaining and 

maintaining the NAAQS within such 

State, and prohibiting emissions 

activities within the State that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in a downwind area. States 

fulfill these CAA obligations through 

the SIP process described in section 

110(a) of the CAA. States are required to 

submit SIPs to prohibit those emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in downwind States 

within 3 years of promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a), 7410(a)(2)(D). The prohibition 

on these emissions is intended to assist 

the downwind State as it designs 

strategies for ensuring that the NAAQS 

are attained and maintained. 

The NJDEP petition asserts and 

presents modeling that demonstrates 

that emissions from one plant (the 

Portland Plant) by itself is sufficient to 

cause downwind SO2 NAAQS 

violations in New Jersey. The approach 

described later was developed by EPA 

to analyze these specific claims in these 

particular circumstances and may not be 

appropriate for evaluating other claims 

or those arising in different 

circumstances for other actions. 

In this case, EPA is proposing to 

define the Portland Plant’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance as those 

emissions that must be eliminated to 

bring the downwind receptors in New 

Jersey affected by the Portland Plant 

into modeled attainment in the analysis 

year. While this approach would not be 

appropriate in every circumstance, EPA 

believes it is appropriate where, as here, 

the source’s emissions are sufficient on 

their own to cause downwind NAAQS 

violations and background levels of the 

relevant pollutant are relatively low. 

EPA therefore developed a methodology 

to identify the reductions necessary to 

bring the downwind receptors into 

attainment. 

EPA’s methodology uses dispersion 

modeling to assess the impact of 

emissions from the Portland Plant on 

SO2 concentrations at downwind 

receptors. EPA modeled the emissions 

from the Portland Plant and determined 

that the modeled concentrations from 

the Portland Plant, when combined with 

the relatively low background 

concentrations [in the manner described 

in section VII and in greater detail in the 

Modeling Technical Support Document 

(TSD)], cause violations of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. We have 

determined it is appropriate to use 

modeling in this case to determine 

whether downwind air quality will 

attain the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the 

analysis year.7

In the modeling analysis, thousands 

of receptors are placed in New Jersey to 

determine the area of maximum 

concentration from the Portland Plant 

emissions. A design value concentration 

is calculated for each receptor for 

comparison to the NAAQS. The design 

value concentration is equal to the 99th 

percentile (4th-highest) daily maximum 

1-hour SO2 concentration. All receptors 

with modeled design value 

concentrations that are greater than the 

NAAQS (196 μg/m3) are determined to 

be nonattainment receptors. 

To quantify the emissions that 

constitute the Portland Plant’s 

significant contribution, we identify the 

level of emissions that need to be 

reduced to ensure that no modeled 

concentration within the affected area 

exceeds the level of the NAAQS (i.e., the 

99th percentile of the daily maximum 1- 

hour average of 196 μg/m3). 

The first step of the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ analysis is to identify 

whether there are any maintenance 

receptors in the relevant area. In 

considering maintenance, we are 

examining the receptors in the analysis 

to determine if higher modeled 

concentrations may exist due to 

variability in meteorology, emissions, 

and/or other factors. Nonattainment 

receptors are already modeled to be 

above the NAAQS and receptors with 

higher 8 concentrations attributed to 

variability in emissions or meteorology 

would be exceeding the NAAQS by an 

even greater amount. Therefore, 

nonattainment receptors are by 

definition also maintenance receptors. 

In addition to these nonattainment/ 

maintenance receptors, we also examine 

receptors that are modeled to be 

attainment but due to variability in 

meteorology or emissions might be at 

risk for nonattainment. In that case, any 

identified maintenance receptors would 

not be nonattainment and would 

therefore be considered ‘‘maintenance 

only’’ receptors. 

In this particular case, due to the high 

modeled concentrations from the 

Portland Plant emissions, all of the 

downwind modeled receptors in the 

modeled receptor grid in New Jersey are 

modeled to be nonattainment. In this 

application, it was not necessary to 

expand the modeling grid to identify 

additional nonattainment or 

‘‘maintenance only’’ receptors because 

the modeling domain was centered on 

the receptors with the maximum impact 

from the Portland Plant. In a primary 

pollutant dispersion modeling 

application, emissions reductions from 

the contributing source lead to a linear 

reduction in downwind concentrations. 

Therefore, we can be certain that an 

emissions limit on the Portland Plant 

that eliminates modeled violations at 

the maximum concentration receptor 

will eliminate violations at all potential 

receptors. Because there are no 

‘‘maintenance only’’ receptors in the area 

of concern, it was not necessary for us 

to consider the Portland Plant’s impact 

on maintenance only receptors. 

We next consider whether the 

Portland Plant should be required to 

make additional reductions, above and 

beyond those required to eliminate its 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment to ensure that it does not 

interfere with maintenance at the 

nonattainment/maintenance receptors. 

We identified an approach that we 

believe is appropriate for the specific 

circumstances presented here. 

Among other things, we considered 

the nature of the modeling used to 

determine the appropriate remedy and 

the potential for SO2 concentrations in 

New Jersey to be higher than those 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9 Due to constraints on data availability, our 

analysis is appropriate in this instance; however, 

nothing here is intended to suggest that, where 

sufficient data are available to examine year-to-year 

variability, this should not be a relevant factor. 

10CALPUFF is a non-steady-state puff dispersion 

model that was originally developed for the 

California Air Resources Board. 

11NJDEP did not add background concentrations 

to any of the modeled concentrations in the table. 

12Meteorological data used in the AERMOD 

modeling was based on the only site-specific 

meteorological data available for the Portland Plant, 

from July 1993 through June 1994, which satisfies 

the recommendations in Section 8.3.1 of 

Appendix W regarding the length of record for 

meteorological data. 

modeled. Here are some of the relevant 

facts: 

(1) There is only 1 year of site-specific 

meteorology available for this analysis, 

so we are not able to examine the 

impact of year-to-year variability of 

meteorology on downwind modeled 

concentrations.9

(2) The remedy modeling used 

allowable emissions from the Portland 

Plant. Since these are the highest 

emissions that are allowed to be emitted 

by the facility, higher concentrations 

could not be expected to occur in New 

Jersey due to the emissions from the 

Portland Plant. 

(3) In the modeling analysis, we used 

a seasonal and hourly varying 

background concentration that 

represents the high end of the 

distribution (99th percentile) of hourly 

observed SO2 concentrations in the area. 

As indicated in the trajectory analysis 

submitted by NJDEP, it is likely that 

direct SO2 impacts from the Portland 

Plant contributed to high monitored 

concentrations at the monitor located in 

Chester, New Jersey (Chester monitor). 

Therefore, to avoid double counting of 

contributions from the Portland Plant 

through both monitored and modeled 

emissions, it would not be appropriate 

to consider higher background 

concentrations. 

EPA believes that given the specific 

circumstances described previously, 

there is no indication that 

concentrations higher than those 

modeled from the Portland Plant would 

be likely to occur at the nonattainment/ 

maintenance receptors or anywhere in 

New Jersey. It is therefore reasonable to 

conclude, under the circumstances, that 

any remedy that eliminates the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment from the Portland Plant 

will also eliminate its interference with 

maintenance with respect to year-toyear variability in emissions and air 

quality. 

As noted in the proposed Transport 

Rule, EPA believes that the maintenance 

concept has two components: Year-toyear variability in emissions and air 

quality, and continued maintenance of 

the air quality standard over time. 

Consistent with the approach in the 

Transport Rule, EPA examined both of 

these concepts in assessing ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance’’ for NJDEP’s section 

126 petition regarding the Portland 

Plant. Year-to-year variability is 

discussed above. Year-to-year variability 

is appropriate to consider because data 

demonstrates that year-to-year 

variations in air quality that stem from 

differences in weather and emissions 

can determine whether or not the 

health-based standard will be achieved 

in a particular location in the analyzed 

year. 

EPA separately considered whether 

further emissions reductions from the 

Portland Plant are necessary to ensure 

continued lack of interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS over time, 

and believes that the answer is no. The 

proposed requirements of this rule will 

prevent the emissions of the Portland 

Plant from increasing over time relative 

to the modeled scenario. Also, EPA does 

not have evidence that background SO2

emissions from other sources affecting 

the relevant New Jersey receptors will 

increase in the future, which—in 

combination with residual Portland 

Plant emissions—in theory might have 

raised the possibility of a future 

maintenance issue at those receptors. 

In conclusion, we are proposing to 

find that compliance by the Portland 

Plant with the emission limits proposed 

in this action will bring it into 

compliance with the prohibition on 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS as well as with the prohibition 

on emissions that interfere with 

maintenance in a downwind area. 

EPA requests comment on our 

approach to address interference with 

maintenance with regard to this specific 

petition and whether the proposed 

emission limits are sufficient to 

eliminate the Portland Plant’s 

interference with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. 

V. Summary and Assessment of the 

Modeling and Other Data Relevant to 

EPA’s Finding 

A. Summary of the Modeling Submitted 

by NJDEP To Support the Petition 

NJDEP submitted several technical 

analyses in support of its section 126 

petition. Among the submitted materials 

were a summary of the NJDEP 

dispersion modeling results, a modeling 

analysis for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

using AERMOD, a modeling analysis for 

the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS using 

CALPUFF,10 and a trajectory analysis of 

high SO2 episodes at a SO2 monitor in 

Chester, New Jersey. In addition, the 

petition references a CALPUFF model 

validation study, which was submitted 

by NJDEP along with the previous 

(May 13, 2010) section 126 petition. 

NJDEP submitted two different 

modeling analyses of the SO2 impacts 

from the Portland Plant on New Jersey. 

The first analysis (Exhibit 2 to the 

NJDEP petition) used the AERMOD 

dispersion model and the second 

analysis (Exhibit 3 to the NJDEP 

petition) used the CALPUFF dispersion 

model. Both models were run with both 

actual and allowable emissions rates 

and CALPUFF was also run with 

various meteorological input data. Each 

NJDEP model run showed modeled 

violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

(i.e., showed annual 99th percentile of 

daily maximum 1-hour SO2 values at or 

above 196 μg/m3) in New Jersey. 

Table V.A–1 summarizes the 

CALPUFF and AERMOD 1-hour SO2

NAAQS (196 μg/m3, 99th percentile) 

modeling results submitted by NJDEP. 

TABLE V.A–1—SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS SUBMITTED BY NJDEP 

Model Emissions Meteorology 

Maximum 

modeled 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

99th Percentile 

(4th high) 

modeled 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 11

AERMOD ........................................ Allowable ........................................ July 1993–June 1994 12 ................. 3,700 1,402 

AERMOD ........................................ Estimated Actual ............................ July 1993–June 1994 ..................... 1,713 467.3 

CALPUFF ....................................... Allowable ........................................ 2002 12km MM5 ............................ 15,273 3,455 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19669 

13Section 4.2.2 identifies other models that are 

recommended for specific applications that do not 

apply for the Portland Plant, e.g., the Buoyant Line 

and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model is 

recommended for cases where buoyant plume rise 

from line sources is important. 

TABLE V.A–1—SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS SUBMITTED BY NJDEP—Continued 

Model Emissions Meteorology 

Maximum 

modeled 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

99th Percentile 

(4th high) 

modeled 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 11

CALPUFF ....................................... Actual ............................................. 2002 12km MM5 ............................ 6,740 2,194 

CALPUFF ....................................... Allowable ........................................ 2003 4km MM5 .............................. 18,643 2,468 

As can be seen in the table V.A–1, 

each of the modeling analyses submitted 

by NJDEP shows modeled violations of 

the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The 

concentrations predicted by the 

CALPUFF model tend to be higher than 

those predicted by the AERMOD model. 

In addition, the model runs based on 

allowable emissions logically show 

higher concentrations than those based 

on actual emissions. The allowable 

emissions included in the NJDEP 

modeling are shown in Table V.A–2. 

TABLE V.A–2 

Portland Plant unit 

Allowable SO2

rate 

(lb/hr) 

Maximum 3-hr 

permit limit 

(tons per 3 

hours) 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5,820 8.73 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8,900 13.35 

The petition also contained modeling 

of actual emissions for the 2002 MM5 

(mesoscale meteorological model) based 

CALPUFF case and this modeling run 

showed large exceedances of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. Actual emissions were 

also modeled with AERMOD for the 

1993–1994 site-specific meteorology. As 

with the modeling based on allowable 

emissions, the AERMOD results with 

actual emissions were much lower than 

the CALPUFF results, but still showed 

significant exceedances of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. The 2002 CALPUFF 

modeling with actual emissions was 

based on actual SO2 emissions from 

CEMS data. The 1993–1994 actual 

emissions used with AERMOD were 

estimated based on monthly coal usage 

reports (CEMS data were not available 

for that period). 

The modeling submitted by NJDEP 

indicates actual emissions from the 

Portland Plant alone cause air quality in 

New Jersey to exceed the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The NJDEP modeling also 

indicates that the Portland Plant’s 

allowable emissions (i.e., the emissions 

the plant would emit if it were to emit 

at the level currently allowed) cause air 

quality in New Jersey to exceed the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. The NJDEP AERMOD 

predictions of the 4th high daily 1-hour 

maximum concentrations (99th 

percentile) based on allowable 

emissions show a maximum 

concentration in New Jersey of 1,402 μg/ 

m3 (located on a ridge at the Delaware 

Water Gap (in New Jersey) 

approximately 7 kilometers (km) from 

the Portland Plant stacks). The 

AERMOD modeling submitted by 

NJDEP also demonstrates that actual 

emissions from the Portland Plant are 

causing NAAQS exceedances in New 

Jersey. In addition, the CALPUFF 

predictions of the 4th high daily 

maximum 1-hour concentrations (99th 

percentile) based on allowable 

emissions are as high as 3,455 μg/m3. 

The results of the NJDEP modeling 

based on both allowable and actual 

emissions indicate that emissions 

reductions would be needed at the 

Portland Plant in order to eliminate 

Portland’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment in New Jersey. 

B. EPA’s Assessment of Modeling 

Submitted by NJDEP 

EPA evaluated several aspects of the 

NJDEP modeling to determine if the 

analyses followed EPA regulations and 

guidance for dispersion modeling. 

Among the key specific issues evaluated 

were the choice of model(s), modeling 

of actual vs. allowable emissions, and 

the application of site-specific 

meteorological data that were used as 

inputs to the AERMOD model. 

Additional technical details regarding 

the NJDEP modeling were also 

examined, as documented in the 

Modeling TSD. 

1. NJDEP’s Model Selection 

EPA first evaluated which model is 

most appropriate for use in these 

particular circumstances. As noted 

previously, NJDEP submitted both 

AERMOD and CALPUFF model results. 

Given the significant differences in the 

magnitude of predicted impacts 

associated with the Portland Plant 

emissions based on the use of the 

AERMOD model versus use of the 

CALPUFF model, identifying the most 

appropriate model for use in these 

circumstances was a key aspect of EPA’s 

assessment. Section 4.2.2(b) of the 

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models,’’ 

published as Appendix W to 40 CFR 

Part 51 (commonly referred to as 

‘‘Appendix W’’) States that AERMOD is 

‘‘the recommended model’’ ‘‘[f]or a wide 

range of regulatory applications in all 

types of terrain.’’ 13 The modeling 

application under consideration in this 

section 126 petition is covered under 

this section of Appendix W since the 

transport distances of concern are less 

than 50 kilometers. 

The NJDEP petition acknowledges 

that AERMOD is the preferred model for 

near-field applications such as this, but 

suggests the use of CALPUFF may be 

appropriate under the alternative model 

provisions in Section 3.2.2b of 

Appendix W. Section 3.2 of Appendix 

W lists three separate conditions under 

which an alternative model may be 

approved for use, as follows: 

(1) If a demonstration can be made 

that the model produces concentration 

estimates equivalent to the estimates 

obtained using a preferred model; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14See September 17, 2010 petition, Section IV, 

page 5. 

15See May 13, 2010, petition, Section V, 

subsection B. 

16 ‘‘Clarification of Regulatory Status of CALPUFF 

for Near-field Applications,’’ memo from Richard A. 

Wayland, dated August 13, 2008, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/clarification

%20of%20regulatory%20status%20of%20

calpuff.pdf. 

17Perry, S.G., A.J. Cimorelli, R.J. Paine, R.W. 

Brode, J.C. Weil, A. Venkatram, R.B. Wilson, R.F. 

Lee, and W.D. Peters, 2005. AERMOD: A Dispersion 

Model for Industrial Source Applications. Part II: 

Model Performance against 17 Field Study 

Databases. J. Appl. Meteor., 44, pp. 694–708. 

18EPA, 2003. AERMOD: Latest Features and 

Evaluation Results. EPA–454/R–03–003. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermod_mep.pdf. 

19 ‘‘Protocol for Determining the Best Performing 

Model’’, EPA–454/R–92–025, December 1992. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/scram/guidance/guide/modleval.zip. 

20Quantile-Quantile (Q–Q) plots compare 

modeled vs. monitored concentrations on the basis 

of independently ranked distributions of 

concentration, unpaired in time and space. 

(2) If a statistical performance 

evaluation has been conducted using 

measured air quality data and the 

results of that evaluation indicate the 

alternative model performs better for the 

given application than a comparable 

model in Appendix A; or 

(3) If the preferred model is less 

appropriate for the specific application, 

or there is no preferred model. 

The NJDEP modeling documentation 

suggests that NJDEP’s use of the 

CALPUFF model in support of this 

petition is based on condition (2) of 

Section 3.2.2b. NJDEP claims that 

CALPUFF was shown to have 

‘‘performed better and produced 

predictions of greater accuracy than 

AERMOD,’’ 14 and therefore satisfies 

condition (2) under Section 3.2.2b of 

Appendix W. NJDEP also claims that the 

use of CALPUFF is more appropriate for 

the specific application due to the 

complex winds addressed in Section 

7.2.8 of Appendix W15 and is therefore 

justified under condition (3) of Section 

3.2.2b. 

For the reasons stated later, EPA 

determines that AERMOD is the 

appropriate modeling platform to use in 

these specific circumstances. This 

conclusion is based on the particular 

circumstances presented here and does 

not speak to whether it would be 

appropriate to use CALPUFF modeling 

in other situations. 

a. CALPUFF Alternative Model 

Justification 

EPA issued a memo on August 13, 

2008, providing ‘‘Clarification of 

Regulatory Status of CALPUFF for Nearfield Applications,’’ 16 (which applies to 

the application under review here). The 

key points emphasized in that memo are 

as follows: 

1. The EPA-preferred model for nearfield regulatory applications (less than 

50 kilometers) for simple and complex 

terrain is AERMOD. The AERMOD 

model should be used for all near-field 

regulatory applications, unless an 

adequate determination is made that 

AERMOD is not appropriate for that 

application or is clearly less appropriate 

than an alternative model. 

2. CALPUFF is not the EPA-preferred 

model for near-field applications, but 

may be considered as an alternative 

model on a case-by-case basis for nearfield applications involving ‘‘complex 

winds,’’ subject to approval by the 

reviewing authority. The approval of 

CALPUFF for near-field regulatory 

applications must be based on casespecific justification, including 

necessary documentation and an 

adequate determination that AERMOD 

is not appropriate or clearly less 

appropriate than CALPUFF. 

The impacts from a source such as the 

Portland Plant (tall stacks with nearby 

terrain features) are likely to occur with 

‘‘line-of-sight’’ impacts of the elevated 

plumes on nearby terrain features for 

which straight-line, steady-state 

assumptions are valid. 

The AERMOD model has been 

evaluated for similar situations of tall 

stacks in complex terrain settings for at 

least five separate data bases and 

consistently shown to perform better 

than competing models (Perry, et al., 

2005; 17 EPA, 2003 18). Therefore, EPA 

does not agree with the argument that 

CALPUFF is more appropriate in this 

situation due to the existence of 

complex winds. 

We thus turn to NJDEP’s assertion that 

the use of CALPUFF as an alternative 

model can be justified under condition 

(2) of Section 3.2.2b, based on a 

demonstration that CALPUFF performs 

better than AERMOD. To evaluate this 

assertion, we evaluate whether there is 

evidence to support NJDEP’s assertion 

that CALPUFF performs better than 

AERMOD. In the September 17, 2010, 

petition, NJDEP references a CALPUFF 

validation study that was submitted 

with the May 13, 2010, petition. EPA 

believes it is appropriate to consider 

this study because it was explicitly 

referenced in the September 17, 2010, 

petition, and a copy was provided with 

the prior petition. 

We note again that the AERMOD 

model has undergone extensive peer 

review and model validation as the 

basis for its promulgation as the 

preferred model for a wide range of 

regulatory applications in all types of 

terrain. Therefore, we would not 

determine CALPUFF to be a more 

appropriate model in this case absent 

compelling evidence that CALPUFF is 

clearly superior to AERMOD for this 

application. 

Model validation is a complex process 

that entails several technical challenges, 

including uncertainties regarding the 

accuracy and representativeness of key 

input data that could affect results, as 

well as a wide range of statistical 

methods and metrics that may be 

applied to quantify model performance. 

In some cases subtle changes to the 

evaluation methods can markedly affect 

the conclusions that might be drawn 

from such studies. For these reasons, the 

importance of establishing a consistent 

set of objective procedures to evaluate 

the performance of dispersion models 

for use in regulatory modeling 

applications and of comparing the 

relative performance of competing 

models has long been recognized. 

Section 3.2.1 of Appendix W references 

EPA’s ‘‘Protocol for Determining the 

Best Performing Model’’ 19 document 

(EPA, 1992) that states it ‘‘is available to 

assist in developing a consistent 

approach when justifying the use of 

other-than-preferred modeling 

techniques recommended in the 

Guideline. The procedures in this 

protocol provide a general framework 

for objective decision-making on the 

acceptability of an alternative model for 

a given regulatory application. 

Although the CALPUFF validation 

study submitted by NJDEP with the May 

13, 2010, petition cites EPA’s Protocol 

as one of the references for its model 

validation procedures, there were some 

key changes implemented in the NJDEP 

model evaluation study relative to the 

methods recommended and used by 

EPA in its evaluation of AERMOD 

model performance. EPA’s evaluation of 

NJDEP’s changes to the protocol leads 

us to believe that the NJDEP methods 

show relatively better model 

performance for CALPUFF compared to 

AERMOD, without any clear technical 

basis that would justify those changes. 

Further details on these changes and 

their impacts on the results of the 

validations study are provided in the 

Modeling TSD included in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, the Quantile-Quantile 

(Q–Q) plots 20 included in the NJDEP 

validation report provide a clear visual 

representation of model performance 

that is very relevant to the regulatory 

application of these models. These plots 

suggest that the performance of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19671 

21EPA’s discussion of the appropriate air quality 

model for near field applications focuses on 

primary emissions from a stationary source, such as 

the SO2 emissions from the Portland Plant, at issue 

in NJDEP’s petition. EPA is not suggesting that 

AERMOD is the appropriate model to simulate the 

effects of SO2 and nitrogen oxide emissions on 

secondary pollutants formed in the atmosphere 

such as PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 FR 68,234. 

22The fact that the 1993–1994 meteorological 

data is nearly 20 years old is not relevant. The 

modeling was conducted with allowable emissions 

from the Portland Plant. The meteorology needs to 

be representative of typical meteorology that occurs 

in the area, regardless of time period. The allowable 

emissions do not vary, regardless of the 

meteorological data year. 

CALPUFF and AERMOD models on this 

database is in fact quite similar, but that 

AERMOD shows slightly better overall 

agreement with observations. 

Another fundamental point in relation 

to NJDEP’s overall justification for the 

use of CALPUFF in this petition is that 

results from the model validation study 

are not relevant to this application of 

CALPUFF due to fundamental 

differences in the meteorological 

processing used in the validation study 

compared to the modeling submitted in 

support of the petition. The CALMET 

modeling for the validation study made 

use of the site-specific meteorological 

data collected as part of the field study 

so that the documented CALPUFF 

model performance is largely dependent 

on the characterization of wind fields by 

CALMET that are informed by that sitespecific data. In contrast, the 

application of CALPUFF to support the 

petition did not use any site-specific 

meteorological data but relied on three 

different sets of MM5 prognostic 

meteorological data to inform the 

3-dimensional wind fields generated by 

CALMET. Performance of the CALPUFF 

model in this case would rely upon the 

ability of the CALMET meteorological 

model to adequately simulate the wind 

fields in the absence of such sitespecific data, and there have not been 

any such demonstrations that would be 

relevant to this application. 

We also note that the spatial 

distribution of 1-hour SO2 impacts 

predicted by CALPUFF (in the petition 

application) is very different than the 

impacts predicted by AERMOD. The 

CALPUFF modeling shows extremely 

high 1-hour SO2 concentrations very 

close to the Portland Plant (see Figures 

1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit 3). The highest 

impacts based on the 2002 CALPUFF 

modeling with allowable emissions of 

3,455 μg/m3 (99th percentile of daily 

maximum 1-hour values) occurs about 

100 meters from units 1 and 2 at an 

elevation of only 3 meters above the 

stack base in Pennsylvania. These 

results are physically unrealistic for 

buoyant plumes from tall stacks such as 

units 1 and 2 at the Portland Plant, 

raising additional concerns regarding 

the appropriateness of CALPUFF for 

this application. 

Based on the discussion previously 

(and additional details contained in the 

Modeling TSD), we conclude that 

NJDEP has not adequately justified the 

use of CALPUFF in this application 

under either conditions (2) or (3) of 

Section 3.2.2b of Appendix W, and that 

AERMOD is the most appropriate model 

for this application.21

2. Emissions and Source Characteristics 

As noted previously, NJDEP 

submitted dispersion modeling results 

based on maximum allowable emissions 

as well as actual emissions. For the 

reasons explained later, EPA has 

determined that it is reasonable and 

appropriate to model allowable 

emissions when evaluating whether the 

source ‘‘emits or would emit’’ any air 

pollutant in violation of the prohibition 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) under a section 

126 petition. EPA interprets the term 

‘‘emits or would emit’’ as a reference to 

the source’s current and potential future 

emissions. A determination of whether 

the source ‘‘emits’’ pollutants in 

violation of the prohibition of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) could be based on 

modeling of actual emissions. However, 

for the emissions the source ‘‘would 

emit’’ (i.e., its potential future 

emissions), it is appropriate to consider 

the level at which the source could emit 

given the existing constraints on its 

emissions—that is, the source’s 

allowable emissions. 

For these same reasons, EPA believes 

it appropriate to model allowable 

emissions when determining the 

appropriate remedy to eliminate the 

source’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance. In addition, as a practical 

matter, it would be difficult to 

determine an appropriate remedy under 

a section 126 petition based on actual 

emissions given the potential variability 

of actual emissions. Because the 

question posed is what additional limits 

must be placed on the source’s 

emissions to eliminate its significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance, it is 

appropriate to consider what its 

emissions could be in the absence of 

such limits. 

For these reasons, the rest of the 

review of NJDEP’s modeling and the 

methodology of EPA’s remedy modeling 

is limited to modeled results based on 

allowable emissions. 

3. Meteorological Data 

Aside from emissions data, 

meteorological data are the other key 

input to dispersion models. The NJDEP 

AERMOD modeling was based on 1 year 

of site-specific meteorological data 

collected from a 100-meter 

instrumented tower and sonic detection 

and ranging (SODAR) system located 

about 2.2 kilometers west of the 

Portland Plant, for the period July 1993 

through June 1994. 

Section 8.3 of Appendix W provides 

guidance regarding meteorological data 

for use in dispersion modeling to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

NAAQS. A key issue related to 

meteorological data is the 

representativeness of the data for the 

particular application, including spatial 

and temporal representativeness. Based 

on a review of the data, we believe that 

the meteorological data from 1993– 

1994 22 meet the basic criteria for 

representativeness under Section 8.3.3 

of Appendix W, and therefore can be 

considered as site-specific data for 

purposes of modeling impacts from the 

elevated stacks for the Portland Plant’s 

units 1 and 2. The 1993–1994 data also 

meet the minimum criterion of at least 

1 year of site-specific meteorological 

data recommended in Section 8.3.1.2(b) 

of Appendix W. 

Although the Portland Plant 

meteorological data meet the basic 

criteria for representativeness, we note 

that there is a difference of about 100 

meters between the base elevation for 

the meteorological tower and that of the 

stack base elevation. This raises 

concerns regarding how the 

meteorological data were input to the 

AERMOD model in the NJDEP modeling 

analysis, especially given that the stack 

heights for units 1 and 2 are about 122 

meters and that plume heights of 

concern for units 1 and 2 are about 200 

to 400 meters above stack base. The 

modeling submitted by NJDEP used the 

measurement heights above local 

ground for the meteorological data input 

to the model, effectively assuming that 

the measured profiles of wind, 

temperature and turbulence were 

‘‘terrain-following.’’ 

We provide additional analysis of the 

impact on the tower height in the EPA 

remedy modeling section and in the 

Modeling TSD. We believe an 

adjustment to the meteorological data 

heights is warranted and EPA made 

these adjustments in the supplemental 

technical analysis it conducted to 

determine the appropriate remedy. 

These adjustments may play an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

23The 1402 μg/m3 impact from the Portland Plant 

did not include background concentrations. In most 

modeling applications, a representative background 

concentration would be added to the modeled 

concentrations from the source being modeled. But 

since the modeled concentration from the Portland 

Plant exceeded the NAAQS, accounting for 

background does not make a difference to the 

finding of violations. However, assumed 

background concentrations are needed for the 

remedy modeling which is discussed in section VII. 

24The Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian 

Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model computes 

simple air parcel trajectories using a threedimensional grid. NJDEP used the HYSPLIT model 

using an ETA meteorological model with a 12 km 

horizontal grid size for the three-dimensional grid. 

See http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/ for more details on 

the HYSPLIT. 

important role in determining the 

remedy, as explained later in section 

VII. However, since the maximum 

design value concentration in the NJDEP 

AERMOD modeling analysis was nearly 

seven times the NAAQS, we do not 

expect these adjustments to change the 

overall conclusion that the Portland 

Plant emissions are likely to cause or 

contribute to violations of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. 

4. Receptor/Terrain Data 

Proper treatment of terrain 

information is important for this 

analysis given the potential influence of 

elevated and complex terrain on the 

modeling results. The NJDEP analysis 

was based on an initial grid of coarsely 

spaced receptor locations across a large 

domain covering all potentially 

important impact areas associated with 

emissions from the Portland Plant, 

followed by a much smaller grid of more 

closely spaced receptors focused on the 

area of expected worst-case impacts 

from the plant. The initial grid included 

spacing of 250 meters in areas of 

expected high impacts with receptors 

spaced at 1,000 meter intervals covering 

the gaps between the 250-meter grids. 

The initial coarse receptor grid included 

a total of 5,189 receptors. The fine grid 

used by NJDEP in determining the 

controlling impact from the Portland 

Plant for purposes of this petition 

included a total of 121 receptors in a 10 

× 10 array spaced at 100-meter intervals 

covering a portion of the Kittatinny 

Ridge on the New Jersey side of the 

Delaware Water Gap. 

5. AERMOD Results 

NJDEP’s AERMOD modeling shows 

maximum design value impacts from 

the Portland Plant, based on allowable 

SO2 emissions of 1402 μg/m3 in New 

Jersey.23 Since those concentrations are 

nearly seven times the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS (196 μg/m3), and since NJDEP’s 

AERMOD modeling also showed 

significant exceedances of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in NJ based on an estimate 

of actual SO2 emissions, we conclude 

that the NJDEP has clearly shown that 

SO2 emissions from the Portland Plant 

cause violations of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in New Jersey. 

C. Summary of NJDEP’s Trajectory 

Analysis and the Columbia Lake 

Monitor 

As a supplement to its supporting 

modeling analyses, NJDEP analyzed 

winds using a trajectory model on days 

with the highest concentrations of SO2

at a State operated ambient air 

monitoring site in Chester, Morris 

County, New Jersey. NJDEP used the 

HYSPLIT24 model to calculate the 

movement of air during these two 

episodes, which covered three days 

(July 17–18, 2008 and December 7, 

2009). The monitoring site in Chester is 

about 36 kilometers east-southeast of the 

Portland Plant. Concentrations of SO2

on one of these days exceeded the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb). The trajectories generated by 

HYSPLIT show that air from the 

Portland Plant arrives in the vicinity of 

Chester about the time of the highest 

concentrations of SO2, shown by 

running the model in two modes: 

Forward from the facility and backward 

from the monitoring site. When these 

high concentrations occurred, a review 

of available emissions data showed that 

no other facility in the area had 

emissions more than 1/1,000th the 

emissions of the Portland Plant. NJDEP 

asserts that this trajectory analysis 

demonstrates that it is likely that the 

Portland Plant is largely responsible for 

these recorded high concentrations. 

We also note that 1-hour SO2

monitoring data have been collected 

since September 23, 2010, at the NJDEP 

Columbia Lake Wildlife Management 

Area (WMA) air quality monitor in 

Knowlton Township, Warren County, 

New Jersey, located about 2 km 

northeast of the Portland Plant, that 

show several exceedances of the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. The exceedances are 

shown during periods when prevailing 

winds (as measured at the Allentown 

International Airport) would disperse 

emissions from the Portland Plant in the 

general direction of the Columbia 

monitor. 

VI. EPA’s Decision on Whether To 

Make a Section 126 Finding or Deny the 

Petition 

Based on the results of the NJDEP 

modeling described previously, EPA is 

proposing to grant the request in 

NJDEP’s September 17, 2010, petition 

that EPA make a finding that emissions 

from the Portland Plant significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

As explained previously, NJDEP 

conducted dispersion modeling of the 1- 

hour SO2 impacts using both the 

CALPUFF and AERMOD dispersion 

models. NJDEP also submitted a 

trajectory analysis of two particular 

episodes showing that elevated 1-hour 

SO2 measurements at the Chester 

monitor in Morris County, New Jersey, 

were caused primarily by the Portland 

Plant. For the reasons explained 

previously and in the TSD in the docket 

for this rulemaking, EPA believes that 

the AERMOD analysis, submitted by 

NJDEP, provides a reasonable basis for 

analyzing whether or not emissions 

from the Portland Plant significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance in Warren, Sussex, 

Morris, and Hunterdon Counties in New 

Jersey. EPA has determined that the 

AERMOD modeling analysis provides a 

more appropriate technical basis for this 

petition than the modeling submitted 

based on the CALPUFF model, as 

explained in this notice and in more 

detail in the Modeling TSD. EPA’s 

review of the NJDEP AERMOD analysis 

supports a finding that SO2 emissions 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

In addition, the trajectory analysis 

submitted from NJDEP and the 

preliminary air quality monitoring data 

collected from the Columbia monitor in 

New Jersey are consistent with our 

proposed finding of significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. A 

detailed review of the trajectory and 

monitoring data is included in the 

Trajectory Analysis of High Sulfur 

Dioxide Episodes TSD, and the 

Columbia Monitor in Warren County 

TSD contained in the docket for this 

proposal. 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Remedy 

A. Quantification of the Emission 

Reductions Necessary To Eliminate the 

Portland Plant’s Significant 

Contribution 

EPA next conducted analyses to 

determine an appropriate remedy, as 

required by section 126. 

In the section 126 petition, NJDEP 

suggested that appropriate remedies for 

the Portland Plant might be installation 

of scrubbers or meeting the RACT limit 

that New Jersey has set for SO2 sources 

in its State. EPA’s authority under 

section 126, however, is limited to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19673 

25The allowable emissions and stack parameters 

in Table VII.A–1 for units 1 and 2 are the same as 

used by NJDEP. The allowable emissions and stack 

parameters for unit 5 are based on a 2010 report 

regarding the Portland Plant prepared for RRI 

Energy. 

establishing emission limits and 

compliance schedules (including 

increments of progress) as needed to 

bring the Portland Plant into 

compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. EPA cannot apply New 

Jersey law extraterritorially in 

Pennsylvania. In addition, we believe it 

is better policy for EPA, where only 

directed by statute to provide emission 

limits and compliance schedules, to 

allow the source the flexibility to 

achieve compliance in the way it 

determines is most reasonable and not 

to require the use of a specific 

technology. 

Because section 126 allows continued 

operation of a major existing source 

subject to a section 126 finding, only if 

the source complies with emission 

limits and compliance schedules 

established by EPA to bring about 

compliance with the requirements in 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as 

expeditiously as practicable but in no 

case later than 3 years after the date of 

the finding. Thus, to determine the 

appropriate remedy, EPA must quantify 

the reductions necessary to eliminate 

the Portland Plant’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. 

We previously determined that due to 

the magnitude of the modeled violations 

in the NJDEP AERMOD modeling, the 

NJDEP modeling was sufficient to make 

a finding that the Portland Plant 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment and interferes with 

maintenance in New Jersey. However, 

we noted some technical concerns with 

the NJDEP modeling which may affect 

the degree to which emissions need to 

be reduced to be able to meet the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. Therefore, 

EPA conducted an independent 

modeling assessment to help determine 

the necessary and appropriate emissions 

limit for Portland units 1 and 2. 

1. Summary of EPA’s Remedy Modeling 

for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

EPA completed AERMOD modeling of 

the Portland Plant units 1, 2, and 5 

using the 1993–1994 Portland Plant onsite meteorological data. EPA made 

several adjustments to the 

meteorological inputs (compared to the 

NJDEP modeling) which it determined 

to be appropriate, as documented in the 

Modeling TSD. The maximum modeled 

design value impact from the Portland 

Plant in New Jersey based on EPA’s 

modeling was 851.1 μg/m3. This 

included an impact from the Portland 

Plant of 811.8 μg/m3 plus a background 

concentration of 39.3 μg/m3. The details 

of the modeling setup are summarized 

later and in greater detail in the 

Modeling TSD, which is in the docket 

for this proposal. 

2. Model Selection 

As discussed in Section V.B of this 

notice, Appendix W, Section 4.4.2(b) 

states that AERMOD is ‘‘the 

recommended model’’ ‘‘[f]or a wide 

range of regulatory applications in all 

types of terrain.’’ The modeling 

application under consideration in this 

section 126 petition is generally covered 

under this section of Appendix W since 

the transport distances of concern are 

less than 50 kilometers. Therefore, EPA 

used AERMOD to determine the 

necessary remedy to eliminate the 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in New Jersey. 

3. Meteorological Data 

Similar to the NJDEP AERMOD 

application, the EPA AERMOD 

modeling was based on 1 year of sitespecific meteorological data collected 

from a 100-meter instrumented tower 

and SODAR located about 2.2 

kilometers west of the Portland Plant, 

for the period July 1993 through June 

1994. This is the same meteorological 

database used in the NJDEP AERMOD 

analysis. 

As noted earlier, there is a difference 

of about 100 meters between the base 

elevation for the meteorological tower 

and the Portland Plant stack base 

elevation. This raises concerns 

regarding how the meteorological data 

should be input to the AERMOD model, 

especially given that the stack heights 

for units 1 and 2 are about 122 meters 

and that plume heights of concern for 

units 1 and 2 are about 300 to 400 

meters above stack base. Given that the 

vertical variability of wind directions in 

the Portland Plant area documented in 

Exhibit 11 submitted with NJDEP’s May 

13, 2010, petition, a key component of 

the modeling analysis is the 

representativeness of the site-specific 

winds for transport and dispersion of 

the Portland Plant emissions. Therefore, 

to address the issues of 

representativeness for this application, 

EPA made several adjustments to the 

meteorological data for the EPA remedy 

modeling, compared to the data used by 

NJDEP. 

Specifically, we made some 

adjustments to the measurement heights 

for the Portland Plant site-specific 

meteorological data. Given that the local 

terrain relief is about 100 meters, and 

assuming that local terrain effects on 

flow would extend up to about 3 times 

the height of the ‘‘obstacles’’, we 

conclude that we should apply a simple 

adjustment based on the 100-meter 

difference in base elevations to 

measurement heights at or above 300 

meters. It is reasonable to assume that 

little or no adjustment should be 

applied to the lowest level winds due to 

the dominance of surface drag and other 

local influences. In addition to the 

height adjustment, several other changes 

were made to the meteorological data 

inputs (see the Modeling TSD for 

additional details). 

4. Receptor/Terrain Data 

As noted in section V, EPA examined 

the terrain and receptor processing from 

the NJDEP AERMOD analysis and 

concluded that NJDEP’s processing of 

terrain data based on several 7.5-minute 

(30-meter) DEM terrain files and two 

1-degree (90-meter) DEM files for use in 

AERMOD was appropriate. However, 

EPA’s AERMOD modeling was based on 

the application of the AERMAP terrain 

processor using the National Elevation 

Dataset (NED) format (USGS, 2002), 

which reflects updates to the older DEM 

terrain data. Additional details can be 

found in the Modeling TSD. 

5. Portland Plant Emissions and Source 

Characteristics 

The EPA AERMOD analysis used 

allowable SO2 emissions rates for 

Portland Plant units 1, 2, and 5 along 

with stack parameters shown in Table 

VII.A–1 25: 

TABLE VII.A–1 

Source 

Permitted 

emission rate 

(g/s) 

Stack height 

(m) 

Stack diameter 

(m) 

Stack 

temperature 

(K) 

Stack velocity 

(m/s) 

Portland Plant Coal Unit 1 ............................................... 733.3 121 .92 2 .84 403.0 43.3 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

26Arguably, since the NJDEP modeling showed 

modeled violations of the NAAQS without 

background concentrations, it was not necessary for 

them to identify and/or add background 

concentrations to the results. However, in order to 

develop a remedy, it is necessary to consider 

background concentrations. 

27 ‘‘Additional Clarification Regarding 

Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for 

the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard.’’ Memorandum from Tyler Fox, OAQPS/ 

AQAD, dated March 1, 2011. 

TABLE VII.A–1—Continued 

Source 

Permitted 

emission rate 

(g/s) 

Stack height 

(m) 

Stack diameter 

(m) 

Stack 

temperature 

(K) 

Stack velocity 

(m/s) 

Portland Plant Coal Unit 2 ............................................... 1,121.0 121 .72 3 .79 406.0 36.2 

Portland Plant Turbine 5 .................................................. 12.0 42 .7 6 .1 821.5 36.6 

6. Identification of Background 

Concentration To Use in the Remedy 

Analysis 

The dispersion modeling submitted 

by NJDEP with the September 17, 2010, 

petition only included emissions from 

units 1 and 2 at the Portland Plant, and 

did not account for background 

concentrations of SO2 from other 

sources. NJDEP did not offer any 

rationale regarding the exclusion of any 

contribution from background 

concentrations in the modeling.26

Therefore, we address it here. 

Section 8.2 of Appendix W provides 

guidance regarding the inclusion of 

background concentrations in 

dispersion modeling demonstrations of 

compliance with the NAAQS under PSD 

regulations. Appendix W defines 

‘‘background air quality’’ as including 

‘‘pollutant concentrations due to: (1) 

Natural sources; (2) nearby sources 

other than the one(s) currently under 

consideration; and (3) unidentified 

sources.’’ See Section 8.2.1a. EPA 

recently issued additional clarification 

regarding application of Appendix W 

guidance for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS,27

indicating that portions of that guidance 

are equally applicable to the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Two topics 

addressed in the March 1, 2011, 

guidance that are relevant here are the 

determination of background 

concentrations and combining modeled 

results with monitored background 

concentrations to determine cumulative 

impacts. While the guidance does not 

explicitly address dispersion modeling 

analyses in the context of a section 126 

petition, we believe that the guidance 

provides an appropriate basis for the 

modeling conducted for the Portland 

Plant in support of this action. 

A review of SO2 emission sources 

within 50 km of the Portland Plant 

identified 10 sources, located mostly in 

Pennsylvania southwest of the Portland 

Plant. One of the closest sources is the 

PPL Martins Creek Plant located about 

14 km south-southwest of the Portland 

Plant. Martins Creek emitted around 

1,000 tons per year of SO2 in 2009. The 

next closest sources with SO2 emissions 

of at least 2,000 tpy are two cement 

plants located in the Lehigh Valley 

about 25–30 km southwest of the 

Portland Plant. A more detailed 

discussion of nearby sources is provided 

in the Modeling TSD. 

Of the SO2 emission sources 

identified for possible inclusion in the 

modeling analysis, the Martins Creek 

Plant is the only source that is large 

enough and close enough to the 

Portland Plant to be considered for 

inclusion in the modeling analysis. 

However, the SO2 emissions from the 

Martins Creek Plant are somewhat 

intermittent (as noted earlier, Martins 

Creek units 3 and 4 averaged about 

1,039 and 584 hours of operation per 

year respectively). Even more 

fundamentally, the purpose of this 

modeling is to determine the impact of 

the Portland Plant itself on the 

downwind nonattainment areas. Any 

intermittent impacts from Martins Creek 

would be in addition to the impacts 

from the Portland Plant and the 

Portland Plant would have no obligation 

to remedy any violations associated 

solely with those emissions. This 

modeling uses actual monitored 

background levels of SO2 such that it is 

reasonable to expect that the 

contribution of intermittent emissions 

from Martins Creek and other nearby 

sources is accounted for in EPA’s 

analysis. This approach is also 

consistent with the modeling analysis 

conducted by NJDEP. Further details 

regarding our assessment of nearby SO2

sources are provided in the Modeling 

TSD. 

There are currently three operating 

SO2 monitors within 50 km of the 

Portland Plant, including the Chester 

monitor located about 36 km southeast 

of the Portland Plant in Morris County, 

New Jersey, the Easton monitor located 

about 27 km southeast in Northampton 

County, Pennsylvania, and the 

Columbia Lake WMA monitor located 

about 2 km northeast in Warren County, 

New Jersey. The Columbia monitor has 

only been in operation since September 

23, 2010, while the Chester and 

Easton(2) monitors have been in 

operation for several years. 

Of the two long term SO2 monitors, 

the ambient SO2 data from the Chester, 

New Jersey, monitor provides the most 

representative background 

concentrations for this analysis since 

the distribution of sources impacting the 

Chester monitor is more similar to the 

distribution of sources around the 

Portland Plant. While the Easton(2), 

Pennsylvania, monitor is better situated 

to capture background concentrations 

upwind in relation to Portland Plant 

impacts in New Jersey, the Easton(2) 

monitor is close enough to the Lehigh 

Valley Cement Plants and other SO2

sources that monitored SO2 levels at 

Easton(2) would overestimate 

background concentrations applicable to 

this analysis. 

The Columbia monitor data period is 

too short to serve as a source of 

monitored background concentrations 

for this application. Given its proximity 

to the Portland Plant, it is likely to 

capture ambient SO2 impacts associated 

with the Portland Plant emissions under 

appropriate meteorological conditions. 

The location of the Columbia monitor 

also suggests that it may provide some 

useful insight into background 

concentration levels within the area by 

examining the concentration 

distribution during periods that are not 

affected by emissions from the Portland 

Plant. 

Based on an assessment of the 

available SO2 monitoring data, we 

determined that the Chester monitor is 

the most appropriate monitor to account 

for background SO2 concentrations for 

the Portland Plant. Consistent with the 

March 1, 2011, guidance, we included 

monitored concentrations based on the 

99th-percentile by season and hour-ofday from the Chester data for 2007 

through 2009 (the most recent data 

available) to account for background 

concentrations. These background SO2

concentrations by season and hour-ofday varied from 13 μg/m3 to 60 μg/m3. 

Examination of hourly SO2

concentrations for both the Chester 

monitor and the available data from the 

Columbia monitor indicates very low 

concentrations (less than 3 ppb) during 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19675 

the majority of the hours. However, we 

consider the background concentrations 

used in our analysis (13 μg/m3 to 60 μg/ 

m3) to be appropriate for this 

application given that no other emission 

sources were explicitly modeled. A 

more detailed discussion of our 

assessment and use of monitored SO2

concentrations for this analysis are 

provided in the Modeling TSD. 

7. Summary of EPA’s Modeling Results 

The results of the AERMOD model 

runs relied on by EPA to determine the 

appropriate remedy are described later 

and fully documented in the Modeling 

TSD which is included in the docket. 

EPA’s modeling based on the NJDEP 

coarse receptor grids resulted in a 1- 

hour SO2 modeled design value of 841 

μg/m3 (about 321 ppb) at a receptor 

located about 3 kilometers northnortheast of the Portland Plant. 

Compared to the initial coarse grid 

analysis conducted by NJDEP, EPA’s 

modeled design value is about 32 

percent lower (compared to 1,236 μg/ 

m3) and occurs at a different location 

within the modeling domain. While 

EPA’s modeling showed peak impacts 

much lower than NJDEP’s peak design 

value, we note that EPA’s modeled peak 

design value of 841 μg/m3 is about 90 

percent higher than NJDEP’s modeled 

impact at EPA’s peak receptor location. 

These differences are likely due to the 

adjustments in the processing of 

meteorological data input to the model. 

The adjustments to the measurement 

heights could result in significant 

differences in the transport direction for 

particular hours, as well as somewhat 

lower wind speeds. Both of these factors 

could shift the modeled impact area 

away from the higher terrain around the 

Delaware Water Gap toward a different 

part of the domain. The inclusion of 

observed sw data (standard deviation of 

the vertical velocity fluctuations) from 

the SODAR in the EPA modeling could 

also account for this shift in the 

maximum impact area from the Portland 

Plant. If observed sw values are higher 

than the reference values used in 

AERMOD in the absence of 

observations, then modeled impacts 

near the Delaware Water Gap, which are 

associated with direct plume impaction 

on the complex terrain, could be 

significantly lower. In contrast, larger sw

values would tend to increase 

concentrations in the lower terrain, 

northeast of the Portland Plant, by 

mixing the plume to the ground faster. 

This would result in maximum impacts 

closer to the source. 

Based on the results from the initial 

coarse grid analysis, EPA developed a 

finer resolution receptor network that 

included two separate grids with 100- 

meter horizontal resolution. The smaller 

of the two fine resolution grids covers 

the impact area near the Delaware Water 

Gap to the northwest, and is similar to 

NJDEP’s 100-meter fine grid, but is 

extended an additional 500 meters to 

the north and east. The larger fine 

resolution grid is focused on the area 

surrounding the maximum design value 

from the EPA’s initial coarse grid model 

run, and extends about 5 km north, 4 

km east, 1 km south and 2 km west of 

the Portland Plant. 

EPA’s modeling based on the 100- 

meter fine receptor grids resulted in 

modeled design value (including 

background) of 851.1 μg/m3 (about 325 

ppb). The total concentration of 851.1 

μg/m3 consists of the contribution from 

the Portland Plant of 811.8 μg/m3 plus 

39.3 μg/m3 from background. This result 

is slightly higher than (and near the 

location of) the controlling coarse grid 

result. 

a. Calculation of Emissions Limits Based 

on Maximum Modeled Impacts From 

Units 1 and 2 Plus Background 

As detailed previously, the modeled 

maximum 99th percentile (4th-highest) 

daily maximum 1-hour SO2

concentration (including monitored 

background) from the Portland Plant in 

New Jersey was 851.1 μg/m3. Table 

VII.A–2 shows the contribution from 

each of the Portland Plant units to the 

design value concentration. 

TABLE VII.A–2 

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 5 Background Total 

371.7 μg/m3 ....................... 439.2 μg/m3 ...................... 0.91 μg/m3 ........................ 39.3 μg/m3 ........................ 851.1 μg/m3. 

Based on this result, EPA calculated 

the emissions reduction needed to 

eliminate the Portland Plant’s 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment in New Jersey. The 

calculation is relatively simple in this 

case because emissions from the 

Portland Plant alone cause violations of 

the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey 

and background levels of SO2 are very 

low. If the modeled concentration from 

the Portland Plant plus background is 

reduced to a level that is below the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, then there will be no 

modeled violations of the NAAQS in 

New Jersey. 

Based on the EPA modeling results, 

an 81 percent reduction in allowable 

SO2 emissions from Portland Plant units 

1 and 2 is needed to reduce the Portland 

Plant contribution plus background to 

below the NAAQS. The calculation is as 

follows: (Total modeled 

concentration)—(NAAQS— 

background)/(total modeled 

concentration). This calculation 

recognizes that the assumed background 

concentration cannot be reduced. The 

actual calculation based on Table VII.A– 

2 is (811.8)¥(196–39.3)/811.8. This 

results in a reduction of 80.7 percent, 

which we round to 81 percent. 

In this calculation, the contribution 

from all modeled sources (units 1, 2, 

and 5) is included in the total 

contribution. However, the contribution 

from unit 5 is only 0.1 percent of the 

total contribution (0.91 μg/m3

contribution to the design value). A 

reduction in the unit 5 contribution 

would provide a negligible reduction to 

the modeled design value. Therefore, it 

can be assumed that unit 5 emissions do 

not need to be reduced, and therefore 

can be added to the irreducible 

background value. This alternative 

calculation gives an emissions reduction 

of 80.8 percent (which is essentially the 

same as the previous 80.7 percent 

calculation). Therefore, we conclude 

that only emissions reductions from 

units 1 and 2 are needed in order to 

ensure that the downwind area in New 

Jersey will be able to attain the NAAQS 

and will not have maintenance 

problems and that a revised emissions 

limit is not needed for unit 5. 

While a total emissions reduction of 

81 percent for both units 1 and 2 

eliminates all modeled violations in 

New Jersey, an additional question 

remains. Can the emissions limit be met 

by over controlling one unit (by more 

than 81 percent) and under controlling 

the other unit (by less than 81 percent)? 

Based on our analysis, there are many 

different combinations of emissions 

limits for units 1 and 2 that would 

eliminate violations of the SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey. However, the stack 

parameters (exit velocity and stack 

diameter) of units 1 and 2 are slightly 

different, which causes the maximum 

downwind impacts from each unit to 

occur at slightly different locations at 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

different times. Therefore, the emissions 

limit has to be assigned to each 

individual unit and cannot be a 

combined limit. There are many 

different combinations of emissions 

limits for units 1 and 2 that would 

eliminate violations of the SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey, but we are not able to 

examine an unlimited number of 

combinations. Therefore we are 

proposing an emissions limit based on 

an 81 percent reduction in allowable 

emissions at both units 1 and 2. This 

leads to a proposed SO2 emissions limit 

for unit 1 of 1105 lbs/hr (5820*0.19) and 

a proposed SO2 emissions limit for unit 

2 of 1691 lbs/hr (8900*0.19). 

As a final check on the remedy, EPA 

ran AERMOD again with the above 

emissions limits on the Portland Plant’s 

units 1 and 2 (and current allowable 

emissions from unit 5). At these 

proposed emissions levels, all receptors 

in New Jersey were below the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. The modeled 99th 

percentile (4th-highest) daily maximum 

1-hour SO2 concentration was 192.2 

μg/m3 (including a background 

concentration of 41.9 μg/m3). 

EPA is requesting comment on other 

possible combinations or approaches in 

setting limits that are no less stringent 

than the proposed limits, but also result 

in elimination of the modeled violations 

while allowing for operating flexibility 

and load shifting. For example, a 

combined limit could be set for both 

units 1 and 2, in conjunction with 

individual limits, such as those 

proposed, for units 1 and 2. Similarly, 

a limit could be set for emissions from 

all relevant units at the plant 

accompanied by individual limits for 

units 1 and 2. EPA also requests 

comment on the proposed emissions 

limit calculations. 

VIII. Proposed Emission Limits and 

Compliance Schedules 

A. Statutory Requirements for Sources 

for Which EPA Makes a Section 126(b) 

Finding 

Section 126(c) initially makes it 

unlawful for any major existing source 

to operate more than 3 months after a 

section 126 finding has been made with 

respect to it; yet also gives the 

Administrator authority to permit 

continued operation under certain 

conditions. Specifically, the statute 

provides that the Administrator ‘‘may 

permit the continued operation’’ of such 

a source beyond the end of the three 

month period ‘‘if such source complies 

with such emission limitations and 

compliance schedules (containing 

increments of progress) as may be 

provided by the Administrator to bring 

about compliance with the requirements 

contained in section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

this title or this section as expeditiously 

as practicable, but in no case later than 

three years after the date of such 

finding.’’ 72 U.S.C. 7426(c). Thus, unless 

the Administrator affirmatively decides 

to permit continued operation of the 

source and establishes emission 

limitations and compliance schedules, 

an existing major source subject to a 

section 126 finding must shut down in 

three months. However, if the source 

complies with the emission limitations 

and compliance schedules established 

by the Administrator, it may continue 

operation. 

Section 126, however, does not give 

the Administrator unlimited discretion 

when establishing emission limitations 

and compliance schedules. Instead, the 

statute provides that the emission 

limitations and compliance schedules 

must bring about compliance with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the Act ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ 

but in no case later than 3 years from 

the date of the finding. The use of the 

phrase ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ 

allows for consideration of the time 

needed to implement a compliance 

option in setting a compliance schedule. 

However, the length of time needed to 

implement any given compliance option 

depends on the compliance option to be 

implemented. Furthermore, EPA 

recognizes that in some instances a 

source may choose to cease operation as 

its method of compliance. EPA is 

therefore requesting comment on the 

meaning of as ‘‘expeditious as 

practicable’’ in this context. 

EPA recognizes both that the statute 

requires that any compliance schedule 

ensure compliance as ‘‘expeditiously as 

practicable’’ and also that while the 

statute directs EPA to establish emission 

limits and compliance schedules, it 

does not foreclose EPA from allowing 

the source to select a compliance 

option. EPA thus seeks to balance the 

statutory requirement of compliance as 

‘‘expeditiously as practicable’’ with the 

goal of ensuring that the regulation does 

not unnecessarily limit the options 

available to the source to achieve 

compliance within the statutorily 

mandated timeframe. For these reasons, 

EPA has determined that it would be 

reasonable to interpret the statute as 

allowing EPA to develop different 

compliance schedules for different 

compliance options. By doing so, EPA 

can both give flexibility to the source to 

select an appropriate compliance option 

and ensure that compliance is achieved 

as ‘‘expeditiously as practicable.’’ As 

discussed later, EPA is also explicitly 

requesting comment on how to interpret 

the term ‘‘as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ when the method of 

compliance selected is to cease 

operations. 

B. Proposed Emission Limits 

As explained in this subsection, EPA 

is proposing specific emission 

limitations and a specific compliance 

schedule that would apply unless the 

Portland Plant decides to cease 

operation as its method of compliance. 

EPA requests comment on all aspects of 

the emission limits and compliance 

schedule discussed later. 

Based on the NJDEP AERMOD 

dispersion modeling analysis and EPA’s 

independent assessment, EPA proposes 

to allow the continued operation of the 

Portland Plant beyond the three months, 

provided that the Portland Plant 

complies with a SO2 emission limit of 

1105 lbs/hr for unit 1, and 1691 lbs/hr 

for unit 2, representing an 81 percent 

reduction from currently allowable SO2

emissions for each unit, to eliminate its 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment and prevent it from 

interfering with maintenance of the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in New Jersey. The 

source would be required to comply 

with this emission limit and the 

compliance deadlines and schedules 

(including increments of progress) set 

by EPA in the final rulemaking. EPA’s 

proposed compliance schedules are 

discussed in more detail in sections C 

and D of this section. 

EPA believes that these proposed 

emission limits for units 1 and 2 are 

appropriate since AERMOD modeling 

performed as described in section VII of 

this notice and in the TSD demonstrates 

that the Portland Plant must reduce its 

SO2 emissions to these levels in order to 

reduce the modeled SO2 concentration 

in New Jersey below the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS level of 196 μg/m3. As also 

discussed previously, EPA believes this 

is the appropriate remedy in this 

particular circumstance where the 

modeling shows that emissions from a 

single plant (the Portland Plant) are, by 

themselves, causing NAAQS 

exceedances downwind and background 

concentrations of the relevant pollutant 

are low. EPA requests comment on the 

emission limits proposed for units 1 

and 2. 

EPA is not proposing to revise 

emission limits on the Portland Plant’s 

smaller units (i.e., units 3, 4, 5, and the 

auxiliary boiler). Based on our review of 

their emissions, EPA proposes revised 

emission limits are not needed at units 

3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler. Portland 

Plant units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary 

boiler have very small emissions, in 

comparison to units 1 and 2. EPA’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19677 

28See information from the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey at http:// 

pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98–763/#fig2. 29See Summary Report, Trona Injection Tests, 

Mirant Potomac River Station, Unit 1, November 

12- December 23, 2005 at http://www.oe.energy.gov/ 

DocumentsandMedia/mirant_012006_g.pdf; Kong, 

Yougen and Davidson, Heidi, Dry Sorbent Injection 

of Sodium Sorbents for SO2, HCl, and Mercury 

Mitigation, May 11–13, 2010 at http:// 

www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/ 

nawtec18/nawtec18-3560.pdf; ADA–ES, Inc, 

TOXECONTM Retrofit for Multi-Pollutant Control on 

Three 90–MW Coal-Fired Boilers, Topical Report: 

Performance and Economic Assessment of TronaBased SO2/NOX Removal at the Presque Isle Power 

Plant Prepared for We Energies and DOE/NETL, 

August 25, 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/

technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/pubs/SOxOx%20Reduction%20at%20PIPP%20- 

20Topical%20Report%20Final.pdf; and ENSR 

Corporation, BART Analysis for the Kincaid Power 

Plant Prepared for Dominion Energy, Inc., January 

2009 at http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/drafts/

regional-haze/bart-kincaid.pdf. 

modeling of unit 5 found a total 

contribution of only 0.1 percent (i.e., 

0.91 μg/m3 contribution to the design 

value) so that reductions in its 

contribution would provide a negligible 

reduction to the modeled design value 

and thus do not need to be reduced. 

Annual SO2 emissions reported in the 

2008 NEI, Version 1 for the auxiliary 

boiler, unit 3 and unit 4 were 0.01, 0.02, 

and 0.03 tons, respectively. Therefore, 

given the negligible modeled 

contribution from unit 5, it can be 

assumed that emissions from these units 

do not need to be reduced. Therefore, 

units 3, 4, 5, and the auxiliary boiler can 

continue to operate at their previous 

emissions limit. EPA requests comment 

on its proposed determination not to 

establish emission limits for units 3, 4, 

5, and the auxiliary boiler. 

C. Proposed Compliance Schedules 

Section 126 allows the Administrator 

to permit the continued operation of a 

source if the source complies with 

emission limitations and compliance 

schedules (including increments of 

progress) to bring about compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable but in no 

case later than 3 years after the date of 

the finding. See 42 U.S.C. 7426(c). EPA 

proposes in this section the compliance 

schedule that would apply unless the 

source opts to cease operation of the 

units subject to emission limits. In 

subsection D later, EPA is requesting 

comment on an alternate compliance 

schedule that would apply if the source 

opts to cease operations at units subject 

to emission limits as its method of 

compliance. As part of that, we are 

asking for comment on what would 

constitute compliance ‘‘as expeditiously 

as practicable’’ if the source decides to 

cease operation of the units subject to 

emission limits as its method of 

compliance. The proposed compliance 

schedule and increments of progress 

discussed in this subsection were 

developed based on the assumption that 

the plant would need time to install 

controls to reduce its emissions. They 

would not apply if the compliance 

option selected is to cease operation of 

the units subject to emission limits. 

EPA proposes to require compliance 

with the emission limits described in 

subsection VIII.B no later than 3 years 

from the effective date of the section 126 

finding. EPA is asking for comment on 

whether 3 years from the effective date 

of the section 126 finding is ‘‘as 

expeditious as practicable.’’ In addition, 

EPA proposes a schedule of interim 

reduction steps that will provide 

incremental progress toward eventual 

compliance with the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and a schedule 

of milestones that must be achieved to 

provide assurance that the source is on 

track to achieve full compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable and no later 

than the 3 year deadline. 

EPA is proposing to include an 

interim reduction requirement because 

section 126 calls for the establishment 

of a compliance schedule ‘‘including 

increments of progress,’’ 42 U.S.C. 7426, 

and interim reduction requirements 

constitute important increments of 

progress towards full compliance. More 

specifically, EPA is proposing to require 

the source to meet an SO2 emission 

limit of 2910 lbs/hr for unit 1 and 4450 

lbs/hr for unit 2, representing a 50 

percent reduction from allowable SO2

emissions, after 1 year. EPA is 

proposing this interim reduction 

because, as explained previously in 

further detail, EPA’s analysis supports 

that the Portland Plant’s Units 1 and 2 

are significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey. EPA has evaluated the 

emission reduction options available 

and has determined that several 

potentially available options could 

provide incremental reductions such as 

reagent injection, switching to lower 

sulfur coal and load shifting. 

Information from the U.S. Department of 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

indicates lower sulfur coal may be 

available in Pennsylvania.28 EPA’s 

analysis of available control 

technologies for coal-fired electric 

generating units and experience with 

coal-fired electric generating units also 

support that reagent injection can 

achieve emissions reductions at coalfired electric generating units in excess 

of fifty percent and can be installed and 

operational on coal-fired electric 

generating units in less than 12 

months.29 EPA requests comment on the 

proposed interim reduction 

requirements for units 1 and 2, 

including achievability of limits in the 

time proposed, and the impact of the 

reductions on the reliability of the 

electric grid. 

EPA also proposes to establish the 

following milestones that the source 

would be required to meet to 

demonstrate that it is on track to 

achieving full compliance as 

expeditiously as practicable and no later 

than the 3 year deadline. 

(1) Within 3 months of EPA’s finding, 

the Portland Plant shall notify EPA 

whether it will continue to operate 

subject to the emission limitations and 

compliance schedules established by 

EPA herein, whether under the 

proposed emissions limits or under an 

alternative where the plant would cease 

operation, such as the alternative 

compliance option presented for 

comment later in this notice, in which 

the plant could chooses to cease 

operation by a date certain, and meet 

certain interim milestones for reducing 

emissions. If the plant plans to continue 

to operate subject to emissions limits, 

the plant shall also indicate how the 

plant intends to achieve full compliance 

with the emission limits established in 

this notice. Specifically, the plant must 

indicate whether it intends to cease or 

reduce operation at any emission unit 

subject to emission limits as its method 

of compliance with such limits. The 

Portland Plant must also include in this 

notice what physical or operational 

changes, if any, the plant will 

implement as its method of compliance 

with the emission limits and 

compliance schedules EPA will 

establish in the section 126 finding, 

including predicted emissions 

reductions and emission rates after 

changes are implemented. EPA requests 

comment on all aspects of this proposed 

requirement, including on what specific 

information should be included in this 

notification and the appropriate level of 

detail that should be required. 

(2) If the notice required by paragraph 

(1) above indicates that the plant 

intends to continue operation of the 

plant past the three month period, the 

plant must also comply with the 

requirements in paragraphs (3)–(7) later. 

(3) No later than 3 months from the 

date of the section 126 finding, the 

Portland Plant shall submit to EPA a 

modeling protocol, consistent with 

EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models, 

which is codified at 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix W and other relevant 

modeling guidance issued to support 

regulatory programs, for air modeling of 

the selected remedy. The air modeling 

to be conducted by the source will need 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

to demonstrate that, when that remedy 

is implemented, the Portland Plant will 

no longer significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in New Jersey with respect 

to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. All units at 

the Portland Plant (i.e., units 1 thru 5 

plus the auxiliary boiler) shall be 

included in the modeling analysis, in 

order to demonstrate that emissions 

from the Portland Plant will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance with respect to the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. 

(4) If EPA identifies deficiencies in 

the modeling protocol submitted by the 

source, the Portland Plant will have 15 

business days to submit a revision to 

correct any deficiencies identified by 

EPA. 

(5) No later than 6 months from the 

date of the section 126 finding, Portland 

Plant shall submit a modeling analysis 

for the selected remedy performed in 

accordance with the modeling protocol. 

(6) Beginning 6 months after the 

section 126 finding and continuing 

every 6 months until the final 

compliance date, the Portland Plant 

shall submit to EPA a progress report on 

the implementation of the remedy, 

including status of design, technology 

selection, development of technical 

specifications, awarding of contracts, 

construction, shakedown, and 

compliance demonstration. 

(7) No later than 3 years following 

EPA’s final rulemaking, the Portland 

Plant shall submit a final project report 

which demonstrates compliance with 

the emission limits in the final 

rulemaking. The final report shall 

include the date when full operation of 

controls was achieved at the Portland 

Plant after shakedown; as well as a 

minimum of 1 month of CEMS data 

demonstrating compliance with the 

emission limits in the final rulemaking. 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposed compliance schedule 

and the proposed increments of 

progress. Key issues EPA is requesting 

comment on include: Whether the 

compliance schedule is sufficient to 

achieve compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable; whether additional 

increments of progress are necessary 

and, if so, what they should be; what 

level of detail should be required in the 

notices the Portland Plant will be 

required to submit; whether the 

deadline for each increment of progress 

is appropriate or should be sooner or 

later; whether continued periodic 

progress reports should be required after 

the final compliance date; and whether 

the required progress reports and final 

project reports are sufficient to 

document and demonstrate compliance. 

D. Alternate Compliance Schedule 

As noted previously, EPA is also 

requesting comment on how to interpret 

the phrase ‘‘compliance as expeditiously 

as practicable’’ when the source has 

selected to cease operation of either unit 

as its method of compliance with the 

emission limit for that unit and 

cessation cannot occur within 3 months 

of EPA’s finding. If EPA determines that 

it is appropriate to do so, EPA will 

include in the final rule a compliance 

schedule and increments of progress 

that would apply only if the source opts 

to cease operations at either unit subject 

to an emission limit as its method of 

compliance with the limit. EPA, 

therefore, is also requesting comment on 

what an appropriate compliance 

schedule would be, what factors EPA 

should consider in setting the 

compliance schedule, and what form 

the increments of progress should take. 

Though not an exhaustive list of 

relevant factors, EPA is taking comment 

on the following factors for determining 

what ‘‘compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable’’ means when compliance 

with an emission limit is to be achieved 

by ceasing to operate the unit subject to 

the limit: Electricity grid reliability 

issues; contracts that the source has 

with the electric utility independent 

service operator (ISO); other contractual 

obligations that the source has that 

would be impacted by a shutdown; 

whether the source is designated as a 

reliability must-run unit for any purpose 

by the ISO; whether some amount of 

electricity generating capacity at the 

source could be shut down in a shorter 

time period without creating reliability 

issues for the grid; what types of actions 

are required to address grid reliability (if 

there are any such issues), such as 

transmission line upgrades; how long it 

would take to address reliability issues 

(if there are any such issues); and the 

continued impact of interstate transport 

of emissions from the source on air 

quality in the affected State. EPA is also 

taking comment on whether other 

factors should be considered, and 

requests that commenters identify any 

additional relevant factors. In light of 

the factors enumerated previously as 

well as any other relevant factors, EPA 

is requesting comment on what would 

be an appropriate compliance schedule, 

that is as expeditious as practicable but 

no later than 3 years after the date of 

such finding, if compliance with the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is 

to be achieved by ceasing operations of 

the unit subject to the limit and 

cessation of operations cannot occur 

within 3 months of EPA’s finding. 

In addition to these factors, EPA also 

requests comment on what increments 

of progress should be established as part 

of the compliance schedule discussed 

previously. EPA specifically requests 

comment on the relevant milestones 

that should be included in a compliance 

schedule. At a minimum the interim 

milestones discussed in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of section VIII.C would 

apply. That is, the Portland Plant would 

be required to notify EPA whether it 

will cease to operate within 3 months of 

EPA’s finding or whether it will 

continue to operate subject to the 

emission limitations and compliance 

schedules established by EPA herein. 

The Portland Plant would also need to 

submit a protocol for and later submit 

air quality modeling sufficient to 

demonstrate that emissions from the 

plant, after implementation of the 

remedy, will no longer significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in New Jersey. This 

requirement would be waived only if 

the source opted to cease operation of 

all emitting units at the Portland Plant. 

EPA also specifically requests 

comment as to whether to include 

interim emission reductions during the 

period of time that the plant continues 

to operate after such a finding until the 

eventual shutdown. And if so, EPA 

requests comment as to the appropriate 

level of emission reductions. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and is 

therefore not subject to review under EO 

12866 or EO 13563. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed rule, if finalized, under 

section 126 of the CAA will not in-andof itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply 

establishes a SO2 emission limit at the 

Portland Plant. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19679 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The SO2 emission limits for the Portland 

Plant being proposed in this notice do 

not impose any new requirements on 

small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 

year. The costs necessary to comply 

with the emission limit proposed in this 

notice are not expected to exceed $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

requirements for compliance in this 

action will be borne by a single, 

privately owned source. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rule primarily affects private industry, 

and does not impose significant 

economic costs on State or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have a substantial 

direct effect on Tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it proposes to improve a State 

action for the implementation of a 

previously promulgated health or safety 

based Federal standards. EPA believes 

that the proposed emissions reductions 

in this rule will further improve air 

quality and will further improve 

children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule limits emissions of 

SO2 from the Portland Plant located in 

Northampton County, Pennsylvania. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble part 52 of chapter I of title 40 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of the Code of Federal regulations are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN— Pennsylvania 

2. Section 52.2039 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2039 Interstate transport. 

EPA has made a finding pursuant to 

section 126 of the Clean Air Act that 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from 

the Portland Generating Station in 

Northampton County, Upper Mount 

Bethel Township, Pennsylvania 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in New Jersey. The owners and 

operators of the Portland Generating 

Station shall either cease operations no 

later than 90 days from the effective 

date of the section 126 finding or 

comply with the requirements in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. 

(a) No later than 90 days from the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

the owners and operators of the 

Portland Generating Station shall notify 

EPA whether the owners and operators 

will operate the Portland Generating 

Station after the date 90 days after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding 

in compliance with the requirements in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 

section. If the owners and operators will 

operate the Portland Generating Station 

after such date, such notice must also 

specify the methods to be used to ensure 

compliance with the emission limits in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 

(b) The owners and operators of 

Portland Generating Station in Upper 

Mount Bethel Township, Northampton 

County, Pennsylvania, shall not, at any 

time later than three years after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

emit SO2 (as determined in accordance 

with part 75 of this chapter) in excess 

of the following limits: 

(1) 1,105 pounds per hour (‘‘lbs/hr’’) 

for unit 1 (identified with source ID 031 

in Title V Permit No. 48–0006) and 

(2) 1,691 lbs/hr for unit 2 (identified 

with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006). 

(c) The owners and operators of the 

Portland Generating Station in Upper 

Mount Bethel Township, Northampton 

County, Pennsylvania, shall not, at any 

time later than one year after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

emit SO2 (as determined in accordance 

with part 75 of this chapter) in excess 

of the following limits: 

(1) 2,910 lbs/hr for unit 1 (identified 

with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006); and 

(2) 4,450 lbs/hr for unit 2 (identified 

with source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006); 

(3) Provided that the limits in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 

section shall not apply if the notice 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

indicates that the owners and operators 

of the Portland Generating Station have 

decided to completely and permanently 

cease operation of unit 1 (identified 

with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006) and unit 2 (identified with 

source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) as the method of compliance with 

the emission limits in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(d) The owners and operators of the 

Portland Generating Station shall 

comply with the following 

requirements: 

(1) Perform air modeling to 

demonstrate that, starting no later than 

three years after the effective date of the 

section 126 finding, emissions from the 

Portland Generating Station will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

in New Jersey, in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

(i) No later than 90 days after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

submit to EPA a modeling protocol that 

is consistent with EPA’s Guideline on 

Air Quality Models, as codified at 40 

CFR Part 51, Appendix W, and that 

includes all units at the Portland 

Generating Station in the modeling. 

(ii) Within 15 business days of receipt 

of a notice from EPA of any deficiencies 

in the modeling protocol under 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, 

submit to EPA a revised modeling 

protocol to correct any deficiencies 

identified in such notice. 

(iii) No later than 180 days after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

submit to EPA a modeling analysis, 

performed in accordance with the 

modeling protocol under paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section, for 

the compliance methods identified in 

the notice required by paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(2) Starting 180 days after the effective 

date of the section 126 finding and 

continuing every six months until the 

date three years after the effective date 

of the section 126 finding, submit to 

EPA progress reports on the 

implementation of the methods of 

compliance identified in the notice 

required by paragraph (a) of this section, 

including status of design, technology 

selection, development of technical 

specifications, awarding of contracts, 

construction, shakedown, and 

compliance demonstration. These 

reports shall include: 

(i) An interim project report, 

submitted no later than one year after 

the effective date of the section 126 

finding, that demonstrates compliance 

with the emission limits in paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(ii) A final project report, submitted 

no later than three years after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

that demonstrates compliance with the 

emission limits in paragraph (b) of this 

section and that includes the date when 

full operation of controls was achieved 

at the Portland Generating Station after 

shakedown. 

(3) The requirements in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section shall not 

apply if the notice required by 

paragraph (a) of this section indicates 

that the owners and operators of the 

Portland Generating Station have 

decided to completely and permanently 

cease operation of unit 1 (identified 

with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006) and unit 2 (identified with 

source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) as the method of compliance with 

the emission limits in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(e) If the notice required by paragraph 

(a) of this section indicates that the 

owners and operators of the Portland 

Generating Station have decided to 

completely and permanently cease 

operation of unit 1 (identified with 

source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) and unit 2 (identified with source 

ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48–0006) 

as the method of compliance with the 

emission limits in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the owners and operators shall 

meet the following requirements: 

(1) No later than 90 days after the 

effective date of the section 126 finding, 

submit to EPA an analysis of the time 

required to completely and permanently 

cease operations at unit 1 (identified 

with source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 

48–0006) and unit 2 (identified with 

source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) as expeditiously as practicable. 

(2) Within 15 business days of receipt 

of notice from EPA of any deficiencies 

in the analysis under paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section, submit to EPA a revised 

analysis to correct any deficiencies 

identified by EPA. 

(3) Completely and permanently cease 

operation of unit 1 (identified with 

source ID 031 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) by the date that achieves, as 

determined by the Administrator, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19681 

expeditious as practicable cessation of 

operation. 

(4) Completely and permanently cease 

operation of unit 2 (identified with 

source ID 032 in Title V Permit No. 48– 

0006) by the date that achieves, as 

determined by the Administrator, 

expeditious as practicable cessation of 

operation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8166 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3