Je veux savoir à propos de…

48912

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 167 / Wednesday, September 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

produced as a RACT II case-by-case requirement. A burner management plan, testing once every five years, and daily monitoring and recordkeeping of fuel used hourly were also required.
Through imposition of this more stringent emission limit along with related monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping requirements, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has been maintained, if not improved. As such EPAs approval of Pennsylvanias SIP
revision is adequately justified under section 110l.
Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corp.EPA
proposed to approve PADEPs RACT II
CbC NOX determination for two sources at this facility. Numerous NOX sources that were subject to RACT I have been shut down. In its determinations for the remaining two sources, PADEP has determined that the RACT II CbC NOX
is continued use of low NOX burners and good operating practices and continued compliance with the existing NOX emission limits.12 Through retention of the existing emission limits and continued use of the low NOX
burners, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has been maintained. As such, EPAs approval of Pennsylvanias SIP revision is adequately justified under section 110l.
Fairless Energy, LLCEPA proposed to approve PADEPs RACT II
determination related to a NOX
averaging plan for four sources at this facility pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 129.98a. The averaging plan provision authorized in section 129.98
allows a facility to establish an alternative facility-wide or system-wide RACT NOX emissions limit as long as it demonstrates that the resulting NOX
emissions using a 30-day rolling average would not be greater than NOX
emissions from the group of included sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive NOX RACT
emissions limit as individual sources.
Fairless will be averaging the NOX
emissions for four sources to meet the RACT II requirements, an alternative emission limit, that will be at least as stringent as the presumptive emission limit, which was conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rulemaking.13 PADEPs approval of the NOX averaging plan ensures that total 12 See PADEP Revised Technical Review Memo, dated October 9, 2019, which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
13 See 84 FR 20274 May 9, 2019 as to EPAs conditional approval of the presumptive limit and PADEPs Technical Review Memo, dated November 29, 2016, as to PADEPs analysis of the NOX
averaging plan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Aug 31, 2021

Jkt 253001

NOX emissions from these sources will be no greater than the total individual emissions from each source if each were to comply with the existing presumptive emission limit. The NOX averaging plan also does not eliminate any other existing non-RACT emission restrictions applicable to these sources. Through these measures, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX
emissions has been maintained. As such, EPAs approval of PADEPs SIP
revision is adequately justified under section 110l.
As described above, EPA determined that Pennsylvania had adequately justified its RACT II CbC NOX
determinations. EPA also concluded, under section 110l, that the status quo in NOX emissions had been maintained, if not improved and that there is no need to conduct the modeling suggested by the commenter. As noted previously, the commenter included an air dispersion modeling analysis of NOX
emissions from a well pad at the Bighorn Pad Facility in Colorado to highlight an alleged potential of NOX
emissions to cause or contribute to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX
NAAQS. The NAAQS for nitrogen oxides is a 1-hour standard at a level of 100 ppb based on the 3-year average of 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum NO2
concentrations. In 2012, EPA designated areas within Pennsylvania as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
standard.14 The modeling analysis provided by the commenter indicated that NOX emissions from the well pad area in Colorado could have NO2
impacts within 50 kilometers of the source.
This modeling analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need for EPA or Pennsylvania to conduct modeling on the impact of NOX emissions from each individual PA CbC RACT source at issue in this rulemaking in order for EPA to approve these SIP revisions.
First, as discussed previously, modeling is not the sole method available to satisfy section 110l requirements.
Second, the differences in the meteorology, terrain, and facility configurations between the Bighorn well pad and the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II
sources are too significant to rely on the Bighorn facility modeling results to serve as surrogate modeling indicating that the Pennsylvania RACT II sources have the potential to cause exceedances of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS in Pennsylvania. The commenter has not provided any comparison or information to show why the Bighorn 14 77

PO 00000

FR 9532 February 17, 2012.

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Pad Facility modeling results should apply to these specific RACT II sources in Pennsylvania. Further, the commenter has not presented any specific information suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX determinations for these specific sources could somehow lead to violations of the 2010 1-hour NOX NAAQS. Without a more specific allegation from the commenter about the sources in question, the commenters allegations are too speculative in nature to prevent EPA from approving PADEPs RACT II CbC NOX determinations for sources at the eight subject facilities.
Comment 2: The commenter is supportive of EPAs proposed rulemaking, stating that it will positively affect citizens in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for multiple reasons and has suggested some editorial improvements for future rulemakings that could aid citizen comprehension.
Response 2: EPA recognizes the commenters support and suggestions.
EPA will consider such suggestions for future rulemakings.
Comment 3: The commenter states that the RACT limit for Carmeuse Lime, Inc of 4.6 lb/NOX per ton of lime is too lenient. Additionally, the commenter asserts the testing requirement to verify the emissions limit by stack test once every five years is insufficient and should have required a Continuous Emission Monitoring System CEMS
unit to monitor instantaneous emissions from the kiln or established an emissions profile dependent on a number of factors that might impact NOX emissions.
Response 3: As detailed in the facility files for Carmeuse Lime contained in the docket for this action, the existing shortterm NOX limit for the No. 5 Kiln established under RACT I was 6.0 lbs NOX/ton of lime produced. The RACT II
NOX limit of 4.6 lb/ton approved here represents a reduction of emissions from RACT I and was established through a statistical analysis using 17 years of historical performance testing data.
PADEP also reviewed the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse to determine emission limits for similar kilns and found that such limits ranged from 3.59
to 9.98 lb/ton. Based on this information included in the docket, EPA determined that the NOX limit of 4.6 lb/ton comports with the CAA requirements for RACT.
The requirement for stack testing every five years is consistent with Pennsylvanias RACT II compliance demonstration requirements in 25 Pa.
Code 129.100, which is a part of Pennsylvanias SIP-approved RACT
regulations. Under those regulations, a
E:FRFM01SER1.SGM

01SER1