Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-35-1-6659b; A-1-FRL-5968-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major

Stationary Sources of Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval/limited disapproval of a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and full approval of two other

SIP revisions submitted by Massachusetts. This revision establishes and

requires the implementation of reasonably available control technology

(RACT) for major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The

intended effect of this action is to propose a limited approval/limited

disapproval of a regulation and the full approval of two source-

specific NOx RACT determinations. This action is being taken under the

Clean Air Act (CAA). Public comments on this document are requested and

will be considered before taking final action on this SIP revision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,

Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are

available for public inspection during normal business hours, by

appointment, at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston,

MA and the Division of Air Quality Control, Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA

02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp, at (617) 565-2773, or

by e-mail at: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 15, 1994, October 4, 1996, and

December 2, 1996, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (Massachusetts or MA DEP) submitted revisions to its SIP.

The revisions added 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx),'' as well as source-

specific NOx RACT determinations for Specialty Minerals, Incorporated

in Adams and Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in Springfield

on the above dates, respectively.

I. Background

The CAA requires States to develop RACT regulations for all major

stationary sources of NOx in areas which have been classified as

``moderate,'' ``serious,'' ``severe,'' and ``extreme'' ozone

nonattainment areas, and in all areas of the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control

technology that is reasonably available considering technological and

economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). This

requirement is established by sections 182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of

the CAA. These sections, taken together, establish the requirements for

Massachusetts to submit a NOx RACT regulation for all major stationary

sources of NOx statewide.

These CAA NOx RACT requirements are further described by EPA in a

document entitled, ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides

Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' published November 25, 1992

(57 FR 55620). The November 25, 1992 document, also known as the NOx

Supplement, should be referred to for

[[Page 8157]]

more detailed information on NOx requirements. Additional EPA guidance

memoranda, such as those included in the ``NOx Policy Document for the

Clean Air Act of 1990,'' (EPA-452/R-96-005, March 1996), should also be

referred to for more information on NOx requirements.

Section 182(b)(2) requires States located in areas classified as

moderate ozone nonattainment areas to require implementation of RACT

with respect to all major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC).

Additionally, section 182(f) states that, ``The plan provisions

required under this subpart for major stationary sources of volatile

organic compounds shall also apply to major stationary sources (as

defined in section 302 and subsections (c), (d), and (e) of the

section) of oxides of nitrogen.'' This RACT requirement also applies to

all major sources in ozone nonattainment areas with higher than

moderate nonattainment classifications.

Section 302 of the CAA generally defines ``major stationary

source'' as a facility or source of air pollution which has the

potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of air pollution. This

definition applies unless another provision of the CAA explicitly

defines major source differently. Therefore, for NOx, a major source is

one with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more in marginal

and moderate areas, as well as in attainment areas in the OTR. However,

for serious nonattainment areas, a major source is defined by section

182(c) as a source that has the potential to emit 50 tons per year or

more. The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts is classified as a

serious nonattainment area for ozone. Thus, in Massachusetts, NOx RACT

is required from all sources with the potential to emit 50 tons per

year or more of NOx.

A. Regulatory Background

Massachusetts was notified in a January 23, 1991 letter from Region

I that ``The CAAAs mandate that within 2 years of enactment, states

submit a SIP revision which requires the implementation of RACT and NSR

requirements with respect to oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for all major

stationary sources * * * ``

On August 10, 1992, Massachusetts submitted a draft of 310 CMR 7.19

to EPA for comment. Region I met with MA DEP on August 26, 1992 and

provided informal oral comments on the draft. On January 5, 1993, EPA

Region I received proposed revisions to the Massachusetts SIP,

including 310 CMR 7.19. On February 8, 9, 10, and 12, 1993,

Massachusetts held public hearings on these proposed SIP changes.

Region I provided formal comments to Massachusetts on February 19,

1993.

In April 1994, Massachusetts proposed a number of minor changes to

310 CMR 7.19 and held a public hearing on those changes on May 6, 1994.

EPA submitted written comments on these changes on May 19, 1994. The

regulations were signed by the Secretary of State on July 1, 1994, and

became effective on that date. MA DEP submitted its adopted regulation

as a formal SIP submittal to EPA on July 15, 1994. After reviewing the

regulation for completeness, EPA sent a letter on July 15, 1995 stating

that Massachusetts' rule had been found to be administratively and

technically complete.

Additionally, in April 1994, Massachusetts proposed a number of

amendments to 310 CMR 7.19 and 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B(4) concerning

emissions averaging. Public hearings were held on May 6 and 10, 1994.

EPA provided written comments to Massachusetts on May 19, 1994. These

changes were signed by the Secretary of State on January 11, 1995 and

became effective on January 27, 1995. These adopted changes were

received by EPA on April 14, 1995. On September 11, 1995, EPA sent a

letter to Massachusetts deeming the submittal of these changes

administratively and technically complete. On August 8, 1996, EPA

approved these changes as part of the emissions averaging, banking, and

trading program (see 61 FR 41371).

On February 7, 1995, MA DEP proposed approval of the NOx RACT

emission control plan which defined NOx RACT for two lime kilns at

Specialty Minerals, Inc., in Adams, Massachusetts. The two kilns are

subject to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR 7.19(12). On

March 9, 1995, a public hearing was held on the proposed approval. EPA

submitted written comments to the public record on March 3, 1995

concerning this proposal. On June 16, 1995, MA DEP issued a final

approval of the NOx RACT emission control plan (transmittal

65843). On October 4, 1996, the final approval of the plan was

submitted to EPA for approval into the Massachusetts SIP. On February

6, 1997, EPA deemed the submittal administratively and technically

complete.

Similarly, on May 19, 1995, MA DEP proposed approval of the NOx

RACT emission control plan for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard

facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. On June 16, 1995, a public

hearing was held concerning the proposed approval. The proposed plan

approval defined NOx RACT for the stoker fired coal burning boiler at

Monsanto which is subject to the miscellaneous NOx RACT provisions of

310 CMR 7.19(12). EPA submitted written comments to the public record

on June 9, 1995. MA DEP proposed a final approval on September 12,

1996, and held a second hearing on the proposal on October 4, 1996. MA

DEP issued a final NOx RACT plan approval on October 28, 1996 and

submitted the final plan approval to EPA on December 2, 1996 for

approval into the Massachusetts SIP. On February 6, 1997, EPA deemed

the submittal administratively and technically complete.

B. Description of Submittal

Massachusetts' Regulation 310 CMR 7.19, ``Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx),'' is divided

into fifteen sections. Section (1) defines the applicability of the

overall rule to a NOx emitting facility, although the applicability of

the rule to an individual emission unit is further determined in each

section, based on a unit's type and size. Basically, an emissions unit

is subject to the rule if it exceeds a minimum capacity rating and is

located at a major source.

Section (2) describes the general provisions of the regulation,

including the general criteria for source specific alternative RACT

limits, as well as general requirements for seasonal fuel-switching.

Section (3) describes the general applicability, notification,

elements, prohibitions, and approval of emission control plans for

certain types of RACT subject sources.

Section (4) describes the NOx RACT requirements for large boilers.

Large boilers are defined as having an energy input capacity of 100

million British thermal units (Btu) per hour or greater. This section

further defines NOx RACT emission limitations for the following types

of large boilers: dry bottom boilers burning coal, both tangentially

and face-fired; stoker fired boilers burning other solid fuels; boilers

burning either oil or oil and gas; and boilers burning only gas.

Section (4) also sets out the requirements for any large boiler owners

choosing to repower, as well as the emission rate limitations that the

repowered units must meet. Additionally, section (4) includes the

requirements for large boilers seeking alternative NOx RACT

determinations, procedures for determining the NOx standard when

multiple fuels are burned, and testing, monitoring, record keeping,

reporting, and emission control plan requirements. Also, section (4)

sets a carbon monoxide emission limitation for large boilers.

[[Page 8158]]

Section (5) describes the requirements for medium boilers. Medium

boilers are defined as boilers with energy input capacities of greater

than 50 million Btu per hour but less than 100 million Btu per hour.

This section sets NOx standards for the following types of boilers:

tangential, face fired, or stoker fired boilers burning solid fuels;

tangential or face fired boilers burning gas only, distillate oil or

distillate oil and gas, and residual oil or residual oil and gas; and

boilers which cofire multiple fuels. Additionally, section (5) sets a

carbon monoxide emission limitation for medium boilers.

Section (6) describes the NOx RACT requirements for boilers with

energy input capacities of less than 50 million Btu per hour and

greater than or equal to 20 million Btu per hour, i.e., small boilers.

Basically, this section describes the tune-up procedures which must be

followed for these boilers, as well as the applicable emissions record

keeping and reporting requirements.

Section (7) of the rule deals with stationary combustion turbines

having energy input capacities of 25 million Btu per hour or greater.

This section sets NOx emission standards for simple and combined cycle

stationary combustion turbines burning gas, oil, or gas and oil.

Section (8) of the rule describes the requirements for stationary

reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines with energy input

capacities greater than or equal to 3 million Btu per hour. This

section exempts engines which do not operate for more than 300 hours

per year and are not operated as load-shaving units, peak power units,

or standby engines in an energy assistance program. This section sets

emission standards for reciprocating internal combustion engines which

have operated for 1000 hours or more during a 12 month period since

1990. The specific standards apply to the following engine types: rich

burn, gas-fired; lean burn, gas-fired; and lean burn, oil-fired or dual

fueled. Section (8) requires ignition timing retard to be performed on

engines which have not operated more than 1000 hours per year since

1990.

Section (9) is reserved for NOx RACT requirements for incinerators.

Section (10) is also reserved.

Section (11) describes the requirements for glass melting furnaces

that have maximum production rates of 14 tons or greater of glass

removed per day.

Section (12) describes NOx RACT requirements for miscellaneous

emission units, i.e., emissions units with potential emissions of NOx

greater than or equal to 25 tons per year, before the application of

control equipment, at facilities having potential emissions greater

than or equal to 50 tons per year of NOx, for which 310 CMR 7.19 does

not set specific NOx emission standards. This section exempts emissions

units already subject to BACT or LAER. Section (12) requires that the

emission control plans for these miscellaneous NOx RACT sources be

approved by EPA as well as the State.

Section (13) establishes testing, monitoring, record keeping, and

reporting requirements for sources subject to sections 7.19(2)(b), (4),

(5), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), or (14). This section requires

certain sources to demonstrate compliance with NOx emission standards

by using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). These sources

include: boilers with energy input capacities greater than 250 million

Btu per hour, units involved in emissions averaging, combined cycle

combustion turbines with energy input capacities of greater than or

equal to 100 million Btu per hour, sources currently using CEMS, and

sources determined to need a CEMS as part of a miscellaneous or

alternative RACT plan. Section (13) also describes the specific CEMS

requirements. For other types of sources, section (13) describes the

stack-testing and record keeping requirements which must be met.

Section (14) deals with the averaging of emissions from multiple

units to achieve compliance. Massachusetts previously submitted this

section as part of the regulations concerning emissions averaging as

specified in 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix B(4). These regulations were

approved in a separate rulemaking action.

Section (15) specifies the proration formula for determining the

applicable emission limitation when different fuels are burned either

simultaneously or during the same hour or same day if a 24 hour

averaging time is used (i.e., cofiring).

Additionally, Massachusetts submitted two case specific RACT

determinations for facilities with NOx emitting units that are subject

to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR 7.19(12). First, the

NOx RACT emission control plan for Specialty Minerals, Inc.

specifically defines NOx RACT for two lime kilns at the facility

located in Adams, Massachusetts. Similarly, the NOx RACT emission

control plan for Monsanto Company's Indian Orchard facility in

Springfield, Massachusetts specifically defines NOx RACT for the

facility's stoker fired coal burning boiler.

EPA's evaluation of the submitted regulations and source specific

RACT determinations is detailed in a memorandum, dated May 13, 1997,

entitled ``Technical Support Document for Massachusetts' Regulation 310

CMR 7.19, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOx), and Case-Specific NOx RACT for Monsanto Company's

Indian Orchard Plant in Springfield, and Specialty Minerals, Inc. in

Adams.'' Copies of the document are available, upon request, from the

EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure

by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Issues

There are two issues associated with this rulemaking action. The

first issue is related to the miscellaneous RACT provisions of 310 CMR

7.19(12). Massachusetts proposed NOx RACT emission control plans for

four sources with processes subject to the miscellaneous NOx RACT

provisions of the rule: Lee Lime Corporation in Lee; Specialty

Minerals, Inc., in Adams; Indeck Energy Services of Turners Falls, Inc.

in Turners Falls; and, Monsanto Company, in Springfield. To date,

however, EPA has only received SIP submittals for Specialty Minerals,

Inc. and Monsanto Company. Therefore, Massachusetts must still submit

final NOx RACT emission control plans for the units subject to

miscellaneous NOx RACT provisions at Lee Lime and Indeck Energy.

Second, the July 15, 1994 SIP submittal for 310 CMR 7.19 did not

contain any emission limitations for incinerators with the potential to

emit greater than 50 tons of NOx per year, including municipal waste

combustors. According to the Massachusetts emissions inventory and

EPA's database in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS),

however, there are a number of incinerators of this size currently

operating in Massachusetts. Therefore, Massachusetts must either revise

section 7.19(9) to include a NOx emission limit for these categories of

units, or consider these units as subject to the miscellaneous RACT

section (i.e., 310 CMR 7.19(12)) of the rule and define source-specific

NOx limits for them. As miscellaneous RACT units, 310 CMR 7.19(12)

requires sources to submit emission control plans to MA DEP;

subsequently, the plan approvals must be submitted to and approved by

EPA as source-specific SIP revisions.

[[Page 8159]]

III. EPA Proposed Action

EPA's review of this material indicates that Massachusetts has

defined NOx RACT emission limitations or technology standards for a

number of source categories and individual sources. However, not all

major stationary sources of NOx have been covered by the regulations

and case specific determinations. Thus, by incorporating 310 CMR 7.19

and the submitted RACT determinations into the Massachusetts SIP, the

SIP is strengthened but does not meet the requirements of sections

182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA.

Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited approval/limited disapproval

of the Massachusetts SIP revision for 310 CMR 7.19, which was submitted

on July 15, 1994. In light of the deficiencies discussed in the issues

section above, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule under

section 110(k)(3) and part D of the CAA. However, EPA may grant a

limited approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) and

EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval

is limited because EPA's action also includes a limited disapproval.

EPA is also proposing full approval of the source specific RACT

determinations for Monsanto Company in Springfield, and Specialty

Minerals, Inc. in Adams, Massachusetts.

To receive full approval of 310 CMR 7.19, Massachusetts must submit

final emission control plans for Lee Lime Corporation in Lee and Indeck

Energy Services in Turners Falls, Massachusetts. Additionally,

Massachusetts must either revise section 7.19(9) to include NOx

emission limits for incinerators, or consider these units as subject to

the miscellaneous RACT section (i.e., 310 CMR 7.19(12)) of the rule and

define source-specific NOx limits for them. For full approval of 310

CMR 7.19, all of these limits must be approved by EPA.

As stated, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of this rule

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA because the rule does

not meet the requirements of sections 182(b) and 182(f) of the Act.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the

submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by

the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in

section 179(b) unless the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of

the disapproval. Section 179(b) makes two sanctions available to the

Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-month period

referred to in section 179(a) will begin at the effective date

established in this limited disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c).

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to

the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order

12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

Limited SIP approvals and disapprovals under sections 110 and 301,

and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements

but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.

Therefore, because the Federal SIP limited approval/limited disapproval

does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a significant

impact on any affected small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427

U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the proposed limited approval/limited

disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local

law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: February 4, 1998.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 98-4004 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F