[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24794-24827]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9839]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 80

April 25, 2012

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 52

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of
New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal
Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr.
Kelly can also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 (SO2) BART
determinations and emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy's
Roseton Generating Station.
     New York's SO2 BART determinations and
emissions limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy's Danskammer Generating Station.
     New York's SO2, Nitrogen Oxide (NOX)
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 SO2, NOX and PM BART
determinations and emissions limits at the following facilities, with
owners of sources [in brackets]:
    [cir] Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn]
    [cir] Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Owens Corning Delmar Plant
    [cir] Oswego Harbor Power [NRG]
    [cir] Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]
    [cir] 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 SO2, NOX and PM BART
determinations and emissions limits for the following facilities, with
owners of sources [in brackets]:
    [cir] EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)]
    [cir] Northport Power Station [NG]
    [cir] 59th Street Station [Con Ed]
    [cir] Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
    [cir] Ravenswood Generating Station [Trans Canada (TC)]
    [cir] Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison]
    [cir] Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant
    [cir] Lafarge Building Materials
    [cir] International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
    [cir] Lehigh Northeast Cement
    [cir] ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)
    [cir] 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:
    [cir] Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn]
    [cir] Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Owens Corning Delmar Plant
    [cir] Osweg
    [cir] Harbor Power [NRG]
    [cir] Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]
    [cir] Kodak Park Division
    [cir] EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)]
    [cir] Northport Power Station [NG]
    [cir] 59th Street Station [Con Ed]
    [cir] Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
    [cir] Ravenswood Generating Station [TC]
    [cir] Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison]
    [cir] Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant
    [cir] Lafarge Building Materials
    [cir] International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
    [cir] Lehigh Northeast Cement

    [cir] ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)
    [cir] 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 (PM2.5) (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 (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and
particulate matter (PM). The BART Guidelines direct states to use their
best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
or ammonia (NH3) 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
NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
The BART guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding
whether VOC and NH3 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Primary           Primary
               Sector                      CO              NOX             VOC          NH[ihel3]       SO[ihel2]    PM[ihel1][ihel0]  PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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              NOX             VOC          NH[ihel3]       SO[ihel2]     Primary PM10    Primary PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 PM2.5
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 NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
    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 NOX 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 SO2 emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to
two percent of the projected 2018 SOX, PM2.5 and
coarse particulate matter (PM10) 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 and NOX 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 NOX 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 SO2 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, PM2.5, 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 PM2.5 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 SO2 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
SO2 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
SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 and NOX 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
SO2 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 SO2; 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 SO2 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
SO2 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
SO2 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 SO2 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
SO2 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 SO2, NOX, and
PM10 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    Boiler 2...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Nassau.............     1-2820-00553
 Station.
National Grid Northport Power     Boilers 1,2,3,4....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Suffolk............     1-4726-00130
 Station.
Con Ed 59th Street Station......  Steam Boilers 114,   NOX, SO2, PM.......  New York...........     2-6202-00032
                                   115.
NRG Arthur Kill GS..............  Boiler 30..........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Richmond...........     2-6403-00014
TC Ravenswood LLC Ravenswood GS.  Boilers 10, 20, 30.  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Queens.............     2-6304-00024
Trans Canada/Con Ed Ravenswood    Boiler 2...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Queens.............     2-6304-01378
 Steam Plant.
GenOn (Miriant) Bowline GS......  Boilers 1 and 2....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Rockland...........     3-3922-00003
Dynegy Danskammer GS............  Boiler 4...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Orange.............     3-3346-00011
Dynegy Roseton GS...............  Boilers 1 and 2....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Orange.............     3-3346-00075
Holcim (US) Inc Catskill Plant..  Wet Process Kiln     NOX, SO2, PM.......  Green..............     4-1926-00021
                                   (cement plant).
Lafarge Building Materials        Wet Process Kilns 1  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Albany.............     4-0124-00001
 Ravena Plant.                     and 2 (cement
                                   plant).
Owens Corning Insulating          Emission Units EU2,  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Albany.............     4-0122-00004
 Systems, LLC--Delmar Plant.       EU3, EU12, EU13,
                                   EU14.
International Paper Ticonderoga   Power Boiler,        NOX, SO2, PM.......  Essex..............     5-1548-00008
 Mill.                             Recovery Boiler.
Lehigh Northeast Cement.........  Process Kiln         NOX, SO2, PM.......  Warren.............     5-5205-00013
                                   (cement plant).
Alcoa Massena Operations West     Potline, Baking      NOX, SO2, PM.......  St. Lawrence.......     6-4058-00003
 Plant.                            Furnace, Package
                                   Boilers.
NRG Oswego Harbor Power.........  Units 5, 6.........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Oswego.............     7-3512-00030
GDF Suez Syracuse Energy Corp...  Boiler 1...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Onondaga...........     7-3132-00052
Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy GS      Boilers 41, 42, 43.  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Monroe.............     8-2614-00205
 Kodak Park Division.
Jamestown BPU Samuel A Carlson    Boiler 12..........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Chautauqua.........     9-0608-00053
 GS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO2,
NOX, and PM10 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 SO2, NOX, PM10, and
PM2.5 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 (NOX,
SO2, 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 NOX,
SO2, 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
NOX and SO2 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., NOX and
SO2) 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 SO2 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 SO2 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 NOX 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
NOX 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
NOX 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 NOX burners (LNBs) for NOX
control while

SO2 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 SO2
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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 SO2 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 PM10'' 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
SO2 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 NOX 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 PM10'' 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 SO2 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 SO2 limit of 0.15 lb/
mm BTU. EPA does not have a presumptive SO2 BART limit for
boilers that combust natural gas.
    For control of NOX 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
NOX 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 SO2, NOX,
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 SO2
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 NOX 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
NOX controls including low NOX burners (LNB),
over

fire air (OFA), and flue gas recirculation (FGR) and the State's draft
Title V permit requires that NOX emissions shall not exceed
383 tpy and 665 tpy from Boilers 5 and 6, respectively, based upon a 12
month rolling total. These NOX 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
SO2, NOX, 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
NOX 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 BART analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For control of NOX 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 NOX 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 SO2 BART determination. Dynegy expects secondary
condensable PM emission reductions that will result from its proposed
NOX and SO2 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
NOX 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 SO2 emissions. Instead, EPA is proposing a
Federal plan requiring that the SO2 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 SO2 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
SO2 emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU.\18\ EPA's proposed