# Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-9839 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** April 25, 2012 - **Citation:** 77 FR 24794 ## Text 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 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 (SO 2 ) BART determinations and emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station. • New York's SO 2 BART determinations and emissions limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy's Danskammer Generating Station. • New York's SO 2, Nitrogen Oxide (NO X ) 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 SO 2 , NO X and PM BART determinations and emissions limits at the following facilities, with owners of sources [in brackets]: ○ Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn] ○ Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy] ○ Owens Corning Delmar Plant ○ Oswego Harbor Power [NRG] ○ Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez] ○ 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 SO 2 , NO X and PM BART determinations and emissions limits for the following facilities, with owners of sources [in brackets]: ○ EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)] ○ Northport Power Station [NG] ○ 59th Street Station [Con Ed] ○ Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG] ○ Ravenswood Generating Station [Trans Canada (TC)] ○ Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison] ○ Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy] ○ 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 [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. 1 MANE-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. • 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: ○ Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn] ○ Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy] ○ Owens Corning Delmar Plant ○ Osweg ○ Harbor Power [NRG] ○ Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez] ○ Kodak Park Division ○ EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)] ○ Northport Power Station [NG] ○ 59th Street Station [Con Ed] ○ Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG] ○ Ravenswood Generating Station [TC] ○ Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison] ○ Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy] ○ 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 [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 2 On 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.” 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 (PM 2.5 ) (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 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 3 The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)). 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 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”). 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)). 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). 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. 6 The set of “major stationary sources” potentially subject to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 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 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 (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and particulate matter (PM). The BART Guidelines direct states to use their best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or ammonia (NH 3 ) 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 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 Range-Dry River Wilderness Area and Great Gulf Wilderness Area, NH, Roosevelt-Campobello 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 state-specific 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 BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp Facilities. 10 7 NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic--united-states/ 8 MANE-VU Report at http://www.otcair.org/manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports . 9 NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/ . 10 NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/ . 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 NO X , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and SO 2 . The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH 3 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 NO X VOC NH3 SO2 Primary PM10 Primary PM2 . 5 Area 356,287 98,804 502,797 67,198 113,978 356,348 85,841 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 NO X VOC NH3 SO2 Primary PM 10 Primary PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO X , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and SO 2 . 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 NO X 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. 11 MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals. February 7, 2008. 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) off-road 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. On-road 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 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. 12 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 13 Sierra v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 11-1278 (PLF) (D.C. Cir. 2012). 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 MACT-equivalent 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 SO 2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to two percent of the projected 2018 SO X , PM 2.5 and coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ) 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 and NO X emissions from all coal-burning 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 NO X 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 SO 2 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 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 in-depth 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 14 EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze , located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/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”). 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 PM 2.5 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU 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 SO 2 and NO X 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 resource-intensive 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 ; 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 SO 2 beyond the modeled BART controls at the two non-EGU facilities discussed above. 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 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 SO 2 , NO X , and PM 10 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 NO X , SO 2 , PM Nassau 1-2820-00553 National Grid Northport Power Station Boilers 1,2,3,4 NO X , SO 2 , PM Suffolk 1-4726-00130 Con Ed 59th Street Station Steam Boilers 114, 115 NO X , SO 2, PM New York 2-6202-00032 NRG Arthur Kill GS Boiler 30 NO X , SO 2, PM Richmond 2-6403-00014 TC Ravenswood LLC Ravenswood GS Boilers 10, 20, 30 NO X , SO 2 , PM Queens 2-6304-00024 Trans Canada/Con Ed Ravenswood Steam Plant Boiler 2 NO X , SO 2, PM Queens 2-6304-01378 GenOn (Miriant) Bowline GS Boilers 1 and 2 NO X , SO 2, PM Rockland 3-3922-00003 Dynegy Danskammer GS Boiler 4 NO X , SO 2 , PM Orange 3-3346-00011 Dynegy Roseton GS Boilers 1 and 2 NO X , SO 2 , PM Orange 3-3346-00075 Holcim (US) Inc Catskill Plant Wet Process Kiln (cement plant) NO X , SO 2, PM Green 4-1926-00021 Lafarge Building Materials Ravena Plant Wet Process Kilns 1 and 2 (cement plant) NO X , SO 2 , PM Albany 4-0124-00001 Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC—Delmar Plant Emission Units EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13, EU14 NO X , SO 2 , PM Albany 4-0122-00004 International Paper Ticonderoga Mill Power Boiler, Recovery Boiler NO X , SO 2 , PM Essex 5-1548-00008 Lehigh Northeast Cement Process Kiln (cement plant) NO X , SO 2 , PM Warren 5-5205-00013 Alcoa Massena Operations West Plant Potline, Baking Furnace, Package Boilers NO X , SO 2 , PM St. Lawrence 6-4058-00003 NRG Oswego Harbor Power Units 5, 6 NO X , SO 2 , PM Oswego 7-3512-00030 GDF Suez Syracuse Energy Corp. Boiler 1 NO X , SO 2 , PM Onondaga 7-3132-00052 Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy GS Kodak Park Division Boilers 41, 42, 43 NO X , SO 2 , PM Monroe 8-2614-00205 Jamestown BPU Samuel A Carlson GS Boiler 12 NO X , SO 2 , PM Chautauqua 9-0608-00053 The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO 2 , NO X , and PM 10 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 SO 2 , NO X , PM 10 , and PM 2.5 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. 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 (NO X , SO 2 , 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 NO X, SO 2 , 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 NO X and SO 2 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. 15 On 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 BART-eligible. 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 mid-2012. 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., NO X and SO 2 ) 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. 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%. 16 At 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. 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 off-stoichiometric 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X burners (LNBs) for NO X control while SO 2 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 PM 10 ” 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 SO 2 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, 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 NO X 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 PM 10 ” 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU. EPA does not have a presumptive SO 2 BART limit for boilers that combust natural gas. For control of NO X 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 NO X 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 SO 2 , NO X , 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 NO X 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 NO X controls including low NO X burners (LNB), over fire air (OFA), and flue gas recirculation (FGR) and the State's draft Title V permit requires that NO X emissions shall not exceed 383 tpy and 665 tpy from Boilers 5 and 6, respectively, based upon a 12 month rolling total. These NO X 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 SO 2 , NO X , 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 NO X 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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. 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 SO 2 BART analysis). For control of NO X 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 NO X 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 SO 2 BART determination. Dynegy expects secondary condensable PM emission reductions that will result from its proposed NO X and SO 2 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 NO X 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 SO 2 emissions. Instead, EPA is proposing a Federal plan requiring that the SO 2 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 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. 18 EPA 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. EPA proposes to determine this flexibility of combusting various fuel combinations in meeting E [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-9839. Public record. Not legal advice.