[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61042-61044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24172]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0206; FRL-9917-59-Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; 
Nitrogen Oxide Combustion Turbine Alternative Control Requirements for 
the Milwaukee-Racine Former Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) submitted revisions to the limits found in its 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) combustion turbine rule for the 
Milwaukee-Racine area formerly nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 
standard. This revision is contained in ``2013 Wisconsin Act 91--Senate 
Bill 371,'' which provides for alternative NO<INF>X</INF> requirements, 
subject to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval on a case-by-
case basis, to determine whether these alternative limits satisfy the 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA proposed to approve this rule as a revision to 
the State Implementation Plan on April 30, 2014 and received adverse 
comments. EPA is issuing this supplemental proposal to revise and 
expand the basis for proposing approval of the SIP revision. This 
supplemental proposal addresses the issue of whether the SIP revision 
satisfies certain anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA. EPA is 
seeking comment only on the potential anti-backsliding issue, and is 
not re-opening for comment other issues raised in its prior proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0206, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f4e4d5a5d4e4140014b405a48434e5c6f4a5f4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9a8abbcbba8a7a6e7ada6bcaea5a8ba89acb9a8e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>
    3. Fax: (312)408-2279.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2014-0206. 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

[[Page 61043]]

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, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e3c213d2b203a262f22603d3a2b382b200e2b3e2f60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c5e435f494258444d40025f58495a49426c495c4d024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this supplemental proposal?
II. On which specific issue is EPA taking comment?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this supplemental proposal?

    A detailed background is contained in the April 30, 2014 direct 
final rule (79 FR 24337), which can also be found in the docket for 
this action.
    Under Wisconsin's current SIP approved NR 428 NO<INF>X</INF> 
control program, existing simple cycle combustion turbines larger than 
84 megawatts (MW) that undergo a major modification after February 2001 
must meet the emission limitations set forth in s. NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. 
and 2.a. This provision sets NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits of 12 or 25 
parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 15% oxygen (O<INF>2</INF>), on 
a 30-day rolling basis, when firing natural gas or distillate oil, 
respectively.
    The WDNR originally set the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limitations for 
combustion turbines, in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., based on the 
mistaken assumption that dry low NO<INF>X</INF> (DLN) combustion 
technology was both feasible and available for new and modified 
combustion turbines and that such technology was capable of meeting the 
established emission limitations. As previously stated, the emission 
limitations in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. apply to simple cycle 
combustion turbines that are larger than 84 MW (of which there are only 
four in the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area) and undergo a major 
modification. These four combustion turbines are the model 11N turbines 
that were manufactured by ASEA Brown-Boveri (ABB) and operated by We 
Energies at its Paris generating facility. These four combustion 
turbines were designed and manufactured to use water injection instead 
of DLN technology to control NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Use of water 
injection limits NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to the alternate levels 
provided by Wisconsin Act 91 (25 and 65 ppmdv), but cannot achieve the 
emission limits required by NR 428.04(2)(g), Wis. Admin. Code (12 and 
25 ppmdv). These combustion turbines are all located in an area that is 
designated attainment for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, 
although there is currently a monitor in the area with a design value 
that exceeds the 2008 ozone standard.
    For reasons described in the April 30, 2014 direct final rule (79 
FR 24337), WDNR has determined that the previously-approved SIP 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for simple cycle combustion turbines 
that undergo a major modification in the Milwaukee-Racine area are not 
feasible for the four existing combustion turbines to which these 
limits could apply. EPA agrees with this determination. The Wisconsin 
legislature adopted s. 285.27 (3m), which became effective on December 
15, 2013, to establish feasible RACT limits in the event of a major 
modification. EPA believes that these limits reflect RACT and issued 
both a direct final rule and a proposed rule to approve the rule into 
the SIP.
    In response to EPA's rulemakings, the Sierra Club and Midwest 
Environmental Defense Center provided comments objecting to the 
proposed revision on the grounds that two units had undergone 
modifications in 2002, making them subject to the lower limits of s. NR 
428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. The comments stated that the SIP revision was 
thus relaxing the limits for these units and that ``EPA has done no 
analysis of whether this increase would result in problems maintaining 
compliance with ozone standards or 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> standards.''
    In response to this comment, EPA withdrew the direct final rule and 
is providing this supplemental notice to explain its basis for 
concluding that the SIP revision satisfies the anti-backsliding 
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

II. On which specific issue is EPA taking comment?

    EPA notes the point raised by the commenters that, although the 
rule is not expected to result in any units operating at higher 
emissions rates than in the past, the rule would increase the emissions 
limits applicable to these sources under the SIP.\1\ Section 110(l) of 
the CAA provides in part that, ``The Administrator shall not approve a 
revision of a [SIP] if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as 
defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable 
requirement of [the Act].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, EPA believes that the emissions rates in the 
SIP are technically infeasible for these sources to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to avoid any potential for interference with attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide, Wisconsin has 
identified contemporaneous, offsetting emission reductions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> from a different emission source to compensate for the 
change in the SIP limits for NO<INF>X</INF> proposed in the rule at 
issue.\2\ We explain below how Wisconsin calculated the appropriate 
amounts of offsets, and the source of the offsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As the offset is for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the analysis 
is equally applicable to the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The theoretical emissions increase being addressed for anti-
backsliding is the difference between the emissions that would occur 
annually if the Paris combustion turbines meet the 12 ppmdv requirement 
compared to emissions allowable under the proposed SIP revision.\3\ In 
order to quantify this differential in terms of tons per year, 
Wisconsin identified that the maximum fuel use for each individual CT 
occurred

[[Page 61044]]

in 2005,\4\ and converted the emissions standards from ppmdv @15% 
O<INF>2</INF> to a lbs/mmbtu equivalent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although the SIP revision would continue to allow use of 
fuel oil, we have analyzed the change in emissions with respect to 
natural gas because at least since 2009 (and probably longer) these 
sources have only fired natural gas for electricity generation, and, 
in light of current pricing and industry practice, we do not expect 
this to change.
    \4\ Wisconsin selected 2005 based on a review of historic 
emissions from 2001 through 2013 as reported in EPA's Clean Air 
Markets Division (CAMD) emissions database. This timeframe reflects 
that the 12 ppmdv requirement was first created in January 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the amount of emissions that needs to be offset, the 
difference between the 2005 maximum allowable emission rate of 25 ppmdv 
@15% O<INF>2</INF> (converted to 0.092 lbs/mmbtu) minus 12 ppmdv @15% 
O<INF>2</INF> (converted to 0.0442 lbs/mmbtu) was multiplied by the 
heat input for each combustion turbine in 2005. This calculation 
results in a total of 54.6 tons per year for which equivalent 
reductions must be obtained. This is a conservative estimate of the 
amount of offsetting credits needed because it is based upon the year 
within a 13-year period with the highest fuel use.
    Wisconsin has identified enforceable emission reductions to be used 
in offsetting the 54.6 tons per year of excess emissions in order to 
offset any backsliding. These emission reductions are generated by 
enforceable emission limitations currently in place for the South Oak 
Creek (SOC) Unit 5 electric generating facility, which operates in the 
Milwaukee-Racine former ozone nonattainment area. Under the Wisconsin 
Ozone SIP, SOC Unit 5 is required to meet a NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
limitation of 0.18 lbs/mmbtu. However, the same unit has also been 
required to meet an emission limitation of 0.10 lbs/mmbtu since 2013 
under a Jnauary 18, 2012 consent decree (Civil Action No. 03-C-0371) 
entered between EPA and We Energies, the operator of the SOC 
facility.\5\ Paragraph No. 107 of the consent decree allows the use of 
emission reductions generated by the decree ``for the purpose of 
attainment demonstrations . . . or in determining impacts on NAAQS.'' 
Wisconsin determined the emissions in excess to the SIP by multiplying 
the difference in the SIP and consent decree emission limits (0.18--
0.10 lbs/mmbtu) by the unit's heat input in 2013. The unit's heat input 
for 2013 was obtained from the CAMD database. This calculation yields a 
total of 334.3 tons per year of excess emission reductions, which have 
not been allocated as offsets for any other purpose. Notably, the heat 
input for SOC Unit 5 was the lowest in 2013 since 2001. Using this 
value thus represents the most conservative value since 2001 for heat 
input in calculating excess emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Thus, these compensating reductions are contemporaneous with 
the emissions limits in Wisconsin statute 285.27 (3m), which was 
enacted by the Wisconsin legislature in December 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin submitted to EPA 54.6 tons per year of excess emission 
credits generated by the SOC Unit 5 generating facility to be used to 
address potential backsliding under this SIP revision. Wisconsin also 
notes that a total of 61,970 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> was emitted in the 
Milwaukee-Racine ozone area from all sources in 2011. The emission 
reductions of 54.6 tons per year being addressed here for anti-
backsliding represents less than 0.07% of that total.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is seeking comment only on the section 110(l) issue described 
above and is not reopening comment on any other issues.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule 
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Nitrogen oxides.

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-24172 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>