Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's SIP to address regional haze in mandatory federal Class I areas within the State and in mandatory federal Class I areas outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. On June 9, 2011,
After publication of EPA's June 2011 proposed action on Tennessee's regional haze SIP revision, the State and Eastman entered into discussions regarding a BART alternative determination that would give Eastman the option to comply with the regional haze BART requirements by converting its B-253 Powerhouse to natural gas in lieu of continuing to use coal and retrofitting its facility pursuant to the BART determination for sulfur dioxide (SO
On April 24, 2012, EPA took final action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, with the exception of the BART determination for Eastman.
On May 14, 2012, TDEC submitted a supplement to its April 2008 Tennessee regional haze plan to EPA with a revised BART determination for Eastman. In summary, the May 14, 2012, SIP revision for Eastman: (1) Modifies the final compliance date to April 30, 2017, for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. The SIP revision and Eastman's CAA title V operating permit stipulate that if Eastman elects to implement the BART alternative instead of the original BART determination, Eastman must begin construction on the BART alternative prior to April 30, 2017, and complete construction no later than the earlier of: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first long-term strategy (LTS) for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may choose to meet the BART requirements with a BART alternative. Section 51.308(e)(2) specifies the requirements that a state must meet to show that the alternative measure or alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For a BART alternative, the state must submit an implementation plan containing, among other things, the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:
(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state.
(B) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the alternative program. The state is not required to include every BART source category or every BART-eligible source within a BART source category in an alternative program.
(C) An analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable for each source within the state subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program.
(D) An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative measure.
(E) A determination that the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources.
(F) A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze. To meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed description of the alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.
(G) A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
As previously mentioned, TDEC's May 14, 2012, SIP revision: (1) Modifies the final compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination; and (2) establishes a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. Specifically, the SIP revision and the associated operating permit (No. 066116H) create two options for Eastman to reduce its visibility impairing pollutants from the B-253 Powerhouse and satisfy the BART requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e). Eastman may install, operate, and maintain BART no later than April 30, 2017 (Option 1), or implement the BART alternative option to fuel switch its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) by the earlier of the following: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first LTS for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
The May 14, 2012, SIP revision requires Eastman to install, operate, and maintain BART no later than April 30, 2017, should Eastman decide not to pursue the BART alternative option
EPA proposes to find that the change in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to set a compliance date of April 30, 2017, for the original BART determination (as included in condition 1 of the May 9, 2012, permit for Eastman—number 066116H) is consistent with the CAA as well as EPA's regulations and guidance for BART determinations. Had EPA finalized its proposed action regarding the original Eastman BART determination on April 24, 2012, when the Agency took final action on the remainder of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, SIP revision, the compliance date for the original BART determination would have been May 24, 2017. Therefore, this proposed compliance date accelerates the implementation of BART at Eastman, should Eastman decide not to implement the BART alternative option evaluated below.
The May 14, 2012, SIP revision also provides Eastman with the option to implement a BART alternative, in lieu of the original BART, that requires repowering the B-253 Powerhouse to natural gas by the earlier of the following: December 31, 2018; the end of the period of the first LTS for regional haze as determined by EPA; or the compliance deadline for the one-hour SO
The BART alternative option is subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), as discussed in Section II of this proposed rulemaking, and is evaluated under these provisions in the following subsections.
Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision identified the following BART-eligible sources within Tennessee:
(1) Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa)—South Plant;
(2) DuPont White Pigment and Mineral Products (Humphreys County);
(3) Eastman Chemical Company—Tennessee Operations;
(4) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Old Hickory);
(5) E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Shelby County);
(6) Holston Army Ammunition Plant;
(7) Inter-trade Holdings, Inc.;
(8) Liberty Fibers Corporation;
(9) Lucite International;
(10) Owens Corning;
(11) Packaging Corporation of America;
(12) PCS Nitrogen;
(13) Tennessee Valley Authority (WA)—Bull Run Fossil Plant;
(14) Tennessee Valley Authority—Cumberland Fossil Plant;
(15) Zinifex; and
(16) Weyerhaeuser Corporation (now Domtar Paper Company)—Sullivan County.
This list includes all BART-eligible sources in Tennessee, as determined by EPA in its April 24, 2012, final action on Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP.
The BART alternative option proposed in this action only pertains to the five boilers at Eastman's B-253 Powerhouse. It does not establish a trading program within the meaning of the federal BART regulations or include any other BART-eligible facilities.
In its April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision, Tennessee completed an analysis of the best system of continuous emissions control technology available and associated emissions reductions achievable for Eastman and included a BART determination requiring the boilers in the B-253 Powerhouse to either reduce uncontrolled SO
Under the proposed BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas (Option 2), the SO
If there is no difference in the geographic distribution of BART-eligible source emissions between BART and the BART alternative, the BART alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress if it results in greater emissions reductions than BART (i.e., dispersion modeling is not required to evaluate the differences in visibility between BART and the BART alternative). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Since the BART alternative measure for the Eastman facility would result in a lower emission rate than BART and since there is no difference in the geographic distribution of emissions between BART and the BART alternative, EPA proposes to find that the BART alternative measure results in greater reasonable progress than BART.
The compliance date for BART (Option 1) is April 30, 2017, and the
Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision and associated operating permit require that Eastman comply with the BART alternative (should Eastman chose Option 2) no later than December 31, 2018, thereby satisfying the requirement that a source implement a BART alternative during the period of the first LTS. The operating permit also details the procedures for accounting and monitoring the emissions under the BART alternative. EPA previously approved Division Rule 1200-03-9-.02(6) into the Tennessee SIP which requires all permittees to comply with the conditions of their operating permit. Violation of the permit condition is, by definition, a violation of Division Rule 1200-03-9-.02(6) and grounds for enforcement action. As previously discussed, Tennessee provided a detailed description of the BART alternative and the expected emissions reductions.
Implementation of the Eastman BART alternative would result in surplus emissions reductions since the additional emissions reductions beyond BART are not required to meet any other provision of the CAA or any other TDEC requirements as of the date that the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board adopted Board Order 12-008.
EPA proposes to find that the change in Tennessee's May 14, 2012, SIP revision to establish a BART alternative option for Eastman to convert its B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas is consistent with the CAA as well as EPA's regulations and guidance for BART alternative determinations.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on May 14, 2012, related to the BART requirements for Eastman, which supplements the April 4, 2008, revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the BART alternative determination option for Eastman which would allow for the conversion of Eastman's B-253 Powerhouse (Boilers 25-29) to burn natural gas. As a supplement to EPA's existing proposed action to approve the original Eastman BART determination, EPA is also now proposing to approve a compliance end date of April 17, 2018 for the original BART determination, should Eastman elect not to implement the BART alternative determination. EPA has preliminarily concluded that the Eastman BART alternative determination and proposed change to the compliance date for the original Eastman BART determination meet the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) as described previously in this action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401