24794 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0296, FRL–9663–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

New York; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan and Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove the 

revision to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze 

submitted by the State of New York on 

March 15, 2010, and supplemented on 

August 2, 2010. New York’s revised SIP 

reduces regional haze during the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. This revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s rules that require states to prevent 

any future, and remedy any existing, 

man-made impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants located over 

a wide geographic area (also referred to 

as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). EPA is 

proposing a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) to address the deficiencies 

identified in our proposed partial 

disapproval of New York’s regional haze 

SIP. In lieu of this proposed FIP, or a 

portion thereof, we are proposing 

approval of a SIP revision if the State 

submits such a revision in a timely way, 

and the revision matches the terms of 

our proposed FIP. EPA is also proposing 

approval of New York’s Best Available 

Retrofit Technology regulation, Part 249. 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before June 18, 2012. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing, if 

requested, will be held at USEPA 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007–1866, on May 16, 

2012, beginning at 9 a.m. If you wish to 

request a hearing and present testimony 

or attend the hearing, you should notify, 

on or before May 4, 2012, Ms. Katherine 

Doctor, Air Programs Branch, EPA 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007–1866; telephone 

number: (212) 637–4249; fax number 

(212) 637–3901; email address 

doctor.katherine@epa.gov. 

Oral testimony will be limited to 

5 minutes each. The hearing will be 

strictly limited to the subject matter of 

the proposal, the scope of which is 

discussed below. EPA will not respond 

to comments during the public hearing. 

EPA will not be providing equipment 

for commenters to show overhead slides 

or make computerized slide 

presentations. Any member of the 

public may file a written statement by 

the close of the comment period. 

Written statements (duplicate copies 

preferred) should be submitted to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R2–OAR–2012– 

0296, at the address listed for 

submitting comments. A verbatim 

transcript of the hearing and written 

statements will be made available for 

copying during normal working hours at 

the address listed for inspection for 

documents. If no requests for a public 

hearing are received by close of business 

on May 4, 2012, a hearing will not be 

held; please contact Ms. Doctor to find 

out if the hearing will actually be held 

or will be cancelled for lack of any 

request to speak. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2012–0296, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: werner.raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0296. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/docket.html. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation 

Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, 

EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New 

York, New York 10007–1866. The 

telephone number is (212) 637–4049. 

Mr. Kelly can also be reached via 

electronic mail at kelly.bob@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Proposed Actions 

B. SIP and FIP Background 

C. Implication of Clean Air Interstate Rule 

and Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24795 

1MANE–VU is the Mid-Atlantic/North East 

Visibility Union, comprising Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, the District of Columbia, the Penobscot 

Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New York’s 

Regional Haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS) 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairment 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

a. Application of Modeling To Demonstrate 

Reasonable Progress 

b. How New York’s Plan Addresses Its 

Share of Reductions Toward Meeting the 

Reasonable Progress Goal 

5. Section 19–0325 of the Environmental 

Conservation Law—Low Sulfur Fuel Oil 

Strategy 

6. BART 

a. BART-Eligible Sources in New York 

b. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified 

as BART by New York 

c. Enforceability of BART 

d. New York’s Part 249—Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the revision to 

the New York State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3), 

submitted on March 15, 2010, and 

supplemented on August 2, 2010. 

1. EPA proposes to disapprove the 

following Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determinations: 

• New York’s Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

BART determinations and emissions 

limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy’s 

Roseton Generating Station. 

• New York’s SO2 BART 

determinations and emissions limits for 

Unit 4 of Dynegy’s Danskammer 

Generating Station. 

• New York’s SO2, Nitrogen Oxide 

(NOX) and Particulate Matter (PM) 

emissions limits for Boiler 42 of Kodak’s 

Eastman Business Park. 

2. EPA proposes to disapprove the 

following facility BART determinations 

and emission limits because while New 

York has proposed permit 

modifications, New York has not issued 

final permit modifications or submitted 

them to EPA as a SIP revision: 

• New York’s SO2, NOX and PM 

BART determinations and emissions 

limits at the following facilities, with 

owners of sources [in brackets]: 

Æ Bowline Point Generating Station 

[GenOn] 

Æ Danskammer Generating Station 

[Dynegy] 

Æ Owens Corning Delmar Plant 

Æ Oswego Harbor Power [NRG] 

Æ Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF 

Suez] 

Æ Kodak Park Division 

3. EPA proposes to disapprove the 

following facility BART determinations 

and emission limits because New York 

has not submitted final permit 

modifications to EPA as a SIP revision. 

EPA has reviewed the BART 

determinations for these facilities and 

New York has issued final permit 

modifications. EPA would propose to 

approve these final permit 

modifications, but New York has not 

submitted them to EPA as SIP revisions. 

Therefore EPA proposes to disapprove 

the following and we propose a FIP to 

address this deficiency: 

• New York’s SO2, NOX and PM 

BART determinations and emissions 

limits for the following facilities, with 

owners of sources [in brackets]: 

Æ EF Barrett Power Station [National 

Grid (NG)] 

Æ Northport Power Station [NG] 

Æ 59th Street Station [Con Ed] 

Æ Arthur Kill Generating Station 

[NRG] 

Æ Ravenswood Generating Station 

[Trans Canada (TC)] 

Æ Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con 

Edison] 

Æ Roseton Generating Station 

[Dynegy] 

Æ Holcim (US) Inc—Catskill Plant 

Æ Lafarge Building Materials 

Æ International Paper Ticonderoga 

Mill 

Æ Lehigh Northeast Cement 

Æ ALCOA Massena Operations (West 

Plant) 

Æ Samuel A Carlson Generating 

Station [Jamestown Board of Public 

Utilities (BPU)] 

4. EPA is proposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the deficiencies identified above in 

paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 in our proposed 

partial disapproval of New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP. In lieu of this 

proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we 

are proposing approval of a SIP revision 

if the State submits such a revision in 

a timely way, and the revision matches 

the terms of our proposed FIP, or 

relevant portion thereof. See also 

paragraph 6 below. 

5. EPA proposes to approve the 

remaining aspects of New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP revision as follows: 

• New York’s determination under 

the reasonable progress requirements 

found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) that all 

measures or their equivalents found to 

be reasonable by the State, and agreed 

to by the MANE–VU 1 states, have been 

enacted and implemented. 

• New York’s Long Term Strategy, as 

required by the Act, will be approvable, 

only if New York submits all of the final 

permit modifications in a timely 

manner, and with the level of control in 

EPA’s proposed FIP [note that EPA’s FIP 

for these permits, if enacted, would also 

result in an approvable Long Term 

Strategy, under the FIP.] 

• New York’s SIP revision consisting 

of New York’s Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) regulation, Part 249. 

6. EPA proposes in the alternative to 

approve the following facility BART 

determinations and emissions limits 

should New York submit final permit 

modifications to EPA as SIP revisions, 

and the revisions match the terms of our 

proposed FIP: 

Æ Bowline Point Generating Station 

[GenOn] 

Æ Danskammer Generating Station 

[Dynegy] 

Æ Owens Corning Delmar Plant 

Æ Osweg 

Æ Harbor Power [NRG] 

Æ Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF 

Suez] 

Æ Kodak Park Division 

Æ EF Barrett Power Station [National 

Grid (NG)] 

Æ Northport Power Station [NG] 

Æ 59th Street Station [Con Ed] 

Æ Arthur Kill Generating Station 

[NRG] 

Æ Ravenswood Generating Station 

[TC] 

Æ Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con 

Edison] 

Æ Roseton Generating Station 

[Dynegy] 

Æ Holcim (US) Inc—Catskill Plant 

Æ Lafarge Building Materials 

Æ International Paper Ticonderoga 

Mill 

Æ Lehigh Northeast Cement 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24796 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2On June 20, 2007, MANE–VU adopted two 

documents which provide the technical basis for 

consultation among the interested parties and 

define the basic strategies for controlling pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

the eastern United States. The documents, entitled 

‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 

Union (MANE–VU) Concerning a Course of Action 

within MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable 

Progress,’’ and ‘‘Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) Concerning 

a Request for a Course of Action by States outside 

of MANE–VU toward Assuring Reasonable 

Progress’’ are together known as the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask.’’ 

Æ ALCOA Massena Operations (West 

Plant) 

Æ Samuel A Carlson Generating 

Station [Jamestown Board of Public 

Utilities (BPU)] 

B. SIP and FIP Background 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop plans to meet various air 

quality requirements, including 

protection of visibility. (CAA sections 

110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans 

developed by a state are referred to as 

SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and 

SIP revisions to us for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is federally enforceable, 

that is enforceable by EPA and citizens 

under the CAA. If a state fails to make 

a required SIP submittal or if we find 

that a state’s required submittal is 

incomplete or unapprovable, then we 

must promulgate a FIP to fill this 

regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)). 

As discussed elsewhere in this action, 

we are proposing to disapprove aspects 

of New York’s Regional Haze SIP. We 

are proposing FIPs to address the 

deficiencies in New York’s regional 

haze submittal, in the event New York 

fails to submit the required elements for 

this SIP revision. 

C. Implication of Clean Air Interstate 

Rule and Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

Consistent with EPA guidance and 

regulations, (see 70 FR 39104, 39106 

(July 6, 2005)), many states relied on 

EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

to satisfy key elements of Regional Haze 

SIPs. The DC Circuit, however, found 

CAIR to be inconsistent with the 

requirements of the Act and remanded 

the rule to the Agency. North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 929–30 (D.C. Cir. 

2008); modified on rehearing, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the 

remand of the CAIR rule, on July 6, 2011 

EPA finalized the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR); a rule intended 

to reduce the interstate transport of fine 

particulate matter and ozone, 76 FR 

48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

Although New York was subject to 

CAIR, its Regional Haze SIP did not rely 

on CAIR to meet the requirements for 

BART or for attaining the in-state 

emissions reductions necessary to 

ensure reasonable progress. Instead, 

New York evaluated controls for its 

potential BART sources. New York 

made BART determinations for its 

BART-eligible sources, including 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs) that 

might have been controlled under CAIR. 

Similarly, its long-term strategy for 

attaining the Reasonable Progress Goals 

(RPGs) at nearby Class I areas includes 

controls on EGUs in New York. 

Therefore, the remand of CAIR has no 

negative effect on the amount of 

emission reductions New York will 

achieve from its Regional Haze SIP 

revision. This action and the 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document (TSD) explain the basis for 

EPA’s proposed actions on New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP revision proposal. 

New York’s SIP obtains the emission 

reductions needed with respect to the 

Regional Haze SIP requirements, 

including the recommendation of the 

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) regional planning 

organization.2

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by many sources and 

activities which are located across a 

broad geographic area and emit fine 

particles and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. Visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

many of which are also established 

under the Act as Federal Class I areas. 

(CAA section 162(a)). 

In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress initiated a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes 

as a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In 1990 Congress added 

section 169B to the Act to address 

regional haze issues. On July 1, 1999 

EPA promulgated the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714). The 

requirement to submit a Regional Haze 

SIP applies to New York and all 50 

states, the District of Columbia and the 

Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) of the 

RHR required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a 

finding that New York failed to submit 

the Regional Haze SIP. 74 FR 2392 

(Jan. 15, 2009). New York subsequently 

submitted its Regional Haze SIP on 

March 15, 2010. EPA’s January 15, 2009 

finding established a two-year deadline 

of January 15, 2011 for EPA to either 

approve New York’s Regional Haze SIP, 

or adopt a FIP. This proposed action is 

intended to address the January 15, 

2009 finding. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. New York, as noted 

above, participates in the MANE–VU 

RPO. 

III. What are the requirements for 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

The following is a basic explanation 

of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a 

complete listing of the regulations under 

which this SIP revision was evaluated. 

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

Regional Haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the Act and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24797 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999)). 

4 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_

envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance 

for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule 

(EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_

tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

5 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp. 4–2, 5–1). 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range, which is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark 

object can be viewed against the sky. 

The dv is calculated from visibility 

measurements. Each change of 1.0 dv is 

an equal incremental change in 

visibility perceived by the human eye. 

For this reason, EPA believes it is a 

useful measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility. Most people can 

detect a change in visibility at one dv.3

The dv is used in expressing RPGs 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, the RHR requires states to 

calculate the degree of existing visibility 

impairment at each Class I area at the 

time of each regional haze SIP submittal 

and periodically review progress every 

five years midway through each 10-year 

planning period. To do this, the RHR 

requires states to determine the degree 

of impairment (in dv) for the average of 

the 20 percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) 

and 20 percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, the RHR requires states to 

develop an estimate of natural visibility 

conditions for the purposes of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.4

For the initial regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

baseline visibility conditions were used 

as the starting points for assessing 

current visibility impairment. Baseline 

visibility conditions represent the 

degree of impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days at the time the regional 

haze program was established. Using 

monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, 

the RHR required states to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area in the state, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline period is considered the 

time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The submission of a series of regional 

haze SIPs from the states that establish 

RPGs for Class I areas for each 

(approximately) 10-year planning period 

is the vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in the Act and in EPA’s 

RHR: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the time necessary for compliance; (3) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

and (4) the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the RPGs for the best and worst days for 

each applicable Class I area. (See 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in our Reasonable Progress 

guidance.5 In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one 

or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I State’’) 

must also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I State’s areas. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv)). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART) 

Section 169A of the Act directs states 

to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, the Act requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing 

stationary sources 6 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BART)’’ as determined by 

the state. (CAA 169A(b)(2)(A)). States 

are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides equal or greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24798 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. The BART 

Guidelines require states to use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines in making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts. The BART Guidelines 

encourage, but do not require states to 

follow the BART Guidelines in making 

BART determinations for other types of 

sources. 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

that states address all visibility 

impairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate 

matter (PM). The BART Guidelines 

direct states to use their best judgment 

in determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH3) 

and ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. (70 FR 39170, (July 6, 2005)). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP, as required in the Act 

(section 169A(g)(4)) and in the RHR (40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to 

what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. States 

have the flexibility to choose the type of 

control measures they will use to meet 

the requirements of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the Act that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their 

SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all 

control measures a state will use to meet 

any applicable RPGs. The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the state. (40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. (40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the seven factors 

listed below is taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; (7) the anticipated net effect 

on visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the LTS. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

states with Class I areas to require that 

the RAVI plan must provide for a 

periodic review and SIP revision not 

less frequently than every three years 

until the date of submission of the 

state’s first plan addressing regional 

haze visibility impairment, which was 

due December 17, 2007, in accordance 

with 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this 

date, the state must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing 

reasonably attributable and regional 

haze visibility impairment, and the state 

must submit the first such coordinated 

LTS with its first regional haze SIP 

revision. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic reviews of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in 

accordance with 51.308. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

If a state has a Class I Federal Area in 

the state, the requirements in Section 

51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met. 

These requirements include a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state and this 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environment (IMPROVE) network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. Note that 

Section 51.308(d)(4) contains a list of 

additional items the implementation 

plan must address. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 

51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24799 

7NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-thenortheast-and-mid-atlantic--united-states/ 

8MANE–VU Report at http://www.otcair.org/ 

manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports. 

9NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/. 

10NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/ 

documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/. 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of New 

York’s regional haze submittal? 

On March 15, 2010, New York State 

submitted a revision to the New York 

SIP to address regional haze in Class I 

areas in nearby states as required by 

EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

New York does not contain any Class 

I areas, but it impacts several in nearby 

states based on MANE–VU’s 

contribution analyses (as discussed in 

the TSD), including the Lye Brook 

Wilderness Area, VT, Brigantine 

Wildlife Refuge, NJ, Presidential RangeDry River Wilderness Area and Great 

Gulf Wilderness Area, NH, RooseveltCampobello International Park, Acadia 

National Park, Moosehorn Wildlife 

Refuge, ME, and the Shenandoah 

National Park in VA. For these 

locations, the FLMs have identified 

visual impairment as an important value 

that must be addressed in regional haze 

plans. New York is responsible for 

developing a Regional Haze SIP that 

addresses visibility in these Class I 

areas, articulates New York’s long-term 

emission strategy, describes the state’s 

role in the consultation processes, and 

describes how its SIP meets the other 

requirements in EPA’s regional haze 

regulations. However, since New York 

has no Class I areas within its borders, 

New York is not required to calculate 

baseline and natural visibility 

conditions, establish RPGs, meet 

monitoring or RAVI requirements as 

described by EPA’s RHR for states that 

have Class I areas. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS) 

As described above, the Long Term 

Strategy (LTS) is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs for the 

Class I areas impacted by New York. 

These impacted states develop the LTS 

for the first implementation period, 

which addresses the emissions 

reductions from Federal, state, and local 

controls that take effect in the baseline 

period starting in 2002 until 2018. New 

York participated in the MANE–VU 

RPO regional strategy development 

process. As a participant, New York 

supported a regional approach towards 

deciding which control measures to 

pursue for regional haze, which was 

based on technical analyses 

documented in the following reports: (a) 

Contributions to Regional Haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United 

States; 7 (b) Assessment of Reasonable 

Progress for Regional Haze in MANE– 

VU Class I Areas; 8 (c) Five-Factor 

Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: 

Survey of Options for Conducting BART 

Determinations; 9 and (d) Assessment of 

Control Technology Options for BARTEligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, 

Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and 

Paper, and Pulp Facilities.10

The LTS was developed by New York, 

in coordination with MANE–VU, 

identifying the emissions units within 

New York that likely have the largest 

impacts currently on visibility at Class 

I areas, estimating emissions reductions 

for 2018, based on all controls required 

under Federal and state regulations for 

the 2002–2018 period (including 

BART), and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the various Class I 

areas. 

New York’s LTS includes measures 

needed to achieve its share of emissions 

reductions agreed upon through the 

consultation process with New York 

and includes enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established for 

the Class I areas. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Air Management Association for 

MANE–VU with assistance from New 

York. The 2018 emissions inventory 

projected 2002 emissions to 2018, 

including emissions growth due to 

projected increases in economic activity 

as well as applying reductions expected 

from Federal and state regulations 

affecting the emissions of VOC and the 

visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 

PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 

guidelines direct states to exercise 

judgment in deciding whether VOC and 

NH3 impair visibility in their Class I 

area(s). Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of 

the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for New York. 

The 2018 estimated emissions include 

emission growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies to meet RPGs and 

BART. 

These emissions were used in the 

modeling that demonstrated that the 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

New York and other states would meet 

the Reasonable Progress Goal set for 

2018. New York adopted the emission 

reductions that are forecast to improve 

visibility to meet the goals for 2018, 

thus New York is projected to achieve 

its share of the emission reduction goal 

for the first implementation period, as 

long as its final permit modifications for 

BART sources are submitted to EPA in 

a timely fashion, and meet the emission 

limits described in EPA’s FIP for these 

sources. If EPA’s FIP is implemented, 

then the LTS would be approvable, 

since the EPA will have completed the 

implementation of BART for New York 

State’s BART-eligible sources. 

TABLE 1—MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY: 2002 BASE INVENTORY FOR NEW YORK STATE—TONS PER

YEAR

Sector CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 Primary 

PM10

Primary 

PM2.5

Area .............................. 356,287 98,804 502,797 67,198 113,978 356,348 85,841 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24800 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11MANE–VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress 

Goals. February 7, 2008. 

TABLE 1—MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY: 2002 BASE INVENTORY FOR NEW YORK STATE—TONS PER

YEAR—Continued 

Sector CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 Primary 

PM10

Primary 

PM2.5

Point ............................. 66,157 118,765 15,033 1,709 286,393 9,834 7,014 

Nonroad ....................... 1,205,509 119,808 158,121 79 13,288 9,605 9,000 

Onroad ......................... 2,942,730 313,888 179,731 14,439 10,229 7,599 5,402 

Biogenic ....................... 63,436 8,313 492,483 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Totals .................... 4,634,119 659,578 1,348,165 83,425 423,888 383,386 107,257 

TABLE 2—MANE–VU MODELING INVENTORY SUMMARY: 2018 PROJECTION INVENTORY FOR NEW YORK STATE—TONS

PER YEAR

Sector CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 Primary 

PM10

Primary 

PM2.5

Area .............................. 307,659 108,444 457,421 96,078 89,591 392,027 86,422 

Point ............................. 101,118 55,681 13,091 2,767 118,936 17,062 13,460 

Nonroad ....................... 1,474,727 72,400 104,562 103 1,686 5,830 5,349 

Onroad ......................... 1,694,820 78,365 68,104 19,167 1,794 2,775 2,542 

Biogenic ....................... 63,436 8,313 492,483 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Totals .................... 3,641,760 323,203 1.135,662 118,115 263,824 417,694 107,773 

As discussed further below, MANE– 

VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. It 

was also determined that the total 

ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU 

region are extremely small. In addition, 

since VOC emissions are aggressively 

controlled through the New York ozone 

SIP, the pollutants New York 

considered under BART are NOX, PM10, 

PM2.5, and SO2. 

In developing the 2018 reasonable 

progress goal, and the 2018 projection 

inventory, Class I area states relied 

primarily upon the information and 

analyses developed by MANE–VU to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s regional 

haze rules. Based on information from 

the contribution assessment and 

additional emission inventory analyses, 

MANE–VU identified the following 

source categories for further 

examination for reasonable measures: 

• Coal and oil-fired EGUs 

• Point and area source industrial, 

commercial and institutional (ICI) 

boilers 

• Cement and Lime Kilns 

• Heating oil, and 

• Residential wood combustion 

MANE–VU, for its member states and 

tribes, analyzed these potential source 

categories based on the four factors 

listed in section 169A(g)(1) of the Act 

and in Section III.C of this action. New 

York and the MANE–VU states agreed 

with the analysis that determined that 

reasonable controls existed for coal and 

oil-fired EGUs, industrial, commercial 

and institutional (ICI) boilers, cement 

and lime kilns, and that reducing the 

sulfur content of heating oil was a 

reasonable strategy. Additionally, 

MANE–VU determined that due to the 

lack of specific data for the wide range 

of residential wood boilers, it was not 

reasonable to set particular reductions 

amounts for emissions from residential 

wood boilers. 

New York adopted controls on EGUs, 

boilers and cement kilns. While New 

York’s plan does not include emission 

reduction regulations for residential 

wood boilers, New York will consider 

state specific wood burning provisions, 

which was the strategy agreed to by the 

MANE–VU states. ICI boiler controls 

were implemented as an Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) regional 

measure for VOC and NOX controls that 

have benefits for reducing regional haze. 

More details on the adopted controls are 

described later in this section. 

After identifying potential control 

measures and performing the four factor 

analysis, MANE–VU performed initial 

modeling that showed the visibility 

impacts from the implementation of the 

measures. The initial modeling results 

showed that the projected 2018 

visibility on the 20% worst days at the 

Class I areas affected by New York’s 

emissions was at least as good at the 

uniform rate of progress. Details of 

MANE–VU’s initial modeling were later 

documented in the MANE–VU 

Modeling for RPGs report.11 Based on 

the modeling results and other analysis 

performed by MANE–VU, the MANE– 

VU states developed ‘‘Asks,’’ which are 

‘‘emission management’’ strategies. 

These strategies served as the basis for 

the consultation with the other states. 

As part of the modeling needed to 

assess the emission reductions needed 

to meet the RPG, MANE–VU developed 

emissions inventories for four inventory 

source classifications: (1) stationary 

point sources, (2) area sources, (3) offroad mobile sources, and (4) on-road 

mobile sources. The New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation also developed an 

inventory of biogenic emissions for the 

entire MANE–VU region. Stationary 

point emission sources are those sources 

that emit greater than a specified 

tonnage per year, depending on the 

pollutant, with data provided at the 

facility level. Area source emissions are 

from stationary sources whose 

individual emissions are relatively 

small, but due to the large number of 

these sources, the collective emissions 

from the source category could be 

significant. Off-road mobile source 

emissions are from equipment that can 

move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are from 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources emissions are from 

natural sources like trees, crops, grasses, 

and natural decay of plants. Stationary 

point sources emission data is tracked at 

the facility level. For all other source 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24801 

12See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

13Sierra v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 11–1278 

(PLF) (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

types emissions are summed on the 

county level. 

There are many Federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and New York 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs were projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the Class I areas affected by 

New York’s emissions. To assess 

emissions reductions from ongoing air 

pollution control programs, BART, and 

controls required for reasonable 

progress, MANE–VU states developed 

emissions projections for 2018. The 

2018 emissions inventory in Table 2 is 

a projection of emissions based on the 

measures the states need to adopt to 

achieve reasonable programs. The states 

submit SIPs that have adopted and 

enforceable requirements, as well as 

Federal programs, such as Federal motor 

vehicle control programs and maximum 

achievable control technologies 

(MACT). 

These measures are included in the 

MANE–VU modeling used to determine 

the amount of visibility improvement in 

Class I areas. MANE–VU States agreed 

to implement several measures at the 

state level. These measures are: A timely 

implementation of BART requirements, 

90 percent or more reduction in sulfur 

dioxide at 167 EGU stacks identified by 

MANE–VU (or comparable alternative 

measures), and low sulfur fuel oil 

regulations (with limits specified for 

each state). 

Controls from various Federal MACT 

regulations were also utilized in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACTs 

include the industrial boiler/process 

heater MACT, the combustion turbine 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 

7-, and 10-year MACT standards. 

EPA’s industrial boiler/process heater 

MACT was vacated on June 8, 2007.12

EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler/ 

Process Heater MACT (Industrial Boiler 

MACT) rule to address the vacatur on 

June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued 

a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15608). On May 18, 2011 EPA stayed 

the Industrial Boiler MACT rule. 76 FR 

28662 (May 18, 2011). The stay was 

vacated and remanded by the court on 

January 9, 2012.13 EPA published a 

reconsideration and proposed 

amendment to the Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule for major sources on 

December 23, 2011, 76 FR 80598. 

The MANE–VU States, including New 

York, included these controls in 

modeling for their regional haze SIPs. 

EPA accepts these emission reductions 

in the modeling for the following 

reasons. In December 2011, EPA 

proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT 

rule to address the vacatur and intends 

to issue a final rule, giving New York 

sufficient time to assure the required 

controls are in place prior to the end of 

the first planning period on July 31, 

2018. In the absence of an established 

MACT for boilers and process heaters, 

the statutory language in section 112(j) 

of the Act specifies a schedule for the 

incorporation of enforceable MACTequivalent limits into the Title V 

operating permits of affected sources. 

Should circumstances warrant the need 

to rely on section 112(j) of the Act for 

industrial boilers, compliance with 

case-by-case MACT limits for industrial 

boilers would occur no later than 

January 2015, which is well before the 

2018 RPGs for regional haze. The RHR 

also provides that any resulting 

differences between emissions 

projections and actual emissions 

reductions that may occur will be 

addressed during the five-year review 

prior to the next regional haze SIP. In 

addition, the expected reductions due to 

the original, vacated Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule were relatively small 

compared to the State’s projected total 

SO2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two 

percent of the projected 2018 SOX, 

PM2.5 and coarse particulate matter 

(PM10) inventory), and are not likely to 

affect any of MANE–VU’s modeling 

conclusions. Thus, even if there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

the projected emissions reductions from 

the now vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 

and actual reductions achieved by the 

replacement MACT, we do not expect 

that this would be significant enough to 

affect the adequacy of New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP. 

The MANE–VU modeling predicts 

that these measures will result in 

emission reductions that will produce 

improved visibility, meeting the 

reasonable progress goal for the first 

period ending in 2018, with the 

following measures: BART controls on 

all BART-eligible facilities, 90 percent 

or more control at the 19 New York 

units from the 167 EGU units identified 

by MANE–VU (or comparable 

alternative measures), and adoption of 

the lower limits on sulfur in fuel oil. 

New York would fulfill its share of 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goal only when it 

submits its outstanding finalized 

permits in a timely manner which meet 

the emission limits in EPA’s proposed 

FIP for those BART sources. 

The MANE–VU States’ goal was to 

reduce SO2 emissions from the largest 

emission units in the eastern United 

States by 90 percent or, if it was 

infeasible to achieve that level of 

reduction, states could identify an 

alternative that could include 

reductions from other point sources. Of 

the 167 units identified by MANE–VU 

as having the highest SO2 emissions in 

the eastern United States, 19 are in New 

York. New York met the MANE–VU 

States’ goal of reducing emissions from 

its portion of the 167 EGU stacks by 90 

percent using emission reductions from 

19 EGUs and other point sources in 

order to meet that portion of New York’s 

contribution to meeting the reasonable 

progress goals. 

In addition, New York is evaluating 

other control measures, including 

energy efficiency, alternative clean 

fuels, and other measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions from all coalburning facilities by 2018 and new 

source performance standards for wood 

combustion. New York State developed 

a rulemaking and regulatory program to 

control outdoor wood boilers to address 

a category of sources that is of concern 

to many states, especially those in the 

Northeast. In addition to the above 

measures, a number of measures 

intended to reduce the emissions of 

VOCs and nitrogen oxides are being 

implemented as a part of the ozone SIPs 

that have been submitted to EPA. 

Federal measures and other control 

programs relied upon by New York 

include EPA’s NOX SIP Call; measures 

adopted for New York’s 1-hour and 8- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

SIPs, Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 

engine standards for on-road trucks and 

busses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls 

for on-road vehicles; Federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. New York also relied on emission 

reductions from a Federal MACT that 

was vacated, but, as described above, 

the expected reductions in SO2 and PM 

resulting from both the vacated 

Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

proposed revisions to the revised 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule are 

relatively small components of the New 

York inventory. EPA expects the revised 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule to be 

adopted by 2018, and therefore the 

vacatur of the original Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule should not negatively affect 

fulfillment of the RPGs across the 

northeast. In addition, the RHR requires 

that any resulting differences between 

emissions projections and actual 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of 

Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/ 

guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05- 

001, August 2005, updated November 2005 (‘‘EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance’’). 

emissions reductions that may occur 

will be addressed during the five-year 

review prior to the next 2018 Regional 

Haze SIP. 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the states, the 

District of Columbia and tribal nations 

located in Mid-Atlantic and Northeast 

portions of the United States. The 

modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

MANE–VU used a modeling system 

described below and discussed in more 

detail in the TSD. 

The EPA’s Models-3/Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) version 

4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model 

capable of addressing ozone, PM, 

visibility and acid deposition on a 

regional scale. CMAQ modeling of 

regional haze in the MANE–VU region 

for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a 

grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that 

covers the 11 MANE–VU States and the 

District of Columbia and states adjacent 

to them. This grid is nested within a 

larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 

36 x 36 km grid cells that covers the 

continental United States, portions of 

Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the 

east and west coasts. Selection of a 

representative period of meteorology is 

crucial for evaluating baseline air 

quality conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis that resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU States’ modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance.14

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the Class I area states 

provided supporting documentation for 

all required analyses used to determine 

the State’s LTS. The technical analyses 

and modeling used to develop the glide 

path and to support the LTS are 

consistent with EPA’s RHR, and interim 

and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA 

accepts the MANE–VU technical 

modeling to support the LTS and 

determine visibility improvement for 

the uniform rate of progress because the 

modeling system was chosen and used 

in accordance with EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE– 

VU model performance procedures and 

results, and that the CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the Class I areas in 

MANE–VU and the states’ LTS and for 

New York’s Regional Haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 

20 percent worst visibility days. 

MANE–VU’s contribution assessment 

demonstrated that sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. 

Sulfate particles commonly account for 

50 to over 80 percent of particle-related 

light extinction at northeastern Class I 

areas. For example, for the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area, on 

the 20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particles responsible for 

light extinction. After sulfate, organic 

carbon (OC) consistently accounts for 

the next largest fraction of light 

extinction due to particles. Organic 

carbon accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. These findings are true, 

in general, for Class I areas across 

MANE–VU. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach should 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States for the first planning period. EPA 

proposes to accept this conclusion as a 

reasonable strategy in the eastern United 

States where reductions in SO2

emissions will result in the greatest 

improvements in visibility. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Since New York does not have a Class 

I area, it is not required to establish 

RPGs. However, emissions from New 

York that contribute to Regional Haze 

have been identified as influencing the 

visibility impairment at a number of 

Class I areas in the MANE–VU States. 

Particularly, New Hampshire and New 

Jersey have notified New York of their 

impact on Class I areas in their states, 

specifically, the Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area and the Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge, respectively. New 

York, as a MANE–VU state, participated 

in consultations to discuss the 

reasonable progress goals being 

considered by MANE–VU States for the 

affected Class I area. As a result, to meet 

the reasonable progress goals and the 

long-term goal of no anthropogenic 

obstruction to visibility, the MANE–VU 

States agreed to implement the 

following measures, or substitute a 

similar quantity of emission reductions 

in their place: Timely implementation 

of BART requirements; a 90 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from each of 

the EGU stacks identified by MANE–VU 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24803 

comprising a total of 167 stacks (19 are 

located in New York); adoption of a low 

sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued 

evaluation of other control measures to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions. 

a. Application of Modeling To 

Demonstrate Reasonable Progress 

The modeling that supported these 

analyses of how to demonstrate 

reasonable progress predicted that these 

emission control regulations would 

result in improved visibility which 

would meet the reasonable progress 

goals at MANE–VU Class I areas by 

2018. At the time of MANE–VU 

modeling, some of the other states with 

sources potentially impacting visibility 

in the Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

domain had not yet made final control 

determinations for BART, and thus, 

these controls are not included in the 

modeling prepared by MANE–VU and 

used by Class I area states to determine 

RPGs. At that time, not all of the 

emission reductions from New York’s 

BART-eligible sources were included in 

the modeling. Any controls resulting 

from those determinations will provide 

additional emissions reductions and 

resulting visibility improvement, and 

improve the likelihood that RPGs will 

be met in the Class I areas in the 

northeast. This modeling demonstrates 

that the 2018 base control scenario 

provides for an improvement in 

visibility equal to the uniform rate of 

progress for the Class I areas in MANE– 

VU for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensures no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. 

The modeling that supported the 

analysis of these RPGs is consistent with 

EPA guidance. The Regional Haze Rules 

specify that a state may not adopt a RPG 

that represents less visibility 

improvement than is expected to result 

from other CAA requirements during 

the implementation period. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, states 

subject to CAIR with Class I areas and 

that are in MANE–VU, took into account 

emission reductions anticipated from 

CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs. 

MANE–VU approximated the impact of 

CAIR by reducing emissions from 167 

EGUs by ninety percent. But this 

reduction was larger, in total tons of 

emissions reduced, than the reductions 

expected from CAIR, so MANE–VU 

added emissions across the modeling 

domain to more closely approximate the 

emission reductions from CAIR. These 

‘add back’ emissions, kept the MANE– 

VU States’ modeling from 

overestimating the improvement in 

visibility from those states that use EPA 

transport reduction rules as their 

response to MANE–VU’s ‘‘ask’’ of ninety 

percent reductions from the 167 EGUs 

in the eastern United States. 

As discussed in Section I of this 

action, EPA anticipates that the CSAPR 

will result in similar or better 

improvements in visibility than those 

predicted from CAIR. Because the 

CSAPR was recently finalized, EPA does 

not know at this time how it will affect 

any individual Class I area and cannot 

accurately model future conditions 

based on its implementation. However, 

by the time New York is required to 

undertake its five year progress review, 

it is likely that the impact of the 

CSAPR’s contribution to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in MANE– 

VU States will be assessed. The 

reductions at New York’s 19 EGU 

stacks, combined with additional 

reductions described later in this 

section, exceed 90 percent and are 

greater than the anticipated reductions 

from CAIR or CSAPR. Thus it is likely 

New York will have contributed its 

share of reductions that were modeled 

to produce the RPGs at Class I areas 

impacted by New York. However, New 

York must still submit its finalized 

permits in a timely manner, at the 

emission limits that EPA has proposed 

to approve in our FIP or EPA 

implements the FIP in place of New 

York’s BART limits. If, for a particular 

Class I area, these reductions do not 

provide similar or greater benefits than 

CAIR and meeting the RPGs at one of its 

Class I areas is in jeopardy, the state will 

be required to address this circumstance 

in its five year review. 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in 

states affected by emissions from New 

York are based on modeled projections 

of future conditions that were 

developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

completed. While MANE–VU’s 

emission inventory, used for modeling, 

included estimates of future emission 

growth, projections can change as 

additional information regarding future 

conditions becomes available. It would 

be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually adjust the RPG every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. At the same time, 

EPA established a requirement for a 

five-year, midcourse review and, if 

necessary, correction of the states’ 

regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 

52.308(g). New York committed to the 

midcourse review and submitting 

revisions to the regional haze plan 

where necessary. 

b. How New York’s Plan Addresses Its 

Share of Reductions Toward Meeting 

the Reasonable Progress Goal 

Altogether, these emission controls— 

a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from EGUs, emission reductions from 

BART-eligible sources and a low sulfur 

fuel oil strategy—are reasonable 

measures for the reduction strategy 

required by EPA’s RHR. EPA agrees that 

emission reductions from these 

measures or their equivalent, including 

when New York’s BART program is 

implemented or when EPA’s FIP 

alternative is in place, will provide the 

emission reductions New York needs to 

meet its share of the improvements in 

visibility needed to meet the RPG goals 

to assist visibility improvement at other 

Class I areas affected by New York’s 

emissions. 

To address the MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’, 

New York needs to reduce emissions at 

its 19 major source stacks by 90 percent 

or more or find equivalent emission 

reductions. Based on EPA’s tabulation 

of emission reductions from these 

sources, the total reduction in emissions 

is less than 90 percent. In addition, New 

York has equivalent emission 

reductions from two non-EGU sources 

beyond the planned BART controls 

included in MANE–VU’s modeling. 

These two sources, Kodak and LaFarge 

Building Materials, were modeled in the 

MANE–VU’s modeling with reduced 

emissions based on an initial BART 

analysis. However, their emissions will 

be reduced further based on the recent 

New York proposed BART 

determinations for these facilities which 

will result in the shutdown of portions 

of these facilities that were to be subject 

to BART. These tons of sulfur emissions 

beyond the non-EGU BART modeled by 

MANE–VU fulfill the goal of 90 percent 

reduction from New York’s share of the 

167 major source stacks. 

As explained in more detail in the 

TSD, New York’s share of the 90 percent 

reduction from the 167 major emission 

stacks in the MANE–VU modeling is 90 

percent of 132,959 tons per year of 

sulfur emissions modeled in the 2002 

base case, or 13,296 tons per year. 

As shown in the TSD, EPA calculated 

the remaining emissions from New 

York’s 19 major EGUs after application 

of BART to total 22,406 tons per year of 

SO2; that is a reduction of 83 percent or 

9,110 tons per year short of the 90 

percent reduction target. However, this 

remaining tonnage is more than made 

up for by the reduction of 11,195 tons 

of SO2 beyond the modeled BART 

controls at the two non-EGU facilities 

discussed above. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Thus, New York State’s emission 

reductions from its 19 EGUs and the 

additional reductions beyond BART 

from the two non-EGU sources are 

sufficient to exceed its share of the 

emission reductions in the MANE–VU 

modeling needed to meet the 90 percent 

emission reduction target for the 

MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’. 

With respect to New York’s low sulfur 

fuel strategy, this section describes how 

these programs fulfill the emission 

reductions projected in the modeling 

used to demonstrate reasonable progress 

by the end of the first period in 2018. 

According to New York’s Regional 

Haze SIP, the MANE–VU modeling 

projected a reduction of 71,759 ton per 

year resulting from a low sulfur fuel 

strategy in New York. New York enacted 

legislation to limit sulfur in number 2 

oil to 15 ppm by 2012, providing a 

projected SO2 emission reduction of 

54,090 tons per year. Based on this 

information, to meet the MANE–VU 

‘‘ask’’ New York would have to obtain 

additional emission reductions of 

17,699 tons per year. New York 

anticipates expanding the low sulfur 

fuel limits to other types of oil to meet 

the specifications of the MANE–VU 

program. However, if New York does 

not implement this expanded program 

by the time EPA takes final action on 

this Haze SIP, New York’s emissions 

will be 17,699 tons greater than the 

emissions modeled by MANE–VU 

which showed achievement of the 2018 

progress goal. 

While New York will obtain 

additional emission reductions through 

expansion of their low sulfur fuel 

strategy, EPA notes that MANE–VU 

added back into the modeling inventory 

23,100 tons per year in New York to 

better approximate the likely reductions 

from EPA’s proposed transport rules. 

These added back emissions of 23,100 

tons per year of SO2 are more than the 

needed 17,699 tons per year from New 

York’s expanded Sulfur in Fuel rule. 

Therefore, while New York did not 

implement all of the parts of the 

programs included in the MANE–VU 

‘ask’, the overall reduction of emissions 

in New York State will achieve all of the 

emission reductions in the MANE–VU 

set of reasonable measures, and insure 

that New York emission reductions will 

meet the amount of emission reductions 

needed for its contribution toward 

attaining the reasonable progress goal in 

the period ending in 2018. 

In summary, New York used the 

MANE–VU analysis which defined the 

reasonable progress goals, and 

reasonable measures needed to achieve 

emission reductions to meet these goals. 

The reasonable measures analyses 

considered the cost of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, and the 

remaining useful life of the existing 

sources subject to such requirements. 

This led to the MANE–VU States’ 

agreement to use a 90 percent reduction 

in EGU stacks, low sulfur fuel and 

BART as reasonable controls, or to 

determine equivalent amounts of 

reductions to reach the goals. EPA notes 

that letters from states with Class I areas 

affected by New York’s emissions (New 

Jersey and New Hampshire), did not ask 

for any additional controls beyond those 

specified in the MANE–VU analyses. 

These MANE–VU controls, plus other 

existing measures and the input from 

the MANE–VU consultations, were 

modeled to project the 2018 visibility 

levels. These projections were used in 

setting the 2018 Reasonable Progress 

Goals. For the Class I areas in MANE– 

VU, these projections meet the Uniform 

Rate of Progress, an analytical 

requirement in the EPA’s RHR. As 

described above, EPA proposes to 

concur that New York’s emission 

reductions will provide its share of the 

reductions needed to achieve the RPGs 

at Class I areas in the Northeast United 

States, if New York submits its final 

permits for its BART sources as SIP 

revisions, matching the emission limits 

in EPA’s FIP alternatives for New York’s 

permits. 

5. Section 19–0325 of the 

Environmental Conservation Law—Low 

Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy 

The MANE–VU low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy includes a reduction of 

distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight 

(500 parts per million (ppm)) by no later 

than 2012; #4 residual oil to 0.25% 

sulfur by weight no later than 2012; #6 

residual oil to 0.3–0.5% sulfur by 

weight no later than 2012; and to further 

reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil 

to 15 ppm by 2016. 

New York satisfied a commitment 

included in the Regional Haze SIP 

through legislation. New York amended 

the Environmental Conservation Law 

(ECL) to require a reduction in sulfur for 

heating oil used in New York State, 

which will aid in reducing sulfates that 

cause decreased visibility. Specifically, 

Bill Number S1145C amends the ECL by 

adding a new section 19–0325 to require 

that on or after July 1, 2012, all number 

two heating oil sold for use in 

residential, commercial, or industrial 

heating within New York State shall not 

have a sulfur content greater than 15 

ppm. This requirement was established 

through state legislation rather than 

rulemaking and is presently in effect 

without a need for rule promulgation. 

In addition, New York is planning to 

revise 6 NYCRR Subpart 225–1, Fuel 

Composition and Use—Sulfur 

Limitations to lower current distillate 

and residual oil sulfur-in-fuel 

limitations. ECL section 19–0325 

establishes the limits for heating oil 

throughout the State beginning on July 

1, 2012. New York is including these 

provisions, and plans to establish 

additional more stringent requirements 

in Subpart 225–1 for the remainder of 

fuel oils. By reducing the sulfur in the 

fuel oils, sulfur oxide emissions and 

particulate emissions will be reduced 

which will improve visibility and help 

to attain the PM 2.5 national ambient air 

quality standard. EPA notes that 

existing provisions of Subpart 225–1 are 

incorporated in the current SIP, and 

Subpart 225–1 contains provisions 

regarding enforcement and compliance, 

recordkeeping, emissions and fuel 

monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, 

sampling and analysis. 

Major SO2 emission reductions are 

obtained as a result of the legislation 

being implemented. These reductions 

are occurring in 2012, well before the 

2016 requirement in MANE–VU’s ‘‘ask.’’ 

As discussed above, New York expects 

to achieve the remaining SO2 reductions 

upon amending Subpart 225–1 to 

establish the additional more stringent 

fuel oil requirements. In the meantime, 

EPA proposes to determine New York’s 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy in 

combination with the other planned 

reductions will provide the necessary 

reductions from New York for other 

Class I areas to meet their respective 

RPGs, as described above. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of New York’s 

LTS, as well as a requirement to 

evaluate controls for older sources that 

affect Class I areas. The BART regional 

haze requirement consists of three steps: 

(a) Identification of all the BART 

eligible sources; (b) an assessment of 

whether the BART eligible sources are 

subject to BART; and (c) the 

determination of the BART controls. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources in New York 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources. In its March 2010 SIP 

submittal, New York preliminarily 

identified twenty sources as BART 

eligible. Subsequently, after further 

review, New York determined that two 

sources, the Poletti Power Project 

(Astoria, NY) and the Port Jefferson 

Energy Center (Port Jefferson, NY) were 

not BART eligible; and New York 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24805 

further determined that certain sources 

at Con Edison’s Ravenswood Steam 

Plant were BART eligible. The nineteen 

sources in Table 3 were identified by 

New York either in its March 2010 

Regional Haze SIP submittal or in its 

proposed permits and met the following 

criteria to be classified as BART eligible: 

• One or more emissions units at the 

facility are within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART Guidelines 

(70 FR 39158–39159); 

• The emission unit(s) was in 

existence on August 7, 1977 and begun 

operation after August 6, 1962; 

• Potential emissions of SO2, NOX, 

and PM10 from subject units are 250 

tons or more per year. 

These criteria are from section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified in 40 

CFR Part 51, Appendix Y. 

TABLE 3—BART-ELIGIBLE FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Facilities Units Pollutants Location (county) Permit I.D 

National Grid EF Barrett Power Station ............. Boiler 2 ......................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Nassau ......................... 1–2820–00553 

National Grid Northport Power Station ............... Boilers 1,2,3,4 .............. NOX, SO2, PM ............. Suffolk .......................... 1–4726–00130 

Con Ed 59th Street Station ................................ Steam Boilers 114, 115 NOX, SO2, PM ............. New York ..................... 2–6202–00032 

NRG Arthur Kill GS ............................................ Boiler 30 ....................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Richmond ..................... 2–6403–00014 

TC Ravenswood LLC Ravenswood GS ............. Boilers 10, 20, 30 ........ NOX, SO2, PM ............. Queens ........................ 2–6304–00024 

Trans Canada/Con Ed Ravenswood Steam 

Plant.

Boiler 2 ......................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Queens ........................ 2–6304–01378 

GenOn (Miriant) Bowline GS .............................. Boilers 1 and 2 ............ NOX, SO2, PM ............. Rockland ...................... 3–3922–00003 

Dynegy Danskammer GS ................................... Boiler 4 ......................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Orange ......................... 3–3346–00011 

Dynegy Roseton GS ........................................... Boilers 1 and 2 ............ NOX, SO2, PM ............. Orange ......................... 3–3346–00075 

Holcim (US) Inc Catskill Plant ............................ Wet Process Kiln (cement plant).NOX, SO2, PM ............. Green ........................... 4–1926–00021 

Lafarge Building Materials Ravena Plant ........... Wet Process Kilns 1 

and 2 (cement plant).

NOX, SO2, PM ............. Albany .......................... 4–0124–00001 

Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC— 

Delmar Plant.

Emission Units EU2, 

EU3, EU12, EU13, 

EU14.

NOX, SO2, PM ............. Albany .......................... 4–0122–00004 

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill ................. Power Boiler, Recovery 

Boiler.

NOX, SO2, PM ............. Essex ........................... 5–1548–00008 

Lehigh Northeast Cement .................................. Process Kiln (cement 

plant).

NOX, SO2, PM ............. Warren ......................... 5–5205–00013 

Alcoa Massena Operations West Plant ............. Potline, Baking Furnace, Package Boilers.NOX, SO2, PM ............. St. Lawrence ................ 6–4058–00003 

NRG Oswego Harbor Power .............................. Units 5, 6 ..................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Oswego ........................ 7–3512–00030 

GDF Suez Syracuse Energy Corp. .................... Boiler 1 ......................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Onondaga .................... 7–3132–00052 

Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy GS Kodak Park 

Division.

Boilers 41, 42, 43 ........ NOX, SO2, PM ............. Monroe ......................... 8–2614–00205 

Jamestown BPU Samuel A Carlson GS ............ Boiler 12 ....................... NOX, SO2, PM ............. Chautauqua ................. 9–0608–00053 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants. The 

Guidelines note that states can decide 

whether to evaluate VOC or ammonia 

emissions. New York did not develop 

additional strategies for VOC or 

ammonia emissions in its SIP. EPA 

proposes to agree with New York’s 

determination because of the relative 

uncertainty to estimate emissions and 

model VOC and ammonia effects on 

visibility, and because New York is 

aggressively addressing VOCs through 

its approved ozone SIPs. In summary, 

EPA agrees with New York’s 

determination that SO2, NOX, PM10, and 

PM2.5 are the pollutants reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment to target under BART. 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

As discussed in the BART guidelines, a 

state may choose to consider all BART 

eligible sources to be subject to BART 

(70 FR 39.161). The MANE–VU Board 

decided in June 2004 that because of the 

collective importance of BART sources, 

BART determinations should be made 

by the MANE–VU States for each BART 

eligible source. New York followed this 

approach by identifying each of its 

BART eligible sources as subject to 

BART, (see Table 3 above). 

b. BART Evaluations for Sources 

Identified as BART by New York 

The final component of a BART 

evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the Act requires that states consider the 

following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility that may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. However, a 

source that implements the maximum 

feasible level of control for its emissions 

has met the BART requirements, and no 

further analysis is needed. Conversely, a 

source that limits its emissions via an 

enforceable permit limit no longer needs 

to be subject to BART review. 

New York properly determined that 

the nineteen facilities listed in Table 3 

are subject to BART review. The 

following summarizes New York’s 

BART analyses and EPA’s evaluation of 

New York’s analysis for each of the 

nineteen BART facilities. For further 

details the reader is referred to the 

owner’s BART analyses and New York’s 

BART determinations located in the 

docket for this proposal at EPA’s Web 

site at www.regulations.gov. References 

below to New York’s draft Title V or 

draft Air Facility permit means that the 

State has issued the permit for public 

comment over a 30-day period. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15On January 21, 2010, EPA announced that the 

U.S. filed Clean Air Act settlements to reduce air 

emissions from container glass and Portland cement 

plants throughout the country. (Case 3:10–cv– 

000440JPG–CJP) This settlement includes Portland 

cement plants owned by Lafarge Company, 

including one located at Ravena, NY that has two 

wet kilns that New York has identified as BARTeligible. 

BART Eligible Units That Will Cap Out 

of BART—One Facility 

Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC 

Owens Corning is reducing its annual 

combustion emissions limit to bring the 

five BART units’(Emission Units EU2 

(DM1 Oxy Fuel Furnace), EU3 

(DM1Forming/Cooling Unit), EU12 

(DM2 Oxy Fuel Furnace), EU13 (DM2 

Mixing Chamber), and EU14 (DM2 

Smoke Stripper/Cooling Section)) 

cumulative potential to emit each 

pollutant (NOX, SO2, and PM) to less 

than 250 tons per year (tpy) by the 

effective date of the Title V permit, 

which New York expects to be by mid 

-2012. As a result, none of the three 

pollutants will exceed the BART 

threshold and Owens Corning will not 

be subject to further BART analyses. 

EPA proposes approval of this BART 

evaluation since it conforms to EPA 

Guidance that allows a source to cap out 

of BART by reducing emissions from 

BART eligible sources to below the 

BART threshold of 250 tpy. The 

implementation date for the cap out, 

emission limits, monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting requirements will 

be included in New York’s final Title V 

permit. 

BART Eligible Units That Will 

Permanently Shut Down—Four 

Facilities 

Owners of BART eligible units at four 

of the nineteen facilities listed in Table 

3 above have decided to shut down 

those units rather than install BART to 

control emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM. 

The four facilities include Lafarge 

Building Materials Inc, Syracuse Energy 

Corporation, Samuel A. Carlson 

Generating Station, and Holcim (US) 

Inc—Catskill Plant. New York will be 

including the compliance shutdown 

dates in either final State Facility 

permits or final Title V permits and 

submitting them to EPA for approval as 

a SIP revision by mid-2012, after the 

opportunity for public comment. These 

permit conditions become federally 

enforceable when the State submits the 

BART portions of the permits to EPA for 

approval as a supplement to the RH SIP. 

The Lafarge facility is under an existing 

federal consent decree and the 

shutdown date for the BART eligible 

units is therefore already federally 

enforceable. Therefore EPA proposes 

approval of the permanent shut down of 

the BART eligible units for the purpose 

of meeting BART at the four facilities 

discussed immediately below. Should 

New York not submit the final Title V 

permit for each applicable facility 

(except the Lafarge facility) in a timely 

manner, EPA proposes that the 

aforementioned BART requirements be 

considered as federal requirements as 

part of a FIP. 

Lafarge Building Materials, Inc 

Lafarge Building Materials Inc owns a 

facility that manufactures Portland 

cement that is located near Ravena, NY. 

New York determined that the two 

existing long wet kilns, kilns 1 and 2 

(Emission Unit 0–41000; Emission 

sources 4KLN1 and 4KLN2, 

respectively), are BART eligible. In 

January 2010, Lafarge entered into a 

Consent Decree with EPA 15 which 

contains a compliance schedule for the 

Ravena Plant to either modernize the 

existing plant, retrofit the existing kilns 

with NOX and SO2 controls, or retire the 

kilns. In a letter to New York dated 

September 30, 2011, Lafarge informed 

the State of its intent to modernize the 

existing plant by replacing the two 

existing long wet kilns with a new short 

dry kiln and pre-heater pre-calciner 

tower in compliance with the consent 

decree. In accordance with the consent 

decree, kilns 1 and 2 are to be retired 

within 180 days after commencement of 

operation of the new kiln; and the latest 

date to start operation of the new kiln 

is January 1, 2015. Therefore, the latest 

date that kilns 1 and 2 can be in 

operation is June 30, 2015. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

York’s BART determination that 

Lafarge’s two existing long wet kilns, 

kilns 1 and 2, will permanently shut 

down in accordance with conditions set 

forth in the existing federally 

enforceable consent decree announced 

in January 2010. Should the existing 

federally enforceable consent decree be 

revised under agreement by all parties, 

New York must submit any revisions to 

EPA as a SIP revision for the purpose of 

complying with BART. 

Syracuse Energy Corporation 

The Syracuse Energy Corporation 

(SEC), located in Geddes, NY, owns and 

operates a coal-fired boiler (Unit 1) with 

a heat input greater than 250 million 

BTUs per hour (mm BTU/hr) that is 

BART eligible. In a letter to New York 

dated September 22, 2010, SEC stated 

that it would either accept NESCAUM/ 

New York’s visibility modeling results if 

they showed an insignificant impact or 

otherwise shut down the boiler by 

January 1, 2014, the BART compliance 

date established by 6 NYCRR Part 249, 

NY’s BART regulation. New York 

subsequently decided that SEC’s Unit 1 

was BART eligible and accepted SEC’s 

decision to permanently shut down Unit 

1. The shutdown compliance schedule 

for Unit 1 is included in the facility’s 

draft Title V permit. EPA expects to 

receive the final Title V permit from 

New York as a SIP revision by mid2012. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve New York’s decision that SEC’s 

Unit 1 will permanently shut down by 

January 1, 2014 and is exempt from 

implementing any BART controls. 

Samuel A. Carlson Generating Station 

The Samuel A. Carlson (SAC) 

Generating Station is a municipal 

electric power generating plant owned 

and operated by the Jamestown Board of 

Public Utilities (JBPU). The facility 

operates three coal fired boilers (Boilers 

#9, #10 and #12) with a combined 

output of 49 megawatts. New York has 

determined that Boiler 12 is BART 

eligible and JBPU has decided to 

permanently shut down Boiler 12 by 

January 1, 2014 in order to be exempt 

from the BART requirements for that 

unit. This shut down compliance date 

for Boiler 12 is included in the New 

York’s final Title V permit. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve New 

York’s decision that SAC’s Unit 12 will 

permanently shut down by January 1, 

2014 and is exempt from implementing 

any BART controls. 

Holcim (US) Inc—Catskill Plant 

The Holcim (US)—Catskill Plant owns 

a Portland cement and quarry operation 

located in Catskill, NY. New York has 

determined that Emission Unit U– 

00K18, Emission Source 0KILN is BART 

eligible. This BART eligible source 

includes a wet process kiln along with 

a clinker cooler and finish mill air 

separators. The wet process kiln 

accounts for virtually all of the gaseous 

emissions (e.g., NOX and SO2) from the 

plant and the majority of the plant’s PM 

emissions. The clinker cooler and finish 

mill air separators are primarily sources 

of PM emissions. In an email dated 

January 31, 2012, New York informed 

EPA that the owner has decided to 

permanently shut down the BART 

eligible units and will surrender their 

permits. New York has informed EPA 

that the wet process kiln has not been 

in operation since October 2010 and the 

Title V permit has expired, effective 

February 13, 2012. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve New York’s 

decision that Holcim’s wet kiln and 

clinker cooler are now permanently 

shutdown. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24807 

16At 6 NYCRR Part 200—General Provisions, 

New York defines a very large boiler as ‘‘a boiler 

with a maximum heat input capacity greater than 

250 million British thermal units (BTU) per hour,’’ 

i.e. 250 mm BTU/hr. 

Fourteen Facilities Will Implement 

BART Requirements 

Con Ed—59th Street Station 

This facility, owned by Consolidated 

Edison Company of New York (Con Ed), 

operates two very large boilers,16 Boilers 

114 (Emission Unit 5–90020; Emission 

source 00114) and 115 (Emission Unit 

5–90020; Emission source 00115), as 

well as other boilers and a combustion 

turbine at its 59th Street Station in New 

York City. New York has determined 

that Boilers 114 and 115 are both BART 

eligible units. Boilers 114 and 115 are 

each fixed-tangential units with a design 

maximum heat input capacity of 805 

mm BTU/hr. Both boilers combust 

(primarily) low sulfur (0.30 percent 

sulfur by weight) residual oil (Number 

6 fuel oil), with natural gas used for 

ignition. New York indicates that these 

two boilers are used to generate steam 

only and do not generate electricity but 

follow a steam load which results in 

limited operation and significant 

unused capacity. Con Ed’s BART 

submittal indicates that the average 

annual capacity for the years 2007–2009 

is about 55%. 

Con Ed submitted a BART 

determination to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations that the current 

operations constitute BART. For control 

of SO2 emissions, New York is 

proposing that the current use of low 

sulfur (0.30% by weight) No. 6 fuel oil 

represents BART. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed Con Ed’s BART analysis 

that considered seven different controls 

(two of which are technically 

infeasible), including Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR), and the State is 

proposing that the current use of offstoichiometric firing with an emission 

limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU (on a 30-day 

rolling average), when combusting 

either No. 6 fuel oil or natural gas, 

represents BART for each boiler. New 

York’s BART analysis for NOX

concluded that each of the technically 

feasible control options is not cost 

effective (in the range of $8,717 to 

$31,825) because each boiler typically 

operates at only 55% capacity. New 

York also reports that Con Ed 

demonstrated that visibility 

improvement was very low (0.04 dv 

maximum cumulative at 7 Class I areas) 

when evaluating the NOX control option 

(‘‘water injection’’ option) that was the 

closest to, but still higher than, New 

York’s $5,500/ton cost effectiveness 

threshold. 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed Con Ed’s BART analysis 

that considered three potential add-on 

control technologies but Con Ed 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

these technologies do not appear to be 

demonstrated in practice for a utility 

boiler that combusts oil as the primary 

fuel. New York has determined that 

BART control of PM emissions is the 

continued use of current operations that 

includes good combustion practices and 

the use of low sulfur fuel, with an 

emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU (by 

stack tests) representing BART for each 

boiler. The aforementioned BART 

requirements for each boiler are 

included in New York’s draft Title V 

permit including requirements for 

monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

finalized the draft Title V permit on 

March 20, 2012 and expects to submit 

it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by 

mid-2012. 

Con Ed—Ravenswood Steam Plant 

This facility, owned by Consolidated 

Edison Company of New York (Con Ed), 

operates one very large boiler, Boiler 2 

(Emission Source ESAH2), as well as 

three other boilers at its Ravenswood 

Steam Plant in Queens County, a 

borough of New York City. New York 

has determined that Boiler 2 is a BART 

eligible unit. Boiler 2 is a front-wall 

fired unit with a design maximum heat 

input capacity of 424 mm BTU/hr. 

Boiler 2 combusts (primarily) low sulfur 

(0.30 percent sulfur by weight) residual 

oil (Number 6 fuel oil), with natural gas 

used for ignition. New York indicates 

that Boiler 2 is used to generate steam 

only and does not produce electricity 

but follows a steam load which results 

in limited operation and significant 

unused capacity. Con Ed’s BART 

submittal indicates that the average 

annual capacity for the years 2007–2009 

is about 21%. 

Con Ed submitted a BART 

determination to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations that the current 

operations constitute BART. For control 

of SO2 emissions, New York is 

proposing that the current use of low 

sulfur (0.30% by weight) No. 6 fuel oil 

represents BART. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed Con Ed’s BART analysis 

that considered seven control options 

(two of which are technically 

infeasible), including Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR), and the State is 

proposing that the current operation 

with good combustion/operating 

practices with an emission limit of 0.32 

lb/mm BTU (on a 30-day rolling 

average), when combusting either No. 6 

fuel oil or natural gas, represents BART 

for Boiler 2. New York’s BART analysis 

for NOX concluded that each of the 

technically feasible control options is 

not cost effective because each boiler 

operates at a low annual capacity. New 

York also reports that Con Ed 

demonstrated that visibility 

improvement was very low (0.01 to 0.02 

dv) when assuming a NOX control 

reduction of 30%. 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed Con Ed’s BART analysis 

that considered three potential add-on 

control technologies but Con Ed 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

these technologies are not demonstrated 

in practice for a utility boiler that 

combusts oil as the primary fuel. New 

York has determined that BART control 

of PM emissions is the continued use of 

current operations that includes good 

combustion practices and the use of low 

sulfur fuel, with an emission limit of 

0.10 lb/mm BTU representing BART for 

Boiler 2. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boiler 2 are included 

in New York’s draft Title V permit 

including requirements for monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting and 

includes a compliance date of January 1, 

2014. New York finalized the draft Title 

V permit on March 20, 2012 and expects 

to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval by mid-2012. 

Trans Canada (TC) Ravenswood LLC— 

Ravenswood Generating Station 

This facility, owned by TC 

Ravenswood LLC, operates three very 

large boilers, Boilers 10 (Emission Unit 

U–00010; Emission Source ES10H/ 

ES10R), 20 (Emission Unit U–00020; 

Emission Source ES20H/ES20R), and 30 

(Emission Unit U–00030; Emission 

Source ES30H/ES30R), as well as 

combustion turbines at its Ravenswood 

Generating Station in Queens County, a 

borough of New York City. New York 

has determined that Boilers 10, 20 and 

30 are each BART eligible units. Each 

unit combusts primarily natural gas but 

low sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is occasionally 

combusted in order to maintain system 

reliability whenever natural gas is 

unavailable. These units have maximum 

heat input rates of 4204 mm BTU/hr, 

4171 mm BTU/hr, and 9370 mm BTU/ 

hr, respectively and have a combined 

nominal rating of 1752 MW. For 

controlling air emissions, all three units 

are equipped with close coupled over 

fire air (CCOFA) systems and low NOX

burners (LNBs) for NOX control while 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

SO2 emissions are limited by the use of 

low sulfur (0.30%) fuel oil. 

TC submitted a BART determination 

to New York and the State agreed with 

the owner’s recommendations. For 

control of SO2 emissions, TC proposed, 

and New York agreed, that the current 

permitted condition that limits the 

maximum sulfur content of the fuel oil 

to 0.30% represents BART for each of 

the three BART eligible boilers. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed TC’s BART analysis that 

considered five control options, 

including SCR, and the State is 

proposing that the current operation 

using natural gas as the primary fuel 

with an emission limit of 0.15 lb/mm 

BTU (on a 30-day rolling average) 

represents BART. TC conducted a BART 

analysis for the 100% oil-firing case 

since the owners considered this 

condition as the highest emission case 

for all haze-causing emissions. The 

BART control option for NOX having the 

lowest emission limit (reduction from 

0.24 lb/mm BTU to 0.15 lb/mm BTU) as 

well as being technically and 

economically feasible is the addition of 

both separated over fire air (SOFA) and 

selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR). However, since the three BART 

units combust primarily natural gas and 

combust low sulfur fuel oil primarily for 

reliability purposes, it is unlikely that 

this control option would be cost 

effective for the few periods when only 

fuel oil is combusted. Therefore BART 

is determined to be the continued 

operational mode of primarily 

combusting natural gas. EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division reports that average 

NOX emissions for the five year period 

from 2006–2010 for natural gas firing 

varies from 0.06 to 0.09 lb/mm BTU for 

these boilers. 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed TC’s BART analysis that 

considered three potential add-on 

technologies and one operational 

change switching to low sulfur distillate 

fuel oil but TC determined, and New 

York agreed, that these add-on 

technologies and operational change are 

either technically or economically 

infeasible. New York has determined 

that current operations represent BART 

for PM on the three BART eligible 

boilers with an emission limit of 0.10 

lb/mm BTU. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boilers 10, 20, and 30 

are included in New York’s draft Title 

V permit including requirements for 

monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

finalized the draft Title V permit on 

April 6, 2012 and expects to submit it 

as a SIP revision for EPA approval by 

mid-2012. 

National Grid—EF Barrett Power Station 

This facility, owned by National Grid 

Generation LLC, operates one very large 

boiler, Boiler 2 (Emission Unit U–00002; 

Emission Source ES002), as well as 

another boiler and several combustion 

turbines at its EF Barrett Power Station 

located in the town of Hempstead in 

Nassau County. New York has 

determined that Boiler 2 is a BART 

eligible unit. Boiler 2 is a tangentially 

fired unit rated at a maximum heat 

input of 1825 mm BTU/hr and has a 

generating capacity of 185 MW. Boiler 2 

is capable of combusting natural gas or 

oil, though it fires natural gas almost 

exclusively, with low sulfur oil serving 

as a backup in case of gas shortages. 

National Grid reports that this boiler is 

no longer a base loaded unit but rather 

a load following unit which can cycle 

from minimum load to full load and 

back to minimum load daily. 

National Grid submitted a BART 

determination to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations that the current 

operations constitute BART. For control 

of SO2 emissions, New York is 

proposing that the current use of low 

sulfur (0.37%) fuel oil represents BART. 

EPA requested that the State evaluate a 

BART option to limit the amount of fuel 

oil combusted but New York indicated 

that National Grid is unable to accept a 

permit condition limiting the amount of 

fuel oil burned, which would limit 

sulfur emissions, because it would 

detract from the operational flexibility 

needed to meet the requirements of The 

New York State Reliability Council 

reliability rule I–R5 (the ‘‘minimum oil 

burn rule’’) which promotes reliability 

of the electrical grid within the local 

New York City area. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed National Grid’s BART 

analysis that considered the addition of 

SCR and SNCR controls beyond the 

existing control technology of separated 

over fire air (SOFA) that was installed 

in the mid-1990s. National Grid 

determined that SCR is economically 

infeasible and SNCR is economically 

and technically infeasible due to the 

load swinging operation of the boiler 

and projected low operating capacity 

factor of 25%. New York also indicated 

low NOX burners were less effective 

than SOFA. Therefore, the State is 

proposing that SOFA control technology 

with emission limits of 0.10 lb/mm BTU 

when firing natural gas and 0.20 lb/mm 

BTU when firing low sulfur fuel oil, 

both on a 24-hour average, represent 

BART for Boiler 2. 

For control of PM emissions, National 

Grid evaluated two control technologies 

and determined that both were 

economically infeasible. Since natural 

gas is the primary fuel combusted in 

this boiler, New York agreed with this 

BART analysis and is proposing that 

current operation (no controls), with an 

emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU 

represents BART for Boiler 2. For this 

boiler, New York indicates that PM from 

‘‘unspeciated PM10’’ emissions is 

approximately 0.013 lb/mm BTU. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boiler 2 are included 

in New York’s draft Title V permit 

including requirements for monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting and 

includes a compliance date of January 1, 

2014. New York finalized the draft Title 

V permit on March 27, 2012 and expects 

to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval by mid-2012. 

National Grid—Northport Power Station 

This facility, owned by National Grid 

Generation LLC, operates four very large 

boiler, Boilers 1 (Emission Unit U– 

00001; Emission Source ES001), 2 

(Emission Unit U–00002; Emission 

Source ES003), 3 (Emission Unit U– 

00003; Emission Source ES005), and 4 

(Emission Unit U–00004; Emission 

Source ES007), as well as a combustion 

turbine at its Northport Power Station 

located in the town of Northport in 

Suffolk County. New York has 

determined that Boilers 1 through 4 are 

BART eligible units. Each of the four 

BART eligible boilers are identical in 

design: each is a tangentially fired unit 

rated at a maximum heat input of 3695 

mm BTU/hr and each has a generating 

capacity of 385 MW. Each boiler is 

capable of combusting natural gas or oil, 

although these units primarily combust 

natural gas with backup oil firing 

capability. National Grid reports that 

these boilers are no longer base loaded 

units but rather load following units 

which can cycle from minimum load to 

full load and back to minimum load 

daily. 

National Grid submitted a BART 

determination to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations. For control of SO2

emissions New York is proposing that 

BART is the lowering of the sulfur 

content of fuel oil used for combustion 

in each boiler to 0.70% from 1.00% for 

Boilers 1 through 3 and from 0.75% for 

Boiler 4. EPA requested that the State 

evaluate a BART option to limit the 

amount of fuel oil combusted but New 

York indicated that National Grid is 

unable to accept a permit condition 

limiting the amount of fuel oil burned, 

which would limit sulfur emissions, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24809 

because it would detract from the 

operational flexibility needed to meet 

the requirements of The New York State 

Reliability Council reliability rule I–R5 

(the ‘‘minimum oil burn rule’’) which 

promotes reliability of the electrical grid 

within the local New York City area. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed National Grid’s BART 

analysis that considered the addition of 

SCR, SNCR, and SOFA controls beyond 

the existing control technology of close 

coupled over fire air (CCOFA). National 

Grid determined that SCR is 

economically infeasible and SNCR is 

economically and technically infeasible 

due to the load swinging operation of 

the boiler and projected low operating 

capacity factor of 25%. Therefore, the 

State is proposing that SOFA control 

technology with emission limits of 0.10 

lb/mm BTU when firing natural gas and 

0.20 lb/mm BTU when firing fuel oil, 

both on a 24-hour average, represent 

BART for each of the four BART eligible 

boilers. 

For control of PM emissions, National 

Grid determined that there is no feasible 

or cost effective PM control technology 

beyond the existing electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) control on each boiler 

since the boilers are predominantly 

natural gas fired with only a relatively 

small percentage of oil fired. New York 

agreed with this BART analysis and is 

proposing that the current ESP control 

with an emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm 

BTU represents BART for each of the 

four BART eligible boilers. For these 

boilers, New York indicates that PM 

from ‘‘unspeciated PM10’’ emissions 

range from approximately 0.017 to 0.027 

lb/mm BTU. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boiler 2 are included 

in New York’s draft Title V permit 

including requirements for monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting and 

includes a compliance date of January 1, 

2014. New York finalized the draft Title 

V permit on March 27, 2012 and expects 

to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval by mid-2012. 

NRG—Arthur Kill Generating Station 

This facility, owned by NRG Energy 

and permitted to Arthur Kill Power LLC, 

operates two very large boilers, Boiler 

20 and 30, as well as a combustion 

turbine and two emergency generators at 

its Arthur Kill Generating Station 

located in Richmond County in the city 

of New York. New York has determined 

that Boiler 30 (Emission Unit A–K0001; 

Emission Source 00030) is a BART 

eligible unit. Boiler 30 is a tangentially 

fired unit rated at a maximum heat 

input of 5502 mm BTU/hr and has a 

generating capacity of 536 MW. Boiler 

30 is capable of combusting natural gas 

or oil, though it has combusted only 

natural gas for the past 10 years. New 

York’s fuel oil regulation, Part 225, 

restricts the sulfur content of residual 

fuel oil and distillate oil to 0.30% 

(equivalent to about 0.33 lb/mm BTU) 

and 0.20%, respectively, for sources 

located in New York City. 

NRG submitted a BART determination 

to New York and the State agreed with 

the owner’s recommendations. Since 

NRG’s original BART determination, 

New York has proposed Title V permit 

conditions that are more stringent than 

NRG’s BART proposal in that New 

York’s proposed Title V permit limits 

Boiler 30 to the combustion of natural 

gas and no longer allows the use of fuel 

oil. Therefore, with the combustion of 

only natural gas, New York expects that 

SO2 emissions from Boiler 30 will be 

limited to the current emission rate of 

0.0006 lb/mm BTU, and the State is 

proposing a BART SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/ 

mm BTU. EPA does not have a 

presumptive SO2 BART limit for boilers 

that combust natural gas. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York’s draft Title V permit requires the 

combustion of only natural gas and sets 

a limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU based on a 

24-hour weighted average during the 

ozone season (May 1 through September 

30) and on a 30-day rolling average 

outside the ozone season. New York 

indicates that the current NOX emission 

rate is 0.088 lb/mm BTU when Boiler 30 

combusts natural gas. NRG’s BART 

analysis did not evaluate other control 

technologies. 

For control of PM emissions, NRG 

evaluated two control technologies and 

determined that both were economically 

infeasible. Since natural gas is the 

primary fuel combusted in this boiler, 

New York agreed with this BART 

analysis and the draft Title V permit 

proposes that current operation (no 

controls), with an emission limit of 359 

tons per year (tpy) represents BART for 

Boiler 30. NRG’s five year (2005 through 

2009) look back at emissions from Boiler 

30 indicates 329 tpy PM represents the 

maximum mass emission over a 12 

month period. New York’s limit of 359 

tpy provides a reasonable margin of 

safety to NRG over actual emissions. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boiler 30 are included 

in New York’s draft Title V permit 

including requirements for monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting and 

includes a compliance date of January 1, 

2014. New York finalized the draft Title 

V permit on March 20, 2012 and expects 

to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval by mid-2012. New York’s draft 

permit commits NRG to combusting 

only natural gas which will minimize 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM from 

Boiler 30. 

NRG—Oswego Harbor Power 

This facility, owned by NRG Energy 

and permitted to Oswego Harbor Power 

LLC, operates two very large boilers, 

Boiler 5 and 6, as well as two smaller 

packaged boilers at its Oswego Harbor 

Power Station located in Oswego 

County. New York has determined that 

Boilers 5 (Emission Unit U–00005; 

Emission Source S0005) and 6 

(Emission Unit U–00006; Emission 

source S0006) are BART eligible units. 

Boilers 5 and 6 are nearly identical in 

size (rated maximum heat input of 8033 

and 8088 mm BTU/hr, respectively) and 

each is a wall-fired boiler rated at a 

gross generating capacity of 870 MW. 

Boilers 5 and 6 are capable of 

combusting fuel oil (sulfur content of 

1.5% and 0.75%, respectively) and 

Boiler 6 has the capability to co-fire 

natural gas up to a generating capacity 

of 150 MW. New York indicates that 

both units are essentially ‘‘peaking’’ 

units, with actual recent operating 

capacity being much lower than rated 

capacity. Each unit had a capacity factor 

of 3.2% or less during the baseline 

period (2007–2009), and neither boiler 

had a capacity factor above 10% since 

2001. New York and NRG took these 

operational characteristics into account 

in their BART analysis. 

NRG submitted a BART determination 

to New York and the State agreed with 

the owner’s recommendations. For 

control of SO2 emissions, New York is 

proposing that Boiler 5 combust fuel oil 

with a sulfur content of not more than 

0.75% (lowered from current sulfur 

limit of 1.5%) with an SO2 emission 

limit of 0.80 lb/mm BTU (on a 3-hour 

rolling average) as representing BART. 

For Boiler 6, New York is proposing that 

the current fuel oil sulfur limit of 

0.75%, with an SO2 emission limit of 

0.80 lb/mm BTU (on a 3-hour rolling 

average), represents BART. In addition, 

New York’s draft Title V permit 

proposes that NRG shall not purchase or 

obtain any fuel oil for combustion, 

including Boilers 5 or 6, which has a 

sulfur content of more than 0.50%. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed NRG’s BART analysis 

that considered seven standard and four 

innovative control technologies, 

including SCR and SNCR, and the State 

concluded that none of the technically 

feasible control options are 

economically feasible because each 

boiler operates at a low annual capacity. 

New York concluded that BART is the 

continued use of existing NOX controls 

including low NOX burners (LNB), over 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17 Dynegy notes that a negative annualized cost 

for gas co-firing (including 100% gas firing) result 

from the current lower prices of natural gas 

compared to No. 6 fuel oil (which is the base case 

for the SO2 BART analysis). 

18EPA did not have the fuel analysis used at the 

Roseton Generating Station. To estimate this 

emission limit, EPA used an average heating value 

for No. 6 fuel oil of 18,200 BTU per pound as found 

in ‘‘Useful tables for engineers and steam users,’’ 

Fourteenth edition 1984, by The Babcock and 

Wilcox Company. 

fire air (OFA), and flue gas recirculation 

(FGR) and the State’s draft Title V 

permit requires that NOX emissions 

shall not exceed 383 tpy and 665 tpy 

from Boilers 5 and 6, respectively, based 

upon a 12 month rolling total. These 

NOX emission limits were established 

below the threshold that would make an 

additional control option economically 

feasible and are based upon baseline 

emission rates 0.22 and 0.19 lb/mm 

BTU and annual capacity factors of 

approximately 5% and 10% for Boilers 

5 and 6, respectively. 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed NRG’s BART analysis 

that considered two potential add-on 

control technologies but NRG 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

these two technologies are not cost 

effective. New York’s draft Title V 

permit proposes that current PM control 

with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) 

with an emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm 

BTU for Boilers 5 and 6 represents 

BART. New York reports that the most 

recent stack tests measured total PM 

rates of approximately 0.03 lb/mm BTU 

for each boiler. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boilers 5 and 6 are 

included in New York’s draft Title V 

permit including requirements for 

monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

expects to finalize the draft Title V 

permit and to submit it as a SIP revision 

for EPA approval by mid-2012. New 

York’s draft permit commits NRG to 

lower emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM 

due to lower fuel sulfur limits and 

expected low annual capacity factors for 

Boilers 5 and 6. 

Dynegy—Roseton Generating Station 

This facility, owned by and permitted 

to Dynegy Northeast Generation Inc, 

operates two very large boilers, Boilers 

1 and 2, as well as one smaller auxiliary 

boiler, at its Roseton Generating Station 

in Orange County, in the city of 

Newburgh. New York has determined 

that Boilers 1 (Emission Unit U–R0001) 

and 2 (Emission Unit U–R0002) are 

BART eligible units. Boilers 1 and 2 are 

both nearly identical in design, each 

tangentially fired and each rated to 

generate 600 MW electricity. Both 

boilers are capable of firing No. 6 fuel 

oil and natural gas as the primary fuels. 

Boiler 1 has a heat input rating of 7927 

mm BTU/hr when burning No. 6 fuel oil 

and 7369 mm BTU/hr when firing 

natural gas. For Boiler 2, the heat input 

rating is 7691 mm BTU/hr when firing 

No. 6 fuel oil and is the same as Boiler 

1 when firing natural gas. Both boilers 

have the same air emissions controls: 

the NOX controls employ a combination 

of fuel oil steam atomization, burners 

out of service (BOOS) and/or wind-box 

flue gas recirculation (FGR); PM 

emissions are controlled with a 

multiclone mechanical collector; and 

SO2 emissions are controlled through 

limitations on the sulfur content (1.3%) 

of No. 6 fuel oil. Dynegy has indicated 

that both boilers have operated at low 

capacity factors over the past few years 

and the owner projects that the rated 

capacity factors in 2014 for each boiler 

will be similar as in recent past years. 

New York and Dynegy took these 

operational characteristics into account 

in their BART analysis. 

Dynegy submitted a BART 

determination (with 1.3% sulfur fuel oil 

as the base case) to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations. For control of SO2

emissions, New York is proposing that 

BART for Boilers 1 and 2 is the 

combustion of fuel oil with an annual 

weighted average sulfur limit of 1.0%. 

Dynegy’s five factor BART analysis 

evaluated eight SO2 control options, 

including wet flue gas desulfurization, 

combustion of lower sulfur fuel oils, as 

well as 100% gas firing and gas co-firing 

with fuel oil. Dynegy determined cost 

effectiveness with the projected low 

capacity factors since Dynegy 

determined that a baseline made on the 

assumption of ‘‘potential to emit’’ is not 

indicative of future operations. As a 

result of the BART analysis, Dynegy 

concluded for each boiler, and New 

York agreed, that the modeled visibility 

impacts indicate excessive cost per 

deciview values for all options modeled, 

with the exception of gas firing and gas 

co-firing with fuel oil. Dynegy and New 

York also concluded that although gas 

co-firing (and 100% gas firing) appears 

to be feasible with negative annualized 

costs 17 (cost/ton and cost/dv), it was 

ruled out as a control option due to high 

price volatility of natural gas and 

potential reliability concerns on the 

State’s electric system due to limited 

supply of natural gas, particularly 

during the winter. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed Dynegy’s BART analysis 

that considered fourteen control 

technologies, including SCR and SNCR, 

and the State concluded that none of the 

technically feasible control options are 

economically feasible because each 

boiler is projected to operate at a low 

annual capacity. In addition, Dynegy’s 

visibility analysis also concluded 

economic infeasibility. New York 

concluded that BART is the 

optimization of the wind-box controls 

and the State’s November 2, 2011 final 

Title V permit requires lowering the 

permitted NOX limit from 0.25 lb/mm 

BTU to 0.20 lb/MM BTU based upon a 

30-day average during the non-ozone 

season and on a 24-hour average during 

the ozone season. 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed Dynegy’s BART analysis 

that considered four potential control 

options, including electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs) and gas co-firing, 

but Dynegy determined, and New York 

agreed that ESPs are not cost effective 

and gas co-firing is not practical for the 

same reasons discussed above for the 

SO2 BART determination. Dynegy 

expects secondary condensable PM 

emission reductions that will result 

from its proposed NOX and SO2 BART 

control measures. New York’s final Title 

V permit proposes that current PM 

control with multiclone mechanical 

collectors and the current permitted 

emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU (by 

stack tests) for Boilers 1 and 2 

represents BART. 

Although EPA agrees with New 

York’s BART determination for NOX

and PM, EPA disagrees with New York’s 

determination that the use of fuel oil 

with a sulfur content of 1.0% is BART 

for controlling SO2 emissions. Instead, 

EPA is proposing a Federal plan 

requiring that the SO2 emissions from 

Roseton’s Units 1 and 2 meet an 

emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU on a 

24 hour average. EPA proposes that 

Dynegy’s BART eligible units, Roseton 

Units 1 and 2, comply with EPA’s 

proposed SO2 emission limit no later 

than January 1, 2014 which is the 

compliance date required by New 

York’s BART regulation at Part 249. EPA 

has estimated that No. 6 fuel oil 

containing 0.50% sulfur by weight is 

equivalent to EPA’s proposed SO2

emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU.18

EPA’s proposed emission limit provides 

flexibility to Dynegy because it allows 

the operators to combust the following 

fuels or any combination thereof: (1) 

100% fuel oil with a sulfur content of 

not more than 0.50% by weight; (2) 

100% natural gas; and (3) cofiring 

natural gas and fuel oil with a sulfur 

content either higher or lower than 

0.50%. It is EPA’s understanding that 

New York plans to propose this year a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24811 

revision to 6 NYCRR Part 225, the state’s 

sulfur in fuel regulation that is 

applicable to industrial boilers, 

requiring that fuel oil containing sulfur 

content of more than 0.50% no longer 

be purchased in a few years. 

EPA proposes to determine this 

flexibility of combusting various fuel 

combinations in meeting EPA’s 

proposed SO2 emission limit should 

alleviate any concerns Dynegy has on 

natural gas being susceptible to extreme 

price volatility and limited supply 

(especially during the winter months) 

that might result in negative reliability 

impacts on the electrical grid. As 

explained further below, EPA believes 

that an SO2 emission limit of 0.55 lb/ 

mm BTU, equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil 

containing 0.50% sulfur, is cost 

effective on a dollars per ton of SO2

reduced basis and will provide 

significant improvement in visibility in 

the range of 1.0 dv or more at Lye Brook, 

and about 4.0+ dv cumulative at the 

seven Class I areas, depending upon the 

fuel type combusted. EPA considers a 

visibility impact of 1.0 dv as causing 

visibility impairment and therefore 

EPA’s proposed emission limit will 

significantly reduce visibility 

impairment in the Lye Brook and seven 

Class I areas. The following paragraph 

provides further details that led to 

EPA’s decision. 

In comparison with Dynegy’s baseline 

(1.3% sulfur fuel oil), it is clear from 

Dynegy’s BART analysis that there is 

significant visibility improvement at 

Lye Brook and seven Class I areas as the 

SO2 emissions are reduced as illustrated 

in Dynegy’s BART control options of 

combusting natural gas, cofiring natural 

gas with oil and combusting fuel oil 

with sulfur contents lower than 1.3%. 

From Dynegy’s BART analysis, the 

control options for combusting 100% 

gas and cofiring gas/oil are cost effective 

in terms of dollars per ton of SO2 ($/ton) 

reduced from the baseline and in terms 

of dollars per deciview improvement 

from the baseline. Dynegy’s BART 

recommendation of 1.0% sulfur fuel oil 

is actually less cost effective in terms of 

$/ton and $/dv when compared to 

Dynegy’s other low sulfur fuel oil 

options of 0.70% sulfur, 0.50% sulfur 

and 0.30% sulfur. In addition the 

visibility is improved over the base case 

(1.3% sulfur oil) by as much as 1.42 ddv 

(i.e., delta deciview) at the 98 percentile 

and 0.97 ddv maximum at Lye Brook for 

the control option using 0.50% sulfur 

fuel. Even better visibility 

improvements are achieved for the 

control option of 60% gas cofiring with 

oil. The visibility improvement for the 

Dynegy BART recommendation 

(combusting 1% sulfur fuel oil) is only 

0.57 dv at the 98th percentile and 0.57 

dv maximum at Lye Brook. The 

visibility and cost comparisons for the 

various fuel control options discussed 

here are for the Roseton Unit 2 boiler 

but the results for Unit 1 are similar. 

The reader is referred to the following 

tables for both boilers that summarize 

the previous discussion as taken 

directly or derived from Dynegy’s BART 

analysis. 

TABLE 4—ROSETON UNIT 2 (600 MW)—SUMMARY BART EVALUATION FOR SO2

Baseline SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Dynegy 

Control 

Technology 

Options 

Evaluated 

(partial list) 

Emissions, 

SO2

(tpy) 

Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

Max/8th high 

from baseline 

DDV 

(Lye Brook) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

Max/8th high 

from baseline 

DDV 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

Cost 

(mm$/dv) 

(max/8th high) 

(Lye Brook) 

Cost 

(mm$/dv) 

(max/8th high) 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

Current 

Controls 

New York’s 

BART 

Determination 

A B C D E F G H I J 

6766 tpy ......... 0.30% S oil ...

0.5% S oil .....

0.70% oil .......

1.0% S oil .....

Gas cofire 

(35%).

1559 tpy ........

2600 tpy ........

3642 tpy ........

5204 tpy ........

4333 tpy ........

$3,107 

3,324 

3,684 

5,819 

¥6,909 

Not Deter ......

0.97/1.42 .......

Not Deter ......

0.46/0.57 .......

1.02/0.971 .....

Not Deter ......

8.25/3.96 .......

Not Deter ......

3.04/1.50 .......

Not Deter ......

Not Deter ......

95/65 .............

Not Deter ......

131/106 .........

¥110/¥115 ..

Not Deter ......

11.2/23.3. 

Not Deter. 

19.9/40.4. 

Not Deter. 

Low sulfur 

(1.3%) fuel 

oil.

Use 1.0% S 

fuel oil instead of 

current 

1.3% S fuel 

oil. 

Gas cofire 

(60%).

2638 tpy ........ ¥8,506 1.68/1.64 ....... Not Deter ...... ¥138/¥143 .. Not Deter. 

100% gas ...... 0 tpy .............. ¥9,518 2.8/2.48 ......... 16.43/7.13 ..... ¥153/¥173 .. ¥26/¥60 

Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement. 

TABLE 5—ROSETON UNIT 1 (600 MW)—SUMMARY BART EVALUATION FOR SO2

Baseline SO2

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Dynegy 

Control 

Technology 

Options 

Evaluated 

(partial list) 

Emissions, 

SO2

(tpy) 

Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

Max/8th high 

from baseline 

DDV 

(Lye Brook) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

Max/8th high 

from baseline 

DDV 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

Cost (mm$/ 

dv) (max/8th 

high) 

(Lye Brook) 

Cost (mm$/ 

dv) (max/8th 

high) 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

Current 

Controls 

New York’s 

BART 

Determination 

A B C D E F G H I J 

1860 tpy ......... 0.30% S oil ...

0.5% S oil .....

0.70% oil .......

1.0% S oil .....

Gas cofire 

(35%).

429 tpy ..........

715 tpy ..........

1001 tpy ........

1431 tpy ........

1179 tpy ........

$43,107 

3,324 

3,684 

5,646 

¥9,908 

Not Deter ......

0.853/1.370 ...

Not Deter ......

0.339/0.501 ...

0.946/0.932 ...

Not Deter ......

8.45/4.01 .......

Not Deter ......

3.17/1.41 .......

Not Deter ......

Not Deter ......

111/69 ...........

Not Deter ......

179/121 .........

¥178/¥181 ..

Not Deter ......

11.3/23.7. 

Not Deter. 

19.1/42.9. 

Not Deter. 

Low sulfur 

(1.3%) fuel 

oil.

Use 1.0% S 

fuel oil instead of 

current 

1.3% S fuel 

oil. 

Gas cofire 

(60%).

713 tpy .......... 10,078 1.644/1.622 ... Not Deter ...... ¥176/¥178 .. Not Deter. 

100% gas ...... 0 tpy .............. ¥10,361 2.8/2.48 ......... 15.3/17.3 ....... ¥172/¥194 .. ¥27/¥58. 

Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for NOX and PM for 

Boilers 1 and 2 are included in New 

York’s final Title V permit (dated 

November 2, 2011) which also includes 

requirements for monitoring, record 

keeping and reporting, and includes a 

compliance date of January 1, 2014. 

New York expects to submit the permit 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24812 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

as a SIP revision for EPA approval by 

mid-2012. Once the SIP revision is 

approved by EPA, the BART 

requirements for NOX and PM for each 

boiler become federally enforceable. 

Should New York not submit the final 

Title V permit for Boilers 1 and 2 in a 

timely manner, EPA proposes that the 

aforementioned BART requirements for 

NOX and PM be considered as federal 

requirements as part of a FIP. 

In addition, as discussed above, EPA 

is proposing a FIP for controlling SO2

emissions from Boilers 1 and 2. EPA 

proposes that SO2 emissions from 

Boilers 1 and 2 not exceed the limit of 

0.55 lb/mm BTU on a 24-hour average 

not later than January 1, 2014. EPA 

further proposes that the same 

requirements for monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting as 

described in New York’s final Title V 

permit be required to comply with 

EPA’s proposed BART emission limit 

for SO2. 

In summary, EPA is proposing partial 

approval and partial disapproval of New 

York’s BART determinations for Boilers 

1 and 2 at Dynegy’s Roseton Generating 

Station. EPA is proposing to approve 

New York’s BART determination for 

NOX and PM because it was conducted 

in a manner consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove New York’s BART 

determination for SO2 because, as 

discussed above, a different control 

strategy as proposed by EPA, will result 

in improved visibility that is cost 

effective over what New York and 

Dynegy are proposing for BART. 

Dynegy—Danskammer Generating 

Station 

Dynegy Northeast Generation Inc. 

owns and is permitted to operate a 235 

megawatt electrical generating unit at its 

Danskammer Generating Station in 

Orange County, in the city of Newburgh. 

New York has determined that Boiler 

Unit 4 (Emission Unit U–D0004) is a 

BART eligible unit. Boiler 4 is a 

tangentially coal-fired steam generating 

boiler and is capable of firing coal, No. 

6 fuel oil and natural gas, with coal as 

the primary fuel. Boiler 4 has a heat 

input rating of 2,512 mmBTU/hr when 

burning coal, 2,004 mmBTU/hr when 

combusting No. 6 fuel oil and 2,397 

mmBTU/hr when firing natural gas. 

Boiler 4 has existing NOX emission 

controls of low excess air, combustion 

air manipulation, separated overfire air, 

burners out of service, and low NOX

burners; PM emissions are controlled 

with an existing cold side electrostatic 

precipitator; and SO2 emissions are 

controlled through limitations on the 

sulfur content (0.7%) of coal. 

Dynegy submitted a BART 

determination (with 2,512 mmBTU per 

hour while burning coal as the base 

case) to New York and the State agreed 

with the owner’s recommendations. On 

November 2, 2011, New York proposed 

the Title V permit modification to 

incorporate Dynegy’s BART 

determinations into their permit and to 

provide for public comment. New York 

has not yet issued this permit 

modification as final. For control of SO2

emissions, New York is proposing that 

BART for Boiler 4 is the lowering of the 

current SO2 permit limit from 1.10 lbs/ 

mmBTU to 0.50 lbs/mmBTU, resulting 

in an emission reduction of 6,602 tons 

per year, or 55%. Dynegy’s five factor 

BART analysis evaluated thirteen SO2

control options including, Flue Gas 

Desulfurization options with Lime 

Based Spray Dryer; Circulating Dry 

Scrubber and Wet Limestone; Dry 

Sorbent Injection of Trona options; 

combustion of alternative coals; 100% 

combustion of natural gas; co-firing 

natural gas; and a 0.5 lbs/mmBTU 

emission limit on a 24-hour basis. 

Dynegy determined the annualized 

costs and the annualized control costs 

per ton of emission reductions of SO2

(based on 100% capacity factor) for each 

BART control option. All of the BART 

controls were shown to be cost effective 

according to New York’s guidance, at or 

below $5,500 per ton. The annualized 

costs were in the range of $20 to 30 

million for flue gas desulfurization 

options, $2 to 3 million for dry sorbent 

injection options, $8 to 25 million for 

gas firing options, and $7 to 46 million 

for alternative coal options. The 

annualized costs for complying with a 

0.5 lb/mmBTU emission limit, New 

York’s proposed BART determination 

emission limit, are $11 million with a 

cost effectiveness of $1,683 per ton. 

According to Dynegy’s analysis, the 

flue gas desulfurization and dry sorbent 

injection control options all have energy 

and adverse non-air quality 

environmental impacts, including solid 

waste disposal issues. Wet limestone 

FGD creates a waste water stream that 

requires additional treatment prior to 

release into the water system. The gas 

firing options could be susceptible to 

price volatility and limited supply, 

creating an adverse impact on electric 

grid reliability, which may also have 

non-air quality environmental impacts. 

Visibility impacts were modeled for 

selected BART control options. For FGD 

for example, maximum predicted 

visibility improvement of 4.749 

deciviews and eighth highest 

improvement of 2.174 deciviews would 

occur at the nearby seven Class I areas. 

For gas co-firing at 60% for example, 

maximum visibility improvement of 

4.364 deciviews and eighth highest 

improvement of 1.522 deciviews would 

occur. Complying with New York’s 

proposed 0.50 lb/mmBTU BART 

emission limit was predicted to result in 

a 2.759 maximum deciview 

improvement and a 1.015 eighth highest 

deciview improvement. 

Dynegy concluded that: 

• Although the FGD options are costeffective, have high control efficiencies, 

and would result in visibility 

improvements, there are many non-air 

quality environmental concerns and 

these controls would yield additional 

power requirements. 

• While dry sorbent injection options 

are also cost-effective, they have lower 

control efficiencies, non-air quality 

environmental concerns, and result in 

less visibility improvement than the 

0.50 lb/mmBTU emission limit option. 

• Although gas co-firing (and 100% 

gas firing) appears to be feasible and 

cost effective, it was ruled out as a 

control option due to high price 

volatility of natural gas and potential 

reliability concerns on the state’s 

electric system due to limited supply of 

natural gas, particularly during the 

winter. 

• Alternative coal options were also 

ruled out due to lower heating content, 

which would require more coal to be 

shipped and result in more solid waste 

products. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York is proposing that BART for Boiler 

4 is the lowering of the current NOX

permit limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU to 

0.12 lbs/mmBTU, resulting in an 

emission reduction of 3,300 tons per 

year, or 71%. Dynegy’s BART analysis 

considered nineteen control 

technologies, including Selective 

Catalytic Reduction; Selective NonCatalytic Reduction; hybrid SNCR/SCR 

system; SNCR Trim; Gas Reburn; Flue 

gas recirculation options; combustion of 

alternative coals; 100% combustion of 

natural gas; co-firing natural gas; and a 

0.12 lbs/mmBTU emission limit. 

Dynegy determined the annualized 

costs and the annualized control costs 

per ton of emission reductions of NOX

(based on 100% capacity factor) for each 

BART control option. The annualized 

costs were $12 million for SCR, $66 

million for SNCR, $9 million for the 

hybrid SCR/SNCR, $56 million for 

SNCR Trim, in the range of $7 to 46 

million for alternative coal options, in 

the range of $8 to $25 million for gas 

firing options, and $348,655 to $9 

million for flue gas recirculation 

options. 

The following BART controls were 

shown to be cost effective according to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24813 

New York’s guidance, at or below 

$5,500 per ton: SCR, Hybrid SCR/SNCR, 

Alternative Chinese Coal, and the FGR 

options. Dynegy determined SCR and 

the Hybrid SCR/SNCR option to be 

technically infeasible due to the 

ammonia handling issues and other 

non-air quality environmental impacts. 

The gas firing options could be 

susceptible to price volatility and 

limited supply, creating an adverse 

impact on electric grid reliability, which 

may also have non-air quality 

environmental impacts. Alternative coal 

options were also ruled out due to lower 

heating content, which would require 

more coal to be shipped and result in 

more solid waste products. FGR options 

were not necessarily ruled out, but they 

had minimal visibility improvement 

and the proposed 0.12 lbs/mmBTU 

BART emission limit compliance option 

was more effective in reducing 

emissions than the other cost-effective 

options. 

Visibility impacts were modeled for 

selected BART control options. For the 

Hybrid SCR/SNCR option, maximum 

predicted visibility improvement of 

2.244 deciviews and eighth highest 

improvement of 0.689 would occur at 

all of the Class I area. For FGR, 

maximum visibility improvement of 

0.215 deciviews and eighth highest 

improvement of 0.084 would occur. For 

FGR and SCR, maximum visibility 

improvement of 2.477 deciviews and 

eighth highest improvement of 0.651 

deciviews would occur. For gas firing at 

100% at 0.08 lbs/mmBTU, maximum 

visibility improvement of 8.577 

deciviews and eighth highest 

improvement of 2.896 deciviews would 

occur. Complying with a 0.12 lb/ 

mmBTU emission limit was predicted to 

result in a 1.943 maximum deciview 

improvement and a 0.569 eighth highest 

deciview improvement. 

Dynegy concluded that: 

• SCR and Hybrid SCR/SNCR while 

cost-effective were not technically 

feasible due to several non-air quality 

environmental concerns. Hybrid SCR/ 

SNCR also had minimal visibility 

improvement. 

• SNCR was ruled out as not costeffective and also presented many nonair quality environmental concerns. 

• Alternative coal options were also 

ruled out due to lower heating content, 

which would require more coal to be 

shipped and result in more solid waste 

products. 

• Other gas co-firing options and 

100% gas firing appears not to be costeffective, and were ruled out as a 

control option due to high price 

volatility of natural gas and potential 

reliability concerns on the state’s 

electric system due to limited supply of 

natural gas, particularly during the 

winter. 

• While FGR options were not 

necessarily ruled out, they had minimal 

visibility improvement and the 

proposed 0.12 lbs/mmBTU BART 

emission limit compliance option was 

more effective in reducing emissions 

than the other cost-effective options. 

Therefore, New York proposes for the 

control of NOX emissions, BART for 

Boiler 4 is the lowering of the current 

NOX permit limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU 

to 0.12 lbs/mmBTU. This BART control 

option is based on optimizing the 

existing low NOX burners, co-firing with 

natural gas, installation of post 

combustion controls, use of alternative 

coals, or any combination thereof. The 

proposed NOX emission limit is 0.12 

lbs/mmBTU (24-hour average during 

ozone seasons, 30-day average during 

non-ozone seasons). 

For the control of PM emissions, 

Danskammer Unit 4 currently has a cold 

side electrostatic precipitator (ESP). 

This ESP achieved an average 99.98% 

control efficiency in recent stack tests 

and is a state-of-the-art technology for 

PM control for Danskammer Unit 4. 

Other control technologies such as a 

mechanical collector, baghouse, or wet 

particulate scrubbers could be 

considered as additional feasible PM 

control options. According to Dynegy’s 

analysis, a search of available control 

technology research and industry 

knowledge, any other commonly 

applied PM control, such as fabric filter 

or wet scrubber, would be expected to 

achieve a maximum control efficiency 

of up to 99% and an average control 

efficiency of 95%. Therefore, New York 

proposes the existing ESP to represent 

the maximum control for BART for 

Danskammer Unit 4, and completion of 

the five-step BART process, including 

visibility modeling, is not required. The 

proposed BART PM emission rate is 

0.060 lbs/mmBTU. 

The reader is referred to the following 

table for Unit 4 that summarizes this 

discussion as taken directly or derived 

from Dynegy’s BART analysis. 

TABLE 6—DANSKAMMER UNIT 4 (235 MW)—SUMMARY BART EVALUATION

Source and 

size 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Possible 

Control 

Technology of 

Interest 

(partial list) 

Emission Rate 

with this 

control 

(lb/mmBTU or 

other) 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

max/8th high 

DV 

Cost 

(mm$/dv) 

Max/8th high 

Current 

Controls 

New York’s 

proposed 

BART 

Determination 

A B C D E F G H I 

SO2 ................ Unit 4, coalfired boiler 

235 MW. 

Can burn 

coal, oil, 

gas.

12,103 tpy ..... Lime-Based 

Spray Dryer 

FGD with 

Baghouse 

91.5% control efficiency.

Gas Cofiring 

60%.

59.97% control efficiency.

1029 tpy; 

234.9 lb/hr.

0.09 lb/mmBtu 

4712 tpy 

1075.8 lb/hr 

0.43 lb/mmBtu 

1840 ..............

2072 

4.749 max .....

2.174 high 8 

4.364 max 

1.522 high 8 

4.29 max .......

9.37 high 8 

3.5 max 

10.0 high 8 

None. Currently uses 

0.7% sulfur 

coal.

0.50 lb/ 

mmBtu. 

0.50 lb/mmBtu 

55% control 

efficiency.

5501 tpy ........

1256 lb/hr .....

0.50 lb/mmBtu 

1683 ..............

..................

2.759 max .....

1.015 high 8

4.02 max 

10.9 high 8. 

NOX ............... ....................... 4621 tpy ........ SCR ∼ 83% 

control efficiency.

SNCR ∼ 35% 

control efficiency.

786 tpy ..........

3004 tpy 

3151 ..............

41345 

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided 

low excess 

air, OFA, 

BOOS, 

LNBs.

0.12 lb/ 

mmBTU. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24814 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—DANSKAMMER UNIT 4 (235 MW)—SUMMARY BART EVALUATION—Continued 

Source and 

size 

Baseline 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Possible 

Control 

Technology of 

Interest 

(partial list) 

Emission Rate 

with this 

control 

(lb/mmBTU or 

other) 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(7 Class I 

areas) 

max/8th high 

DV 

Cost 

(mm$/dv) 

Max/8th high 

Current 

Controls 

New York’s 

proposed 

BART 

Determination 

A B C D E F G H I 

Hybrid SCR/ 

SNCR.

60% control 

efficiency.

1848 tpy ........

422 lb/hr 

0.17 lb/mmBtu 

3353 .............. 2.244 max .....

0.689 high 8

4.1 max 

13.5 high 8..

Alternative 

coal options.

2773 to 3656 

tpy.

4509 to 47753 Not provided Not provided. 

Gas firing 

100%.

81% control 

efficiency.

880 tpy ..........

201 lb/hr 

0.08 lb/mmBtu 

6824 .............. 8.577 max .....

2.896 high 8

2.98 max 

8.81 high 8.

FGR ..............

8% control efficiency.

4251 tpy ........

970.6 lb/hr ....

0.39 lb/mmBtu 

943 ................

..................

0.215 max .....

0.084 high 8

1.62 max 

4.15 high 8.

FGR + SCR ..

91% control 

efficiency.

4216.5 tpy .....

962.7 lb/hr ....

0.38 lb/mmBtu 

2012 ..............

..................

2.477 max .....

0.651 high 8

3.42 max 

12.99 high 8.

0.12 lb/MMBtu 

∼71% control 

efficiency.

1320 tpy ........

301.4 lb/hr ....

0.12 lb/mmBtu 

6088 ..............

..................

1.943 max .....

0.569 high 8

10.3 max 

35.3 high 8.

PM ................. ....................... 660 tpy .......... N.A. ............... N.A. ............... N.A. ............... N.A. ............... N.A. ............... ESP ..............

99.98% efficient.

0.06 lb/mmBtu 

Existing control is max 

control. 

EPA is proposing partial approval and 

partial disapproval of New York’s 

proposed BART determinations for Unit 

4 at Dynegy’s Danskammer Generation 

Station. EPA is proposing to approve 

New York’s proposed NOX BART 

emission limit of 0.12 lb/mmBTU and 

proposed PM BART emission limit of 

0.06 lb/mmBTU. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of New York’s 

proposed BART determination for 

Danskammer Unit 4 with respect to SO2

emissions because other BART control 

options as presented by Dynegy are also 

technically feasible, cost-effective and 

provide additional visibility 

improvement. 

In its proposed BART determination, 

New York and Dynegy considered 

several SO2 control technology options 

including Flue Gas Desulfurization, 

combustion of alternative coals, and 

combusting different percentages of 

natural gas. New York and Dynegy 

proposed that the SO2 emission limit of 

0.5 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average is 

BART, and that this emission limit will 

be achieved through some post 

combustion control, switching of fuels 

or a combination of these or other 

options. The result of our own 

evaluation of Dynegy’s analysis is that 

these same control option strategies can 

achieve a more stringent SO2 emission 

limit than the 0.5 lb/mmBTU limit, on 

a more cost-effective basis, and therefore 

result in more visibility improvement. 

Based on the information contained in 

Dynegy’s BART analysis, and 

specifically on the emission rate 

information (also summarized in Table 

6), EPA is proposing to establish an SO2

BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU 

on a 24-hour average. Our proposed 

disapproval is based in large part on 

Dynegy’s own BART analysis, showing 

that FGD controls and/or combusting 

natural gas are cost effective and would 

result in enough incremental visibility 

improvement at a single Class I area to 

justify the incremental cost of the 

control strategies. 

In addition, the results of our own 

analysis of the visibility improvement 

differ from Dynegy’s analysis in that 

Dynegy’s proposed BART determination 

appears to be based on the highest 

visibility improvements that may occur 

at only one of the seven Class I areas 

that could be impacted. In making 

BART determinations, EPA also 

recommends the consideration of 

cumulative impacts and improvements 

that could occur at all of the Class I 

areas a particular facility might impact. 

EPA’s analysis of the cumulative 

visibility improvements at all 7 Class I 

areas justifies a more stringent BART 

emission limit. While our analysis 

differs from Dynegy’s analysis and New 

York’s proposed BART determination in 

this respect, we concur with the other 

portions of the analysis regarding 

achievable emission reductions and 

cost-effectiveness. 

Since New York’s proposed BART 

determination and permit modification 

has not been issued as final, there is the 

possibility that additional information 

may be provided for New York to 

evaluate which may influence New 

York to consider other options for 

BART. Likewise, additional information 

may be provided to further support New 

York’s proposed BART determination. 

EPA is aware that New York has 

received comments from the public on 

the proposed BART permit 

modification. Therefore EPA is similarly 

providing for the possibility that New 

York may consider other options for 

BART before issuing a final BART 

permit. 

While EPA is proposing to disapprove 

New York’s proposed SO2 BART 

determination for Danskammer Unit 4, 

EPA is also proposing two options for 

the SO2 BART FIP for Danskammer. 

(Because we are proposing to 

disapprove this provision of the SIP, we 

are concurrently proposing a FIP.) Based 

on the discussion in this section, our 

FIP proposes promulgating two options 

for an SO2 BART emissions limit for 

Danskammer Unit 4: 

Option 1: EPA proposes to approve 

New York’s proposed SO2 BART 

emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU on a 

24-hour average in the event additional 

information is submitted to support this 

emission limit. 

Option 2: EPA proposes to establish 

an SO2 BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/ 

mmBTU on a 24-hour average. 

EPA is requesting comment on these 

two options in order to provide for the 

opportunity for submittal of additional 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24815 

documentation or information that 

might be considered by EPA to approve 

either of the two options as BART. 

In summary, we are proposing to 

approve New York’s proposed 

determination for NOX and PM BART 

for Danskammer Unit 4. We are 

proposing to disapprove New York’s 

proposed SO2 BART determination for 

Danskammer Unit 4 to meet an emission 

limit of 0.5 lb/mmBTU. Because we are 

proposing to disapprove this provision 

of the SIP, we are concurrently 

proposing a FIP. Our FIP proposes 

promulgating two options for an SO2

BART emissions limit for Danskammer 

Unit 4. For option 1 we propose to 

approve New York’s proposed SO2

BART emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU 

on a 24-hour average in the event 

additional information is submitted to 

support this emission limit. For option 

2 we propose to establish an SO2 BART 

emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 

24-hour average. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements proposed by New York for 

Unit 4 are included in New York’s 

proposed Title V permit, which also 

includes requirements for monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting and 

includes a compliance date of January 1, 

2014. EPA expects New York will issue 

a final BART determination and submit 

the permit as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval. If EPA is able to approve the 

BART determination, then the permit 

requirements for the boiler become 

federally enforceable. Should New York 

not submit the final Title V permit for 

Boilers 4 in a timely manner, or 

adequately demonstrate that the 

proposed BART determination is BART, 

EPA proposes that the aforementioned 

BART requirements be considered as 

federal requirements as part of a FIP. 

GenOn (Mirant)—Bowline Generating 

Station 

This facility, owned and permitted to 

GenOn Bowline LLC, operates two very 

large boilers, Boilers 1 and 2, as well as 

an emergency generator at its Bowline 

Generating Station located in the town 

of Haverstraw, Rockland County. New 

York has determined that Boiler 1 

(Emission Unit 1–00001; Emission 

source 00UN1) and 2 (Emission Unit 1– 

00002; Emission source 00UN2) are 

BART eligible units. Boilers 1 and 2 are 

nearly identical in size (rated maximum 

heat input of 5546 and 5374 mm BTU/ 

hr, respectively) and each has a nominal 

electric generating capacity of 570 MW. 

Boiler 1 is a tangentially-fired boiler that 

can fire either natural gas or No. 6 fuel 

oil with a maximum sulfur content of 

0.37%. In 2009, Boiler 1 operated only 

568 hours (6.5% of the year) during 

which time No. 6 fuel oil was 

combusted for 95 hours (or 17% of 

operating hours). Boiler 2 is an opposed 

wall-fired boiler that combusts the same 

fuels as Boiler 1. In 2009, Boiler 2 

operated for only 187 hours (2.1% of the 

year) during which time No. 6 fuel oil 

was combusted for 24 hours (or 13% of 

operating hours). New York indicates 

that both boilers operate very 

infrequently and are essentially 

‘‘peaking’’ units under current and 

expected future operations. New York 

and NRG took these operational 

characteristics into account in their 

BART analysis. 

GenOn (Mirant) submitted a BART 

determination to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations. For control of SO2

emissions, New York is proposing that 

the current fuel oil sulfur limit of 0.37% 

(maximum, not to be exceeded at any 

time) represents BART for Boilers 1 and 

2. This fuel oil sulfur limit is proposed 

for BART in New York’s draft Title V 

permit. GenOn’s (Mirant’s) five factor 

BART analysis evaluated three SO2

control options, including wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD), spray dryer 

absorber, and dry sorbent injection. 

Only wet FGD was determined to be 

technically feasible however not cost 

effectiveness due to the low operating 

hours and low sulfur fuel oil. 

For control of NOX emissions, New 

York reviewed GenOn’s (Mirant’s) 

BART analysis that considered a broad 

spectrum of control options including 

combustion controls, post-combustion 

controls (including SCR and SNCR), and 

combinations of controls and the State 

concluded that none of the technically 

feasible control options are 

economically feasible. New York 

concluded that BART is the continued 

use of existing NOX controls and the 

State’s draft Title V permit requires the 

NOX emissions for Boilers 1 and 2 each 

be limited to 0.15 lb/mm BTU (24-hour 

average during the ozone season and 30 

day rolling average during the nonozone season). The existing NOX

controls include off-stoichiometric 

firing for both boilers and additional 

controls for Boiler 2 including overfire 

air (OFA) and windbox flue gas 

recirculation (FGR). 

For control of PM emissions, New 

York reviewed GenOn’s (Mirant’s) 

BART analysis that considered 

combustion controls, fabric filter, wet 

electrostatic precipitator, and wet 

scrubbing. GenOn (Mirant) and New 

York determined that additional 

combustion controls and fabric filters 

are technically infeasible; wet scrubbing 

is less efficient than ESPs and fabric 

filters; and wet ESP is technically 

feasible but not economically feasible. 

GenOn (Mirant) and New York note that 

the visibility impacts of PM emissions 

for Boilers 1 and 2 are relatively low in 

that PM contributes less than 10% of the 

total visibility impact on Class I areas 

for each case modeled. New York 

concluded that no further control is 

required as BART for PM. New York’s 

draft Title V permit proposes that 

current PM emission limit of 0.10 lb/ 

mm BTU for Boilers 1 and 2 represents 

BART. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boilers 1 and 2 are 

included in New York’s draft Title V 

permit including requirements for 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

expects to finalize the draft Title V 

permit and to submit it as a SIP revision 

for EPA approval by mid-2012. 

Alcoa, Inc—Alcoa Massena Operations 

(West Plant) 

This aluminum production facility, 

owned by and permitted to Alcoa Inc, 

operates an Aluminum Production Cell 

(Potline), two Anode Baking Furnaces, 

Four Packaged Boilers and various other 

processing units at its Massena 

Operations (West Plant) in St. Lawrence 

County, in the city of Massena. New 

York has determined that the Potline 

(Emission Unit S–00001; Emission 

Source SS198), Anode Baking Furnaces 

(Emission Unit S–00002; Emission 

Source SS78) and four Package Boilers 

(Emission Unit B–00001; Emission 

Sources B0001 through B0004) are 

BART eligible units. Alcoa submitted a 

BART analysis to New York and the 

State agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations. The following 

describes the State’s BART 

determination for each BART eligible 

unit. 

A. Potline 

Aluminum metal is produced by 

electrolytic reduction of alumina in 

these shallow rectangular cells, or 

‘‘pots.’’ There is no combustion of any 

fuels for this unit. Carbon electrodes 

extending into the pots serve as the 

anodes and carbon lining of the cells as 

the cathode. The carbon anodes, which 

contain sulfur impurities, are 

continuously depleted during the 

electrolytic reduction of the alumina 

and SO2 is emitted during this process 

as the anodes are depleted. The current 

Potline control device is a dry alumina 

injection system followed by a fabric 

filter to control fluoride emissions; the 

system has 98% capture efficiency and 

a PM collection efficiency of greater 

than 95%. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24816 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

For control of SO2 emissions, New 

York is proposing that BART for the 

Potline is limiting the sulfur content of 

the coke raw material used to produce 

anodes to 2.5%, which is the limit 

included in New York’s Air State 

Facility permit that was issued final on 

March 20, 2012. Alcoa’s BART analysis 

evaluated two types of wet flue gas 

desulfurization systems but it was 

determined that both are not 

economically feasible. In addition, 

Alcoa determined that any visibility 

improvement from reduction of SO2

emissions would be minimal. As a 

result of this BART analysis, Alcoa 

concluded, and New York agreed, that 

BART for the Potlines is limiting the 

sulfur content of the anodes to not more 

than 2.5% determined on an annual 

average rolled monthly. 

For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

there are no technically feasible controls 

that represent BART. Alcoa evaluated 

two add-on controls, including SCR and 

SNCR, but these were determined to be 

technically infeasible due to the low 

temperatures of the exhaust gas. All 

combustion modification techniques 

were eliminated from a BART analysis 

because there are no conventional 

burners or combustion points in the 

Potline operation. New York’s final Air 

State Facility permit includes a BART 

limit of 50 TPY NOX. 

For control of PM emissions, Alcoa 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the existing dry alumina injection 

system and fabric filter represents BART 

for the Potline. Alcoa points out that PM 

emissions represent only about 1.5% of 

the total facility visibility impact which 

is 0.83 dv. New York’s final Air State 

Facility permit includes a BART limit of 

168 TPY PM–10. 

B. Anode Baking Furnaces 

Anodes used in the Potline are 

manufactured in an on-site production 

plant. Coke, containing sulfur 

impurities, is used in the production of 

the anodes. Alcoa has two anode baking 

furnaces that are commonly controlled 

by a single dry alumina injection system 

and a pulse jet fabric filter which has a 

control efficiency greater than 95%. 

These furnaces are fueled with natural 

gas. 

For control of SO2 emissions, New 

York is proposing that BART for these 

two furnaces is limiting the sulfur 

content of the anode coke to 2.5%, 

which is the limit included in New 

York’s final Air State Facility permit. 

Alcoa’s BART analysis evaluated wet 

flue gas desulfurization system but it 

was determined that it is not 

economically feasible. As a result of this 

BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and 

New York agreed, that BART for the 

Anode Baking Furnaces is limiting the 

sulfur content of the anode coke to not 

more than 2.5% determined on an 

annual average rolled monthly. 

For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

there are no technically feasible controls 

that represent BART. Alcoa evaluated 

two add-on controls, including SCR and 

SNCR, but these were determined to be 

technically infeasible due to the low 

temperatures of the exhaust gas. 

Combustion modification techniques 

were also determined to be not 

technically feasible. New York’s final 

Air State Facility permit includes a 

BART limit of 203 tpy NOX. 

For control of PM emissions, Alco 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the existing dry alumina injection 

system with a pulse jet fabric filter 

satisfies BART for the Anode Baking 

Furnaces. New York’s final Air State 

Facility permit includes a BART limit of 

24 TPY PM–10. 

C. Four Package Boilers 

These four units are virtually 

identical boilers fired by either natural 

gas or oil. Each boiler has one wall-fired 

burner which has a maximum rated heat 

capacity of 200 mm BTU/hr for natural 

gas and approximately 200 mm BTU/hr 

for No. 6 fuel oil using atomized steam. 

Current NOX controls include low NOX

burners (LNB) and flue gas recirculation 

(FGR). 

For control of SO2 emissions, New 

York is proposing that BART is limiting 

the sulfur content of the fuel oil to 1.5% 

which is the limit included in the 

State’s final Air State Facility permit. 

Alcoa’s BART analysis evaluated the 

cost of fuel oil with sulfur content from 

1.5% down to 0.5% and determined 

that it was not economically feasible to 

purchase fuel oil with sulfur content 

lower than 1.5%. As indicated above for 

the Dynegy Roseton BART analysis, 

New York plans to propose this year 

revisions to it sulfur in fuel regulation, 

Part 225, by limiting the sulfur content 

of residual oil to 0.50% to be effective 

within a few years. New York indicated 

that recent (2011) deliveries to the plant 

had fuel oil sulfur content in the range 

of 0.60 to 0.90%. Alcoa’s BART analysis 

indicates that sulfur emissions from the 

boilers contribute a visibility impact of 

only about 0.18 dv. As a result of this 

BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and 

New York agreed, that BART for these 

four boilers is limiting the sulfur 

content of the fuel oil to not more than 

1.5% for any fuel delivery. 

For control of NOX emissions, Alcoa 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the current control technologies (LNB 

and FGR) and current permitted 

emission limit represents BART. Alcoa 

evaluated other control options, 

including SCR and SNCR, but these 

were determined to be economically 

infeasible. New York took into 

consideration that recent testing 

indicates that NOX emissions are 

reported to be 0.08 lb/mm BTU for gas 

and 0.27 lb/mm BTU for oil. New York’s 

final State Facility permit includes a 

BART limit of 0.30 lb/mm BTU NOX. 

For control of PM emissions, Alco 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the current permit emission limit 

represents BART. New York indicates 

that compliance tests conducted in 

March 2006 show measured total 

particulate emissions of 0.045 lb/mm 

BTU when firing No. 6 fuel oil. 

Additionally, Alcoa’s BART analysis 

indicated that PM emissions from the 

boilers have a small impact on visibility. 

Consequently, New York’s final State 

Facility permit includes a PM–10 BART 

limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for the Potline, Anode 

Baking Furnaces and four Package 

Boilers are included in New York’s final 

(on March 20, 2012) Air State Facility 

permit including requirements for 

monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

expects to submit the permit as a SIP 

revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. 

Lehigh Northeast Cement Company 

This facility, owned by and permitted 

to Lehigh Northeast Cement Company, 

operates a rotary kiln and associated 

clinker cooler as part of this Portland 

cement manufacturing operation, and 

associated quarry, located at Glens Falls, 

Warren County. New York has 

determined that the rotary kiln 

(Emission Unit: 0–UKILN) and the 

associated clinker cooler are BART 

eligible units. Lehigh submitted a BART 

analysis to New York and the State 

agreed with the owner’s 

recommendations. The following 

describes the State’s BART 

determination for each of the BART 

eligible units. 

A. Rotary Kiln 

This unit is a short, dry preheater kiln 

rated at 160 tons per hour. Coal is the 

primary fuel used in the kiln, with 

natural gas used as a startup or backup 

fuel. Currently, PM emissions from the 

kiln are controlled by an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) and a lime slurry 

system is used for detached plume 

abatement and for SO2 control. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24817 

19Lehigh’s BART analysis states (p3–5) that the 

designer of the lime spray drying system indicates 

that this system is adequately sized and sufficient 

to control SO2 to 125 ppm. 

For control of SO2 emissions, New 

York is proposing that current 

operations represent BART. The rotary 

kiln currently reduces SO2 emissions 

through an inherent dry scrubbing (IDS) 

process which entails the operation of a 

raw mill that is part of the kiln 

operation. The raw mill typically 

operates as part of the kiln operation for 

about 80% of the time and SO2

emissions from the kiln are reduced to 

about 20 ppm (typically) whenever the 

raw mill is operated. New York 

indicates that SO2 reduction from the 

kiln is approximately 85% when the 

raw mill is in operation. When the raw 

mill is not operating, Lehigh currently 

employs a lime spray drying system to 

reduce SO2 emissions and for purposes 

of abatement of an ammonium sulfate 

plume (detached plume abatement). 

This lime spray drying system typically 

achieves up to 74% SO2 reduction19

during periods when the raw mill is not 

operating. Lehigh’s BART analysis 

evaluated four other SO2 control options 

including fuel substitution, raw material 

substitution, dry lime injection and wet 

lime scrubbing (WLS) and Lehigh 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the evaluated control options are either 

not cost effective (WLS), not technically 

feasible (upgrade the existing lime spray 

dryer), have no appreciable 

improvement in SO2 reduction over the 

existing system or have no appreciable 

improvement in visibility (WLS and 

lime spray dryer upgrade). New York’s 

Title V permit was issued final on 

February 28, 2012 and includes the 

following currently effective SO2

emission limits for the rotary kiln: (1) 

5.0 lbs/mm BTU of fuel measured on a 

daily basis; and (2) 3.8 lb/mm BTU of 

fuel measured on a monthly rolled 3 

month calendar basis; and (3) 3.4 lb/mm 

BTU of fuel on a monthly rolled 12 

calendar month period. The Title V 

permit states that the SO2 emission 

limits become effective upon Lehigh’s 

certification of a future SO2 CEMS to be 

located on the rotary kiln exhaust 

stack(s). Until the SO2 CEMS system is 

certified, the sulfur limits in the coal 

fired in the rotary kiln are enforceable 

by the State. The Title V permit 

includes the following currently 

effective limits on the sulfur content of 

the coal fired in the kiln: (1) 2.5 lb/mm 

BTU maximum at any time; (2) 1.9 lb/ 

mm BTU on a 90-day average; and (3) 

1.7 lb/mm BTU annual maximum rolled 

monthly. New York’s Title V permit 

indicates that the sulfur limits in the 

coal will expire once Lehigh has 

certified successful operation of the SO2

CEMS. However, New York has clarified 

to EPA that the installation of SO2

CEMS is optional and not a permit 

requirement. It should also be noted that 

SO2 emissions also result from sulfur in 

the raw materials fed to the kiln. 

Although the permitted SO2 emissions 

seem high, EPA expects that actual 

emissions from the kiln will be much 

lower given that Lehigh states in its 

BART analysis that SO2 reductions with 

the raw mill in operation is about 85%; 

and is about 74% when the lime slurry 

system becomes operational as the raw 

mill stops operating. 

For the control of NOX emissions, 

New York is proposing that BART for 

the rotary kiln is the installation of 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

technology. Lehigh’s BART analysis 

evaluated five potential NOX control 

technologies, including SCR and SNCR, 

and concluded that only two control 

technologies are technically feasible, 

i.e., SNCR and low NOx burners (LNB). 

Lehigh concluded that SNCR technology 

is cost effective ($1,145/ton NOX

removed) and results in greater 

reduction in NOX emissions from the 

rotary kiln than LNB and therefore 

SNCR is considered BART. The SNCR 

manufacturer provides a guarantee NOX

removal of 50%. New York’s final Title 

V permit establishes a BART NOX

emission limit of 2.88 lb/ton clinker 

produced with a compliance date of 

January 1, 2014. 

For control of PM emissions, Lehigh 

determined, and New York agreed, that 

the removal and replacement of the 

existing ESP with a fabric filter to meet 

the requirements of EPA’s Portland 

cement MACT (40 CFR part 63, Subpart 

LLL) also represents BART. Lehigh’s 

BART analysis for PM evaluated four 

potential control options including ESP, 

fabric filter, cyclones and a wet 

scrubber. The wet scrubber was deemed 

technically infeasible for a cement plant 

for PM control. Although the fabric filter 

was deemed the most effective PM 

control technology, Lehigh determined 

it to be not cost effective for BART but 

committed to replace the existing ESP 

with a fabric filter to comply with EPA’s 

Portland cement MACT. New York’s 

final Title V permit requires that PM 

emissions from the rotary kiln meet a 

limit of 0.30 lb/ton feed. Additional PM 

reductions are expected to occur in the 

future as required to meet the new 

Portland Cement MACT standards, 

since the PM limit promulgated in the 

Portland Cement MACT standard for 

existing cement kilns is 0.04 lb/ton 

clinker. 

B. Clinker Cooler 

The clinker cooler is a portion of the 

kiln processing system. When the 

clinker has been fully formed in the 

kiln, it is conveyed to the clinker cooler, 

which consists of a series of grates over 

which the clinker travels and is exposed 

to forced ambient air for cooling. Hence, 

only PM is emitted from the clinker 

cooler. The current PM control on the 

clinker cooler is a baghouse. Lehigh 

proposed, and New York agreed, that 

the existing baghouse represents BART 

for the clinker cooler. Because the unit 

is required to meet the Portland Cement 

MACT standard for clinker coolers, 

Lehigh contends that the compliance 

with the applicable PM emission limits 

in the Portland Cement MACT rule and 

the use of the existing baghouse 

represents BART. Lehigh did not 

evaluate other technologies since there 

are no other new technologies 

subsequent to the MACT standard. New 

York’s final Title V permit requires that 

PM emissions from the clinker cooler 

meet a BART limit of 0.10 lb/ton feed. 

Additional PM reductions are expected 

to occur in the future as required to 

meet the new Portland Cement MACT 

standards, since the PM limit 

promulgated in the Portland Cement 

MACT standard for an existing clinker 

cooler is 0.04 lb/ton clinker. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for the rotary kiln and 

associated clinker cooler are included in 

New York’s final (on February 28, 2012) 

Title V permit including requirements 

for monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting and includes a compliance 

date of January 1, 2014. New York 

expects to submit the final Title V 

permit as a SIP revision for EPA 

approval by mid-2012. Once the SIP 

revision is approved by EPA, the BART 

requirements for the kiln and clinker 

cooler become federally enforceable. 

Should New York not submit the final 

Title V permit for the kiln and clinker 

cooler in a timely manner, EPA 

proposes that the aforementioned BART 

requirements be considered as federal 

requirements as part of a FIP. Should 

the existing final Title V permit be 

revised under New York’s permitting 

procedures, New York must submit any 

revisions to EPA as a SIP revision for 

the purpose of complying with BART. 

Kodak—Eastman Business Park 

This facility, owned by and permitted 

to Eastman Kodak Co, operates three 

very large boilers, Boiler 41 (Emission 

Unit U–00015; Emission Source 

321AG), Boiler 42 (Emission Unit U– 

00015; Emission Source 321AH), Boiler 

43 (Emission Unit U–00015; Emission 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

20 ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters,’’ published March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). 

Also referred to as 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD. 

This rule is in effect but under reconsideration. EPA 

plans to issue a revised Boiler MACT rule in the 

spring of 2012. On February 7, 2012, EPA notified 

owners of affected sources that the agency would 

not take enforcement action for violations of 

notification requirements for the Major Source 

Boiler rule issued in March 2011. 

Source 321AI) as well as one other large 

boiler, four package boilers, and 

miscellaneous small units at its Eastman 

Business Park in Monroe County, in the 

city of Rochester. New York has 

determined that Boilers 41, 42 and 43 as 

well as the four package boilers and the 

miscellaneous small (non-boiler) units 

are BART eligible units. The most 

significant BART eligible units (based 

upon emissions of SO2, NOX and PM) 

are Boilers 41, 42 and 43. The remaining 

BART eligible units have smaller 

emissions than Boilers 41–43 and the 

visibility impacts are small. Each of the 

three large BART eligible boiler units 

are used for generating steam and 

electricity for the Kodak facility. Each of 

the three units are cyclone type boilers 

that combust bituminous coal with a 

maximum sulfur content of 2.5%. The 

boilers are also capable of combusting 

Number 6 fuel oil with up to 1.5% 

sulfur content. Each of the three boiler 

units are equipped with electrostatic 

precipitators (ESP) to control PM 

emissions and natural gas reburn to 

control emissions of NOX and SO2. 

Kodak submitted a BART determination 

to New York and the State agreed with 

the owner’s recommendations. 

A. Boilers 41, 42, 43 

Kodak provided a five factor BART 

analysis dated September 29, 2010 and 

a supplemental five factor analysis 

dated October 11, 2012. Kodak 

concluded that BART for these three 

boilers are as follows: (1) Boiler 41 is to 

be permanently retired; (2) Boiler 42 

will either permanently retire or 

repower with natural gas; and (3) Boiler 

43 will meet current permit emission 

limits, given the likelihood that Boiler 

43 will install emission control 

equipment, as required, to comply with 

EPA’s Boiler MACT rule. Typical 

controls to meet Boiler MACT 

requirements may be the installation of 

a dry lime injection system for acid gas 

(e.g., hydrogen chloride) and a fabric 

filter for PM control. A lime injection 

system designed for acid gas removal 

will also typically reduce SO2

emissions. Since EPA is currently 

reconsidering the Boiler MACT rule,20 it 

is uncertain what the MACT compliance 

date and emission limits will be. 

Therefore New York proposes in its 

draft Title V permit, issued for public 

comment on April 4, 2012, that the final 

BART requirements and compliance 

dates are as follows: 

—(1) Boiler 41 is to permanently retire 

by December 31, 2013; and 

—(2) Boiler 42 is to either permanently 

retire or repower by the Boiler MACT 

compliance date but not later than 

August 16, 2017. New York’s draft 

Title V permit does not include any 

emission limits and 

—(3) for Boiler 43, New York’s draft 

Title V permit reiterates the following 

current emission limits as BART: (a) 

SO2: Fuel sulfur limits for coal at 

2.5% and for oil at 1.5%; (b) NOX: 

0.60 lb/mm BTU; (c) PM: 0.24 lb/mm 

BTU when combusting coal and 0.10 

lb/mm BTU when combusting fuel 

oil. 

EPA has reviewed New York’s draft 

Title V permit and in a letter dated 

April 11, 2012, EPA states that the 

agency agrees with the permit’s BART 

requirements except that an emission 

limit for NOX is required for Boiler 42 

should Kodak decide to repower this 

boiler with natural gas. EPA’s comment 

letter to New York requires that the NOX

emission limit be set at 0.20 lb/mm 

BTU. This is the required limit, starting 

on July 1, 2014, for a very large gas/oil 

fired cyclone boiler established by New 

York’s adopted regulation Subpart 227– 

2 (Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Major Sources 

on Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)). Subpart 

227–2 requires compliance with this 

limit on 24-hour basis during the ozone 

season and on a 30-day rolling average 

during the non-ozone season. 

Should Boiler 42 repower with 

natural gas, EPA is not requiring 

emission limits for SO2 and PM. New 

York has stated that it does not include 

emission limits for SO2 and PM for gas 

fired boilers since these emissions are 

small and limiting these contaminants is 

not practically enforceable. New York 

estimates that if this boiler repowers 

with natural gas, the emission 

reductions will be about 4591 tpy SO2

(99% reduction), 220 tpy PM (90% 

reduction), and 607 tpy NOX (67% 

reduction). EPA agrees that New York’s 

analysis is reasonable and therefore EPA 

is not requiring emission limits for SO2

and PM if Boiler 42 repowers with 

natural gas. 

Since New York’s draft Title V permit 

does not include an emission limits for 

NOX for Boiler 42, EPA proposes to 

disapprove New York’s BART 

determination for this boiler except that 

EPA is approving the draft compliance 

date for either retiring or repowering. 

EPA proposes a federal plan 

establishing a NOX emission limit of 

0.20 lb/mm BTU if Boiler 42 is 

repowered with natural gas. 

Kodak’s BART analysis for Boiler 43 

included an evaluation of selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce NOX

emission by almost 67% to reach an 

emission limit of approximately 0.20 lb/ 

mm BTU. Kodak’s evaluation indicated 

that it is cost effective ($5,358/ton) to 

install SCR to reduce NOX emissions by 

67% at this cyclone type boiler. 

However Kodak’s visibility analysis 

indicates that the visibility 

improvement at the Lye Brook Class I 

area is about 0.254 dv (8th high) and 

0.273 dv (8th high) cumulative at seven 

Class I areas even when full Boiler 

MACT controls (lime scrubber and a 

fabric filter) and SCR are evaluated 

together. Since the visibility 

improvement is small, EPA agrees with 

Kodak’s evaluation that the current 

control technology (natural gas reburn) 

and limits summarized above for NOX

represent BART for Boiler 43. 

Kodak’s BART analysis for Boiler 43 

also included an evaluation of lime 

spray dryer absorber (SDA) to reduce 

SO2 emission by 90%. Lime SDA or an 

equal control technology is what may be 

required to meet the future Boiler 

MACT requirement for removal of the 

acid gas such as hydrogen chloride 

(HCl). Kodak’s evaluation indicated that 

it is cost effective ($788/ton) to install 

such a control to remove SO2 emissions. 

However, as indicated above for the SCR 

evaluation, Kodak’s expected visibility 

analysis on a cumulative basis is only 

0.273 dv (8th high) when SDA and SCR 

controls are evaluated together. Since 

this visibility improvement is small, 

EPA agrees with Kodak’s evaluation and 

agrees that the current control limits for 

SO2 summarized above represents 

BART for Boiler 43. 

Kodak’s BART analysis for Boiler 43 

did not include an evaluation of 

additional PM controls beyond the 

existing electrostatic precipitators. 

When the future Boiler MACT is 

implemented, the typical control retrofit 

will be the installation of a fabric filter, 

especially if a dry lime scrubber is 

installed. EPA agrees with Kodak’s 

evaluation and agrees that the current 

control limits summarized above for PM 

represent BART for Boiler 43. 

B. Four Package Boilers and 

Miscellaneous Small Sources 

New York has determined that four 

package boilers and numerous small 

(non-boiler) miscellaneous sources at 

the Kodak facility are BART eligible. 

Kodak conducted visibility modeling to 

demonstrate that the four BART eligible 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24819 

package boilers, having low emissions, 

had visibility impacts below 0.10 dv in 

Class I areas. The largest emissions from 

the numerous small non-boiler units 

were comparable to the emissions from 

the package boilers but were emitted 

from much shorter stacks. New York 

concluded therefore that these 

numerous small sources would have 

similar minimal visibility impacts on 

downwind Class I areas. 

With respect to the other smaller 

emission sources, EPA’s BART 

Guidelines provide for exempting a 

BART-eligible source from being subject 

to BART if the source’s impact on 

visibility impairment from SO2, NOX, 

and PM at any Class I area is de 

minimis. New York’s rule established de 

minimis in this case as less than 0.1 

deciviews. Analysis and modeling of the 

four packaged boilers and small 

numerous miscellaneous sources 

demonstrated maximum impacts of less 

than 0.10 dv. Therefore New York 

determined these units have negligible 

impacts on visibility and exempted 

them from further BART analysis. Since 

EPA’s BART Guidelines for exempting a 

BART-eligible source applies to the 

entire facility and not individual units, 

and EPA did not set a specific visibility 

level as a cutoff for a required BART 

analysis, EPA does not agree that these 

units are exempted from a BART 

analysis. However, EPA agrees with 

New York that a study of possible BART 

controls for these miscellaneous sources 

with negligible visibility impacts would 

only result in the conclusion that BART 

control is economically infeasible on a 

dollar per deciview basis. Therefore 

EPA proposes to accept New York’s 

determination that current operations 

with no additional control is BART. 

The aforementioned BART 

requirements for Boilers 41, 42 and 43 

are included in New York’s draft Title 

V permit including requirements for 

monitoring, record keeping and 

reporting and includes compliance 

dates as indicated above. New York 

expects to finalize the draft Title V 

permit and to submit it as a SIP revision 

for EPA approval by mid-2012. 

In addition, as discussed above, EPA 

is proposing a FIP for establishing a 

NOX emission limit of 0.20 lb/mm BTU 

for Boiler 42 should Kodak decide to 

repower this boiler with natural gas. 

The compliance date is by the Boiler 

MACT compliance date but not later 

than August 16, 2017. 

In summary, EPA is proposing partial 

approval and partial disapproval of New 

York’s BART determinations for Boilers 

41, 42 and 43 at Kodak’s Eastman 

Business Park facility. EPA is proposing 

to approve New York’s BART 

determination for Boilers 41 and 43 and 

the compliance date for Boiler 42 to 

either permanently retire or repower 

because this BART determination was 

conducted in a manner consistent with 

EPA’s Guidelines. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of New York’s 

BART determination for Boiler 42 

because it does not include an emission 

limit for NOX should this boiler be 

repowered with natural gas. 

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill 

The International Paper Company 

operates the Ticonderoga Mill, a Kraft 

Paper Mill, in Essex County. BARTeligible emission units at the 

Ticonderoga Mill are a Power Boiler and 

a Recovery Boiler. New York 

determined other smaller emission 

sources at the Mill consisting of a smelt 

dissolving tank, a lime kiln, and PM 

emission sources (a starch silo and two 

wood chip cyclones) to be exempt from 

further BART analysis based on 

modeling results showing that these 

units have less than 0.1 deciview 

impacts. 

The power boiler is rated at 855 

mmBTU/hr heat input and designed to 

combust wood residue and No. 6 fuel oil 

at 1.5% sulfur and typically operates 

with a fuel mix of 80% oil and 20% 

wood/bark. The power boiler is 

currently equipped with low NOX

burners, a wet scrubber and a 

multicyclone unit and subject to SO2, 

NOX and PM emission limits as a result 

of BACT, RACT, MACT and New York 

State regulations. The recovery boiler is 

a kraft recovery furnace used to recover 

chemicals from spent pulping liquor 

and to produce steam for the mill. The 

recovery boiler processes black liquor 

and combusts No. 6 fuel oil as an 

auxiliary fuel less than 10% of the time. 

The boiler operates with a three-level 

staged combustion air supply system 

and an electrostatic precipitator control. 

A. Power Boiler 

The power boiler currently operates 

with a wet-alkaline sodium hydroxide 

scrubber to control SO2 emissions at a 

rate of approximately 65 percent 

efficiency. New York identified wet or 

dry scrubbing, the use of a lower sulfur 

fuel oil and combustion of natural gas 

as potential control technologies in the 

reduction of SO2 emissions from the 

power boiler. The use of natural gas was 

not feasible due to the 70 miles distance 

to the nearest gas pipeline. Using a 

lower sulfur content fuel oil was shown 

to result in emission rates at or above 

the existing 309 lb/hr emission rate. In 

addition, the BART determination 

demonstrated insignificant visibility 

improvement (from 0.02 to 0.07 

deciviews) with any lowering of the 

sulfur fuel oil, and any upgrades or 

improved operation of the existing 

control devices. 

New York determined that current 

operation of the wet-alkaline sodium 

hydroxide scrubber and the existing SO2

emission limit of 309 lb/hr on a 24-hour 

rolling average (approximately 1,350 

tons per year) to be BART for the power 

boiler. In the future, the boiler will need 

to comply with the ICI Boiler MACT 

acid gas control requirements. In 

response to EPA and FLM comments, 

New York also analyzed increasing the 

rate of caustic to the existing wet 

scrubber as a potential control 

technology for addressing BART. While 

this alternative is technically feasible 

and appears to be cost-effective, it 

results in an insignificant visibility 

improvement ranging from 0.02 to 0.11 

deciviews at the Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area, the closest Class I Area. In 

addition, any physical modifications to 

the scrubber would adversely affect PM 

control. Therefore, New York 

determined that existing controls and 

current emission limits represent BART 

for the control of SO2 emissions from 

the power boiler. 

The power boiler presently operates 

with low NOX burners, over fired air 

and flue gas recirculation. The existing 

emission limit for NOX emissions is 0.25 

lb/mmBTU (approximately 936 tons per 

year). The boiler is also subject to 40 

CFR 63 subpart DDDDD for Industrial, 

Commercial and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters which may require 

additional emissions monitoring and 

control in the future. The BART 

determination considered lowering the 

emission rate to 0.20 lb/mmBTU and 

0.15 lb/mmBTU; however these 

emission rates were shown to result in 

an insignificant visibility improvement. 

Meeting a 0.20 lb/mmBTU emission rate 

resulted in maximum and eighthhighest visibility improvements of only 

0.08 to 0.09 dv and 0.03 to 0.04 dv, 

respectively. Meeting a 0.15 lb/mmBTU 

emission rate resulted in maximum and 

eighth-highest visibility improvements 

of 0.17–0.18 dv and 0.07 dv, 

respectively. New York’s BART 

determination notes that EPA’s BART 

rule did not set specific presumptive 

NOX limits for oil-fired boilers, but 

should generally consider ‘‘current 

combustion control technology.’’ 

New York determined that current 

operation of the low NOX burners, over 

fired air and flue gas recirculation 

controls and the existing NOX emission 

limit of 0.25 lb/mmBTU to be BART for 

the power boiler. In addition the power 

boiler will need to comply with the ICI 

Boiler MACT and the Department’s NOX


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

RACT regulation. Under EPA Guidance, 

states have wide discretion as to how 

they assess the BART five factors. 

Although EPA does not generally 

recommend that states rely solely on the 

visibility improvement consideration in 

making BART determinations, EPA does 

not believe that broader analysis of the 

costs and visibility benefits associated 

with installation of other postcombustion controls, such as SNCR and 

SCR, would have resulted in a different 

BART determination in this case. EPA 

proposes to find the current controls as 

being sufficient for BART is reasonable. 

For informational purposes, EPA notes 

that separate from International Paper’s 

BART analysis, International Paper also 

evaluated possible controls to meet New 

York’s NOX RACT requirements. Based 

on International Paper’s January 2, 2012 

analysis, SCR was found to not be 

technically feasible. SNCR would only 

achieve a 21% emission reduction from 

the current potential emission rate of 

0.25 lb/mmBTU and therefore was not 

cost-effective. 

Filterable PM emissions from the 

power boiler are controlled by a 

multicyclone and the wet scrubber. 

Filterable PM emissions are limited to 

0.10 lb/mmBTU. The maximum 

modeled visibility impact on a Class I 

area due to PM is 0.03 dv. Additional 

PM reductions are expected in the 

future to be required to meet new MACT 

standards. The proposed Industrial 

Commercial Institutional Boilers and 

Process Heaters MACT standard (40 

CFR 63 subpart DDDDD) that would 

apply to the Power Boiler is 0.02 lb/ 

mmBTU. New York found that PM 

emissions from the power boiler are low 

and have minimal impact on visibility. 

B. Recovery Boiler 

Operation of the recovery boiler 

differs from that of conventional steam 

boilers in that the primary objective is 

to recover and re-use the sulfur. Proper 

operation of a recovery boiler itself 

results in inherent control of SO2

emissions. Additionally, this unit is a 

non-direct evaporation recovery furnace 

which inherently results in low SO2

emissions. The available retrofit 

technologies for SO2 control from kraft 

mill recovery boilers are staged 

combustion systems and wet scrubbers. 

The recovery boiler is already equipped 

with a three-level staged combustion air 

control system. New York determined it 

is technically infeasible to install a wet 

scrubbing device downstream of the 

existing ESP. There are only three 

recovery boilers in the U.S. equipped 

with wet scrubbers in addition to ESPs. 

New York determined that current 

operation of the three-level staged 

combustion air control system with 

ESPs be considered as BART for SO2

emissions for the recovery boiler. EPA 

proposes to find that other control 

technologies were not found to have 

been applied to other recovery boilers, 

and the current controls of the recovery 

boiler could be considered the 

maximum control for BART with a 

permitted emission limit of 4 parts per 

million dry volume. 

The majority of NOX formed in the 

recovery boiler is believed to be 

primarily fuel NOX due to the low 

temperatures in the boiler’s combustion 

zone. Fuel NOX emissions from recovery 

furnaces are typically low due to the 

low nitrogen content of black liquor 

solids. The boiler’s three-level staged 

combustion system can also be operated 

to minimize NOX formation/emissions. 

New York considered other potential 

NOX control technologies to be staged 

combustion systems, selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR), low NOX burners, 

and flue gas recirculation (FGR). Based 

on the unique nature of recovery boiler 

operation, each of these traditional 

boiler controls was ruled out as being 

technically infeasible. New York 

determined compliance with BART for 

NOX is the currently installed threelevel staged combustion air control 

system with ESPs. The current 

permitted NOX emission rate for the 

Recovery Boiler is 100 ppm (by volume) 

corrected to 8% O2. Since there have 

been no applications of SCR or SNCR on 

recovery boilers in the United States, 

EPA proposes to find the current 

controls as being sufficient for BART is 

reasonable. Particulate emissions from 

the recovery boiler are currently 

controlled with a three-chamber ESP. In 

addition to ESPs, New York considered 

wet scrubbers and fabric filters as 

potential PM controls, however it is 

technically infeasible to install a wet 

scrubber downstream of the existing 

ESP on the recovery boiler, and fabric 

filters have not been applied to any 

recovery boilers at kraft pulp mills. The 

recovery boiler complies with the 

Chemical Recovery MACT standard (40 

CFR 63, subpart MM). Therefore New 

York determined that current PM 

controls and emission limits for the 

recovery boiler satisfy BART. Since EPA 

states in its BART rule, ‘‘* * * you may 

rely upon MACT standards for purposes 

of BART,’’ EPA proposes to find the 

current controls as being sufficient for 

BART is reasonable. 

With respect to the other smaller 

emission sources, EPA’s BART 

Guidelines provide for exempting a 

BART-eligible source from being subject 

to BART if the source’s impact on 

visibility impairment from SO2, NOX

and PM at any Class I area is de 

minimis. New York’s rule established de 

minimis in this case as less than 0.1 

deciviews. Modeling of the smelt 

dissolving tank, lime kiln, and PM 

emission sources demonstrated 

maximum impacts of 0.017 dv, 0.001 dv 

and 0.008 dv, respectively. Therefore 

New York determined these units have 

negligible impacts on visibility and 

exempted them from further BART 

analysis. Since EPA’s BART Guidelines 

for exempting a BART-eligible source 

applies to the entire facility and not 

individual units, and EPA did not set a 

specific visibility level as a cutoff for a 

required BART analysis, EPA does not 

agree that these units are exempted from 

a BART analysis. However, EPA agrees 

with New York that a study of possible 

BART controls for these miscellaneous 

sources with negligible visibility 

impacts would only result in the 

conclusion that BART control is 

economically infeasible on a dollar per 

deciview basis. The highest emitting of 

these smaller sources, the smelt 

dissolving tank, is already equipped 

with a wet scrubber and meets the 

MACT standard for PM. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to accept New York’s 

determination that current operations 

with no additional control is BART. 

EPA has reviewed New York’s 

analyses for all of the International 

Paper BART-eligible sources and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. EPA proposes to approve 

New York’s BART determinations for 

the International Paper facility and 

specifically proposes to approve the 

following emission limits for the power 

boiler: 309 lbs SO2/hr; 0.25 lbs NOX/ 

mmBTU; 0.1 lbs PM/mmBTU; and for 

the recovery boiler: 4 ppmdv total 

reduced sulfur; 100 ppmdv for NOX; 

and 0.03 grains per dry standard cubic 

foot for PM. Though New York’s Part 

249 requires BART controls to be 

installed and implemented by January 1, 

2014, International Paper must 

presently comply with these BART 

emission limits since they represent 

existing permit conditions. 

EPA proposes approval of the 

International Paper BART determination 

as a revision to the SIP. If New York 

does not submit all of the BART 

determinations and associated 

documents and permits to EPA as 

source-specific SIP revisions, then this 

proposal also serves as EPA’s proposed 

federal plan for determining BART for 

BART-eligible sources at International 

Paper. 

In summary, all of the aforementioned 

BART requirements for each unit of all 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24821 

19 BART sources are included in New 

York’s draft or final Title V permits 

including requirements for monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting. 

Compliance is due by the effective date 

of the Title V permit. New York expects 

to finalize all draft Title V permits and 

to submit all final Title V permits as a 

SIP revision for EPA approval by mid2012. Once the SIP revision is approved 

by EPA (EPA final action for all 19 

BART sources is scheduled for August 

16, 2012) the BART requirements for 

each unit become federally enforceable. 

Should New York not submit the final 

Title V permit for each unit in a timely 

manner, EPA proposes that the BART 

requirements be considered as federal 

requirements as part of a FIP as 

discussed above. 

c. Enforceability of BART 

New York’s BART requirements must 

be included as operating permit 

conditions in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 70, and the State regulations 

promulgated at 6 NYCRR Part 249. All 

of the BART facilities submitted permit 

modification applications to incorporate 

the BART requirements. New York has 

approved the permit modifications for 

National Grid’s EF Barrett Power 

Station, National Grid’s Northport 

Power Station, Con Ed’s 59th Street 

Station, NRG’s Arthur Kill’s Generating 

Station, TC Ravenswood’s Ravenswood 

Generating Station, Con Ed’s 

Ravenswood Steam Plant, Dynegy’s 

Roseton Generating Station, Holcim 

US’s Catskill Plant, Lafarge Building 

Materials’ Ravena Plant, International 

Paper’s Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh 

Northeast Cement’s Glens Falls Plant, 

Alcoa Massena Operation’s West Plant, 

Johnstown BPU’s Samuel A Carlson 

Generating Station, and has proposed 

the permit modifications for GenOn’s 

Bowline Generating Station, Dynegy’s 

Danskammer Generating Station, Owens 

Corning’s Delmar Plant, NRG’s Oswego 

Harbor Power, GDF Suez’s Syracuse 

Energy Corporation, Eastman Kodak/ 

Duke Energy’s Kodak Park Division. 

When all permit modifications are 

completed, New York will submit all of 

the BART determinations and 

associated documents and permits to 

EPA as source-specific SIP revisions. 

EPA has reviewed New York’s BART 

determinations for all of the BART 

eligible sources, including all 

supporting documentation, information 

and proposed permit modifications. 

New York has requested public 

comment on the proposed permit 

modifications, which identify the 

required BART controls, and in many 

cases the comment periods have closed. 

New York is in the process of 

addressing any comments received and 

issuing the permit modifications in final 

form. EPA proposes in the alternative to 

approve New York’s BART 

determinations and emissions limits 

should New York submit final permit 

modifications to EPA as SIP revisions 

and the revisions match the terms of our 

proposed FIP. EPA is proposing 

approval of New York’s BART 

determinations because they were 

conducted in a manner consistent with 

EPA’s BART Guidelines. In the event 

New York does not submit a SIP 

revision with final permit modifications 

for all BART sources, EPA will publish 

a final rulemaking with a FIP for those 

BART sources, as proposed in this 

action. 

Should New York submit all of the 

final BART permit modifications as a 

SIP revision, and the revisions match 

the terms of our proposed FIP, EPA 

proposes to approve New York’s BART 

requirements based on the BART 

determinations discussed above and the 

respective BART limitations on 

emissions, source operation and fuel 

use. New York’s BART determinations 

contain the appropriate regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the sources. Lastly, 

New York’s BART determinations 

require BART controls be installed and 

in operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

Regional Haze SIP, as required in the 

CAA and in the RHR. 

d. New York’s Part 249—Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) 

On August 2, 2010, New York 

submitted to EPA as a revision to its 

SIP, rule changes to Part 249 ‘‘Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART)’’ 

and amendments to Part 200 ‘‘General 

Provisions’’ of Title 6 of the Official 

Compilation of Codes, Rules and 

Regulations of the State of New York (6 

NYCRR). New York completed all the 

administrative requirements for these 

rule changes, including a public hearing 

and response to comments. The 

effective date for Part 249 and 

amendments to Part 200 is May 6, 2010. 

Part 249 was adopted pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act Section 169A and the 

federal Regional Haze Rule to reduce the 

emissions of pollutants which 

contribute to regional haze in Federal 

Class I areas. New York was obligated to 

promulgate Part 249 in order to require 

New York sources which contribute to 

haze issues in Class I areas in 

downwind states to control emissions 

which contribute to haze. Part 249 

required BART eligible facilities to 

perform an analysis of potential controls 

for each visibility-impairing pollutant. 

The analysis of controls was due to New 

York by October 1, 2010. The 

compliance date contained in Part 249 

is January 1, 2014—within EPA’s BART 

Guidance for compliance within five 

years of EPA’s approval of the state’s 

Regional Haze SIP. Part 249 also 

provides that each BART determination 

established by New York will be 

submitted to EPA for approval as a 

revision to the SIP. 

New York completed all the 

administrative requirements for this 

rule, including a public hearing and 

addressed the public comments. EPA 

has evaluated New York’s BART rule 

submittal for consistency with the Clean 

Air Act, EPA regulations, and EPA 

policy and the rule meets administrative 

requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to approve New York’s Part 249 as part 

of the SIP. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional haze planning, intended to 

create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

States held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from VISTAS, 

Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal 

Land Managers also attended. In 

addition to the conference calls and 

meeting, the FLMs were given the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

each of the technical documents 

developed by MANE–VU. No additional 

measures beyond those developed as 

part of the MANE–VU ‘‘ask’’ were 

recommended by other states or the 

FLMs. 

New York State provided the FLMs a 

copy of the draft SIP. The FLM’s 

comments and New York State’s 

responses are included in Appendix B, 

Summary of Federal Land Manager 

Comments and Responses. New York 

committed to coordinate and consult 

with the FLMs on implementation of 

emission strategies, by providing 

summaries of major new source permits, 

upcoming rulemakings that may 

contribute to visibility impairment, and 

any revisions to the haze plans. Based 

on these actions and commitments, EPA 

has determined that New York has 

fulfilled the requirements for 

consultation with the FLMs. In addition, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

in New York’s attempts to implement 

the MANE–VU emission control 

agreements, New York fulfills the 

requirement for consultation with states 

with Class I areas. 

New York State held public hearings 

on this proposed SIP revision, its BART 

rule and implementation of New York’s 

legislation on sulfur content in fuels. 

The hearings occurred in Albany, Avon 

and New York City on the first three 

days in December. Written comments 

relevant to the proposal were accepted 

through December 24, 2009. The State 

responded to the comments in its public 

comments document. Comments came 

from the EPA, potential BART sources 

and organizations of industry groups. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

In Section 11.0 of its haze SIP, New 

York commits to revise and submit a 

regional haze implementation plan by 

July 31, 2018 to address the next ten 

years of progress toward the national 

goal in the Act of eliminating manmade 

haze by 2064, and to submit a plan 

every ten years thereafter, in accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional 

haze. New York commits to submitting 

the required Mid-Course Review report 

every five years after the initial 

submittal of the haze SIP. New York’s 

commitment includes continuing to 

consult with the FLMs on the 

implementation of Section 51.308 and 

this SIP, including development and 

review of SIP revisions and five-year 

progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

affecting the impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. Finally, New York 

commits to meet the required periodic 

updates of the emission inventory as 

required under 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

Since there are no Class I areas in the 

State, New York does not have to 

address the RAVI and monitoring 

strategy requirements of the RHR. 

V. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the revision to 

the New York SIP addressing regional 

haze submitted on March 15, 2010, and 

supplemented on August 2, 2010. EPA 

proposes to disapprove the following 

BART determinations: 

• New York’s SO2 BART 

determinations and emissions limits for 

Roseton Units 1 and 2. 

• New York’s SO2 BART 

determinations and emissions limits for 

Danskammer Unit 4. 

• New York’s SO2, NOX and PM 

emissions limits for Kodak’s Boiler 42. 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

following facility BART determinations 

and emission limits because while New 

York has proposed permit 

modifications, New York has not issued 

final permit modifications or submitted 

them to EPA as a SIP revision: Bowline 

Point Generating Station; Danskammer 

Generating Station; Owens Corning 

Delmar Plant; Oswego Harbor Power; 

Syracuse Energy Corporation; Kodak 

Park Division. 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

following facility BART determinations 

and emission limits because New York 

has not submitted final permit 

modifications to EPA as a SIP revision: 

EF Barrett Power Station; Northport 

Power Station; 59th Street Station; 

Arthur Kill Generating Station; 

Ravenswood Generating Station; 

Ravenswood Steam Plant; Roseton 

Generating Station; Holcim (US) Inc— 

Catskill Plant; Lafarge Building 

Materials; International Paper 

Ticonderoga Mill; Lehigh Northeast 

Cement; ALCOA Massena Operations 

(West Plant); Samuel A Carlson 

Generating Station. 

EPA is proposing a FIP to address the 

deficiencies identified in our proposed 

partial disapproval of New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP. In lieu of this 

proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we 

are proposing approval of a SIP revision 

if the State submits such a revision in 

a timely way, and the revision matches 

the terms of our proposed FIP, or 

relevant portion thereof. 

EPA proposes to approve the 

remaining aspects of New York’s 

Regional Haze SIP revision as follows: 

New York’s determination under the 

reasonable progress requirements that 

all measures found to be reasonable 

have been enacted and implemented; 

New York’s Long Term Strategy, will be 

approvable, only if New York submits 

all of the final permit modifications in 

a timely manner, and with the level of 

control in EPA’s proposed FIP; New 

York’s SIP revision consisting of New 

York’s 6 NYCRR Part 249. 

EPA proposes in the alternative to 

approve all of the facility BART 

determinations and emissions limits 

should New York submit final permit 

modifications to EPA as SIP revisions, 

and the revisions match the terms of our 

proposed FIP. 

EPA is taking this action pursuant to 

those provisions of the Act. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document and 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As 

discussed in detail in section C below, 

the proposed FIP applies to only nine 

facilities. It is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons. * * *’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

nine facilities, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for our regulations in 

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24823 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Regional 

Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for 

purposes of the regional haze program 

consists of imposing federal controls to 

meet the BART requirement for SO2, 

NOX, and PM emissions on specific 

units at nine facilities in New York. The 

net result of this FIP action is that EPA 

is proposing direct emission controls on 

selected units at only nine facilities. The 

facilities in question are either large 

electric generating plants or large 

industrial boilers that are not owned by 

small entities, and therefore are not 

small entities. The proposed partial 

approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. See Mid-Tex Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 

(DC Cir. 1985) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

1 year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation to prohibit 

emissions from interfering with other 

states measures to protect visibility 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule limits emissions of 

SO2, NOX, and PM from nine facilities 

in New York. The partial approval of the 

SIP, if finalized, merely approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 16, 2012. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart HH—New York 

2. New § 52.1686 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1686 Federal implementation plan for 

regional haze. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to each owner and operator of the 

following electric generating units 

(EGUs) and large industrial boilers in 

the State of New York: Danskammer 

Generating Station, Unit 4; Roseton 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; 

Syracuse Energy Corporation, Unit 1; 

Bowline Point Generating Station, Units 

1 and 2; Eastman Kodak Business Park, 

Units 41, 42, and 43; Delmar Plant, 

Units EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13 and EU14; 

Oswego Harbor Power, Units 5 and 6; 

and Ravenswood Generating Station, 

Units 10, 20 and 30; EF Barrett Power 

Station, Northport Power Station, 59th 

Street Station, Arthur Kill Generating 

Station, Ravenswood Steam Plant, 

Roseton Generating Station, Holcim 

Catskill Plant, Lafarge Building 

Materials, International Paper 

Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh Northeast 

Cement Plant, ALCOA Massena 

Operations (West Plant), Samuel A 

Carlson Generating Station. 

(b) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this section: 

Boiler operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

fuel is combusted at any time in the 

EGU, boiler or emission unit. It is not 

necessary for fuel to be combusted for 

the entire 24-hour period. 

Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by this section to sample, 

analyze, measure, and provide, by 

means of readings recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes (using an automated 

data acquisition and handling system 

(DAHS)), a permanent record of SO2, 

NOX, and PM emissions, other pollutant 

emissions, diluent, or stack gas 

volumetric flow rate. 

SO2 means sulfur dioxide. 

NOX means nitrogen oxides. 

PM means particulate matter. 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns, leases, operates, controls, or 

supervises an EGU or boiler identified 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers 

identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) Emissions limitations—(1) The 

owners/operators subject to this section 

shall not emit or cause to be emitted 

SO2, NOX, and PM in excess of the 

following limitations, averaged over a 

rolling 30-day period unless otherwise 

indicated below: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24825 

Facilities BART Unit 

BART Controls/Limits 

NOX SO2 PM 

Danskammer Generating 

Station—Dynegy.

4 ........................................ 0.12 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg ozone season, 30 

day avg rest of yr.

Compliance 7/1/2014. 

Option 1: 0.50 lb/mm BTU, 

24 hr avg.

Compliance 7/1/2014. 

Option 2: 0.09 lb/mm BTU, 

24 hr avg. 

Compliance 7/1/2014. 

0.06 lb/mm BTU, 1 hr avg. 

Compliance 7/1/2014. 

Roseton Generating Station—Dynegy.1 & 2 ................................. 0.20 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg ozone season, 30 

day avg rest of yr.

0.55 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg.

0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Syracuse Energy Corporation—GDF Suez.1 ........................................ Retire 1/1/2014 ................. Retire 1/1/2014 ................. Retire 1/1/2014. 

Bowline Point Generating 

Station—GenOn.

1 & 2 ................................. 0.15 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg ozone season, 30 

day avg rest of yr.

0.37% sulfur fuel oil .......... 0.10 lb mm BTU. 

Kodak Operations at Eastman Business Park— 

Kodak.

41 ...................................... Retire 12/31/2013 ............. Retire 12/31/2013 ............. Retire 12/31/2013. 

42 ...................................... Retire or repower with natural gas by the Boiler 

MACT compliance date 

but not later than 8/16/ 

2017.

0.20 lb/mm Btu, 24 hr avg 

ozone season, 30 day 

avg rest of yr. 

Retire or repower with natural gas by the Boiler 

MACT compliance date 

but not later than 8/16/ 

2017.

Retire or repower with natural gas by the Boiler 

MACT compliance date 

but not later than 8/16/ 

2017. 

43 ...................................... 0.60 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg ozone season, 30 

day avg rest of yr.

Coal 2.5% sulfur Oil 1.5% 

sulfur.

Coal 0.24 lb/mm BTU, Oil 

0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Owens Corning Delmar 

Plant—Owens Corning.

EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13 & 

EU14.

Emit <250 tons per year, 

cumulative.

Emit <250 tons per year, 

cumulative.

Emit <250 tons per year, 

cumulative. 

Oswego Harbor Power— 

NRG.

5 ........................................ 383 tpy, 12 month rolling 

total.

0.75% sulfur fuel, 0.80 lb/ 

mm BTU, 3 hr rolling 

avg.

0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

6 ........................................ 665 tpy, 12 month rolling 

total.

0.75% sulfur fuel, 0.80 lb/ 

mm BTU, 3 hr rolling 

avg.

0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Ravenswood Generating 

Station—Trans Canada.

10, 20, 30 .......................... Natural gas primary fuel, 

0.15 lb/mm BTU.

0.30% sulfur fuel oil .......... 0.1 lb/mm BTU. 

EF Barrett Power Station— 

NG.

2 ........................................ 0.10 lb/mm BTU, when firing natural gas and 0.20 

lb/mm BTU when firing 

low sulfur fuel oil, both 

on a 24-hour avg.

0.37% sulfur fuel ............... 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Northport Power Station— 

NG.

1–3 .................................... 0.10 lb/mm BTU, when firing natural gas and 0.20 

lb/mm BTU when firing 

fuel oil, both on a 24 hr 

avg.

0.70% sulfur fuel ............... 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

4 ........................................ 0.10 lb/mm BTU, when firing natural gas and 0.20 

lb/mm BTU when firing 

fuel oil, both on a 24 hr 

avg.

0.75% sulfur fuel ............... 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

59th Street Station—Con 

Ed.

114 & 115 ......................... 0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30-day 

rolling average.

0.30% sulfur fuel ............... 0.10 lb/mm BTU, by stack 

tests. 

Arthur Kill Generating Station—NRG.30 ...................................... Natural gas combustion, 

0.15 lb/mm BTU, 24 hr 

avg ozone season, 30 

day avg rest of yr.

Natural gas combustion 

0.15 lb/MM BTU.

359 tpy. 

Ravenswood Steam 

Plant—Con Ed.

2 ........................................ 0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30-day 

rolling average.

0.30% sulfur fuel ............... 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Catskill Plant—Holcim (US) 

Inc.

0KILN ................................ Retire 2/13/2012 ............... Retire 2/13/2012. 

Lafarge Building Materials 1 & 2 ................................. Retire 6/30/2015 ............... Retire 6/30/2015 ............... Retire 6/30/2015. 

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill—International Paper.Power ................................ 0.25 lb/mm BTU ................ 309 lb/hr on a 24-hr rolling 

average.

0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Recovery ........................... 100 ppm dry volume, corrected to 8% O2.4 ppm dry volume Total 

reduced sulfur.

0.03 grains per dry standard cubic foot. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
24826 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Facilities BART Unit 

BART Controls/Limits 

NOX SO2 PM 

Lehigh Northeast Cement—Lehigh Cement.kiln ..................................... 2.88 lb/ton clinker produced.2.5 lb/mm BTU max, .........

1.9 lb/mm BTU on a 90- 

day average, 

1.7 lb/mm BTU max on a 

12 month rolling average, 

When CEMS certified: 

0.03 lb/ton feed. 

5.10 lb/mm BTU daily, 

3.8 lb/mm BTU on a 

90-day average, 3.4 

lb/mm BTU on a 12 

month rolling average 

Clinker cooler .................... ........................................... ........................................... 0.10 lb/ton feed. 

ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)— 

Alcoa.

Potlines ............................. Emit ≤50 tpy ...................... 2.5% sulfur anode coke, 

12 month rolling avg.

Emit ≤168 tpy PM–10. 

Baking furnaces ................ Emit ≤203 tpy .................... 2.5% sulfur anode coke, 

12 month rolling avg.

Emit ≤24 tpy PM–10. 

Boilers ............................... 0.30 lb/mm BTU ................ 1.5% sulfur fuel ................. 0.10 lb/mm BTU. 

Samuel A Carlson Generating Station—Jamestown Board of Public 

Utilities.

12 ...................................... Retire 1/1/2014 ................. Retire 1/1/2014 ................. Retire 1/1/2014. 

(2) These emission limitations shall 

apply at all times, including startups, 

shutdowns, emergencies, and 

malfunctions. 

(d) Compliance date. The owners and 

operators subject to this section shall 

comply with the emissions limitations 

and other requirements of this section 

by January 1, 2014 unless otherwise 

indicated in paragraph (c). 

(e) Compliance determination using 

CEMS—(1) CEMS. At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the owner/operator of 

each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and 

operate a CEMS, in full compliance with 

the requirements found at 40 CFR part 

75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, and 

PM, diluent, and stack gas volumetric 

flow rate from each unit. The CEMS 

shall be used to determine compliance 

with the emission limitations in 

paragraph (c) of this section for each 

unit. 

(2) Method. (i) For any hour in which 

fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/ 

operator of each unit shall calculate the 

hourly average SO2, NOX, and PM 

concentration in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS 

in accordance with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 75. At the end of each 

boiler operating day, the owner/operator 

shall calculate and record a new average 

emission rate, consistent with paragraph 

(c) averaging period, in lb/MMBtu from 

the arithmetic average of all valid 

hourly emission rates from the CEMS 

for the current boiler operating day. 

(ii) An hourly average SO2, NOX, or 

PM emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid 

only if the minimum number of data 

points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75, 

is acquired by the SO2, NOX, or PM 

pollutant concentration monitor and the 

diluent monitor (O2 or CO2). 

(iii) Data reported to meet the 

requirements of this section shall not 

include data substituted using the 

missing data substitution procedures of 

subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall 

the data have been bias adjusted 

according to the procedures of 40 CFR 

part 75. 

(f) Compliance determination using 

fuel certification— 

The owner or operator of each 

affected facility subject to a federally 

enforceable requirement limiting the 

fuel sulfur content may use fuel 

supplier certification to demonstrate 

compliance. Records of fuel supplier 

certification, as described under 

paragraph (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this 

section, as applicable, shall be 

maintained and reports submitted as 

required under paragraph (h). In 

addition to records of fuel supplier 

certifications, the report shall include a 

certified statement signed by the owner 

or operator of the affected facility that 

the records of fuel supplier 

certifications submitted represent all of 

the fuel combusted during the reporting 

period. 

Fuel supplier certification shall 

include the following information: 

(1) For distillate oil: 

(i) The name of the oil supplier; 

(ii) A statement from the oil supplier 

that the oil complies with the 

specifications under the definition of 

distillate oil in § 60.41c; and 

(iii) The sulfur content or maximum 

sulfur content of the oil. 

(2) For residual oil: 

(i) The name of the oil supplier; 

(ii) The location of the oil when the 

sample was drawn for analysis to 

determine the sulfur content of the oil, 

specifically including whether the oil 

was sampled as delivered to the affected 

facility, or whether the sample was 

drawn from oil in storage at the oil 

supplier’s or oil refiner’s facility, or 

other location; 

(iii) The sulfur content of the oil from 

which the shipment came (or of the 

shipment itself); and 

(iv) The method used to determine the 

sulfur content of the oil. 

(3) For coal: 

(i) The name of the coal supplier; 

(ii) The location of the coal when the 

sample was collected for analysis to 

determine the properties of the coal, 

specifically including whether the coal 

was sampled as delivered to the affected 

facility or whether the sample was 

collected from coal in storage at the 

mine, at a coal preparation plant, at a 

coal supplier’s facility, or at another 

location. The certification shall include 

the name of the coal mine (and coal 

seam), coal storage facility, or coal 

preparation plant (where the sample 

was collected); 

(iii) The results of the analysis of the 

coal from which the shipment came (or 

of the shipment itself) including the 

sulfur content, moisture content, ash 

content, and heat content; and 

(iv) The methods used to determine 

the properties of the coal. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 24827 

(4) For other fuels: 

(i) The name of the supplier of the 

fuel; 

(ii) The potential sulfur emissions rate 

or maximum potential sulfur emissions 

rate of the fuel in ng/J heat input; and 

(iii) The method used to determine 

the potential sulfur emissions rate of the 

fuel. 

(g) Compliance determination with an 

annual emission limit—The owner or 

operator of each affected facility subject 

to a federally enforceable requirement 

limiting the annual emissions shall 

calculate the annual emissions 

individually for each fuel combusted, as 

applicable. The annual emission 

limitation is determined on a 12-month 

rolling average basis with a new annual 

emission limitation calculated at the 

end of the calendar month, unless a 

different reporting period is identified 

in paragraph (c). 

(h) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator 

shall maintain the following records for 

at least five years: 

(1) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(2) All fuel supplier certifications and 

information identified in paragraph 

(f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(3) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR Part 75. 

(4) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(5) Any other records required by 40 

CFR part 75. 

(i) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the 

Director, Division of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assistance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

(1) Owner/operator shall submit 

quarterly excess emissions reports no 

later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The reports 

shall include the magnitude, date(s), 

and duration of each period of excess 

emissions, specific identification of 

each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(2) Owner/operator shall submit 

quarterly CEMS performance reports, to 

include dates and duration of each 

period during which the CEMS was 

inoperative (except for zero and span 

adjustments and calibration checks), 

reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 

recurrence, any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments, and results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 75 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, 

Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder 

Gas Audits). 

(3) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the report. 

(4) Owner/operator shall submit semiannual fuel certification reports no later 

than the 30th day following the end of 

each six month period. 

(5) Owner/operator shall submit an 

annual emissions limitation calculation 

report no later than the 30th day 

following the end of the calendar year 

or quarter if a rolling average is required 

in paragraph (c). 

(j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator 

shall submit notification of 

commencement of construction of any 

equipment which is being constructed 

to comply with the NOX emission limits 

in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(2) Owner/operator shall submit semiannual progress reports on construction 

of any such equipment. 

(3) Owner/operator shall submit 

notification of initial startup of any such 

equipment. 

(k) Equipment operation. At all times, 

owner/operator shall maintain each 

unit, including associated air pollution 

control equipment, in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this 

section shall preclude the use, including 

the exclusive use, of any credible 

evidence or information, relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with requirements of this 

section if the appropriate performance 

or compliance test procedures or 

method had been performed. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9839 Filed 4–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3