Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

60174

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 208 / Monday, November 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
location and are considered a single source for title V and New Source Review purposes. EPA proposed to approve AMS RACT II determination related to a facility-wide NOX averaging plan for three 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 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.
GFCP and Vicinity will be averaging the NOX emissions for three sources to meet the RACT II requirements, an alternative emissions limit, that will be at least as stringent as the presumptive emissions limits, which were conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rule.
Additionally, AMS has retained all of the individual emissions limits from the prior RACT approval.11 AMS approval of the alternative NOX emissions limit ensures that total 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 emissions limit.
The alternative NOX emissions limit does not eliminate the prior individual emissions limits. Through these measures, AMS has demonstrated that the status quo for NOX emissions has been maintained. As such, EPAs approval of the Pennsylvania SIP
revision for the individual sources at these facilities is adequately justified under section 110l.
Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC PESEPA
proposed to approve AMS RACT II CbC
NOX determinations for numerous sources at this facility and its alternative NOX emissions limits for a number of heaters and boilers. At the time AMS
issued the current RACT Plan Approval to PES in April 2020, which incorporated its RACT II NOX
determinations, refining operations at the PES facility had been shut down.
The refinery has been closed since June 2019, and the facility has been sold to a new owner. AMS proposed RACT II
SIP revision does not authorize new operations at the facility, but rather incorporates RACT requirements for major NOX and VOC sources in operation as of 2012 into the SIP.

For the CbC NOX sources at the facility, AMS has determined that all proposed 2008 NOX RACT requirements such as emissions limits, control technologies like selective catalytic reduction SCR and low NOX burners, continuous emissions monitoring systems CEMs, combustion tuning, and good combustion practices, are at least as stringent as the prior 1997 8hour NOX RACT requirements and has included them in the new 2020 RACT
permit, which will be incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP through this action. At the same time, AMS also approved for a group of heaters and boilers alternative NOX emissions limits through the use of three NOX averaging plans 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 NOX emissions limit as long as it demonstrates that the resulting NOX emissions using a 30-day rolling average would not be greater than the NOX emissions from the group of included sources if they each complied with the applicable presumptive NOX
RACT emissions limit as individual sources. The facility is required to average the NOX emissions for three groups of sources to meet the RACT II
requirements, an alternative emissions limit, that will be at least as stringent as the presumptive emissions limit, which was conditionally approved by EPA in a prior rule.12
Through retention of the existing emissions limits and the approval of the alternative NOX emissions limits at the facility, AMS has demonstrated that the status quo in NOX emissions has been maintained. As such, EPAs approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision for the individual sources at this facility is adequately justified under section 110l.
As described above, EPA determined that AMS adequately justified its RACT
II CbC NOX determinations and alternative NOX emissions limits. 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-

11 See 84 FR 20274 May 9, 2019 as to EPAs conditional approval of the presumptive limit and AMS Inter Office Memo, dated March 4, 2020, which is part of the docket for this rule.

12 See 84 FR 20274 May 9, 2019 as to EPAs conditional approval of the presumptive limit and AMS Inter Office Memo, dated April 24, 2020, which is part of the docket for this rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:50 Oct 29, 2021

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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.13 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 data analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need for EPA, Pennsylvania, or AMS to conduct modeling on the impact of NOX
emissions from each individual source at issue in this rule 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 Philadelphia RACT II sources are too significant to rely on the Bighorn facility modeling results to serve as surrogate modeling indicating that the Philadelphia 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 Pad Facility modeling results should apply to these specific RACT II sources in Philadelphia.
Further, the commenter has not presented any specific information suggesting the RACT II CbC NOX
determinations or alternative NOX
emissions limits 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 AMS
RACT II CbC NOX determinations or alternative NOX emissions limits for sources at the five subject facilities.
Comment 2: The commenter states that minor errors are present in the technical and economic feasibility analysis of available controls throughout the proposed rulemaking. The commenter asserts that in several instances, the discussion of costs incorrectly led to the conclusion that certain controls were technically infeasible, rather than identifying those controls as technically feasible and then evaluating the cost issues in the economic analysis. The specific 13 77

E:FRFM01NOR1.SGM

FR 9532 February 17, 2012.

01NOR1