# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. 69052 2011

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Jan 19 16:40:03 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.69052 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081; FRL-9487-8]
RIN2060-AQ69

Final Response to Petition From New Jersey Regarding SO 2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA ismaking a finding that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station (Portland), owned and operated by GenOn REMA LLC (GenOn), in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, is emitting air pollutants in violation of the interstate transport provisions ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, the EPA finds that emissions ofsulfur dioxide (SO2) from Portland significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in New Jersey. This finding is made in
response to a petition submittedby the State ofNewJersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on September 17, 2010. In this action, the EPA is establishing emission limitations and compliance schedules to ensure that Portland will eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in New Jersey. Compliance with these limits will permitthe continued operation ofPortlandbeyond the 3- month limitestablished by the CAA for

sources subject to a contribution finding.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 6, 2012. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docketfor this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.govWeb site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through 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,Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality PolicyDivision, Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I.Executive Summary II. Summary ofChanges From the April 7, 2011 Proposed Rule III. The Basis for Making the Section 126 Finding for Portland A. CAA Section 126(b) and Our Legal

Authority B. Summary ofComments and Responses

Regarding Legal Authority IV. Summary and Assessment ofthe Modeling and Other DataRelevant to the EPA's Proposed Finding A. Summary ofthe Modeling forthe

Proposed Rule 1.Modeling Analysis inNJDEP's Section

126 Petition

a. Model Selection b. Meteorological Data 2.TheEPA's Modeling Analysis To

Quantify Significant Contribution B.Public Comments Related tothe

Modeling 1.Model Selection 2. Meteorological Data 3.Emissions and Source Characteristics 4. Identification ofBackground

Concentrations 5. Columbia Monitor Data andAnalyses C. Modeling and OtherAnalyses To

Determine Significant Contribution for the Final Rule V. Establishing the Emission Limits Necessary for the Remedy A. Quantification ofNecessary Emission

Reductions B. Summary oftheEPA's Proposed

Remedy Analysis C. Summary ofComments and Responses

Regarding the Remedy Modeling D.The FinalRemedy Limit E. Compliance Schedule for theFinal

Remedy Limit 1.Proposed Compliance Schedule 2.Public Comments and the EPA's

Responses

a. Technical Feasibility b. Continued Operation ofFacility inthe

Interim Period

c. Harmonization With Other Requirements 3.The Final Rule F. Other Considerations forEstablishing

the Final Remedy 1.Economic Feasibility 2. Requirement for Continuous Monitoring 3. Delegation ofEnforcement VI. Increments ofProgress

A. Interim Emission Limits 1. What the EPA Proposed 2. Public Comments and the EPA's

Responses

a. Appropriateness ofIncluding Interim

Emissions Limits b. Technical Feasibility ofCoal Switching

c. Interim Limits Suggested bythe GenOn

Test BurnReport d. Load Shifting

e. One-Year Time Period I.Effect ofInterim Limits on Reliability
g. ClearRational forLimits h. CombinedEmission Limits 3. Final RuleInterim Emission Limits B. Increments ofProgress: Reporting

Milestones 1.What theEPA Proposed 2. Public Comments and the EPA's

Responses 3. Final RuleReporting Milestones VII. Alternate Compliance Schedule and Consideration ofPetition for Rulemaking for Alternative Emission Limits A. Alternate Compliance Schedule ifthe

Source Owner Opts To Cease Operations 1.What theEPA Proposed 2. Public Comments and the EPA's

Responses 3. The Final Rule B. Consideration ofPetition for

Rulemaking for Alternative Emission Limits VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review andExecutive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children FromEnvironmental Health and SafetyRisks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I.Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations J.National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review

I. Executive Summary

Section 126(b) ofthe CAA provides,
among other things, that any state or political subdivision may petition the Administrator ofthe EPA to findthat any major source or group ofstationary

sources in upwind states emits or would emit any air pollutant inviolation ofthe prohibition ofsectioni10(a)(2)(D)(i),' 42

1 The text ofsection 126 codified inthe United States Code cross references section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

U.S.C. 7426(b). On September 17, 2010, NJDEP filed a section 126 petition requesting thatthe EPA findthat emissions from Portland, located in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in New Jersey. In this action, the EPA is granting that petition, and basing its finding on the review ofNJDEP's air quality modeling, the EPA's independent assessment ofthe AERMOD 2 dispersion modeling, and othertechnical analyses. Based on this assessment, the EPA finds that Portland's emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in NewJersey. Pursuant to section 126(c), the EPA is also authorizing continued operation ofthe plant consistent with emission limitations and compliance schedules (includingincrements ofprogress) set forth in this rule to bring the plant into compliance as expeditiously as practicable with the CAA prohibition on emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS. Specifically, the final rule requires Portland to reduce its S02 emissions to meet the following limits: 1,105 pounds
per hour (lb/hr)for unit 1; 1,691 lb/hr for unit 2; and 0.67 pounds per million metric British units (lb/mmBtu),based

on a 30boiler operating day rolling average, for units 1 and 2. Portland must achieve and maintain these emission limitations by no later than 3years after the effective date ofthisrule. The EPA is establishing an interim SO2 emission limit requirement to ensure that Portland demonstrates appropriate increments ofprogress toward final compliance. Specifically, no later than 1
year after the effective date ofthis rule, total SO 2 emissions from units 1 and 2 combined may not exceed 6,253 lb/hr. The final rule also requires Portland to submit to the EPA a dispersion modeling protocol within six months of the effective date ofthe rule, amodeling analysis demonstrating the elimination of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance within 1year ofthe effective date ofthe rule, semi-annual interim progress reports, and a final

instead ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that thisis a scrivener's error and the
correct cross reference is to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), SeeAppalachianPowerCo. v. EPA, 249F.3d1032, 1040-44(DCCir.2001).

2AERMOD stands for the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model. progress report to demonstrate compliance with the interim andfinal emission limits. Compliance with the final emission limits established inthis rule is sufficient to remedy Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in the impacted areas in NewJersey.

II. Summary ofChanges Fromthe April 7, 2011 Proposed Rule

The following is a summary ofthe significant changes made since proposal. Each ofthese changes is discussed later in this notice, and, where noted, additional information is provided in other supporting documentation in the docket for this rulemaking. The first change is thatthe final compliance remedy nowincludes

a heat input-based SO2 emission limitof 0.67 lb/mmBtu for units 1 and 2, in addition tothe proposed SO2 emission
rate limits. The heat-input based SO 2 emission limitisbased on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average. This additional requirement was made to address concerns raised by commenters that the proposed compliance remedy

was not adequate to ensure attainment ofthe NAAQS in NewJersey. This issue is discussed in more detail in section V. Second, the interim emission rate limits, proposed as 2,910 lb/hr for unit 1 and 4,450 lb/hr for unit 2,and having

a compliance date ofno later than 1year from the effective date ofthisrule, are

now expressed as a single limit forunits 1 and 2combined, and may not exceed 6,253 lb/hr. The 1-year compliance timeframe remains unchanged. This change tothe limitis partlyin response to comments (includingthose from GenOn) in support ofgreater operational flexibility, and acknowledges that the interim limit need not be unit specific. It is also based on the availability of lower sulfur coal than the coal Portland is currently using. Additional details are provided in section VI.C.

Third, in response to comments that the proposed deadlines for submitting a modeling protocol and modeling analysis were too short, the deadline for submitting the modeling protocol is changed to six months after the effective date ofthis rule, and the requirement to submit a modeling analysis is changed
to 12 months after the effective date of this rule. Thiswill allow Portland more time for planning its modeling analysis but does not change the compliance time frames for meeting the emission limits.

Additionally, in response to comments suggesting the plant needed

more than 90 days to determine a method ofcompliance, the final rule gives Portland 12 months fromthe effective date to indicate howit intends
to achieve full compliance. The EPA agrees that the plant may need 12 months to identify the specific engineering and technology decisions to determine how to reach compliance within 3years. Accordingly, we are eliminating the proposed requirement for Portland to notify the EPA, within 90 days from the effective date ofthis rule, whether theplant will continue to operate and comply with the emission limits and compliance schedules, or

cease operations. The modeling protocol andthe initial semi-annual progress report, due 6 months after the effective date ofthis rule, will appropriately inform Portland's plans for continuing operation. Finally, the EPA is not requiring separate compliance schedules and analyses should Portland decide to permanently cease operation ofunit 1 and unit 2 as ameans of compliance. The final and interim emission limits and compliance schedules are appropriate regardless of how Portland ultimately decides to meet them. Thus, we decided it was not necessary, as proposed, to include a separate schedule specifically for a compliance approach based on shutting down.

III. The EPA's Basis forMakingthe Section 126 Finding forPortland

A. CAA Section 126(h)andOurLegal Authority

The statutory authority for this action is providedby the CAA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Section 126 ofthe CAA provides that any state orpolitical subdivision may petition the Administrator ofthe EPA to findthat any major source or group ofstationary

sources in upwind states emits or would emit any air pollutant inviolation ofthe prohibition ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 42 U.S.C. 7426(b). Ifthe EPA makes such

afinding, in order to allow continued operation ofthe source, the EPA may also issue emission limits and compliance schedules (including increments ofprogress) tobring the

source into compliance as expeditiously

aspracticable but no later than 3years from the date ofthe finding.Absent such emission limits and a compliance schedule, the source may not continue operations beyond 90 days.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) ofthe CAA, often referred to as the "good neighbor" or "interstate transport" provision ofthe Act, addresses interstate transport of air pollution. Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), emissions in one state that contribute significantly to nonattainment in,or interfere with maintenance ofa NAAQS 

### 69053

### 69054 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

by, any other state, or interfere with

measures required tobe included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, are tobe prohibited. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i). Findings by the Administrator, made pursuant to section 126, that a source or group of

sources emits air pollutants inviolation ofthe 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. This actionresponds to a section 126 petition submitted by the NJDEP. In this action, the EPA makes a section 126 finding with respect to Portland and establishes emission limits and compliance schedules to permit continued operation ofthe plant.

Several commenters asserted that the EPA cannot, or should not, make such

a section 126 finding at this time, but

can only make such a finding after the
state has submitted what is usually referred to as its "interstate transport"

or section 110(a)(2)(D) State Implementation Plan (SIP). Forthe recently promulgated 1-hour SO 2 standard, those SIPs are due on June 3, 2013. We disagree with this interpretation ofthe Act. The plain language ofthe statute confirms that section 126 remedies can, and in some

cases must,be promulgated prior to the deadline for states to make SIP submissions under section 110(a)(2)(D).

The EPA has consistently interpreted the language in section 126 as referring
to a functional prohibition on emissions. This interpretation is supported bythe plain language ofthe statute, the statutory structure, and the legislative history. Further, the EPA
notes thatthe statute does not exempt, for any period oftime, violations ofthe prohibition from scrutiny under section 126. For these reasons, the EPAbelieves its interpretation is compelled by the statutory language. Nonetheless, to the
extent that the statutory language is ambiguous, the EPA's reasonable interpretation ofthis language is to be accorded deference.

The EPA interprets the language in section 126 as referring tothe actual functional prohibition ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) thatbars impermissible interstate transport. The EPA does not agree with the position takenby some commenters that the language refers onlyto an emissions limitation contained in a state's section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP. Further, there is nothing in the statute to support the argument thatthe prohibition on emissions does not arise until after the SIP submission deadline, or that a violation ofthe functional prohibition
cannot occur before that deadline. Where the EPA finds such a violation exists, itmust, under section 126, issue emission limits and compliance schedules topermit continued operation ofthe source.

The EPA's interpretation of section 126 acknowledges that Congress created
two independent statutory toolssection 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and section 126-
to address the problem ofinterstate pollution transport. The purpose ofeach provision is to control upwind emissions that contribute significantly
to downwind states' nonattainment or maintenance problems. The two provisions differ in that one relies on state regulation and the other relies on federal regulation. Congress provided both provisions without indicating any preference for one over the other, suggesting itviewed either approach as

a legitimate means to produce the desired result. Instead,the statutory language creates two independent tools
to address the problem. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) establishes an obligation for all states to address emissions within the state significantly contributing to downwind air quality problems or interfering with certain regulatory provisions in downwind states. Section 126 establishes a procedure for a state,

or political subdivision, topetition the EPA totake federal action to address transported emissions from an identified source or group of sources in another state. The two provisions are independent, and nothing in the statute suggests that one is intended to limitthe other.

In general, statutes are to be interpreted in a way that gives meaning
to each section. The EPA's interpretation ofsection 126 is consistent with this general rule inthat it gives section 126 a purpose independent ofthe other remedies available under the CAA. In contrast, if section 126 were interpreted as referring only to a prohibition contained in a SIP, the section would not have any practical utility in the statutory scheme. The EPA's interpretation ofthe relationship between sections 126 and 110 is supported by the legislative history of the amendments to the CAA which added section 126. In adopting the section 126 remedies, Congress explained thatthe petition process was intended toprovide an avenue for relief separate from the 110(a)(2)(D) SIP procedure and thatit was intended to expedite, not delay, resolution of interstate pollution conflicts.

The EPA's interpretation ofthe "prohibition" referred toin section 126 is also consistent with the language of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires
states to include in their SIPs provisions necessary to ensure compliance with sections 126 and 115 ofthe CAA, which relate to interstate transport and international transport ofpollution, respectively. States are required to submitto the EPA such SIPs no later than 3years after promulgation of anew

orrevised NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), any emission limits and compliance schedules issued bythe Administrator under section 126 prior
to that deadline mustbe incorporated into the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission for the state in which a

source subject to suchlimits is located. Accordingly, the statute anticipates that the Administrator may address a section 126 petition prior to the deadline for the initial submission ofa section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP.

IfCongress had intended to limitthe EPA's authority to act on section 126 petitions until after the deadline for
states to submit 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs,it could have included such a restriction. However, the plain language ofthe
statute does not clearly require this interpretation. Rather, the statute requires the EPA to address a section 126 petition within 60 days after receipt. 3 Since the statute establishes firm deadlines for action on section 126 petitions, itdoes notprovide an exception for petitions submitted prior
to the good neighbor SIP submission deadline, and it provides a mechanism for incorporating reductions required in
response to section 126 petitions into the state SIPs; the EPA believes it does
not have discretion to delay action on a section 126 petitionjustbecause the
state SIP submission deadline has not yetpassed.

The EPA's interpretation of sections 110 and 126 in this context is also reasonable as itis consistent with the EPA's interpretation ofthese sections in
two rulemakings issued inMay 1999 and January 2000 which concluded that each section ofthe Act provides an alternative avenue for relief.Findings of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking on Section 126 Petitions for Purposes ofReducing Interstate Ozone Transport, 64 FR 28250 (May 25, 1999); Findings of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking on Section 126 Petitions for Purposes ofReducing Interstate Ozone Transport, 65 FR 2674 (Jan. 18, 2000). NJDEP has, in this case, soughtreliefvia section 126 from the interstate transport ofpollution thatis significantly

3This deadline can beextended by up to 6 months pursuant to section 307(d)(10).

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

contributing tononattainment within the state, and the EPA is obligated to address NJDEP's petitionpursuant to the requirements ofthe Act.

B. Summary ofCommentsand ResponsesRegardingLegalAuthority
Comment:Several commenters argue that the statutory text is unambiguous in requiring that states be permitted to submittheir infrastructure SIPs addressing the transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) before a section 126 petition can be filed.

The commenters primarily argue that this interpretation is compelled because

a section 126 petition may onlybe filed
to complain ofaviolation ofa section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP where a state has failed
to adequately enforce its own plan. Accordingly, the commenters argue that there isno prohibition oftransport emissions absent an approved SIP. The operative language in section 126 isthat

apetition may be granted where there is "a violation ofthe prohibition of" section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The commenters argue that "prohibition" referred to in section 126 isnot on the act ofemitting

orcontributing to transboundary nonattainment. Rather, the commenters assert, the prohibition is against emitting at levels that violate the limits imposed by the SIP regulations promulgated in response to the requirements ofthe CAA.

Some ofthese commenters also suggest that a section 126 petition would bejustified where a state fails to meet its SIP revision obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D). These commenters therefore argue that a section 126 petition may not be filed until the state fails to meet its deadline to file a SIP addressing its transport obligations with respect to the new or revised NAAQS.

Response:The EPA does not agree that the interpretation posited by the
commenters is reasonable much less compelled by the statutory text. Nothing in the statutory language in section 126 prohibits a downwind state from filing

a section 126 petition until after the upwind state, in which the source or

sources are located, has submitted, or is required to submit, a section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP to the EPA for approval. The commenters have not identified any statutory provision that so limits a downwind state's rights. Rather, the right ofa state to file a section 126 petition does not have any time limitation, and the EPA is required to act quickly whenever presented with such a petition. The commenters' arguments that a section 126 petition
cannotbe filed, or a section 126 finding
cannotbe made, before the 110(a)(2)(D) SIP submission deadline passes are policy arguments with nobasis in the statutory text. Instead, as discussed below, the statutory text,the structure of the CAA, and the legislative history all support the EPA's interpretation ofthe Act as creating, in sections 110 and 126, two independent means ofcontrolling transboundary emissions and find no support for the argument that one should be prioritized over the other.

Moreover, the plain language ofthe
statute does not clearly define "prohibition" to mean a SIP provision that sets emissions limits to address transboundary air pollution. Rather, the EPAbelieves thatthe better interpretation, in light ofthe structure of the CAA and its legislative history, is that the "prohibition" referred to in section 126 is the actual, functional prohibition on transboundary air pollution contained in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

The commenters' interpretation ofthe "prohibition" referred toin section 126 would render thereliefprovided by a section 126 petition process essentially meaningless. Ifa source is emittingin violation ofan emission limitation in a SIP, there is no question thatthe source is inviolation ofthe SIP. The language in section 126 stating that "it shall be a violation of * * *the applicable implementation plan" for a source to emit in violation ofthe prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D) serves no legal
purpose where the source is already directly violating a SIP requirement. By contrast, under the EPA's interpretation, section 126 deems a source's emissions
to be aviolation ofthe applicable SIP (aswell as ofsection 126) whenever the emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment downwind or interferes with maintenance of any NAAQS. This interpretation gives legal effect to the language in section 126 and is consistent with Congress' purpose of providing a tool for downwind states and the EPA to use to impel upwind

sources toreduce transported emissions

even where a SIP may notyet directly regulate such emissions.

Moreover, the EPA's interpretation of section 126 gives it a purpose independent ofthe other remedies available under the CAA. Under section 113, upon finding that any person is in violation ofany requirement ofan approved SIP, the EPA has the authority
to enforce the requirement by issuing an order to comply, issuing an administrative penalty order, or bringing a civil action. In addition, any person (whichincludes states) may bring a citizen suit against any person in violation ofany requirement ofan approved SIP, independent ofthe EPA action. Section 304(a), (f); seealso section 302. These provisions provide

more direct and likely quicker recourse against a source that isviolating its SIPimposed emission limits than the section 126 petition process would. Thus, there isno need to have a petition, public hearing, and EPA determination pursuant to section 126 simply to enforce existing SIP limits. By contrast, using the section 126 petition
process where transboundary emissions

are not yetbeing controlled by an upwind state serves the unique role of allowing a downwind state to force the EPA's consideration ofthe problem and potentially achieve emissions reductions directly from sources, without the need to depend on action by the upwind state.

The EPA's interpretation ofthe relationship between sections 126 and 110 isexpressly supported by the legislative history ofthe CAA. In adopting the section 126 remedies, Congress explained that the petition process was intended toprovide an

avenue for reliefseparate from the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP procedure:

This petition process is intended to expedite, not delay, resolution ofinterstate pollution conflicts. Thus, it should not be viewed as an administrative remedy which
must be exhausted priorto bringing suit under section 304 ofthe act. Rather, the committee intends to create a second and entirely alternative method and basis for preventing and abating interstate pollution. The existing provision prohibiting any stationary source from causing or contributing to air pollution which interferes with timely attainment or maintenance or [sic] a national ambient air standard (ora prevention ofsignificant deteriorating [sic] or visibility protection plan) inanother state is retained. Anew provision prohibiting any

source from emitting anypollutant after the Administrator has made the requisite finding and granted the petition is an independent basis for controlling interstate air pollution.

H. Rep. 95-294 at 305, reprinted in 1977 Legislative History at 2798. Nothing in the legislative history suggests, asthe
commenters assert, thatthe section 126 remedy is dependent on the section 110 SIP procedure. Rather, this language clearly indicates that Congress intended sections 110 and 126 to operate as independent means ofcontrolling transboundary emissions and thatit did
not intend to prioritize one means of control over the other. Accordingly, there isno basis in the legislative history to support the commenters' argument that a state does not have the right to submit a section 126 petition until after the deadline to submit a section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP has passed.To the contrary, the legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to impose any limitation 

### 69055

### 69056 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

tied tothe section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP procedure on when a state may submit

a section 126 petition after anew or revised NAAQS ispromulgated.

Moreover, Congress recognized in adopting all ofthe interstate transport provisions in the CAA that the interstate pollution problem stems from inadequate limits ontransported emissions, and not inadequate compliance with adequate SIP requirements. This characterization of the problem is supported by the

numerous descriptions ofthe interstate pollution problem in the 1977 legislative histories, all ofwhich explicitly or implicitly refer to the lack ofupwind limitations and none of which mentions sources' violation of upwind SIP limits. See, e.g,. S. Comm.

onEnvt. and Public Works, CleanAir Act Amendments of 1977, S. Rep. 95- 127, 95thCong., 1st Sess. 41 (1977), reprinted in 3 1977 Legislative History
at 1415 (noting thatthe 1970 Act failed
to specify any abatement procedure ifa

source in one state emitted air pollutants that adversely affected another state, and "[a]s a result, no interstate enforcement actions have taken place, resulting in serious inequities among several States, where

one State may have more stringent implementation plan requirements than another state"); H. Rep. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 304 (1977), reprinted in 4 1977 Legislative History at 2798 ("[A]n effective program must notrely

onprevention or abatement actionby the State in which the source ofthe pollution is located,but ratherby the
state (or residents ofthe State) which receives the pollution and the harm, and thus whichhas the incentive and need
to act."). It isreasonable to assume that Congress intended to create atool that would attack the problem Congress recognized. This supports the conclusion that Congress intended section 126 toprovide an alternate

means to compel compliance with the prohibition in section 110(a)(2)(D) where upwind states are not controlling transboundary emissions, and notwhere

sources are violating adequate SIP provisions.

The interpretation thatthe EPA adopts here is also consistent with its historical interpretation of section 126. The EPApreviously interpreted this section in two rulemakings issuedin 1999 and 2000, wherein commenters challenged the EPA's authority, in light ofa pending SIP call, to grant anumber ofsection 126 petitions that soughtto mitigate the transport ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) from downwind states thatwere significantly contributing to ozone nonattainment problems in the petitioning states. 64 FR 28250; 65 FR 2674. In both rulemakings, the EPA interpreted the relationship between sections 110 and 126 consistent with the EPA's interpretation here, concluding that the "prohibition" referred to in section 126 is the functional prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as opposed to

an emissions limitation contained in a state's SIP, and that the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP process and the section 126 petition process are independent and alternative means ofaddressing impermissible interstate transport.

Both rulemakings were challenged in the DC Circuit inAppalachianPower Co.v. EPA,49 F.3d 1032 (2001), on the theories thatthe agency was required to refrain from making any section 126 findings while the SIP call was ongoing and that the doctrine of "cooperative federalism" embodied in the Act imposed a constraint on the EPA's ability to actbefore the section 110 process was complete. Idat 1045. The
court deferred to the EPA's interpretation ofthe relationship between sections 110 and 126, holding that there is no inherent conflict in acting on a section 126 petition during the same period that a state has to develop a SIP submission: "It is entirely reasonable for the EPA to regard a state that is under a legal obligation torevise its plan asbeing, in the meantime, in violation ofa functional prohibition." Id. at 1046. The court explained that the petitioners' interpretation of section 126 would compromise three critical provisions of section 126: 1.The requirement that source operate no more than 3years after finding ofcontribution to downwind nonattainment; 2.The fact that "relief does not depend upon any action bythe upwind states, as isnecessary for a SIP revision"; and 3.The fact that reliefunder section 126 is independent ofthe discretionary policy preferences ofthe EPA, asthe agency is required to act upon a petition within 60 days. Id. The court noted that the EPA's interpretation retains all three aspects of the statutory requirements. Id. The court therefore concluded that "[b]ecause it isreasonable, and because the 'Congress providedboth [§§ 110 and 126] without indicating any preference
for one over the other,' * * * the EPA's conclusion that these two provisions operate independently merits our deference under Chevronstep two." Id.
at 1048 (quoting 65 FR at 2680/1).

Thus, the EPAbelieves that the commenters' interpretation of section 126 is unreasonable and inconsistent with the legislative history, the EPA's past interpretations, and court rulings upholding those interpretations. In particular, the commenters' interpretation would render the relief provided by the section 126 petition
process duplicative and unnecessary. The EPA's interpretation, on the other hand, gives legal effect to the language in section 126 and is consistent with Congress' purpose ofproviding an independent tool for a downwind states andthe EPA to use to impel upwind

sources to reduce transported emissions. The EPAbelieves this matter is clearly resolved byreference tothe terms ofthe provision itself, so that underthe first step ofthe Chevron analysis, no further inquiry is needed. If,however, itwere concluded that the provision is ambiguous on this point,the EPA believes that, under the second step in the Chevron analysis, then the EPA should be given deference for any reasonable interpretation, as courts have given with respect to prior interpretations ofsection 126. Interpreting section 126 to refer to a functional prohibition on emissions and
to preserve a state's right to file a section 126 petition isreasonable for the

reasons described above. Comment:Several commenters argue that the EPA is turning to section 126 as

a "first resort" for implementing the

new NAAQS and that we are substituting the EPA'sjudgment for Pennsylvania's regarding the appropriate control strategy for Portland. The commenters contend that revising Pennsylvania's SIP is a usurpation ofstate discretion andthat the SIP process wouldbe superfluous if
we allowed petitions to be filed so close

on the heels ofnew or revised NAAQS. The commenters believe that Congress intended states to have primary responsibility for implementing a new
or revised NAAQS. They contendthat the EPA's interpretation of section 126 places priority on interstate transport

over intrastate control ofNAAQS attainment.

Response:We respond bynoting that the upwind state still retains its obligation to develop a SIP and implement the NAAQS. Applying section 126 independent ofan upwind state's failure to act under section 110(a)(2)(D) does not impermissibly
pressure upwind states to select certain control measures. The EPA acknowledges thatbecause the section 126 findings precede any required state action, when states are eventually required to submit SIPs to control interstate transport, one ofthe largest

sources ofemissions will already be subject to emission control

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

requirements, and, depending upon the timing, may have already invested in controls. Yetthis isnot alegal constraint on states' choices-it is the reality that, over time, conditions change and different policy choices become more or less attractive for a variety ofreasons. States would still be able to choose to regulate other sources, but depending upon the timing, the option ofobtaining emission reductions from sources thathave already invested in emission controls or have already reduced emissions maybe more attractive on policy and economic grounds than regulating those sources otherwise would have been. There is a vast difference between, on one hand, the EPAprescribing a particular emissions control choice that states must adopt, and on the other, taking actionrequired under the CAA to regulate sources directly with the possible effect ofmaking certain future emissions control choices by some states more or less appealing.

Such a potential future effect onthe regulatory environment cannot override the obligation thatthe EPA act on state petitions under section 126. We do not believe it wouldbe reasonable to conclude thatthe EPA can take no action under an independent mandate ofthe statute to respond to petitions submitted by downwind states facing their own time constraints and
pressures tomeet air quality standards, just topreserve the relative attractiveness ofavariety ofoptions for control ofS02 in the upwind states required under another provision ofthe CAA. The cooperative federalism principles ofthe CAA do not require the EPA to withhold federal action under section 126 until states havebeen required to and failed to submit SIPs. It is perfectly reasonable for Congress to have established section 126 as an alternative mechanism underthe CAA
to address the interstate pollution problem, justas it did again in adopting sections 176A and 184. To provide alternatives, the various interstate transport provisions are necessarily different from each other andfrom other provisions ofthe Act,but that does not make them inconsistent with other provisions ofthe Act. Thus, simply because the EPA will have imposed certain requirements on Portland does
not mean that Pennsylvania no longer has any discretion in crafting its SIP submission with respect to NAAQS compliance anywhere in the state. Pennsylvania can take into consideration the controls thatPortland chooses to implement when creating its

own attainment plan,just asit would take into consideration controls implemented at any other source.

The court inAppalachianPowerCo.

v. EPA specifically addressed this

concern that action on the section 126 petition before the SIP submissions

were due would restrict the states' discretion to fashion their ownplan for complying with the NAAQS: "SIP development, like any environmental planning process, commonly involves decisionmaking subject to various legal constraints. That §126 imposes one such limitation-and it is surely not the only independent provision offederal law to do so-does not affect a state's discretion under §110." 49 F.3d at 1047.

Finally, as explained in detail above, Congress intended sections 110 and 126
to operate as independent and alternate

means to address transboundary pollution, and indicated no preference for one means ofcompelling compliance

over the other. Thus, the EPA's action

on this section 126 petition does not prioritize the control ofinterstate pollution over a state's control of intrastate pollution. Rather, itgives legal effect to section 126, consistent with the
structure ofthe CAA and the legislative history, by providing atool for downwind states to use to impel upwind sources toreduce transported emissions.

IV. Summary andAssessment ofthe Modeling and OtherData Relevant to the EPA'sProposed Finding

A. Summary oftheModeling forthe Proposed Rule
NJDEP's section 126 petition contained dispersion modeling results, based on both the CALPUFF 4 and AERMOD dispersion models, that NJDEP relied upon to show that emissions from Portland, alone, caused downwind violations ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS in New Jersey. Given the magnitude ofthe modeling violations, which were nearly seven times the 1- hour SO2NAAQS based onAERMOD modeling ofmaximum allowable emissions, and the fact that significant exceedances ofthe NAAQS were also shown based on modeling ofestimated actual emissions, the EPA concluded that the NJDEP had clearly shown that SO 2 emissions from Portland cause violations ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS in NewJersey.

The EPA also modeled the emissions from Portland using the AERMOD dispersion model and determined that the modeled concentrations from

4CALPUFF is a non-steady-state puff dispersion model that was originally developed forthe California Air Resources Board. Portland, when combined with the relatively lowbackground concentrations, cause violations ofthe 1-hour SO 2NAAQS in Morris, Sussex, Warren and Hunterdon Counties inNew Jersey.5This section discusses the key modeling issues that arise in making that determination, and how the EPA is responding to comments wereceived on those issues. We also note that this modeling isused not only to characterize the NAAQS violations, but,

as discussed in section V, itis alsoused
to determine the appropriate remedy to address such violations.

1.Modeling Analysis in NJDEP's Section 126 Petition

a. Model Selection

Model selection was one ofthe key issues thatthe EPA addressed in support ofthis rule given the critical role played by dispersion modeling both in relation to a finding under a section 126 petition that a source significantly contributes to nonattainment and/or interferes with maintenance ofthe 1- hour SO 2NAAQS in aneighboring state, and in relation to the determination of

an appropriate remedy to address such

a finding. As summarized in the proposed rule and documented in more detail in the EPA's proposed rule Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document, NJDEP included modeling results based on both the CALPUFF and AERMOD dispersion models with its section 126 petition. The importance of this issue is further highlighted bythe fact thatthe maximum 99th percentile ofthe daily maximum 1-hour modeled SO 2 concentrations based on CALPUFF

was about 2.5 times higher than the maximum 99th percentile ofthe daily maximum 1-hour modeled concentrations based on AERMOD. Consequently, a much more stringent remedy would be required to address such a finding based onCALPUFF modeling than based on AERMOD modeling.

The NJDEP acknowledged that AERMOD is the preferred model under the EPA's "Guideline on Air Quality Models," published as Appendix Wto 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, for near-field applications such

as this,but suggested that the use of CALPUFF maybe appropriate under the alternative model provisions in Section 3.2.2b ofAppendix W. Section 3.2 of Appendix W liststhree separate conditions under which an alternative model maybe approved for use:

5The EPA modeling analysis is detailedin the proposed rule Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document, available inDocket IDEPAHQ-OAR-2011-0081-0026. 

### 69057

### 69058 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

(1)Ifa demonstration canbe made that the model produces concentration estimates equivalent to the estimates obtained using a preferred model;

(2)Ifa statistical performance evaluation has been conducted using measured air quality data and the results ofthat evaluation indicate the alternative model performs better forthe given application than a comparable model in Appendix A ofAppendixW;

or(3)Ifthe preferred model is less appropriate for the specific application,

orthere is no preferred model.

The NJDEP modeling documentation suggested thatNJDEP's use ofthe CALPUFF model in support ofthis petition was based on condition (2) of Section 3.2.2b, claiming to have shown that CALPUFF "performed better and produced predictions ofgreater accuracy than AERMOD" for this application. NJDEP also claimed that the

use ofCALPUFF is more appropriate for this specific application due to the complex winds addressed in Section 7.2.8 ofAppendix W andis therefore justified under condition (3)ofSection 3.2.2b.

The section 126 petition referenced a CALPUFF model validation study based

onthe Martin's Creek field study database, submittedby NJDEP with an earlier section 126 petition, as demonstrating that "CALPUFF performed better and produced predictions ofgreater accuracy than AERMOD" for this application.6

At proposal, the EPA included a detailed assessment ofthe NJDEP CALPUFF validation study as Appendix A ofthe proposed rule Air Quality Modeling TSD, and concluded that NJDEP had not adequately justified the

use ofCALPUFF in this application under either conditions (2)or (3)of Section 3.2.2b ofAppendix W.The EPA further asserted that AERMOD isthe
most appropriate model for this application. Our assessment ofthe CALPUFF validation study identified several aspects ofNJDEP's validation methodology that deviated from the EPA's Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model,7which undermined the integrity ofthe evaluation results. In addition, we cited the "weight of evidence" regarding AERMOD model

6See Letterfrom Bob Martin, Commissioner, New
Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (NJDEP) to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, USEPA (September 13, 2010), Section IV, page 5. Docket 1ID
No. EPA Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081-009.

7 Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model. EPA-454/R-92-025 (1992). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, available at: http://www.epa.govl ttn/scram/guidance/guide/modleval.zip. performance which isbased on evaluations for a total of 17 field study databases as compared to NJDEP's CALPUFF validation study which isthe only near-field evaluation ofCALPUFF model performance that the EPA is

aware ofthatincluded CALMETgenerated 3-dimensional wind fields. We also pointed tothe fact that the 1- hour, 3-hour and 24-hour quantilequantile (Q-Q)plots ofmodeled versus observed concentrations for AERMOD and CALPUFF included in the NJDEP validation study suggested thatthe performance ofthe CALPUFF and AERMOD models was very similar for this database, withboth models exhibiting generally good agreement with observations, but with AERMOD showing slightly better overall agreement than CALPUFF. These clear visual comparisons ofmodel performance are difficult to reconcile with NJDEP's assertion that CALPUFF performed better than AERMOD.

b. Meteorological Data

Another key component ofthe dispersion modeling analysis is the meteorological data. The EPAbased the AERMOD modeling in support ofthe proposed rule on 1year ofPortland sitespecific meteorological data available for July 1993 throughJune 1994. The site-specific meteorological data were collected from a 100-meter instrumented tower and Sound Detection and Ranging instrument (SODAR), located about 2.2 kilometers
west ofPortland. Based on a review of the data, we determined that the Portland meteorological data from 1993-94 meet the basic criteria for representativeness under Section 8.3.3 ofAppendix W, and therefore can be considered as site-specific data for
purposes ofmodeling impacts from the elevated stacks for Portland units 1 and 2.The 1993-94 data also meet the minimum criterion for the length of meteorological data record ofat least 1
year of site-specific meteorological data recommended in Section 8.3.1.2 of Appendix W. However, the difference of about 100 meters in thebase elevation for the meteorological tower versus the stack base elevation raised concerns regarding howthe meteorological data

were input to the AERMOD model in the NJDEP modeling analysis given that the stack heights for units 1 and 2are about 122 meters and thatplume heights ofconcern for units 1 and 2are about 200 to 400 meters above stack base.

The AERMOD modeling submitted by NJDEP used the measurement heights above local ground at the towerlocation for the meteorological data input to the model, effectively assuming thatthe measured profiles ofwind, temperature andturbulence are "terrain-following." Without adjusting for the difference in base elevation of about 100 meters between the meteorological data and the stacks, wind speeds are likely to be biased high and the wind directions may not be representative ofplume heights relative to stack base. A review oftheraw meteorological data filesfor Portland alsorevealed the fact that G_ (verticalturbulence) data were available from the SODAR,but had notbeen used in the AERMOD modeling submitted with NJDEP's section 126 petition. Based on the analyses that are described in more detail in the EPAproposed rule Air Quality Modeling TSD, the EPA concluded that the representativeness of the Portland meteorological data would be improved by incorporating some adjustments tothe measurement heights from the SODAR data and the inclusion ofthe G_ data collected from the SODAR.

2.The EPA's Modeling Analysis To Quantify Significant Contribution

In the EPA AERMOD modeling analysis, thousands ofreceptors were placed in NewJersey to determine the

area ofmaximum concentration from Portland's emissions in order to quantify Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment in New Jersey. A design value concentration

was calculated for each receptor for comparison to the NAAQS. The design value concentration isequal to the 99th percentile (4th-highest)of the annual distribution ofdaily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations. Allreceptors with modeled design value concentrations that are greater than the NAAQS [196.2 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)] 8

are determined to be nonattainment receptors.

The EPAproposed to define Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance as those emissions that
must be eliminated to bring the downwind receptors in NewJersey affected by Portland into modeled attainment in the analysis year. While this approach would not be appropriate in every circumstance, the EPA believes it is appropriate where, as here, the source's emissions are sufficient on their own to cause downwind NAAQS violations andbackground levels ofthe relevant pollutant are relatively low. The EPA therefore developed a

8The 1-hour SO 2NAAQS is 75 ppb. For comparison to dispersion modeling results in units ofug/M 3

, the NAAQS can beexpressed as 196.2 ug/

M 3

,assuming reference temperature and pressure.

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

methodology to identify the reductions
necessary tobring the downwind receptors into attainment.

To quantify the emissions that constitute Portland's significant contribution, the EPA identified the level ofemissions thatneed to be reduced to ensure thatno modeled concentration within the affected area (inNewJersey) exceeds the level ofthe NAAQS (i.e.,the 99th percentile ofthe daily maximum 1-hour average of196.2 ug/m3).

The EPA also analyzed the modeling results to determine the appropriate emissions reductions that were needed
to eliminate "interfere with maintenance." In addition to nonattainment receptors, the EPA also attempted to identify receptors that are modeled to be attainment but due to variability in meteorology or emissions might be at risk for nonattainment. Due
to the high modeled concentrations from Portland's emissions, all ofthe downwind modeled receptors in the final modeled receptor grid in New Jersey are modeled tobe 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 focused on the receptors with the maximum impact from Portland. Therefore, the EPA did
not identify any "maintenance only" receptors.

In the proposal, the EPA considered whether Portland shouldbe required to make additional reductions, above and beyond those required to eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment, to ensure thatit does not interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS inviolation ofthe prohibition in section 110(a)(2)(D). We identified an approach that we believe is appropriate for these specific circumstances. Among other things, we considered the nature ofthe modeling used to determine the appropriate remedy and the potential for actual SO2 concentrations in New Jersey tobe higher than those modeled. In the proposal, the EPA determined there is

no indication that concentrations higher than those modeled from Portland would be likely to occur at nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors or anywhere else in New Jersey. This was based on the following facts:
1.There is only 1year ofsite-specific meteorology available, such that we

were not able to explicitly examine the impact ofyear-to-year variability of meteorology on downwind modeled concentrations.9 2.The remedy modeling used maximum allowable emissions from Portland. Since these are the highest emissions that are allowed to be emitted by the facility, higher concentrations could not be expected to occur inNew Jersey due to the variability ofemission from Portland. 3.In the modeling analysis, we used background concentrations that varied by season and hour ofday based on the 3-year average ofthe 99thpercentile of the distribution ofhourly SO2 concentrations in the area, which represents the high end ofthe distribution ofmonitored background concentrations. The background concentration accounts for contributions from other SO 2 sources. As demonstrated by NJDEP's trajectory analysis,1 itis likely that SO2impacts from Portland contributed to some of the high monitored concentrations at the Chester, NewJersey, monitor used to represent the background concentrations, which islocated about 34 kilometers east-southeast ofPortland. Although use ofthe 99th percentile values by season and hour ofday from the Chester, NewJersey, monitor eliminated some ofthe peak hourly SO 2 concentrations, the background concentrations are still likely to be somewhat conservative (high)to account for variability that otherwise
cannot be quantified.

It was therefore reasonable to conclude, under the circumstances, that any remedy that eliminates the significant contribution to nonattainment from Portland also eliminates its interference with maintenance with respect to year-toyear variability in emissions and meteorology. The EPA therefore proposed to findthat compliance by Portland with theproposed emission limits willbring itinto compliance with the prohibition on emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment ofthe 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS as well as with the prohibition

on emissions thatinterfere with maintenance in a downwind area. The

9Due to constraints on data availability, our analysis is appropriate inthis instance; however, nothing here is intended to suggest that, where sufficient data are available to examine year-to-year variability, this should notbe a relevant factor.

10See Trajectory Analysis ofHigh Sulfur Dioxide Episodes at the Chester, NJMonitor. Bureau of Technical Services, Division ofAirQuality, New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection. July 30, 2010. Submitted to USEPA as Exhibit 4 of the September 13, 2010 Supplement to NewJersey's May 12, 2010 Petition Pursuant to Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7426. Docket ID No. EPA Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081-008. EPA requested comments on our modeling methodology and meteorological data adjustments.

B. PublicCommentsRelatedto the Modeling

We received many public comments related to the modeling that was used to support the finding that SO 2 emissions from Portland contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in New Jersey. Some ofthe main
comments and the EPA'sresponses related to model selection, meteorological data, emissions and

source characteristics, and background concentrations are summarized below, with further details provided in the Response to Comments document.

1.Model Selection

Comments:We received several
comments supporting the EPA's conclusion that AERMOD isthe appropriate dispersion model for this petition, and that also supported the EPA's overall assessment thatNJDEP's CALPUFF validation study failed to demonstrate that CALPUFF performs better for this application than AERMOD. One commenter (NJDEP) believes that the modeling in support of the section 126 petition should be based

on CALPUFF, and provided detailed
comments on the EPA assessment ofthe CALPUFF validation study.

Response:As discussed in greater detail in the final rule Air Quality Modeling technical support document (finalrule Modeling TSD), the EPA review ofNJDEP's comments relatedto

our assessment ofthe CALPUFF validation study has identified additional deficiencies with the study that further undermine NJDEP's conclusion that "CALPUFF performed better andproduced predictions of greater accuracy than AERMOD" for this application. One ofthese deficiencies that came to light upon closer examination ofthe CALPUFF modeling files for the validation study is that NJDEP used the "ISC Type" option for building downwash in CALPUFF instead ofthe PRIME " downwash option when applying CALPUFF for the Martin's Creek validation study, although the CALPUFF input file

11

The "ISC Type" building downwash option in CALPUFF refers to the Huber-Snyder and Schulman-Scire algorithms that are incorporated in the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model. The PRIME downwash optionrefers to the "Plume Rise Model Enhancements" algorithms that

were initially incorporated into a revised version of ISCST3 called ISC-PRIME, and were later incorporated into the AERMOD model prior to its promulgation as the EPA-preferred model for nearfield applications, replacing ISCST3, in 2005. 

### 69059

### 69060 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

included the necessary building input parameters to run the PRIME option. The AERMOD modeling results for Martin's Creek used for comparison

were based on the PRIME downwash algorithm. While building downwash associated with the cooling towers at Martin's Creek exhibited only a modest influence on resultsbased onAERMOD evaluations, itis important enough tobe treated properly in the model evaluation, and the EPA concludes that the PRIME downwash option should have been used in the CALPUFF modeling since AERMOD's promulgation effectively established the PRIME algorithm as the "preferred" downwash algorithm for near-field applications. NJDEP's CALPUFF validation report identifies thatthe "ISC type" downwash option was used in the table ofCALPUFF inputs (the MBDW parameter in Table 8.2), but provides no explanation orjustification for not using the PRIME downwash option. As described in more detail in the final rule Modeling TSD, the inclusion ofthe PRIME downwash option in CALPUFF resulted in a greater tendency for CALPUFF to overestimate concentrations at Martin's Creek as compared to the "ISC-Type" downwash option, with some deterioration in model performance metrics.

Additional evidence supporting the EPA's determination that AERMOD is a

more appropriate model for this application than CALPUFF was provided by an EPA analysis ofhigh modeled SO2 concentrations versus high observed SO2 concentrations at the Columbia Lake Wildlife Management (Columbia)air quality monitor located in New Jersey about 2 kilometers northeast ofPortland. The EPA compared the observed SO2 data from September 2010 through September 2011 tomodeled concentrations from AERMOD and CALPUFF. Although the monitored concentrations are based on

a different period than the modeled concentrations (1993-94 in the case of AERMOD, and 1992-93, and 2002 for CALPUFF), it isreasonable to expect

some degree ofcomparability between modeled and monitored concentrations based onthe upper end ofthe ranked concentration distributions. These comparisons, which were patterned after comparisons presented in NJDEP's trajectory analysis report for the Columbia monitor 12 and are described in more detail in the final rule Modeling

12Analysis ofthe Sulfur Dioxide Measurements from the Columbia Lake,NJ Monitor. Bureau of Technical Services, Division ofAir Quality, New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, March 4, 2011. Docket IDNo. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0081-0019. TSD, show generally good agreement with observations based on AERMOD modeling, utilizing the EPA's adjustments 13 tothe 1993-94 site specific meteorological data for Portland. The EPA analysis used an emission scenario of 100 percent load and 70 percent of allowable emissions for Portland units 1 and 2,which is representative ofpeak operating conditions for Portland during the period ofmonitoring data andreflects the fact that the sulfur content ofthe fuel being burned at Portland was typically about 70 percent ofthe allowable sulfur content. Since Portland frequently operates wellbelow these levels, we would expect to see some bias toward overestimation in the modeled concentrations, and the AERMOD predictions are consistent with thatexpectation. The average ratio ofpredicted to observed concentrations for the top 10 daily maximum 1-hour values was 1.14. By comparison, the average predicted/observed ratio for AERMOD for the same emission scenario using NJDEP's meteorological data for Portland without the EPA's adjustments was 0.77. The modeled concentrations arebased onboth units 1 and 2operating at 100 percent load and 70 percent of allowable emissions, without any contribution from background concentrations. The relatively good model performance for AERMOD is in contrast to alarge overprediction when CALPUFF results are compared to observed SO2 at the Columbia monitor. The average predicted/observed ratios for CALPUFF

were about 3.26 for the 1992-93 meteorological data and 3.87 for the 2002 meteorological data. Additional details regarding these analyses related
to the Columbia monitoring data are provided in the EPA final rule Modeling TSD.

2.Meteorological Data

Comments:GenOn submitted
comments indicating general agreement with the EPA adjustments to the Portland meteorological data, although it recommended also including the turbulence datafrom the 30-meter level

on the instrumented tower, including both G_ and Go (lateral turbulence), which hadbeen excluded from the EPA modeling in support ofthe proposal.

Response:We disagree with GenOn's recommendation to include the 30-
meter turbulence data due to the

concerns regarding the

13As documented inAppendix B ofthe EPA proposed rule AirQuality Modeling TSD, the EPA adjusted some ofthe measurement heights from the SODAR data and alsoincluded the SODAR-derived

aw data. representativeness of such data, which

are documented in the proposed rule Air Quality Modeling TSD. The EPA explained thatit excluded the 30-meter turbulence data due to concerns regarding therepresentativeness of the data atthat level relative to stack base elevation given thatthe measurement heights from the 100-meter tower were not adjusted and wouldtherefore be treated as being representative of meteorological conditions within the valley.

We also note thatinclusion ofthe 30-
meter turbulence data would have a negligible effect on the modeling results since the elevated plumes fromPortland units 1 and 2willbe well above 30
meters such that transport and dispersion ofthe plumes will be determined by measurements at higher levels from the tower and SODAR. Therefore, the 30-meter turbulence data is only expected to influence the plumes in the rare cases where turbulence data

were missing from the 100-meter level

on the tower and fromthe SODAR. Due
to the representativeness issues, we believe it wouldbe inappropriate to rely

on the 30-meter turbulence data in those

cases. Comment:NJDEP submitted detailed
comments opposing the EPA's adjustments to the Portland meteorological data, as well as other aspects ofthe meteorological data processing. NJDEP's opposition to the EPA adjustments to Portland meteorological data primarily concerned past precedents regarding prior modeling analyses based on the data, the lack offield study evaluation results validating the use of SODAR-derived G_ data in AERMOD, and the fact thatthe
net effect ofthe meteorological data adjustments incorporated in the EPA modeling reduced the overall modeled design value by about 40percent as compared to the AERMOD modeling results submitted by NJDEP with the section 126 petition.

Response:Regarding the exclusion of SODAR-derived G_ data in past analyses, we noted thatthe EPA meteorological monitoring guidance prior to 2000 discouraged the use of SODAR-derived turbulence data, including Gw. However, we also note that the updated guidance issuedby the EPA in 2000 14 supports the use of SODAR-derived Gw based on additional analyses ofSODAR versus tower-based

cw data. Furthermore, as mentioned

14Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications, EPA-454/R-99- 005 (February 2000). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/met/ mmgrma.pdf

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

above in relation to the issue ofmodel selection and as documented in more detailed in the final rule Modeling TSD, additional analyses based on model-tomonitor comparisons against the Columbia, NewJersey, ambient S0 2 data show much better agreement between modeled and monitored concentrations based onthe EPA-adjusted meteorological data than for the unadjusted data usedby NJDEP in its AERMOD modeling, which tends to corroborate the EPA adjustments to the meteorological data. As shown in NJDEP's trajectory analysis for the Columbia monitor (NJDEP, March 4, 2011) and further documented in the final rule Modeling TSD,AERMOD modeling based on the unadjusted data used by NJDEP exhibits a tendency to underestimate ambient concentrations

as compared tothe Columbia monitored data. Although these analyses lend some credence to the appropriateness ofthe EPA meteorological data adjustments,

we believe thatthe adjustments are fully justified based on current EPA meteorological monitoring guidance as well as technical considerations, in relation tothe approximately 100 meter difference between the base elevation of the meteorological tower/SODAR and thebase elevation ofthe Portland stacks

as documented in more detail inthe EPA final rule Modeling TSD.

Regarding the fact that the maximum 99th percentile 1-hour S0 2modeled design value based onthe EPA analysis including adjustments to the meteorological data was about 40 percent lower than the maximum 99th percentile designvalue based onthe NJDEP AERMOD modeling (1,402 ug/m 3

versus 851 ug/m3), we also note thatthe EPA-modeled results are in facthigher than the NJDEP results across most of the final modeled domain. More specifically, the EPA modeled results

are higher than the NJDEP results for about 96 percent ofthe modeled receptors in the final 100-meter receptor grid, and the average difference across allreceptors was about 44percent higher based on the EPA modeling.

Based on this review ofcomments submitted regarding the EPA adjustments tothe Portland meteorological data and in light of additional evidence supporting the appropriateness ofthe adjustments based onmodel-to-monitor comparisons for the Columbia, NewJersey, ambient monitor, no changes relative to the proposal havebeen made to the meteorological data used in the EPA AERMOD modeling in support ofthis final action. Comment:A few commenters raised

concerns regarding the fact that the EPA AERMOD modeling relied upon a single year of site-specific meteorological data. One commenter suggested that a more conservative estimate ofthe modeled design value used compensated for this, such as the highest second-highest concentration rather than the 99th percentile ofthe annual distribution of the daily maximum 1-hour values. Similarly, another commenter suggested

use ofthe highest possible concentration asbeing the most conservative value.

Response:These comments regarding the limitations in the amount of meteorological data used in support of the proposed rule relate to the issue of whether the Portland emissions may interfere with maintenance ofthe NAAQS due to variability of meteorological conditions. 15Although

we are not able to explicitly account for the impact ofyear-to-year variability of meteorology on downwind modeled concentrations, the form ofthe 1-hour
S0 2NAAQS based on the 99th percentile ofthe annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour values, averaged

across 3years for monitoring data, is recognized as a more stable metric of ambient air quality that is less sensitive
to meteorological variability than a deterministic standard that would be based on allowing one exceedance per year. For a deterministic standard, the inclusion ofadditional years of meteorological data can only increase the modeled design value or leave it unchanged, since the design value is the highest ofthe second-highest values

across each ofthe individual years modeled. In contrast, the inclusion of additional years ofmeteorological data for aprobabilistic standard such as the 1-hour S0 2NAAQS may increase or decrease the modeled design value since it is averaged across the number ofyears modeled at each modeled receptor.

To further illustrate this point, the EPA performed an analysis ofimpacts from Portland based on 5years of meteorological data from the Allentown National Weather Service (NWS) station for the period 2006 through 2010. This analysis shows thatthe range of variability between the individual year with the lowest modeled design value and the 5-year average modeled design value is about 6 percent.For comparison, using the same 5years of meteorology data, the range of variability across the 5years for a deterministic 1-hour standard was about 35 percent for the first highest 1-hour

15The use of1year ofsite-specific meteorological data fulfills the requirements ofAppendix W related modeling demonstrations ofcompliance with the NAAQS. Thecommenters are addressing the issue of interference with maintenance. values and about 17 percent for the highest second-highest 1-hour values. More details regarding these analyses

are provided in the final rule Modeling TSD.

We also note that variability in relation tointerference with maintenance also encompasses variability in emissions. As noted above, the modeling conducted to determine the proposed remedy for Portland was based onmaximum allowable emissions. 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 variability ofemissions from Portland. Furthermore, analysis of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) data for Portland indicates a much larger range of potential variability associated with emissions than was found for meteorological variability based onthe analysis summarized above.

Regarding variability in relation to emissions from other sources ofS0 2that might overlap with impacts from Portland, we believe thatwe have adequately addressed this aspect of variability associated with emissions from existing sources through the inclusion ofa relatively conservative monitored background concentration in the cumulative modeling analysis, as discussed in more below in section IV.B.4. Furthermore, background ambient concentrations ofS02 due to existing sources are likely to decline from recent and current levels over the
next several years in association with the development and promulgation of SIPs for the 1-hour S0 2NAAQS as well

as the recent finalization ofthe Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), also known as the Transport Rule. We also
note thatpotential variability, more specifically increases, in emissions from

new ormodified sources wouldbe addressed through the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting process associated with implementation ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS.

Based on these considerations and supporting analyses using 5years of NWS meteorological data, the EPA believes that the modeled design value based onthe form ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS is the appropriate metric for

use in this final rule and that the proposed remedy willbe adequate to address Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1- hour S02 NAAQS inNew Jersey. 

### 6906169062 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

3.Emissions and Source Characteristics

Comment:GenOn commented that EPA's dispersion modeling used outdated stack parameters for units 1, 2, and 5 and submitted alist ofrevised parameters that itstates shouldbe used in the modeling.

Response:The EPA updated the stack parameters used in the final rule dispersion modeling, based on the submitted parameters from GenOn. The parameters include the stack heights, exittemperatures, exit velocities, and stack diameters. These updated stack parameters had a negligible effect on the modeled concentrations. See section IV.A for a table ofthe stack parameters used in the final rule modeling. Comment:GenOn commented that interim and final SO2 emissions limits should only be set for Portland units 1 and 2.

Response:The EPA agrees that interim and final SO2 emissions are only needed for Portland units 1and 2.

There were no comments supporting emissions limits for the smaller sources (units 3, 4, 5, and an auxiliary boiler) in the final rule. Infact, in both the original section 126 petition modeling and additional modeling submitted as comments on the proposal, NJDEP only included emissions from Portland units 1and 2. In the final rule, the EPA is setting emissions limits for units 1and 2only.

4. Identification ofBackground Concentrations

As noted above in the summary ofthe EPA modeling for the proposed rule, and explained in more detail in the proposed rule Air Quality Modeling TSD, the EPA used background concentrations that varied by season and hour-of-day based on the 3-year average ofthe 99th percentile ofthe distribution ofhourly SO 2 concentrations from the Chester, New Jersey, ambient monitor, located about 34 kilometers southeast of Portland, which represents the high end ofthe distribution ofmonitored background concentrations in the area.

Comment:GenOn submitted
comments suggesting thatthe background concentrations used inthe EPA modeling for the proposed rule based onthe Chester, NewJersey, monitor were too high and likely included impacts from Portland emissions. GenOn also submitted revised background concentrations that

were adjusted to remove hoursfor which Portland was potentially influencing the Chester, NewJersey, monitor, although GenOn did not provide any details regarding the methodology used for adjusting the monitored concentrations.

Response:As noted above in relation
to comments on the meteorological data, incorporating background concentrations based on 3years of monitoring data incorporates some elements ofmeteorological variability into the cumulative modeling demonstration, which further mitigates potential concerns regarding reliance on

a single year ofmeteorological data in the dispersion modeling. Also, as demonstrated by NJDEP's trajectory analysis (NJDEP, July 30, 2010), we agree that itis likely that SO 2impacts from Portland contributed to some of the high monitored concentrations at the Chester, NewJersey, monitor used to represent the background concentrations. Although use ofthe 99th percentile values by season and hour-of-day from the Chester monitor excluded some ofthe peak hourly SO2 concentrations, the background concentrations are still likely to be somewhat conservative (high),but the EPAbelieves thatthis conservatism is appropriate in order to account forboth meteorological variability that otherwise could not be explicitly accounted for, and low background levels from other

sources thatmay contribute to ambient SO 2levels in NewJersey. Furthermore, the differences between thebackground concentrations used inthe EPA modeling analysis and thebackground concentrations submittedby GenOn

were less than about 5parts perbillion (ppb)in most cases, andwould have a negligible impact of about 0.5 percent

on the remedy necessary to eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in NewJersey.

5.Columbia Monitor Data andAnalyses

As noted in theproposal, the Columbia air quality monitor in Warren County, NewJersey, is located approximately 1.2 miles (about 2 kilometers) northeast of Portland. The Columbia monitor has recorded concentrations over the 75 ppb 1-hour

SO2 NAAQS. 16 See 76FR 19662. Since the monitor began operation on September 23, 2010, ithas recorded

numerous exceedances ofthe 1-hour
S02 NAAQS. We noted in the proposal that exceedances ofthe NAAQS occurred when prevailing winds in the

area came from the direction of Portland, NJDEP submitted a document

16See "Summary of 1-Hour S02 Monitoring Data from the Columbia Monitor in Warren County, New Jersey" TSD available inthe docket, available in Docket IDEPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081-0005. dated March 4, 2011 titled, "Analysis of the Sulfur Dioxide Measurements from the Columbia Lake NJ Monitor which

canbe found in the docket, (SeeDocket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081-0019). This document used wind trajectory analyses to find thatPortland's units 1 and 2were the likely cause of each high SO2 episode at the monitor. We found these analyses tobe consistent with our finding and modeling which predicts exceedances ofthe 1-hour SO 2NAAQS in the vicinity ofthe Columbia monitor. Comment:NJDEP submitted new SO 2 ambient data collected at the Columbia monitoring station located in Warren County, New Jersey. The monitor began collecting data on September 23, 2010, andmeasured exceedances ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS on 9 days through February 17, 2011. The NJDEP submitted atrajectory analysis which attempts to track the SO2 emissions from Portland on days when exceedances were measured at the Columbia monitor. The NJDEP also submitted anew modeling analysis which attempted tomodel the impact of emissions from Portland at the Columbia monitor, using recent SO2 CEMS emissions data from Portland and the Columbia ambient monitoring data. The NJDEP concludes thatthe monitoring data, trajectory analysis, and the modeling analysis support the EPA's proposed finding thatPortland significantly contributes to nonattainment in NewJersey and is also consistent with the results ofNJDEP's and the EPA's modeling analyses, showing a good correlation between the modeling analyses and monitoring data.

Response:The EPA agrees with many aspects ofthe analysis submittedby NJDEP. We agree thatthe trajectory analysis ofthe recent Columbia monitoring data supports the conclusion that the exceedances are primarily caused by emissions from Portland. The analysis shows that on the days examined, the winds are blowing from Portland towards the Columbia monitor, and the available CEMS data show large SO 2 emissions from Portland.17

The EPA also agrees that the modeling analysis submitted by NJDEP indicates good performance for AERMOD in representing the modeled concentrations at the Columbia monitor

onthe exceedance days in 2010. However, interpretation ofthe analysis is complicated by the fact that
concurrent site-specific meteorology is
not available during 2010 or 2011. The

17TheNJDEP analysis also includesCEMS data fromthe nearby Martins Creekpower plant which shows littleor no S02emissions fromMartins Creek ontheexceedance daysexamined.

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

modeling analysis was therefore conducted with the 1993-1994 sitespecific meteorology used for the proposed rule modeling which as noted above the EPA found to be a reasonable assumption. NJDEP used three different emissions assumptions in the modeling analysis. Itconcluded thatAERMOD modeling based on allowable emissions gives thebest agreement with monitored concentrations at Columbia. Since the CEMS data show thatPortland was operating wellbelow allowable emissions during many ofthese exceedances, NJDEP contends thatthis implies thatAERMOD is underestimating the modeled concentrations at the Columbia monitor. The EPA disagrees with this conclusion. As shown above in our response to comments regarding the use of CALPUFF versus AERMOD, we believe that the manner in which NJDEP ran AERMOD for this analysis contributed
to the model underestimating concentrations in the vicinity ofthe Columbia monitor. Specifically, the use ofthe Portland site-specific meteorological data without the adjustments incorporated in the EPA AERMOD modeling analysis contributes
to underestimating impacts in the vicinity ofthe Columbia monitor. Further details regarding the EPA analysis ofthe Columbia monitor are contained in the final rule Modeling TSD.

C.ModelingandOtherAnalyses To DetermineSignificantContribution for theFinalRule

The EPA continues tobelieve thatthe AERMOD modeling analysis provides a

more appropriate technical basis for this petition than the modeling submitted based onthe CALPUFF model, as explained in this notice andin more detail in the final rule Modeling TSD.

The EPA's review ofthe NJDEP AERMOD analysis supports afinding that SO2 emissions contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO 2NAAQS. 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 tomeet the 1-hour S02 NAAQS in New Jersey. Therefore, the EPA conducted an independent modeling
assessment to confirm the finding of significant contribution and to help determine the necessary and appropriate emission limits forPortland units 1 and 2 (the EPA modeling analysis is described in more detail in section V and the final rule Modeling TSD). As part ofthe original petition, NJDEP also submitted a trajectory analysis of
two particular episodes showing that elevated 1-hour SO 2measurements at the Chester monitor in Morris County, NewJersey, were caused primarily by Portland. As described earlier, NJDEP also submitted an analysis (dated March 4, 2011) ofrecent SO 2monitor data at the Columbia monitor in NewJersey, which includes a trajectory analysis for exceedance days 18 at the Columbia monitor and a modeling analysis ofthe impact ofPortland SO2 emissions on the Columbia monitor.

For the reasons discussed above, the EPAbelieves thatthe AERMOD analysis, submittedby NJDEP and modeled by the EPA, provides a reasonable basis for making a finding that emissions from Portland significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance in NewJersey and for quantifying the SO2 emissions reductions needed to establish the final remedy emission limits. In addition, the trajectory analysis, monitoring data analysis, and the air quality monitoring data collected from the Columbia monitor in NewJersey are consistent with our finding ofsignificant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1- hour SO2NAAQS in NewJersey. Our analysis for determining the final emission limits are presented in the
next section.

V. Establishing the Emission Limits Necessary for the Remedy

In the proposed rule, the EPA conducted analyses to determine the emissions limits that wouldbe necessary to permit Portland's continued operation under our section 126 finding. This section summarizes these analyses and discusses the
comments and responses on the analyses, and our use ofthe analyses to establish the final remedy. It also discusses the selection ofthe appropriate time frame for the final remedy, as well as otherissues that
commenters raised concerning the final remedy. Continued operation ofa major existing source subject to a section 126 finding ispermitted only ifthe source complies with emission limits and compliance schedules established by the EPA to bring about compliance with

18When thereport was submitted, there were 9 days that exceeded the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, as of February 17, 2011. Morerecent data (downloaded from the NJDEP Web site at http:// www.njaqinow.net/Default.aspx)showthat there have been 22 additional 1-hour S02 exceedance days at the Columbia monitor between February 18 and August 20, 2011. the requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 126 as expeditiously

aspracticable, but in no case laterthan 3years after the effective date ofthe finding. Thus, to determine the appropriate remedy, the EPA must quantify the reductions necessary to eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1- hour SO 2NAAQS inNew Jersey.

A. Quantification ofNecessary EmissionsReductions

To calculate emissions reductions necessary to eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour S0 2NAAQS in New Jersey for the proposed rule remedy, the EPA completed AERMOD modeling ofPortland units 1, 2, and 5 using the 1993-1994 Portland sitespecific meteorological data. 19As detailed in section IV,the EPA continues tobelieve thatAERMOD is the appropriate model to make afinding that emissions from Portland contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance, and to calculate the appropriate emission limits for Portland units 1and 2.In applying AERMOD to establish the remedy for theproposed rule, the EPA made several adjustments to the meteorological inputs (compared to the NJDEP modeling) which it determined
to be appropriate. As described in Section IV above, the EPA continues to believe the meteorological data and model setup modifications are appropriate and we are continuing to

use the same modifications for the final rule AERMOD modeling. The EPA remedy modeling also includes background concentrations that vary by

season and hour of day based on the 99thpercentile ambient data from the Chester, NewJersey SO2monitor. The EPA believes the background concentration methodology tobe reasonable and appropriately conservative, and is using this methodology in the final rulemodeling.

The EPA AERMOD analysis used allowable SO2 emissions rates for Portland units 1, 2, and 5long with stack parameters submittedby GenOn shown in Table V.A-1:

19

Forcompleteness, the EPA included emissions from Portland unit 5 inthe final rule dispersion modeling (butdid not propose or finalize a revised emissions limitfor unit 5). The unit 5 emissions

were included in the analysis to verify that they did
not impact the calculation ofthe finalemissions limit.Due to ourunderstanding that the other emissions sources (units 3, 4, and an auxiliary boiler)at Portland have negligible orzeroSO2 emissions, the EPA did notinclude those sources in the finalrule modeling. 

### 6906369064 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

TABLE V.A-1

Permitted Stack height Stack Stack Stackvelocity Source emission rate diameter temperature (mis) (g/s) (in) (K)

Portland C oal U nit 1

...................................................................... 733.3 121.31 3.15 418.1 32.86 Portland C oal U nit 2

...................................................................... 1,121.0 121.82 3.84 406.0 34.19 Portland Turbine 5

......................................................................... 12.0 42.67 6.10 821.5 36.60

The location ofmaximum S02 concentration impacts from Portland emissions were found to occur in a similar location as in the proposal modeling. Therefore, the same 100
meter receptor fine grid modeling domains were used inthe final rule modeling. The controlling modeled design value impact from Portland in NewJersey based onthe EPA's final rule modeling was 855.4 ug/m 3which is the basis for quantifying the necessary emission reductions. This included a contribution from Portland units 1and 2of815.0 ug/m 3

, a monitored background concentration of 39.3 ug/

M 3

,plus a contribution of1.1 ug/m3 from Portland unit 5. See the final rule Modeling TSD for more information on the AERMOD setup and modeling results.

B. Summary oftheEPA'sProposed RemedyAnalysis

In the proposed rule, the EPA calculated the emissions reduction needed to eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment based on the maximum modeled design value concentration in NewJersey. Ifthe modeled concentration from Portland plus background is reduced to a level that is below the 1-hour S02 NAAQS, then all modeled violations ofthe NAAQS in NewJersey are eliminated. For the proposed rule, the emissions reduction needed to eliminate all modeled violations in NewJersey was usedto define the elimination ofsignificant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance.

Based on the EPA modeling results, the EPAproposed that an 81 percent reduction in allowable S02 emissions from Portland units 1 and 2was needed
to reduce the Portland contribution plus background to below the NAAQS.

The EPA also evaluated the modeling results to determine ifan emission limit could be set that combined the total emissions at units 1and 2.In the proposal, the EPA determined that there

are many different combinations of emissions limits for units 1and 2 that could eliminate violations ofthe S02 NAAQS in NewJersey. However, the stack parameters (exitvelocity and stack diameter) ofunits 1 and 2are slightly different, which causes the maximum downwind impacts from each unitto

occur at slightly different locations and
at different times. In addition,the EPA proposed that Portland can comply with the emissions limits in several different
ways (e.g., low sulfur coal, reduced operation ofone or both units, and/or installation ofpost-combustion controls). Given all ofthe possible compliance options and interactions between the plumes from units 1 and 2,

we were not able to effectively examine multiple compliance strategies for the proposal. Therefore, we proposed emissions limits based on an 81 percent reduction in allowable emissions atboth units 1and 2.This led to a proposed

S02 emissions limitfor unit 1 of 1,105 lb/hr (allowable emission rate of 5,820 lb/hr*0.19 [an 81 percent reduction]) and a proposed S02 emissions limitfor unit 2of 1,691 lb/hr (allowable emission rate of 8,900 lb/ hr*0.19 [an 81 percent reduction]).

C.SummaryofCommentsand ResponsesRegardingtheRemedy Modeling
Comment:One commenter noted that various methods to comply with an emissions limit (suchas installation of

a control device) may affect stack parameters such as exit temperature and exit velocity, which may affect the dispersion ofemissions and downwind concentrations. The emissions limitwas calculated using a simple "rollback" calculation which assumes that concentrations willbe reduced in proportion to emissions.

Response:We agree with commenters that itislikely (thoughunknown at this time) that the strategy to comply with the final rule emissions limits will cause changes in stackparameters for units 1 and 2.In addition, we agree thatthis should be accounted for,but in the proposed rule, the EPA did not take into
account the effect ofoperating load on stack parameters. The exitvelocity is reduced when the plant is operating below full load. Based on information submitted by GenOn as part ofits comments, the exit velocity couldbe reduced by as much as 50 percent when operating at orbelow 50 percent operating load (defined as percent of maximum heat input for each unit). To
account for potential reduced plume rise and dispersion dueto reduced load

or control devices, the EPA ran several AERMOD sensitivity runs. We simulated the proposed remedy emissions rate for units 1 and 2 (1,105 lb/hr unit 1limit and 1,691 lb/hrunit 2limit)at 100 percent load, which resulted in a maximum design value concentration of 193.7 ug/m3 (whichis below the 196.2 ug/m3 1-hour S02 NAAQS). We then ran AERMOD with the same emissions rates, but at reduced loads of75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent. The exitvelocity for the reduced load runs was reduced based

oninformation submittedby GenOn. The reduced exitvelocity led to reduced plume rise and dispersion and higher downwind maximum concentration impacts. The maximum concentrations
at 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent load were 227.3 ug/m3

, 264.3 ug/m 3

, and 300.3 ug/m 3

, respectively. These impacts all exceed the 1-hour S02 NAAQS. See the final rule Modeling TSD for more details on the sensitivity analysis.

In the final rule, the EPA will ensure that the NAAQS is protected (and therefore that significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance is eliminated) in two ways. First, in addition to the lb/hr emissions limit for each unit, we are finalizing a lb/mmBtu emissions limit to address modeled exceedances at reduced load. The lb/mmBtu limit is determined based on an equivalent lb/hr limit at 100 percent load for each unit.Meeting a lb/mmBtu will therefore have the effect oflowering theresulting lb/hr emissions
rates at reduced loads. For example, emissions willbe 25 percent lower than the lb/hr limit when operating at 75 percent load. This inturn will ensure that the NAAQS is protected at reduced loads. Modeling of emissions rates that

are constrained by alb/mmBtu limit shows that concentration impacts at reduced loads are always less than maximum concentrations at 100percent load. Seesection VI for more details on the calculation oflb/mmBtu limits.

The second way that we are ensuring that theremedy willbe protective ofthe

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

NAAQS isby requiring GenOn, aspart ofthe increments ofprogress requirements, to submit a modeling protocol and dispersion modeling analysis ofits final compliance strategy. GenOn will be required to show thatthe final remedy, as actually implemented, including any changes to stack parameters that may have resulted from steps taken tomeet the limits, will be protective ofthe NAAQS and therefore eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in NewJersey. See section VI for more details on the increments of progress requirements and schedules. Comment:One commenter (GenOn) urged the EPA to set a combined emission limitfor units 1 and 2for both the interim limits and the final limits. GenOn submitted a modeling analysis which examined the effects ofvarious permutations ofthe proposed interim limit. The commenter ran an AERMOD "reference run" withthe proposed interim limit ofa 50 percent reduction in allowable emissions at both units 1 and 2 (a total of7,360 lb/hr). GenOn then ran two additional "sensitivity"
runs; one with unit 1running at its full allowable limit (5,820 lb/hr) and unit 2
atzero emissions and a third model run with unit 1at zero emissions and unit 2at 7,360 lb/hr (thecombined limitat

a 50 percent reduction from allowables). The results show that maximum design value concentrations from the sensitivity runs are less than the reference run.Therefore, GenOn argues that a combined limit will provide for air quality impacts that are equivalent to

orbetter than the proposed individual unit limits.

Response:The EPA agrees that the operating scenarios that were modeled show thata combined limit can lead to air quality impacts that are equivalent to

orbetter than individual limits. However, that isnot true in all cases, particularly for the final emissions limits. For example, the EPA modeled the combined proposed remedy emission limits (2,796 lb/hr) individually at unit 1 and unit 2. Emitting 2,796 lb/hr from unit 2 (with

no emissions from unit 1)was protective ofthe NAAQS (design value of189.1 ug/m 3 at 100 percent load). However, emitting 2,796 lb/hr from unit 1 (withno emissions from unit 2) led to modeled violations at 100 percent load (225.2 ug/m3). Due tothe slightly different stack parameters ofeach unit,

more emissions can be emitted through unit 2without leading to aviolation, compared to unit 1. Therefore, a combined emissions limit thatis emitted completely from unit 1is not protective ofthe NAAQS. For this reason,based onthe modeling analysis conducted by the EPA, we are not able to set a combined limit for the final remedy. (We discuss the separate question ofa combined limit for the interim limit in section VII.) The final rule contains individual final limits that are specific tounits 1 and 2.It is also clear fromthis simple analysis that any combined limitthat would stillbe protective ofthe NAAQS

across the full range ofoperating scenarios for units 1and 2 and would necessarily be more restrictive than the 81 percent reduction on each ofunits 1 and 2.There are some combinations of emissions from units 1 and 2which will be protective ofthe NAAQS and some that will not.The EPA is not able to model all possible combinations and then set a combined limit which is protective ofthe NAAQS in all cases. Should GenOn wish to have a higher limit at one ofthe units, in exchange for

a lower limit at the other, or seek a combined limitthat isprotective ofthe NAAQS in allcases, there is an opportunity to petition the EPA for additional rulemaking to adopt alternative emissions limits, although

we note that such rulemaking would require a notice and comment process. Further details are contained in section VII later. Comment:NJDEP recommended that the final rule should require a 95 percent reduction tobe phased in as

soon aspossible, in a time period shorter than 3years. In support ofthese recommendations, NJDEP also noted that power plants in New Jersey will be required to achieve an emission rate of 0.150 lb/mmBtu by December 15, 2012, and that two facilities inNew Jersey are already meeting this level.

Response:We note that section 126 does not give the Administrator discretion to establish emission limitations beyond the emission reduction necessary to eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS in NewJersey. Sections IV andV discuss comments on the appropriate air quality models, and modeling assumptions, data and results, andtheir effect on the choice ofthe specific limits for Portland units 1 and 2. Comment:The EPAreceived

numerous comments generally noting the adverse health and environmental effects ofSO2 emissions and urging significant emission reductions ofSO2 from Portland, providing examples of the beneficial effects that would occur by reducing SO2 emissions and, for these reasons, urging significant reductions. Response:The EPArecognizes that there are potentially adverse health impacts from breathing SO2particularly for people who have respiratory illnesses, heart, or lung disease, older adults and children, and that SO2is a precursor to acid rain formation and fine sulfate particle formation that can also pose adverse health effects. These effects are taken into account in establishing the SO2NAAQS, andneed
not be revisited in this action. Therefore, this rule is directed at eliminating Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1- hour SO 2NAAQS inthe affected areas ofNewJersey. Elsewhere inthis section,

we explain how we are using modeling
to assure that we are establishing a remedy that eliminates significant contribution and results in emissions limits that are protective ofthe NAAQS.

D. The Final Remedy Limit
The EPA modeled a scenario using allowable emissions from Portland with 1year ofsite-specific meteorological data. The maximum modeled 1-hour SO 2 design value in NewJersey was 855.4 ug/m 3

. Thisincluded a contribution from Portland units 1and 2of815.0 ug/m3, a monitored background concentration of 39.3 ug/

M 3

,plus a contribution of1.1 ug/m 3
from Portland unit 5. The final compliance emission limits mustbe set at a level that eliminates allviolations ofthe 1-hour SO 2NAAQS in New Jersey. Therefore, all modeled receptors must be below the level ofthe NAAQS (196.2 ug/m3). The contribution from Portland canbe reduced by reducingthe S02 emissions from the Portland stacks, but the background concentrations
cannotbe reduced (theyare held constant). Since the contribution from unit 5is only 0.1 percent ofthe total contribution, a reduction in the unit 5 contribution would provide a negligible reduction tothe modeled design value. Therefore, it canbe assumed that unit 5emissions do not need to be reduced, andthe unit 5concentration is added to the irreducible background value. The final compliance emission limit for the final rule is calculated as follows: ((Total modeled concentration)- (NAAQS-background))/(total modeled concentration).This formula will produce thepercentage bywhich Portland must reduce its emissions from allowables in order to achieve compliance with the NAAQS in New Jersey. Thus, the actual calculation of Portland's contribution to nonattainment in NewJersey is ((814.9)

- (196.2-40.4))/814.9, where 40.4 represents the contributions from 

### 69065

### 69066 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

monitored background and unit 5.This results in a reduction of80.9 percent of allowable emissions from Portland units 1and 2, which we round to 81 percent. In this calculation, only the contribution from units 1and 2is included in the total modeled contribution.

Therefore, we are finalizing an emissions limitbased on an 81 percent reduction in allowable emissions atboth units 1 and 2.This leads to afinal S02 emissions limit for unit 1of 1,105 lb/hr (allowable emissions rate of5,820 lb/ hr*0.19 [an 81 percent reduction]) and

afinal S02 emissions limitfor unit 2of 1,691 lb/hr (allowable emissions rate of 8900 lb/hr*0.19 [an 81 percent reduction]), which are the same asthe proposed limits.

As discussed earlier inresponse to a comment, to account for operation at less than 100 percent load and/or changes in stackparameters, the EPA is also setting a lb/mmBtu emissions limit for units 1 and 2in the final remedy. To determine the level, we calculated the lb/mmBtu value as the emissions rate that equates to the lb/hr limits forunit 1and 2when operating at full load. That is, for unit 1the lb/mmBtu limitis calculated as the lb/hour limit of1,105 lb/hour divided by the heat input capacity of 1,657.2 mmBtu/hr, which equates to 0.67 lb/mmBtu. For unit 2, the lb/hour limit of1,691 lb/hour is dividedby the heat input capacity 20 of 2511.6 mmBtu/hr also results in 0.67 lb/ mmBtu.

Compliance with the 0.67 lb/mmBtu limitation is determined on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average basis. A "rolling" average means that a new 30- day average can be determined on any day ofoperation. Similarto the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, the EPA clarifies that only the hours on "boiler operating days" are included in the averaging, and the 30-day averaging "zero values" from non-operating days

are not included. We use the same definition of"boiler operating day" as for the proposed MATS; thatis, a 24- hour period between midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel iscombusted in the units. The EPA recognizes that a 30-day averaging period for the lb/mmBtu limitation incorporates some variability, and that there willbe hourly periods that exceed the 30-day average.

The EPA does notbelieve that these higher hourly values would lead to exceedances ofthe NAAQS for a number ofreasons. First, at full or nearfull load, compliance with the lb/hour

20Heatinput capacities were from the Title V
Permit No. 48-0006. limit will ensure emissions rates at or

near 0.67 lb/mmBtu. Second, at significantly lower loads, Portland units 1 and 2could emit at emissions rates somewhat greater than 0.67 lb/mmBtu and still meet the NAAQS. Accordingly,

some variability within the 30-day averaging is accommodated, although the EPA expects the variability will be relatively small. For example, during 2010 the emission rate forPortland varied by only about 15 percent.

As a final check onthe remedy, EPA

ran AERMOD again withthe above emissions limits on the Portland Plant's units 1and 2 (and current allowable emissions from unit 5). At these emissions levels, all receptors in New Jersey had concentrations below the 1- hour SO2NAAQS. The maximum modeled 99th percentile (4th-highest) daily maximum 1-hour SO 2 concentration was 193.7 ug/m 3 (including a monitored background concentration of 39.3 ug/m 3).

E.ComplianceSchedulefortheFinal Remedy Limit
Section 126(c) initially makes it unlawful for any major existing source to operate more than 3months after a section 126 finding hasbeen made with respect to it;yet also gives the Administrator authority to permit continued operation under certain conditions. Specifically, the statute provides thatthe Administrator "may permit the continued operation" of such

a source beyond the end ofthe 3month period "ifsuch source complies with such emission limitations and compliance schedules (including increments ofprogress) 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 3years after the date of suchfinding." 72 U.S.C. 7426(c).

Section 126, however, does not give the Administrator unlimited discretion when establishing emission limitations and compliance schedules. Instead, the
statute provides thatthe 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 ofthe finding.The

use ofthe 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 oftime needed to implement any given compliance option depends on the particular compliance option to be implemented. Furthermore, the EPA recognizes that in some instances a

source may choose to cease operation as its method ofcompliance. In the proposed rule, the EPA requested
comment on the meaning ofas "expeditious aspracticable" in this
context.
1.Proposed Compliance Schedule

The EPAproposed to allow continued operation ofPortlandbeyond 3months provided that the facility operates in compliance with final emission limits within 3years and with interim emission limits and procedural increments ofprogress. In this section

we discuss ourresponse to comments

onthe appropriateness ofa 3-year deadline for the final limits (Seesection VI.A. below for further discussion of interim limits and other increments of progress).

2.Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

In the proposal, the EPArecognized both that the statute requires that any compliance schedule ensure compliance "as expeditiously as practicable" and also that, while the statute directs the EPA to establish emission limits and compliance schedules, itdoes not foreclose the EPA from allowing the

source to select a compliance option.In the proposal, the EPA notedits desire to seek abalance between the statutory requirement ofcompliance "as expeditiously as practicable" and the goal ofensuring thatthe regulation does
not unnecessarily limitthe options available to the source to achieve compliance within the statutorily mandated time period. The EPA did not receive any comments specifically challenging the EPA's balanced approach to interpreting the statutory language. Accordingly, the EPA's final remedy in this rulemaking hasbeen developed consistent with these goals.

Comment:The EPAreceived a general
comment comparing the "as expeditiously as practicable" language in section 126 to our interpretation of that language in the MATS rule. The
commenter suggests thatwe should always interpret "as expeditiously as practicable" to mean 3years.

Response:While the EPA is permitting 3years in this case, the commenter's interpretation is inconsistent with the language of section 126because, by saying "in no

case later than 3years," the statute contemplates that compliance might be required sooner than 3years.

The EPA also received anumber of specific comments on technical feasibility issues and other issues

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

related to the 3-year compliance period for the final remedy. A number of
commenters believed that a 3-year period was too generous and that Portland units 1 and 2 should achieve needed emissions reductions in a shorter time period. Other commenters questioned the feasibility ofmeeting the limits within 3years and recommended that the EPA should harmonize the requirements ofthis rule with those of other rules regulating electric generating units (EGUs). The following sections discuss EPA's responses to the
comments in each ofthese issue categories.

a. Technical Feasibility

Comment:Several commenters objected to the 3-year compliance period and recommend an abbreviated compliance schedule or a schedule that requires compliance with the final limits in less than ayear. Some
commenters believed thattechnologies necessary to achieve the emission reductions couldbe installed and operating within 1year (for example, dry sorbent injection orDSI) or 2years (dry scrubbing). Others cited the availability ofvery low sulfur coal, such

as sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming, asserting that emission reductions could be achieved in a shorter time period than 3years. Another commenter noted that the Keystone Generating Plant located in Pennsylvania installed a scrubber within 3years, and reduced SO2 emissions by 98 percent. One
commenter cited the EPA estimates ofa 24-27 month time period for dry and
wet scrubbing, and recommended that

we replace the 3-year requirement with

atime period consistent with those estimates. Other commenters, including GenOn, were concerned that the proposed final limits could not be achieved within 3years.

Response:We believe that 3years represents an expeditious schedule for GenOn to meet the emissions limits for this rule. While we are notmandating any particular control technology or approach, the EPAbelieves that GenOn would have a number ofpossible options, which may need to be used in combination, to evaluate for compliance with the rule. These options could include, among others: (1) Switching to very low sulfur coal as a number of facilities have undertaken as a result of the acid rain program and the Clean Air Interstate Rule, (2) switching to lower sulfur coal in combination with lowercapital cost technologies such as reagent injection ofTrona or sodium bicarbonate, and (3)continued use of higher-sulfur coal in combination with dry scrubbing or wet scrubbing.

While the first option, switching to very lower sulfur coal such as Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, may be

a possibility for Portland, the EPA notes that the type ofsub-bituminous coal that would be necessary to achieve the final remedy would have markedly different fuel and handling characteristics, necessitating changes not only inthe coal handling and preparation operations but also to the boilers. Publications 21 discussing examples of the design changes necessitated by switching from bituminous to PRB coal

are included in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPAbelieves that 3
years would be a reasonable timeperiod
to evaluate and accomplish all ofthe necessary operational changes.

The EPAbelieves the second option is available; that is, switching to somewhat lower-sulfur coal such as Central Appalachia coal (CAAP) to achieve

some ofthe needed reductions, with the remainder ofthe reductions achieved through areagent injection system achieving reductions of50-60 percent. For the proposed rule, the EPA requested comment on its view that such a reagent injection system couldbe built within 1year. The EPA agrees with
comments that observed that, in virtually all cases where such reagent injection systems have been installed, the facility has also included a fabric filter for particulate controls. Accordingly, the EPA agrees with
commenters that itwould take longer than 1year to accomplish any operational changes necessary to switch
to somewhat lower sulfur coal, to install and operate the reagent injection system, and toinstall afabric filter to replace or supplement the current particulate controls. Development ofa system that adequately controls SO 2 and maintains acceptable levels ofPM controls could likely not be achieved within a 1-year period, and most likely would take considerably longer. At the

same time, the EPA disagrees with
commenters who suggest that there are feasibility concerns for compliance within 3years, the maximum amount of time provided for compliance under section 126. There are three steps to

21See B. Exner, et a]., Successful NOx Reduction
and Conversion to Powder River Basin Fuel on Wall Fired Boilers, FosterWheeler (1996), available on the web at: http://www.fwc.com/publications/ techpapers/files/TPFIRSYS 96 01.pdf,and available atDocket 11) EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0081; R. Barnum, etal., Fuel-Handling Considerations When Switching to PBRCoals, Power (November/ December 2001), available on the web athttp:// www.prbcoals.com/pdf/PRBCoallnformation/PRBFuelHandling.pdf. and available atDocket 11)EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0081. carrying out this control option: (1) Operational changes related to changing the coal supply, including blending, (2) construction and operation ofthe reagent injection system, and (3) implementation ofany changes necessary to ensure continued effectiveness ofparticulate controls. However, as proposed, we believe the first two steps are achievable in 1year, but construction and operation ofa fabric filter is also necessary, and this step could take up to 2 additional years.

The third option, under which Portland would install a dry or wet scrubber, likely would achieve agreater degree ofcontrol than necessary to meet the lb/hr and lb/mmBtu limits inthis section 126 rule. The EPArecognizes that given investment decisions forthe suite ofregulations, including the Transport Rule, the present section 126 rule, and the upcoming MATS rule, Portland may choose to install these controls. Ifthis option were selected, the EPA continues to conclude that these scrubber controls could be installed within 3years. (Although such controls have been installed in 24-27 months, the EPAbelieves that itis reasonable toprovide the full 3years to permit Portland the time needed to evaluate its options.) We note, however, that in the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) which was usedto evaluate the impacts ofthe Transport Rule, we did
not forecast dry or wet scrubbing as the least-cost option for compliance for the Portland facility. Rather, the IPM predicted a switch to lower-sulfur bituminous coal in combination with reagent injection. IPM model results are available in the Transport Rule docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4440 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetai;D=EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0491-4440), and on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/ transpot .html.

b. Continued Operation ofFacility in the Interim Period
Comment:The NJDEP commented that ifsignificant reductions cannot be made expeditiously, Portland should
not be allowed to operate, and thatthe burden to justify any operation beyond 90 days should be on the Portland facility owners and operators.

Response:The EPA disagrees with the commenter's recommendation that Portland be required to shut down pending implementation of emissions controls. Under section 126 ofthe CAA, the statute permits the continued operation ifthe source complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules established by the 

### 69067

### 69068 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

Administrator. The EPA isincluding emissions limits and compliance schedules in this rule sufficient to expeditiously eliminate Portland's signification contribution. The EPA does notbelieve thatthe statute mandates that the source cease operation at the 90-day milestone under these circumstances. The statute's explicit recognition thatthe compliance schedules mustbe "practicable" suggests thatitis reasonable for the Administrator to permit continued operation consistent with such compliance schedules and emissions limitations.

c. Harmonization With Other Requirements
Comment:Some commenters urged the EPA to defer action on the section 126 petition to enable the EPA to harmonize the schedule and requirements for this rule with requirements ofother pending and final rules. Those commenters believed that harmonization with these rules, including the MATS rule andthe Transport Rule, would enable GenOn greater opportunity for fully informed investment decisions that take into accountall ofthe applicable regulations.

Response:The EPA is sensitive to the desirability and advantages of harmonized regulatory requirements. We understand thatPortland's actions
to address its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2NAAQS

are occurring in relatively close proximity to actions it may take to address its contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS under the recently-finalized Transport Rule, as well as actions itmay needto take to address its emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants under the forthcoming MATS rule. We recognize the value for GenOn in having the abilityto make informed investment decisions that optimize strategies for addressing these pollutants concurrently.

The EPA notes that,in contrast to when this rule was initially proposed, the final requirements of the Transport Rule are nowknown. Pennsylvania is

one ofthe states whose facilities are subject to the Transport Rule which establishes an emissions budget for Pennsylvania, allocates allowances to facilities in Pennsylvania, including Portland, and allows Portland's owners to trade those allowances with other
power plants through an allowance trading market. Portland allowances for 2012 and 2014 are listed in a technical support document to the final Transport Rule located at http://epa.gov! airtransport/pdfs/UnitLeveAlloc.pdf. There are, however, a number of differences between this rule addressing section 126 ofthe CAA and the requirements ofthe Transport Rule. First, in addressing NJDEP's section 126 petition related to ambient 1-hour SO 2, the EPA must ensure that the S02 emissions from Portland do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour ambient SO2 standard of75 ppb, a relatively localized pollutant source-oriented, in NewJersey. In contrast, the Transport Rule addresses SO 2 emissions in the
context ofdownwind PM2.5 problems, a highly transported pollutant, in many states. As a result, this section 126 rule does not provide for emissions trading with other facilities, while the Transport Rule does allow for such trading. Second, the schedule for the Transport Rule is somewhat different from this rule. Under the TransportRule, Portland
must show for 2012 (that is the calendar year January through December) and subsequent years that itholds allowances sufficient to cover its annual emissions. These requirements for 2012 precede the requirements for this section 126 rule, which requires the

source to meet interim emissions limits within 1year (early 2013) with 3-year requirements taking effect in early 2015. Notwithstanding these differences, which stem from the different CAA requirements being addressed, we believe that with the finalization ofthis rule, Portland has the information it needs tomake an informed decision on how to comply with both rules.

At this time, the MATS rule isnot final. The EPA has proposed the MATS rule and is under a consent decree deadline to complete thatrule by December 16, 2011. The proposed MATS rule contained proposed requirements for hazardous air pollutants, including existing sources of acid gases (e.g.,hydrogen chloride). The MATS rule does not directly regulate SO 2but in the proposal the EPA provided its assessment that the acid gas requirements ofthe proposed MATS would have substantial SO2 co-benefits. While the date ofthis section 126 rule does not exactly coincide with the date for the final MATS, these two rules are expected totake effect within a short time ofeach other. Accordingly, the EPAbelieves that GenOn will havethe information itneeds to make an informed decision on how to meetboth this final rule and the MATS.

Even ifthe schedules did not coincide

so closely, the EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to defer action on NJDEP's section 126 petition to achieve suchharmonization. The EPA is required bythe CAA to take action on NJDEP's petition within 60 days (plus a 6 month administrative extension granted in this case), and this time period has already passed. We could not delay lawfully this rulemaking by any significant time period to coincide with the date for the final MATS rule. The EPA also notes that fullharmonization is limited by statutory constraints. While there is some flexibility within section 112 ofthe CAA to provide for

a4-year compliance period under certain circumstances, this flexibility is
not afforded under section 126. Under section 126, the EPA cannot alter the statutory requirement that the source eliminate its significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance within 3years ofthe section 126(b) finding. Notwithstanding these constraints, as previously noted,

our expectation is thatrequirements for MATS, like those ofthe Transport Rule, will be known in time to allow for consideration ofintegrated strategies for compliance with MATS, the Transport Rule, and the present section 126 action.

The Final Rule

Based on the above considerations,

we are retaining the 3-year compliance date for the final limit. Adopting a substantially shorter time frame than 3
years could not only restrictthe options for Portland to achieve the necessary reductions, but could render each of them impracticable within thattime frame. Because shorter time frames have the effect ofnarrowing the available options, we are retaining the 3-year compliance date for the final limit.

F. OtherConsiderations forEstablishing theFinalRemedy

1.Economic Feasibility

Comment:Several commenters stated that the importance ofthe Portland facility to the local economy should be taken into account, andthat we should
not take an action that causes operations
atPortland units 1 and 2to be no longer economically viable. These commenters contend that there are limits to the costs the facility can withstand and remain in operation, and thatthe facility should be allowed tomeet interim and final limits in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. Commenters expressed concerns regarding the practicality ofexpending high costs on scrubber installation considering the size and age ofthe units at Portland, and questioned the feasibility ofreplacing

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

Portland units 1 and 2with comparable combined-cycle natural gas-fired units.

Response:The EPA stresses that in carrying out the statutory obligation to address the S02 exceedances caused by the Portland facility,we are doing so in

away thatmeets those obligations but is not overly prescriptive. We allow the facility owners to choose the most costeffective solution. While there are many factors, some completely unrelated to this rule, which may impact the longterm operation ofthe facility,the EPA is striving toprovide opportunities for flexible solutions to address section 126 ofthe CAA. In particular, the rule does
not mandate, nor do we expect, the Portland owners and operators to install high capital-cost options suggested by commenters, such as wet scrubbing or replacement with combined-cycle natural gas units (althoughthe rule also does not rule them out as options). The

source would more likely choose the control technology best suited to achieving therequired emission limits, including the most cost-effective technology for the facility.It is also useful to note that inthe EPA's IPM modeling ofthe effects ofthe Transport Rule over a wide region, the model predicted that less than 0.5 percent of capacity would be lost as aresult ofthe rule. While these models are less reliable in assessing plant-specific conditions, the EPAbelieves that the general indication ofminimal capacity loss, together with the availability of less capital-intensive control options, suggest thatPortland can achieve the needed reductions without substantially affecting the economic viability ofthe plant.

2.Requirement for Continuous Monitoring
Comment:One commenter suggested that the EPA should add a requirement in the final rule to require Portland to operate CEMS for SO 2 emissions at the plant.

Response:The EPA acknowledges the importance ofCEMS to ensure compliance with emissions limits. However, GenOn is already required to operate CEMS to monitor SO 2 emissions
atPortland in accordance with requirements in 40 CFR part 75. Our regulations for monitoring S02 emissions from power plants with CEMS require the owner or operator to

ensure that all CEMS are in operation andmonitoring unitemissions at all times the affected unit combusts any fuel. Regulations in part 75 provide limited exceptions during periods of calibration, quality assurance, or preventative maintenance, but do not provide any exemptions for startup, shutdown, or malfunction ofthe combustion unit. The EPA concludes that the CEMS already required for Portland under part 75provide sufficient monitoring for compliance determinations for S02 emissions at Portland, and for the final rule we refer
to part 75 as the primary method for determining compliance.

3.Delegation ofEnforcement

Comment:One commenter suggested enforcement of any emissions limits or other restrictions on Portland related to this section 126 action shouldbe delegated to the NJDEP as NewJersey is the downwind receptor ofemissions from Portland.

Response:Ensuring thatthe Portland facility complies withthe requirements ofthe CAA including the provisions of this final rule isthe responsibility ofthe EPA. It will ultimatelybecome thejoint responsibility ofthe EPA and ofthe Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), because PADEP hasprimary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Pennsylvania SIP. The EPA notes that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires Pennsylvania's SIP to "ensure compliance with the applicable requirements ofsection 7426 * * * ofthis title" (i.e., section 126 of the CAA). Because these requirements
must become part ofthe SIP for Pennsylvania, they will be subject to enforcement in the same manner as any other requirement ofa SIP. This includes the ability ofthird parties to raise challenges under the citizen suit provisions of section 304 ofthe CAA. Thus, New Jersey and its citizens will have ample opportunity for enforcement under these provisions of the statute.
VI. Increments ofProgress

This section discusses issues concerning whether and how EPA should establish appropriate increments ofprogress toward the final remedy. The
statute does not define "increments of progress." The EPA has discretion to define appropriate increments of progress on a case-by-case basis. The increments ofprogress required in a particular case may vary depending on the facts ofthepetition but should provide incremental progress towards eventual compliance withthe requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section VI.A discusses interim emission limits, and section VI.B discusses reporting milestones during the 3-year period for the final remedy.

A. InterimEmissionLimits

As noted previously, section 126 allows the EPA to allow continued operation ofa source beyond a 3-month time period ifthe source complies with "emissions limitations and compliance schedules (includingincrements of progress). In this section we discuss issues related to whether the increments ofprogress should include interim emissions limits and the final rule requirements for progress milestones andreports.

1.What the EPA Proposed

The EPAproposed interim emission limits for Portland units 1and 2. Specifically, the EPA proposed to require Portland to meet an SO2 emissions limit of2,910 lb/hrfor unit 1 and4,450 lb/hr for unit 2within 1year. These unit-specific emission limits represented 50 percent ofthe allowable emissions rate for each unit that was used for the EPA air quality modeling. The EPAproposed these interim reduction requirements because section 126 calls for "increments ofprogress," andbecause we believed thatthere were readily achievable interim steps that could be accomplished in this instance. In the proposal, the EPA discussed its evaluation of available SO 2 emission reduction options for meeting the interim emissions limits such as reagent injection, switching to lower sulfur coal and load shifting. The EPA requested
comment on the proposed interim reduction requirements for units 1and 2,on the achievability ofthe limits in the 1-year time period proposed, and on the impact ofthe reductions on the reliability ofthe grid.

2.Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

a. Appropriateness ofIncluding Interim Emissions Limits

Comment:One commenter, GenOn, asserted that the EPA should not establish interim limits because those interim requirements may be inconsistent with therequirements of the Transport Rule or MATS requirements. Moreover, the same commenter believed thatbecause the EPA has discretion not to impose interim emissions limits under section 126(c), andbecause ofthis need for long-term harmonization with the Transport Rule, MATS and other requirements, the EPA is notjustified in imposing the interim emissions limitations.

Response:The EPA disagrees with
comments that the EPA should exercise discretion provided by section 126 and

remove the interim emissions limits from the final rule. As noted later in this section in our discussion ofother GenOn comments, webelieve thatthere 

### 69069

### 69070 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

are readily available measures for Portland to make significant progress in the short term thatin no way impede or conflict with achievement ofthe 3-year limits. Additionally, based on our assessment ofthe steps necessary to achieve these limits, implementation of these interim measures would complement, rather than conflict with, the measures needed for meeting this rule as well as the Transport Rule and MATS.

b. Technical Feasibility ofCoal Switching

Comment:In its comments, GenOn recommended that, should the EPA retain the interim emissions limitations, the EPA should defer them until GenOn

canundertake necessary coal test burns
to determine what limits are reliably achievable. GenOn comments further statedthat itmay be able to meet interim emissions limits ifareasonable time table and level is setbased upon coal testburn results, but that afull evaluation ofthe practicality ofinterim limits was not possible by the June 13, 2011, deadline for public comments. GenOn indicated its intentto conduct initial coal testing by September 15, 2011. Finally, toprovide GenOn with greater flexibility, GenOn requested that the EPArevise the form ofany interim limits for Portland units 1and 2; that is, the EPA should establish the limits as combined emissions limits for the total emissions from units 1and 2rather than establishing limits that would apply to each unit.

Subsequent tothe close ofthe
comment period, GenOn submitted a report ofthe September 15, 2011, test burn referred to in its comments. For the final rule, the EPA tookthis test burn report into consideration. In the test burn, Portland blended its existing Northern Appalachia coal supply with varying amounts oflow sulfur Central Appalachia coal from West Virginia. For each unit, the test burn assessed the impacts ofvarying blending cases on the unit's generator output, the reduction in
S02 emissions, and the effect on the performance ofthe electrostatic precipitators. The test burn report also noted facility changes in coal handling, feeder, and hopper systems that would be needed to allow forroutine use and blending with lower sulfur coal in the future.

In its comments, and in the later test burn report, GenOn commented that, based oninitial evaluations ofthe coals economically available tobe used to meet the proposed interim emission limits, the use oflower sulfur coal is projected to cause significant production derates at Portland units 1 and 2.That is, GenOn asserted thatthe total megawatts (MW)ofelectricity output from the plant would decrease if GenOn were to use a lower sulfur coal blend sufficient to meet the interim limits.

Response:The EPA considered the
test burn report along with other information relevant tothe establishment of an interim limit. We continue to stronglybelieve that significant reductions in SO2 emissions

can be achieved within 1year.We do
not disagree that, aside from areduction in electrical output, the use oflower sulfur coal may indeedbe the only viable option to meet interim limits at Portland. The EPA, however, remains convinced thatlower sulfur Appalachian coals are readily available for use at Portland. This opinion is supported by recent Central Appalachian thermal coal quality and production data from Wood Mackenzie, published in April 2011. According to Wood Mackenzie data, Central Appalachian production ofthermal coal in 2010:

* Had a mean S02 content ofabout 1.5 lb/mmBtu, which could allow a significant SO 2 emission reduction from
current coal usage, with ample margin
to accommodate typical coal quality variations;

* Had a mean higher heating value of nearly 12,600 Btu/lb, which islikely well within 10 percent ofthe heating value currently used at Portland; and

* Amounted to about 130 million tons, including amounts that are about 50 times any possible maximum annual demand for low sulfur coal from Portland.

The EPA is aware that changes in the characteristics ofthe coal (moisture content, ash content, grindability, etc.) used at Portland could change the performance ofthe Portland units. Although GenOn indicates that equipment modifications wouldbe
necessary to maintain the use of100 percent CAAP coal for a sustained period oftime, the EPA notes that during the testburn with 100percent CAAP coal, the generator output forunit 1isrelatively close to rated capacity (162 versus 171 MW, approximately 5percent). Also the EPA notes that itis
not unusual for installation ofair pollution controls to result in a modest de-rate, and the EPA does not believe that maintenance of 100 percent of
current output shouldbe seen as a constraint on the appropriateness ofthe interim limits. In addition, the test burn report, which evaluated one particular coal supply, is silent on the availability ofa potentially more costlyCentral Appalachia coal that would allow each Portland unit to maintain closer to full load, and what boiler upgrades are necessary toimprove generator output. The EPA is also aware ofproven

measures that the EPAbelieves canbe applied relatively quickly to enhance PM control at Portland ifneeded dueto coal switching, so as to meet anew, lower interim SO 2 emission limit while continuing tomeet all other existing emissions limits. Two such measures include various upgrades to Portland's electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or

use offlue gas conditioning, both of which have been routinely used by coal plant operators to improve ormaintain ESP performance when switching to a lower sulfur coal thatmight impact performance.

The EPA has reviewed the information from GenOn on the possible equipment changes, and has also reviewed ourprevious determinations ofthe time needed to accomplish those changes. The EPA's engineering judgment isthat these changes can be accomplished within 1year.

c. Interim Limits Suggested by the GenOn Test Burn Report
Comment:Based on the results ofthe
test burn report, GenOn concluded that (1) Sustained unit operations using a blend ofNorthern and Central Appalachia coals sufficient to achieve a 25 percent reduction in allowable SO2 emissions is achievable with a modest investment and an implementation schedule of6 months, and (2) sustained unit operations using ablend of Northern and Central Appalachia coals
to achieve a 35 percent reduction in allowable SO 2 emissions should be achievable with additional investments and an implementation schedule of8 to 12 months after GenOn has established

an operational record and completed equipment performance evaluations at the 25 percent reduction blend level, and any necessary permits are acquired.

Response:The EPA evaluated the suggested interim reductions in the GenOn testburn report. The EPA concluded thatbased upon this evaluation, these targets are significant underestimates ofthe readily available interim emissions reductions, represent very minimal reductions from current operations, and are inconsistent with the results ofthe testburn.

Figure VI.C-1 shows the hourly SO2 emissions for all of2010 atPortland, shown as the sum ofemissions from units 1 and 2.For the EPA (and GenOn's) air quality analysis, the assumed allowable emissions rates for units 1 and 2were 5,820 lb/hr and 8,900 lb/hr, respectively, resulting in atotal allowable rate of 14,720lb/hour. A 25

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

percent reduction from this amount, that is a 25 percent reduction from
current allowable, thus becomes 11,040 lb/hr. As shown in Figure VI.C-1, during 2010, Portland's hourly emissions exceeded 75 percent of allowable emissions only rarely. Accordingly, a 25 percent reduction in allowable emissions effectively represents status quo operations. A 35 percent reduction in allowable emissions, or 9,568 lb/hr, would require atmost a roughly 15 percent reduction in current emissions. EPA continues to believe that the facility can make much

more significant reductions in line with the final interim limits within ayear.



## FigureVI.C-1. Comparison of2010 Emissions fromPortlandUnits 1and2 with Allowable

Emissions andDifferent Levels ofReduction fromAllowable Emissions.

Portland Unit 1 & 2 2010 Hourly S02 emissions

15,000 ---- ---

14,000

13,000

12.000

11,000 4&

113 010 2/19t2010 6V2t2010 6127t2010 7115/2010 89f2010 826/2010 9i8t2010 9123t2010 10/252010 11t21fl010 121182010

-Hourly S02 emissions -WCURRENT ALLOWABLES -A-25% Reduction (GenOn)

-+-35% Reduction (Genn) -*-Proposed Interim Limit -Interim Limitin Final Rule

d. Load Shifting

Comment:GenOn commented on the EPA's assessment thatthe proposed interim limits couldbe metvia "load shifting." GenOn disagreed with the EPA's assessment that load shifting is a viable option to meet an interim limit. In its comments, GenOn interpreted the
term "load shifting" as referring to the ability ofa utility to continue to serve its customer load obligations by reducing utilization or "load" from a selected generator and increasing the output at other facilities owned by the

same utility: The load is "shifted" to other generators that the company operates. Because GenOn's Portland plant is a merchant plant that operates in a competitive, centrally cleared and dispatched, Independent System Operator (ISO)market, GenOn noted that replacement energy likely would

come from one ofGenOn's competitors, and it ispossible that Portland's production would be "shifted" to a less efficient unitthat might have higher emissions than Portlandunits 1 and 2. Additionally, as a "capacity resource owner," GenOn isrequired under the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM) tariffto bid the Portland units into the PJM energy market every day and make the units available to generate unless specific circumstances, such as a unit outage, arise that precludes operation ofthe plant.

Response:The EPA agrees thatthe proposed rule could have used a clearer
term than "load shifting" in describing the possible ways the interim emissions limits couldbe met.The EPA appreciates the distinction that GenOn makes in regard to load shifting within

autility's own assets versus load shifting in a competitive market. The EPA did not mean to imply inits brief mention ofload shifting that we reached

a conclusion that GenOn would merely shift any loadreduction atPortland to another GenOn facility. Rather, our use ofthe imprecise term "load shifting"

was referring to the ability ofPortland
to reduce its operation as away tomeet the interimlb/hr limits, or as apartial solution tomeet the limits in combination with other approaches. The EPA recognizes the open market aspects ofthe PJM energy market including the probability that the load can shift to other operators. These market realities

are characterized in detail in the models

we use to forecast the effect ofEGU regulations on the utility industry. In
response to Portland's observation that 

### 6907169072 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

the facility that replaces Portland's output could be higher-emitting, the EPA observes that while its output would likely be more expensive than Portland's energy, there is a good possibility that the energy would be replaced with a scrubber or a gas-fired unit, either ofwhich could have much lower emission ratesthan Portland, given the relatively high emission rate from Portland. As an olderrelatively uncontrolled plant, much ofthe generation capacity would be expected
to emit less per unit ofgeneration than the Portland facility.

e. One-Year Time Period

Comment:One commenter, NJDEP, believed thatthe 1-year period allowed for too much time for the Portland facility to meet interim emissions limits, andthat the interim limits were insufficiently stringent. NJDEP in their
comments urged the EPA to ensure that

we require interim reductions no less than 80 percent within 90 days.

Response:The EPA disagrees with this comment. An 80 percent reduction would represent nearly the 81 percent reduction required by the 3-year limits in the final rule. As discussed in section VI.A above, we believe that the 3-year period is an "expeditious" schedule for emissions reductions ofthismagnitude, andthat this level ofreduction would
not be achievable in a 90-day time period. Comment:Another commenter, PADEP, noted that ifthe proposed 50 percent reduction in the maximum allowable SO2 emissions can onlybe achieved by the installation of sorbent injection technology, the 1-year deadline for complying with the interim limit does not provide sufficient time for permitting, purchasing, and installing the technology. Therefore, in lieu ofsetting specific interim emission limits and deadlines, PADEP recommended thatthe EPA work with NJDEP, GenOn, and PADEP, as the permitting agency, to establish emission interim emission limits and compliance schedules containing increments of
progress consistent with CAA section 126(c).

Response:The EPAbelieves that this approach would not be consistent with the statute. Under section 126, the Administrator is to set the emission limits and compliance schedules, and
must accomplish these through a notice and comment rulemaking. While we have considered the comments ofall the parties noted bythe commenter, it would not be appropriate for the EPA to defer the compliance schedules to a future negotiation with the source

owner and states. On the other hand, as discussed previously in section V.E, the EPA does
agree with the commenter, and with others who made similar observations, that reagent injection may not be achievable within 1year because Portland may need to upgrade its particulate matter collection equipment. Accordingly, we no longer believe that reagent injection alone serves as a technical basis for the interim emissions reduction requirements in the final rule. Nevertheless, after analyzing the
comments regarding the feasibility of switching to cleaner coal and the necessary time frame for doing so, we do believe that this is an appropriate basis for the interimlimit. Thus, the EPA has determined that itisfeasible for Portland to achieve interim reductions within 1year that would achieve significant progress toward the final remedy limits, would not interfere with Portland's progress toward meeting those final limits, and would result in important public health benefits in the interim.

f.Effect ofInterim Limits on Reliability
Comment:In response to the EPA's request for comments on the effects of the interim limits on electric reliability,

one commenter noted thatPortland is uniquely situated to supply power to the PJM power interconnection from a location close to the source ofdemand, that power transmissions coming from the Midwest are hampered by long distance transmission losses, and that transmission lines are already approaching overload. Another commenter, NJDEP, indicated thatthe 400 MW generated by the plant is relatively small compared to PJM's
current total capacity of 163,500 MW. NJDEP also concluded that itis unlikely that these units would be needed to prevent brownouts orblackouts, but that in the unlikely event thatthese units are necessary, the EPA could include a condition thatthe units may only be run when called on byPJM toprovide
power during a Maximum Emergency Generation Event.

Response:The EPA agrees that given large reserve margins, we do not expect that the interim limit will cause adverse effects onelectricity reliability. The EPA
notes thatthe testburn reports cited above show that at worst, in meeting the interim limits the facility wouldbe projected to continue operating under a small derate, and given the significant

reserve margin notedby the commenters, continued operation of Portland at an occasionally lower rate would not be expected to have an adverse effect on the PJM system's ability to deliver needed power. Consequently, the EPA does not believe it is necessary to make any provision for

use ofPortland to address potential emergency events.

g. Clear Rationale for Limits
Comment:One commenter, PADEP, noted its viewthat while section 126 expressly provides for increments of progress, there is no provision in the CAA to suggest that a 50-percent reduction mustbe made within 1year ofa finding. Without the EPA fully explaining the rationale for these proposed interim emission reductions andtimelines, this commenter believed the EPA's interim requirements couldbe viewed as arbitrary and capricious.

Response:EPA has discretion under section 126 to establish reasonable interim emissions controls. For reasons discussed above, the EPA has a clear rationale for the interim emissions limits in the final rule. These limits are based upon the ready availability ofcoal with a sulfur content of 1.5 lb/mmBtu. We have reviewed the data on existing coal supplies, carefully reviewed information on available technologies, and established the interim limits based
upon that review.

h. Combined Emission Limits
Comment:GenOn requested in its
comments that any interim emissions limits for Portland units 1and 2 should be expressed as a combined limit forthe
two units, rather than on a unit-by-unit basis.

Response:The EPA agrees with GenOn that for the interimlimits, a substantial "increment ofprogress" towards meeting the ultimate (inthis
case, 3-year) limitis achievable regardless ofwhether the emissions limit isexpressed as a combined limit

oron a unit-by-unit basis. Accordingly, for the final rule, we are adopting an interim limit that will be a single combined limit, rather than separate limits, for units 1 and 2.As with the 3-year limit, the EPA will evaluate compliance based on available test data including part 75 CEMS data. The EPA believes that the combined limit will provide GenOn with greater flexibility
to implement a variety ofcombinations ofoptions to satisfy the interim limit, which should in turn serve to reinforce the EPA'sview that there are readily available measures for Portland to employ in meeting the interim emissions reduction requirement.

The EPA notes that for the interim emissions reduction, unlike the 3-year limit, there isno explicit air quality goal defined by the Act.For the 3-year limit, it is essential thatthe limit ensure that Portland fully eliminates its significant

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

contribution to nonattainment and its interference with maintenance ofthe 

### 1-hour S02 NAAQS. For the interim reductions, however, the goal is to establish "increments ofprogress" towards meeting emissions limits that fully comply with section 126. Accordingly, for the 3-year limit, the EPA concluded itwas essential for the final rule to include lb/mmBtu limits to

ensure that the NAAQS were protected
at all loads. However the EPA determined that itwas notnecessary to include similar lb/mmBtu limits for the interim limits. We also determined that establishing lb/mmBtu limits in the interim might unnecessarily restrict Portland's flexibility in the interim, since the 1-year compliance deadline already constrains the available options
to meet such a limit.

3.Final Rule Interim Emission Limits

For the final rule, the EPA includes a combined interim limitof 6,253 lb/hour for the total S02 emissions from units 1 and 2.

The basis for the final limit differs from the proposed rule. For the proposal, the EPA calculated the unitby-unit proposed limits as 50 percent of the allowable emissions rate usedfor the EPA air quality modeling. We believe that for the final rule it is preferable to base these interim limits

on coal characteristics ofreadily available coal supplies. For the final rule, the combined interim limitis based onthe EPA's assessment that coal with sulfur content of 1.5 lb/mmBtu is readily available and its use at Portland is achievable within 1year. Using this 1.5 lb/mmBtu value as the basis for the calculation ofthe combined interim limit, we calculated 22 the limit as follows:
For Unit 1: 1657.2 mmBtu/hr x1.5 lb/mmBtu

= 2486 lb/hr For Unit 2: 2511.6 mmBtu/hr x1.5 lb/mmBtu

= 3767lb/hr Total combined emissionrate = 6253 lb/hr
We agree with the commenters who feel strongly thatthis interim limit is
very important to include in the final rule, not onlybecause it drives progress toward the final remedy,but also because ofthe air quality and public health benefits that will be realized in the interim. While the limit is not calculated based on specific air quality criteria, these readily available interim reductions will serve to markedly reduce the number ofdays with S02 violations in NewJersey, andwill serve to greatly reduce S02 concentrations on

22Heatinput capacities of 1657.2 and 2511.6 mmBtu/hr arethose listed in the titleVpermit for Portland units 1and 2. days withremaining violations. We do
not know what specific approach Portland will use to comply with the interim limit, so we cannot quantify the decrease in S02 concentrations at specific locations, but we donote that the interim limits will result in significant S02 emissions reductions within the firstyear andmake important
progress toward the elimination ofS02 violations within 3years. These limits represent a46-percent decrease from peak 2010 actual emissions. Moreover, the most significant reductions will

occur during the hours when the emissions are the highest. During 2010,

more than 40percent ofthe hours that Portland operated resulted in emissions that exceeded 6253 lb/hr. The interim limit will ensure that such high emissions during those times are eliminated.

B. IncrementsofProgress: Reporting Milestones

1.What the EPA Proposed

In addition tothe proposed 3-year and 1-year emissions limits, the EPA proposed aschedule ofmilestones 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.

Those proposed milestones were: 3-monthnotification: Within 3 months ofthe EPA's finding,the EPA proposed that GenOn notify the EPA whether itwill cease to operate within that period or whether itwill continue
to operate subject to the emission limitations and compliance schedules in the final rulemaking. IfPortland plans
to continue to operate subject to these limits, the EPAproposed to require Portland to indicate how it intends to achieve full compliance withthe emission limits. Specifically, we proposed that Portland mustindicate whether itintends to cease or reduce operation at any emission unit subject to emission limits as its method of compliance with such limits. Ifthis 3- month notice indicated that Portland intends to continue operation, the proposed rule required the remaining reporting requirements alsobe satisfied.

Modelingprotocolandanalysis: No later than 3months from the date ofthe section 126 finding, we proposed that GenOn submit tothe EPA a modeling protocol (including all units at Portland in the protocol), consistent with our Guideline on Air Quality Models. Ifthe EPA identified deficiencies inthe modeling protocol submittedby the
source, we proposed torequire Portland
to submit a revision to correct any deficiencies within 15business days. We proposed to require that Portland submita modeling analysis in accordance with the approved protocol within 6 months.

Statusreports:We proposed to require GenOn to submit,beginning 6 months after the section 126 finding and continuing every 6 months until the final compliance date, a progress report

onthe implementation ofthe remedy, including status of design,technology selection, development oftechnical specifications, awarding ofcontracts, construction, shakedown, and compliance demonstration.

Interimprojectreport:We proposed to require GenOn to submit within 1year

an interim project report demonstrating compliance with the 1-year limits.

Final projectreport:We proposed to require GenOn to submit, within 3 years, a final project report which demonstrates compliance with the emission limits in the final rulemaking. We proposed that thisfinal report include the date when full operation of controls was achieved at Portland after shakedown; as well as a minimum of 1 month ofCEMS data demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in the final rulemaking.

2.Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

One commenter, GenOn, objected to both the 90-day compliance plan and the periodic status reports. The
commenter believed thatrequiring a detailed plan 90 days after the final rule is unnecessarily restrictive, particularly given that GenOn will not have fully evaluated its compliance options under MATS. Similarly, GenOn believed that detailed status reports are notjustified and will limit GenOn's flexibility to revise its compliance strategy in
response to other state and federal regulations. Because the regulatory environment is fluid with further changes expected, GenOn expressed

concerns thatthe compliance plan and
status reports should not restrict GenOn's abilityto revise its strategy for compliance with section 126 as circumstances change.

One commenter believed that the schedule for a required modeling protocol within 3months was overly ambitious and suggested the owner and operator ofPortland should have atleast 6 months to submit a modeling protocol for Portland's SO2 emissions.

3.Final Rule Reporting Milestones

For the final rule, the EPA has amended the proposed requirement for GenOn to develop a compliance plan with an identified remedy with 90 days. 

### 69073

### 69074 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

The EPA agrees with GenOn thatit is
very possible that complete information
to inform this remedy maynot be available within 90 days ofthe rule's effective date. The EPA does, however, believe that in order to implement controls it isreasonable to assume that information necessary for a decision will be available within 12 months of the effective date, and accordingly we have retained the requirement but have postponed the deadline until 12 months after the effective date ofthe final rule. The EPA acknowledges the commenters' point thatthere are factors over time that could lead to a revised decision after the 12 month milestone. Even if suchfactors lead to a different eventual remedy, the EPAbelieves that itis nonetheless reasonable to require a status report on GenOn's intent at the 12 month point in order to ensure that planned actions for compliance with the requirements of section 126 are on track.

The EPA has also retained the requirements for 6 month status reports. We disagree with comments thatthese reports are notjustified. The status reports required by thisrule are warranted not onlybecause section 126 requires "increments ofprogress," but in addition the EPA believes these are necessary for the EPA and the states to monitor Portland's efforts to achieve compliance with the emission limits established in this rule. The status reports are not exhaustive, but will provide important information to the
agency andto the public to monitor Portland's progress towards the ultimate goal ofreducing its SO2 emissions and reducing its impact on NewJersey's compliance with the 1-hour S02 NAAQS.

We have also retained the requirement for the interim and final progress reports. For the final rule, we have extended the deadline forthe final project report by two months toprovide time for evaluation ofCEMS databefore submitting the report.

In the final rule, we have retained the requirement to submit a modeling protocol and modeling, but, after consideration ofthe timing concerns raised by commenters, we have amended the deadlines. For the final rule, the modeling protocol isrequired within 6 months ofthis rulemaking and the final modeling within 12 months. The revisions to the interim compliance schedule outlined in this section are all logical outgrowths ofthe compliance schedule originally proposed as they

were made in response to consideration ofthe comments received in response to that proposal. VII. Alternate Compliance Schedule and ConsiderationofPetition for Rulemaking forAlternative Emission Limits

In this section, we discuss two additional overarching issues on which

we sought comment inthe proposal. First we discuss our decision regarding the proposed consideration ofan alternative schedule based upon Portland's decision to meet its compliance obligations by electing to shut down unit 1orunit 2, or both.We then discuss the potential for additional rulemaking to accommodate alternative remedies from those established inthis rule.

A. Alternate ComplianceScheduleif the SourceOwnerOpts To Cease Operations

1.What the EPA Proposed

In the preamble tothe proposed rule, the EPA discussed why different remedies for meeting therequirements of section 126 may suggest different compliance schedules, 76 FR 19678. In particular, the EPA noted thatifGenOn decided to cease operation ofthe Portland facility, it ispossible that implementing such a remedy "as expeditiously aspracticable" may have different considerations than ifit decided to undertake a schedule of constructing and implementing control technologies. Consistent with this perceived possibility, the EPArequested
comment in the proposal on howto interpret thephrase "as expeditiously as practicable" when the source owner and operator has elected to cease operation

as its method ofcompliance with the emissions limitfor a given unit and cessation cannot occur within 3months ofthe EPA's finding. The EPA noted that ifappropriate based upon comments, the EPA would consider including in the final rule an alternate compliance schedule for this possibility, and the EPArequested comment on relevant factors that shouldbe considered were we to include such an alternate schedule.

2.Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

Comment:One commenter stated that ifthe facility elected to close, itmust be required to cease operation immediately, as there is no basis to allow the plant to continue to significantly contribute to nonattainment and interference with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in NewJersey. Another commenter suggested thatifPortland plansto cease operations ofthe coal burning units, shutdown should occur within 3 months ofthe EPA's final rule.

Response:The EPA notes that section 126(c) ofthe CAA allows the EPA to permit continued operation beyond 90 days ifthe source complies with emissions limitations and compliance schedules established by the Administrator. This language does not, however, mandate that any decision to

cease operation must occur in any particular time period when the source is otherwise complying with the required emission limits compliance schedules. The EPA disagrees with
commenters suggestion that any decision to shutdown must occur immediately or within 90 days. For the final rule, the EPA concludes that the final and interim emission limits and reporting milestones are sufficient for all selected remedies, including a remedy under which GenOn would choose to ultimately cease operation at

one or more units. The EPA has made this conclusion because compliance with the interim and final emission limits, regardless ofhowthe plant chooses to comply, results in the elimination ofPortland's significant contribution to the affected areas in New Jersey and demonstrates appropriate interim progress towards such elimination.

3.The Final Rule

The EPA has retained the approach in the proposed rule, and we have not included an alternative compliance schedule in the case that the selected remedy is to cease operation ofunit 1 and/orunit 2. The EPA did not receive any information in comments that leads the EPA to conclude that a different schedule is necessary.
B. ConsiderationofPetition for RulemakingforAlternativeEmission Limits

The EPAreceived comment from GenOn arguing that the unit-specific SO2 limits for unit 1 and for unit 2did
not provide GenOn with sufficient flexibility. Accordingly, GenOn recommended thatthe EPA change the form ofthe final emissions limits to a combined emissions limit forthe total emissions from units 1and 2.In this way, they asserted GenOn would be able
to evaluate abroader suite ofremedies which could possibly include remedies with equivalent air quality impacts at substantially reduced cost.

The EPA understands the source's request for operational flexibility, and

we considered the option suggested by GenOn. However, based on the modeling analysis conducted by the EPA, we are not able to set a combined

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

limit for the final remedy. The final rule contains individual final limits that are specific tounits 1 and 2. There are some combinations ofemissions from units 1 and 2which will be protective ofthe NAAQS and some that will not.Air quality modeling results indicated that there are many possible scenarios under which a combined limit, of similar stringency to the limits adopted, would lead to exceedances ofthe 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In particular, given the multiple possibilities ofavailable controls for the two units, there would be a large number ofpossible stack configurations with different dispersion characteristics. While the EPAperhaps could have developed a combined limit with sufficient stringency to ensure that all significant contribution and interference with maintenance would be eliminated under every possible combination ofcontrol options and stack configurations, the EPA does not believe that this approach would provide the flexibility thatGenOn is seeking because the combined limit would likely need to be much more stringent than the limits in the final rule.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the greater operating flexibility that an alternative set ofemission limits might offer, and we note that in some cases an appropriately constrained combined limit maybe possible to construct in a way thatis protective ofthe NAAQS (e.g., more stringent thanthe sum ofthe individual limits). Should GenOn wish
to have a higher limit at one ofthe units, in exchange for a lower limit atthe other, or seeka combined limitthatis protective ofthe NAAQS in all cases, the source may petition the EPA for additional rulemaking to adopt alternative emissions limits ifsuch petition demonstrates thatthe proposed alternative would eliminate all emissions at Portland that significantly contribute to nonattainment orinterfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in NewJersey by the 3-year deadline established in this rule. As part ofthe interim reporting requirements, the rule requires GenOn to submit a modeling analysis, pursuant to a modeling protocol thatitis consistent with the data and methods the EPA used to develop this rule, which shows that the final compliance remedy is protective ofthe NAAQS. IfGenOn chooses to submit such apetition, the EPA expects GenOn toprovide a demonstration, in the course of conducting the modeling analysis required bythe rule, that shows that a specific alternative set ofemissions limits for unit 1 and unit 2would also be protective ofthe 1-hour SO 2NAAQS in NewJersey. In order for the EPA to consider such a rulemaking petition, GenOn would need to submit, no later than the 1-year deadline for submitting modeling results under the rule, any proposed alternative limits along with air quality modeling, consistent with the approved modeling protocol, demonstrating that the proposed alternative limits would, at all operating loads, eliminate Portland's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in New Jersey. Ifthe EPA determines it would be appropriate topropose approval of the alternative emission limits, the EPA would conduct a notice and comment rulemaking on the proposed alternative.

VIII. Statutory andExecutive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order12866:Regulatory PlanningandReview andExecutive Order13563:ImprovingRegulationand RegulatoryReview

This action will grant the NJDEP petition andis making aCAA section 126 finding. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork ReductionAct
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. Burdenis defined at 5CFR 1320.3(b). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a "collection ofinformation" is defined as a requirement for "answers to * * * identical reporting orrecordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *." 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the rule applies to a single facility, Portland, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject tonotice 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes ofassessing the impacts ofthis rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1)A smallbusiness as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)a small governmental jurisdiction thatis a government ofa city, county, town, school district or special district with a population ofless than 50,000; and (3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which isindependently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts ofthisfinal rule on small entities, Icertify thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because small entities are not subject to the requirements ofthis rule.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct of 1995(UMRA)

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, inthe aggregate,

or the private sector in any 1year.The
cost necessary to comply with the limits in this notice are not expected to exceed $100 million. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 or 205 ofUMRA.

This rule is also not subject tothe requirements of section 203 ofUMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The requirements for compliance in this rule will be borne by a single, privately owned source.

E.Executive Order13132:Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will nothave substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule primarily affects the private industry, and does not impose significant economic cost on state or local governments or preempt state or local law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action.

In the spirit ofExecutive Order 13132, and consistent withthe EPA's policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment

on the proposed action from state and local officials. 

### 6907569076 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

F.Executive Order13175: Consultation andCoordinationWithIndian Tribal Governments

This action does not havetribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. Furthermore, this action does
not affect the relationship between Indian Tribes and the federal government, or distribution ofpower andresponsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.

G.Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyRisks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such thatthe analysis required under section 5-501 ofthe Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks thatmay disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes thatthe emissions reductions in thisrule will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order13211:Actions That Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is an exempted action under Executive Order 12866.

L Executive Order12898:Federal Actions ToAddressEnvironmental Justicein MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its mainprovision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,to make environmental justice part oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S.

The EPA has determined thatthis final rule will nothave disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

onminority 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.

The agency has also reviewed this rule to determine ifthere is existing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

on minority or low-income populations that couldbe mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of demographic data illustrates thatthe population residing near the source isrepresented by fewer minority and low-income residents than either the surrounding counties, the average demographic composition ofthe states ofNewJersey and Pennsylvania, and national averages. In addition, this rule increases the level ofenvironmental and public health protection for all affected populations since, when fully implemented, it will result in attainment ofthe health-based 1-hour SO 2NAAQS. The results ofthe demographic analysis are presented in the supporting document titled, "Environmental Justice Assessment for Section 126 Petition from NewJersey Regarding SO 2Emissions from the Portland Generating Station" (September 2011), a copy ofwhich is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0081.

J.NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104- 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that

are developed or adoptedby VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

K. Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 etseq., as addedby the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rulemay take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types ofrules (1)Rules ofparticular applicability; (2)rules relating to agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations ofnon-agency parties. 5U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule ofparticular applicability. Nonetheless, this action will be effective January 6, 2012.

L.JudicialReview

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for review by the Administrator ofthis final action does
not affect the finality ofthis action for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the timewithin which a petition forjudicial review mustbe final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch action.

Thus, any petitions forreview ofthis action related to the section 126 finding
must be filed in the Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

Listof Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: October 31, 2011. Lisa P.Jackson, Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble part 52 ofchapter Ioftitle 40 ofthe Code ofFederal regulations is amended as follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

* 2.Section 52.2039 is added toread as follows:

### Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 215/Monday, November 7, 2011/Rules and Regulations

§52.2039 Interstate transport.

The EPA has made a finding pursuant to section 126 ofthe Clean Air Act (the Act) that emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2)from the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Upper Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania (Portland) significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour SO2national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in Morris, Sussex, Warren, and Hunterdon Counties in NewJersey. The

owners and operators ofPortland shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)through (d)ofthis section.

(a)The owners and operators of Portland shall not, at any time laterthan

one year after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, emit S02 (as determined in accordance with part 75 ofthis chapter) in excess of 6,253 pounds per hour (lb/hr)for unit 1 (identifiedwith source ID 031 inTitle V Permit No. 48-0006) and unit 2 (identifiedwith source ID 032 inTitle V Permit No. 48-0006) combined; (b)The owners and operators of Portland shall not, at any time laterthan three years after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, emit S02 (as determined in accordance with part 75 ofthis chapter) in excess ofthe following limits: (1) 1,105 lb/hr and 0.67 pounds per million British Thermal Unit (lb/ mmBtu) for unit 1; and (2) 1,691 lb/hr and 0.67 lb/mmBtu for unit 2. (c) The owners and operators of Portland shall comply with the following requirements: (1)Perform air modeling to demonstrate that, starting no later than three years after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, emissions from Portland will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 1-hour S02 NAAQS in New Jersey, in accordance with the following requirements: (i) No later than six months after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, submit to the EPA amodeling protocol that is consistent with the 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 15business days ofreceipt ofa notice from the EPA ofany deficiencies in the modeling protocol under paragraph (d)(1)(i)ofthis section, submit to the EPA arevised modeling protocol to correct any deficiencies identified in such notice. (iii)No later than one year after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, submit to the EPA amodeling analysis, performed in accordance with the modeling protocol under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) ofthis section, for the compliance methods identified in the notice required by paragraph (c)(2) ofthis section. (2)No later than one year after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, submit to the EPA the compliance method selected by the owners and operators ofPortland to achieve the emissions limits in paragraph (b) ofthis section.

(3) Starting six months after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding and continuing every six months until three years after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, submit to the EPA
progress reports on the implementation ofthe methods to achieve compliance with emissions limits inparagraphs (a) and (b) ofthis section, including status ofdesign, technology selection, development oftechnical specifications, awarding ofcontracts, construction, shakedown, and compliance demonstrations as applicable. These reports shall include: (i) An interim projectreport, no later than one year after the effective date of the section 126 finding, that demonstrates compliance with the emission limitin paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(ii)Afinal project report, submitted

no later than 60 days after three years after the effective date ofthe section 126 finding, that demonstrates compliance with the emission limits in paragraph (b) ofthis section and that includes at least one month ofS0 2 emission data from Portland's continuous SO2 emission monitor, and thatincludes the date when full operation ofcontrols was achieved at Portland after shakedown.

(4) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) ofthis section shall not apply ifthe notice required by paragraph (c)(2) ofthis section indicates that the owners and operators of Portland have decided to completely andpermanently cease operation ofunit 1and unit2 as the method of compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) and with section 126 ofthe Act.

(d)Compliance with the lb/mmBtu limitations in paragraph (b) ofthis section is determined on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average basis. Boiler operating day for the purposes of this paragraph means a 24-hour period between midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted in the units identified in paragraph (a) of this section.

[FRDoe. 2011-28816 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 69077