Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 11697-11711 [2019-05861]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–05979 Filed 3–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0426; FRL–9990–62–
Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Regional
Haze Five-Year Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Governor through the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) on June 2, 2015. The SIP
submittal addresses requirements of the
federal regulations that direct the State
to submit a periodic report that assesses
progress toward reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) established for regional
haze with a determination of adequacy
of the existing implementation plan.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2015–0426, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit any information electronically
that is considered to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment with multimedia
submissions and should include all
discussion points desired. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
their contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing systems). For
additional submission methods, please
contact James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745,
grady.james@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745;
grady.james@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11697
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ each mean ‘‘the EPA.’’
Table of Contents:
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
B. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional
Haze
C. Arkansas’ Regional Haze Progress Report
SIP Revision
II. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Regional Haze
Progress Report SIP Revision
A. Class I Areas
B. Status of Implementation of Measures
1. BART Controls
2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
3. CAIR and CSAPR
4. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke
Management
6. Additional Federal Programs
7. EPA’s Conclusion on the Status of
Implementation of Measures
C. Emission Reductions From
Implementation of Measures
D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
E. Emission Tracking
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet
RPGs
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing
Implementation Plan
J. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
III. The EPA’s Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that occurs over a wide geographic area
primarily from the pollution of fine
particles (PM2.5) emitted into the air.1
Fine particles causing haze consist of
sulfates (SO42 ¥), nitrates (NO3¥),
organics, elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust.2 Airborne PM2.5 can scatter
1 Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5
microns (mm) in diameter and usually form
secondary in nature indirectly from other sources.
Particles less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter
are referred to as PM10. Particles greater than PM2.5
but less than PM10 are referred to as coarse mass.
Coarse mass can contribute to light extinction as
well and is made up of primary particles directly
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be manmade, while coarse particles tend to have a natural
origin. Coarse mass settles out from the air more
rapidly than fine particles and usually will be
found relatively close to emission sources. Fine
particles can be transported long distances by wind
and can be found in the air thousands of miles from
where they were formed.
2 Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as
particles or formed through reactions involving
gaseous emissions. Elemental carbon, in contrast to
organic carbon, is exclusively of primary origin and
emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbonbased fuels. Elemental carbon particles are
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
Continued
28MRP1
11698
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
and absorb the incident light and,
therefore, lead to atmospheric opacity
and horizontal visibility degradation.
Regional haze limits visual distance and
reduces color, clarity, and contrast of
view. PM2.5 can cause serious adverse
health effects and mortality in humans.
It also contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication. Emissions that affect
visibility include a wide variety of
natural and man-made sources.
Reducing PM2.5 and its precursor gases
in the atmosphere is an effective method
of improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors
consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3), and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE), shows that
visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all of the time
at most national parks and wilderness
areas. In 1999, the average visual range 3
in many Class I areas (i.e., national
parks and memorial parks, wilderness
areas, and international parks meeting
certain size criteria) in the western
United States was 100–150 kilometers
(km), or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions.4 In most
of the eastern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range was less
than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions. CAA
programs have reduced emissions of
some haze-causing pollution, lessening
some visibility impairment and
resulting in partially improved average
visual ranges.5
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA
Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the
nation’s national parks and wilderness
areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas where impairment results
from manmade air pollution.6 Congress
especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and smoke
from wild and prescribed fires.
3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against
the sky by a typical observer.
4 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
5 An interactive ‘‘story map’’ depicting efforts and
recent progress by EPA and states to improve
visibility at national parks and wilderness areas
may be visited at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
6 Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
added section 169B to the CAA in 1990
that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA promulgated
final regulations addressing regional
haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze
Rule, which was most recently updated
in 2017.7 The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing 1980 visibility
regulations and established a more
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in the EPA’s broader visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300–309. The regional haze
regulations require states to demonstrate
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal of a return to natural
visibility conditions for Class I areas
both within and outside states by 2064.
The CAA requirement in section
169A(b)(2) to submit a regional haze SIP
applies to all fifty states, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States
were required to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
visibility impairment caused by regional
haze no later than December 17, 2007.8
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
directs states to evaluate the use of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
controls at certain categories of existing
major stationary sources 9 built between
1962 and 1977. These large, often
under-controlled, older stationary
sources are required to procure, install,
and operate BART controls to address
visibility impacts from them. Under the
Regional Haze Rule, any of these BARTeligible sources 10 that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area
are determined to be subject-to-BART.11
consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was
identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although
states and tribes may designate additional areas as
Class I, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in
this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and
CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
7 See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final
action (64 FR 35714), as amended on July 6, 2005
(70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June
7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 (82
FR 3079).
8 See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The EPA’s regional haze
regulations require subsequent updates to the
regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)–(i).
9 See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of
‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially subject-toBART).
10 See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify
BART-eligible Sources.
11 Under the BART Guidelines, states may select
a visibility impact threshold, measured in
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
States are directed to conduct BART
determinations for each source
classified as subject-to-BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states (or
EPA in the case of a FIP) to identify the
level of control representing BART after
considering the five statutory factors set
out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). States
must establish emission limits, a
schedule of compliance, and other
measures consistent with the BART
determination process for each source
subject-to-BART. In lieu of requiring
source-specific BART controls, states
also have the flexibility to adopt
alternative measures, as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable
progress toward improving visibility
than BART. Namely, the alternative
must be ‘‘better than BART.’’ 12
B. Previous Actions on Arkansas
Regional Haze
Arkansas submitted a regional haze
SIP on September 9, 2008, to address
the requirements of the first regional
haze implementation period. On August
3, 2010, the State submitted a SIP
revision with mostly non-substantive
changes that addressed Arkansas
Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19
Chapter 15.13 On September 27, 2011,
the State submitted supplemental
information to address the regional haze
requirements. The EPA collectively
refers to the original 2008 submittal and
these revisions together as the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. On March
12, 2012, the EPA partially approved
and partially disapproved the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.14
Specifically, the EPA disapproved
deciviews (dv), below which a BART-eligible
source would not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The
state must document this threshold in the SIP and
state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with visibility impacts that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a BART
determination review. The BART Guidelines
acknowledge varying circumstances affecting
different Class I areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting the Class I
areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual
sources’ impacts. Any visibility impact threshold
set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
See 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
12 The required content of BART alternative
measures is codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
13 The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included
APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the
state regulation that identified the BART-eligible
and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas and
established BART emission limits for subject-toBART sources. The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did
not revise Arkansas’ list of BART-eligible and
subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART
requirements for affected sources. Instead, it
included mostly non-substantive revisions to the
state regulation.
14 See the final action on March 12, 2012 (77 FR
14604).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
certain BART compliance dates; the
State’s identification of certain BARTeligible sources and subject-to-BART
sources; certain BART determinations
for NOX, SO2, and PM; the State’s
reasonable progress analysis and RPGs;
and a portion of the State’s long-term
strategy (LTS). The remaining
provisions of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP were approved. The
final partial disapproval started a twoyear federal implementation plan (FIP)
clock that obligated the EPA to either
approve a SIP revision or promulgate a
FIP to address the disapproved portions
of the action.15 Because a SIP revision
was not received and since the FIP clock
expired in April 2014, the EPA
promulgated a FIP (the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP) on September 27,
2016 to address the disapproved
portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP.16 Among other things, the FIP
established SO2, NOX, and PM emission
limits under the BART requirements for
nine units at six facilities: Arkansas
Electric Cooperative Corporation
(AECC) Carl E. Bailey Plant Unit 1
Boiler; AECC John L. McClellan Plant
Unit 1 Boiler; SWEPCO Flint Creek
Plant Boiler No. 1; Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant Unit 4 Boiler; Entergy
White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2 Boilers
and the Auxiliary Boiler; and the
Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers
No. 1 and 2. The FIP also established
SO2 and NOX emission limits under the
reasonable progress requirements for the
Entergy Independence Plant Units 1
and 2.
Following petitions for
reconsideration 17 submitted by the
State, industry, and ratepayers, the EPA
issued a partial administrative stay of
the effectiveness of the FIP for ninety
15 Under CAA section 110(c), EPA is required to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years of the effective date
of a finding that a state has failed to make a
required SIP submission or has made an incomplete
submission, or of the date that EPA disapproves a
SIP in whole or in part. The FIP requirement is
terminated only if a state submits a SIP, and EPA
approves that SIP as meeting applicable CAA
requirements before promulgating a FIP. CAA
section 302(y) defines the term ‘‘federal
implementation plan’’ in pertinent part, as a plan
(or portion thereof) promulgated by EPA ‘‘to fill all
or a portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a
portion of an inadequacy’’ in a SIP, and which
includes enforceable emission limitations or other
control measures, means or techniques (including
economic incentives, such as marketable permits or
auctions or emissions allowances).
16 See FIP final action (81 FR 66332) as corrected
on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
17 See the docket associated with this proposed
rulemaking for a copy of the petitions for
reconsideration and administrative stay submitted
by the State of Arkansas; Entergy Arkansas Inc.,
Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC
(collectively ‘‘Entergy’’); AECC; and the Energy and
Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
days on April 25, 2017.18 During that
period, on July 12, 2017, the State
submitted a proposed SIP submittal (the
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision) to address NOX BART
requirements for all EGUs and the
reasonable progress requirements with
respect to NOX. These NOX provisions
were previously disapproved by the
EPA in our 2012 final action for the
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
submittal replaced all source-specific
NOX BART determinations established
in the FIP with reliance upon the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
emissions trading program for ozone
(O3) season NOX as an alternative to
NOX BART. The SIP submittal
addressed the NOX BART requirements
for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1,
Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, Lake Catherine
Unit 4; White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and
the Auxiliary Boiler. The revision did
not address NOX BART for Domtar
Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2. On February 12, 2018, we took final
action to approve the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision and to withdraw
the corresponding parts of the FIP.19
The State submitted another SIP
revision (the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision) on August 8,
2018, that addressed most of the
remaining parts of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP disapproved in 2012.
The August 8, 2018 SIP submittal was
intended to replace the federal SO2 and
PM BART determinations for EGUs as
well as the reasonable progress
determinations established in the FIP
with the State’s own determinations.
Specifically, the SIP revision addressed
the applicable SO2 and PM BART
requirements for Bailey Unit 1; SO2 and
PM BART requirements for McClellan
Unit 1; SO2 BART requirements for Flint
Creek Boiler No. 1; SO2 BART
requirements for White Bluff Units 1
and 2; SO2, NOX, and PM BART
requirements for the White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; 20 and Lake Catherine
Unit 4. The submittal addressed the
reasonable progress requirements for
Independence Units 1 and 2 and all
18 82
FR 18994.
82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the
proposed approval. See also 83 FR 5915 and 83 FR
5927 (February 12, 2018) for the final action.
20 The Arkansas Regional Haze SO and PM SIP
2
revision established a new NOX emission limit of
32.2 pph for the Auxiliary Boiler to satisfy NOX
BART and replace the SIP determination that we
previously approved in the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision. In the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision, ADEQ incorrectly identified the
Auxiliary Boiler as participating in the CSAPR
trading program for O3 season NOX to satisfy the
NOX BART requirements but the new source
specific NOX BART emission limit corrects that
error.
19 See
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11699
other sources in Arkansas. In addition,
it established revised RPGs for
Arkansas’ two Class I areas and revised
the State’s long-term strategy provisions.
The submittal did not address BART
and associated long-term strategy
requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On
November 30, 2018, we proposed
approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision and to
withdraw the corresponding parts of the
FIP.21
C. Arkansas’ Regional Haze Progress
Report SIP Revision
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), each state is
required to submit a progress report that
evaluates progress toward the RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and
each Class I area outside the state which
may be affected by emissions from
within the state. In addition, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires states to submit, at
the same time as the progress report, a
determination of adequacy of the
existing regional haze implementation
plan.22 The progress report for the first
planning period is due five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze SIP
and must take the form of a SIP revision.
Arkansas submitted its initial regional
haze SIP on September 9, 2008.
On June 2, 2015, Arkansas submitted
its progress report to the EPA in the
form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR
51.308. As described in further detail in
section II of this proposed rulemaking,
to address the progress report
requirements, the State provided: (1) A
description of the status of measures in
the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a
summary of emission reductions
achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility
conditions for each Class I area in the
state (and for two Class I areas in
Missouri); (4) an analysis tracking the
changes in emissions from sources and
activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have limited or
21 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for
proposed approval. The Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision also addressed separate
CAA requirements related to interstate visibility
transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but
we did not propose action on that part of the
submittal.
22 The Regional Haze Rule requires states to
provide in the progress report an assessment of
whether the current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is
sufficient to enable the states to meet all established
RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term
‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for purposes of
the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or
Tribal Implementation Plan. As such, the Agency
may consider measures in any issued FIP as well
as those in a state’s regional haze plan in assessing
the adequacy of the ‘‘existing implementation plan’’
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11700
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility; (6)
an assessment of whether the approved
regional haze SIP elements and
strategies are sufficient to enable the
State (and other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from the state) to
meet all established RPGs; (7) a review
of the State’s visibility monitoring
strategy; and (8) a determination of
adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Evaluation of Arkansas’ Regional
Haze Progress Report SIP Revision
On June 2, 2015, the EPA received
Arkansas’ periodic report on progress
for the State’s regional haze SIP in the
form of a SIP revision. That submission
is the subject of this proposed approval.
The periodic report for the first
implementation period assessed
visibility progress toward the 2018 RPGs
for Class I areas in the state. It also
assessed visibility progress in general
for two Class I areas in Missouri that
may be affected by emissions from
within the state. The progress report
asserted that Arkansas was committed
to remedying the disapproved portions
of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
submission. At this time, the Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision,23 the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision (if EPA’s proposed
approval is finalized),24 and the
remaining part of the FIP that addresses
the BART and associated long-term
strategy requirements for Domtar
together fully address the deficiencies of
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
These deficiencies were previously
identified in 2012 by the EPA and
acknowledged by ADEQ in its June 2,
2015 progress report SIP. The 2018
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP submission provides more recent
visibility information in addition to the
visibility data presented by ADEQ in the
2015 progress report. The recent data
shows visibility improvement that is
exceeding the revised visibility goals set
for 2018 for the Arkansas Class I areas.
Furthermore, up-to-date emission trends
indicate that SO2, NOX, and PM
emissions have all been decreasing. The
EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve
Arkansas’ progress report on the basis
23 Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83
FR 5927).
24 See the EPA’s proposed approval on November
30, 2018 (83 FR 62204). We note that in the event
this proposed rule is not finalized, there is already
FIP in place which addresses the previously
identified deficiencies. Thus, regardless of whether
the EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision,
Arkansas will have an implementation plan in
place that fully addresses the regional haze
requirements for the first implementation period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
that it satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h), as explained in
further detail in each subsequent
section.
A. Class I Areas
Arkansas has two Class I areas within
its borders that are addressed in the
progress report: Upper Buffalo and
Caney Creek Wilderness areas.25
Visibility impairment at Arkansas’ two
Class I areas was tracked in units of
deciviews,26 which is related to the
cumulative sum of visibility impairment
from individual aerosol species as
measured by two monitors in the
IMPROVE Network.
Through collaboration with the
Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP),27 ADEQ worked
with the central states to assess state-bystate contributions to visibility
impairment in specific Class I areas in
Arkansas and those affected by
emissions from Arkansas. ADEQ used
CENRAP as the main vehicle for
developing its regional haze SIP for the
first implementation period. The results
reported by ADEQ in the progress report
compared available monitored visibility
conditions to improvements that were
projected based on the technical
analysis and emission inventories that
were a part of the CENRAP modeling.28
CENRAP generated regional
photochemical modeling results,
visibility projections, and source
25 Upper Buffalo Wilderness area, located in
Newton County, Arkansas, is an oak-hickory forest
with intermittent portions of shortleaf pine located
in the Ozark National Forest and offers 12,108 acres
of boulder strewn and rugged scenery along the
Buffalo River. Caney Creek Wilderness is located in
Polk County, Arkansas, and covers 14,460 acres on
the southern edge of the Ouachita National Forest
and protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita
Mountains.
26 A deciview is a haze index derived from
calculated light extinction, such that uniform
changes in haziness correspond to uniform
incremental changes in perception across the entire
range of conditions, from pristine to highly
impaired. The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
provides additional details about the deciview (64
FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
27 The CENRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal
governments, state governments and various federal
agencies representing the central states (Texas,
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota; and tribal governments
included in these states) that provided technical
and policy tools for the central states and tribes to
comply with the EPA’s Regional Haze regulations.
Due to lack of funding, CENRAP subsequently
ceased to function and Arkansas is communicating
through the Central States Air Resource Agencies
(CenSARA) with the other states that were part of
CENRAP.
28 See the technical support document (TSD) for
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to
Support Regional Haze State Implementation, found
in Appendix 8.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP. The TSD can be found in the docket for
the proposal at https://www.regulations.gov. The
docket number is EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0727.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
apportionment modeling to assist in
identifying contributions to visibility
impairment at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness Areas in Arkansas.
ADEQ also indicated through CENRAP
modeling results that two Class I areas
outside Arkansas’ borders at Hercules
Glades and Mingo Wilderness areas in
Missouri were impacted by emissions
from within Arkansas. In the ensuing
sections, we discuss how the State
addressed the progress report
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and (h) for these Class I areas, and we
show our analysis and proposed
determination as to whether the State
satisfied the requirements.
B. Status of Implementation of Measures
The State evaluated the status of
implementation of all measures in its
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP in
accordance with the requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(g).29 These measures
were designed to address sulfate,
particulate organic matter, and nitrate,
which are the three largest
contributors 30 to visibility impairment
at Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek
Wilderness areas. Ammonium sulfate is
primarily from SO2 precursor emissions
from EGU point sources; 31 nitrate is
primarily from mobile and point sources
emissions; and particulate organic
matter is from area sources, particularly
emissions from fires.32 The major
measures identified in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP to control
29 The progress report was not required to include
information on the status of implementation of
measures that became part of the implementation
plan after the submission of the progress report.
However, the EPA is including a discussion of
measures from the recent SIP submittals to
complement the progress report and to provide upto-date information since the progress report’s
submission in 2015. Concerning the aspects of the
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that had been
disapproved by the EPA in 2012 before the 2015
submission of the progress report, none involved
new SIP measures with compliance deadlines prior
to the submission of the progress report. Thus, our
2012 disapprovals do not necessarily affect the
progress report requirement regarding reporting on
the status of implementation of measures included
in the implementation plan.
30 See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional
haze progress report (pages 16–17) which shows the
2007 to 2011 five-year averages. The percent
contributions of the major haze pollutant
contributors for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are
as follows: (65% and 56%) sulfate, (11% and 16%)
nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate organic matter,
10% attributed to both sites for coarse mass, EC,
and soil.
31 See Figure 2.3 of the progress report that shows
Percent Contribution by Source to SO2 Emissions in
Arkansas for 2011: Non-EGU point sources account
for 12 percent SO2 emissions, fires account for 8
percent, and approximately one percent SO2
emissions are made up of area and mobile sources
(on- and off-road).
32 See progress report SIP revision (page 16).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
these pollutants and listed in the
progress report are as follows:
• BART Controls
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
CSAPR
• Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
• Agriculture and Forestry Smoke
Management
• Additional Federal Programs
1. BART Controls
In the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze
SIP, the State determined that there
were eighteen facilities in Arkansas
with BART-eligible sources.33 34 The
State chose to exempt those sources that
did not contribute to visibility
impairment by performing a sourcespecific screening analysis using
CALPUFF modeling. After eliminating
BART-eligible sources whose modeled
contributions to visibility impairment
were below the 0.5 dv threshold limit,
nine boiler units from six different
facilities were found to be subject-toBART 35 and are reflected in Table 2.2
of the progress report.36 In addition to
these subject-to-BART units determined
by the State in the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, the progress report
also included additional units from
Georgia-Pacific Paper. As discussed in
section I.B of this proposed action, the
BART portion of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP was partially
approved and partially disapproved in
our 2012 final action.37 We approved
Arkansas’ identification of BARTeligible sources from the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP with the exception of
Georgia-Pacific’s 6A Boiler, which we
found to be BART-eligible, instead of
being excluded as stated by the State in
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
The EPA also approved the State’s
identification of subject-to-BART
sources, with the exception of the 6A
and 9A Boilers at Georgia-Pacific, which
we found to be subject-to-BART instead
11701
of exempt.38 Because of this, the
progress report included GeorgiaPacific’s 6A and 9A Boilers as subjectto-BART at the time of its submittal in
2015. However, despite the EPA’s
previous disapproval of ADEQ’s
exemption finding, following the
company’s recent submission of
additional technical information and
analyses, the EPA ultimately agreed that
Georgia Pacific’s 6A and 9A Power
Boilers are BART-eligible, but are not
subject-to-BART. ADEQ provided
documentation supporting this
determination in Appendix A of the
2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision that the EPA proposed
for approval on November 30, 2018.
Therefore, the State’s most recent
identification of subject-to-BART units
in the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision is the same as
originally presented in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (see Table
1):
TABLE 1—SUBJECT-TO-BART UNITS IN ARKANSAS
Facility
Unit ID
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant .....................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation—Bailey Generating Station ................................................................................
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation—John L. McClellan Generating Station ............................................................
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant .................................................................................................................................................
Entergy White Bluff Plant ........................................................................................................................................................
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Domtar—Ashdown Mill ............................................................................................................................................................
Unit 1 Boiler.
Unit 1 Boiler.
Unit 1 Boiler.
Unit 4 Boiler.
Unit 1 Boiler.
Unit 2 Boiler.
Auxiliary Boiler.
No. 1 Power Boiler.
No. 2 Power Boiler.
ADEQ was unable to determine at the
time of the progress report’s submission
when revisions to the 2012 disapproved
portions of the SIP would be submitted
to the EPA. ADEQ was working then
with facilities and the EPA to develop
the required five-factor analyses to
address the disapproved BART
determinations. Consequently, updated
BART determinations and emission
limits were not listed in the progress
report by the State because they were
not yet available. The BART
determinations that were approved in
2012 were findings that the existing
limitations met the BART requirements.
Therefore, as of the submittal date of the
progress report, there were not any new
emission reductions from subject-toBART sources in Arkansas due to
implementation of BART limits more
stringent than the existing limits.
Accordingly, there were no required
efforts to implement new measures on
which the progress report was required
to provide information. The EPA
approved the following BART
determinations in 2012 for the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP: PM
determination on SWEPCO Flint Creek
Plant Boiler No. 1; SO2 and PM
determinations for the natural gas firing
scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine
Plant Unit 4; PM determinations for
both bituminous and sub-bituminous
coal firing scenarios for Entergy White
Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; and PM
determination for Domtar Ashdown Mill
Power Boiler No. 1.39
Subsequent to the June 2015 progress
report submittal, the EPA finalized a FIP
in 2016 that established new BART
emission limits for the 2012
disapproved determinations.40 The FIP
established SO2, NOX, and PM emission
limits under the BART requirements for
nine units at six facilities: SO2, NOX,
and PM BART for AECC Bailey Plant
Unit 1 and the AECC McClellan Plant
Unit 1; SO2 and NOX BART for
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1;
NOX BART for the natural gas firing
scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine
Plant Unit 4; 41 SO2 and NOX BART for
33 BART-eligible sources include certain
categories of existing major stationary sources built
between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 and
have potential emissions greater than 250 tons per
year (tpy). See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to
Identify BART-eligible Sources.
34 See Table 9.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP (page 45).
35 See Table 9.2 and Figure 9.2 of the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (page 48).
36 See Arkansas Regional Haze Progress Report
(page 20).
37 See the final action at 77 FR 14604, March 12,
2012.
38 See 77 FR 14606.
39 See Tables 4 and 5 from the proposal at 40 CFR
64186, 64210–64211 (October 17, 2011).
40 See final action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR
66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
68319).
41 The 2012 action had disapproved SO , NO ,
2
X
and PM BART for the fuel oil firing scenario for the
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4, but a FIP
BART determination was not established. Instead,
Entergy committed to not burn fuel oil at Lake
Catherine Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART
for SO2 and PM for the fuel oil firing scenario. This
commitment has now been made enforceable by the
State through an Administrative Order that has
been adopted and incorporated in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11702
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and
2; SO2, NOX, and PM BART for Entergy
White Bluff Plant Auxiliary Boiler; SO2
and NOX BART for Domtar Ashdown
Mill Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX
and PM BART for Domtar Ashdown
Mill Power Boiler No. 2. The FIP also
established SO2 and NOX emission
limits under the reasonable progress
requirements for Entergy Independence
Units 1 and 2.
The State mentioned in the progress
report that it was committed to
correcting the 2012 disapproved
portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP. As described below and
elsewhere, the State has made two
submissions to fulfill this commitment.
Each SIP revision contained updated
BART determinations intended to
replace the applicable FIP established
limits from 2016.
First, on February 12, 2018, the EPA
approved the 2017 Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision.42 That submittal
addressed the NOX BART
determinations established in the FIP
for the Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs
by replacing them with reliance upon
the CSAPR emissions trading program
for O3 season NOX as an alternative to
source-specific NOX BART. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision also established that no new
NOX emission controls were required
beyond participation in CSAPR for O3
season NOX for any source to achieve
reasonable progress for the first
implementation period.
Second, on August 8, 2018, the State
submitted the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision. That
submittal addressed all remaining
disapproved parts of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, with exception of
the BART and associated long-term
strategy requirements for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2. The majority of the BART
determinations in that SIP revision were
essentially identical to the BART
determinations in the FIP except for
different BART requirements for White
Bluff units 1 and 2.43 The submittal
established that each White Bluff unit
was to comply with an updated SO2
BART emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu.
That is based on the use of low sulfur
coal and an enforceable commitment to
cease coal combustion by the end of
2028. The submittal also established a
new NOX emission limit of 32.2 pounds
per hour (pph) to satisfy NOX BART for
White Bluff’s auxiliary boiler, replacing
the determination in the Arkansas
Regional NOX SIP revision (relying
upon CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART) that
we previously approved. The State
made all of these BART determinations
enforceable through administrative
orders.44 The State determined that no
additional SO2 or PM controls beyond
BART were necessary for reasonable
progress during the first planning
period.45 The EPA proposed to approve
a large portion of the SIP revision on
November 30, 2018.46
The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,47 the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision (if EPA’s
proposed approval is finalized),48 and
the remaining part of the FIP that
addresses the BART and associated
long-term strategy requirements for
Domtar together fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP previously identified
in 2012 by the EPA. The EPA is
collectively providing all of these
updated BART determination emission
limits in Table 2 below since they were
not all available at the time of the
progress report’s submission.
TABLE 2—UPDATED BART DETERMINATIONS
BART emission limit
Facility
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation—Bailey
Generating Station.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation—John L.
McClellan Generating Station.
Entergy—Lake Catherine .....
Unit 1 Boiler .............
Unit 1 Boiler .............
Entergy—White Bluff ............
Domtar—Ashdown Mill .........
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Unit
..................................
Unit 1 Boiler.
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
NOX
PM10
0.06 lb/MMBtu** ..................
Use fuel with sulfur limit of
0.5% by weight **.
Reliance on Participation in
CSAPR Trading Program
for O3 season NOX to satisfy NOX BART a.
0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
Use fuel with sulfur limit of
0.5% by weight.**
Use fuel with sulfur limit of
0.5% by weight **.
Use fuel with sulfur limit of
0.5% by weight.**
Unit 4 Boiler b ...........
(Natural gas firing scenario)
Burn natural gas only*.
Unit 1 Boiler .............
Unit 2 Boiler .............
Auxiliary Boiler .........
No. 1 Power Boiler ..
0.60 lb/MMBtu †.
0.60 lb/MMBtu†.
105.2 pph** .........................
504 ppd ‡ .............................
(Natural gas firing scenario)
45 pph and burn natural
gas only.*
0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
4.5 pph.**
0.07 lb/MMBtu.*
42 See final action on February 12, 2018 for the
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR
5927).
43 For the White Bluff units, the FIP required an
SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu with a fiveyear compliance date, based on the installation of
dry scrubbers. The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision does not require the SO2 emission
limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, but it does require that
Entergy move forward with its announced plans to
cease coal combustion at the White Bluff Units by
2028 and to meet an SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/
MMBtu in the interim. Once the units cease coal
combustion, SO2 emissions are expected to
significantly decrease.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
SO2
Jkt 247001
32.2 pph*** ..........................
207.4 pph ‡ ..........................
44 The Administrative Orders can be found in the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM BART SIP
Revision.
45 In the Arkansas Regional Haze SO and PM SIP
2
revision, part of ADEQ’s basis for determining the
sources to further evaluate under the four
reasonable progress factors was analyses and
determinations for whether sources were subject-toBART in the first implementation period. For the
Domtar facility in particular, the State relied on the
fact that a FIP is in place to address the BART
requirements. In our November 30, 2018 proposed
approval (83 FR 62204), we proposed to agree that
this is an appropriate basis on which we find that
nothing further is needed for reasonable progress at
this source. If ADEQ chooses to submit a future SIP
revision to address BART requirements for Domtar
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2, we will evaluate the
SIP submittal at that time and also whether it
addresses reasonable progress requirements.
46 See proposed action on November 30, 2018 for
the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision (83 FR 62204). Note that the SIP revision
also addressed separate CAA requirements related
to interstate visibility transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not propose action on
that part of the submittal.
47 Final action approved on February 12, 2018 for
the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83
FR 5927).
48 In the event that this proposed rule is not
finalized, we note that there is already a FIP in
place which addresses the previously identified
deficiencies.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11703
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—UPDATED BART DETERMINATIONS—Continued
BART emission limit
Facility
Unit
No. 2 Power Boiler ..
SO2
NOX
PM10
91.5 pph ‡ ............................
345 pp h‡ .............................
PM standard under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDDD
as revised.‡
* The EPA approved this BART limit in the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR 14604).
** This BART limit established in the FIP will be replaced with the State’s own identical limit pending final approval of the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA’s proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
*** Note that we previously withdrew the 32.2 pph NOX limit from the FIP and approved Arkansas’ reliance upon CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART
(83 FR 5927). However, ADEQ’s identification of the Auxiliary Boiler as participating in CSAPR for O3 season NOX was in error. Therefore, we
proposed to withdraw our prior approved determination of the State’s reliance upon CSAPR and replace it with 32.2 pph NOX to satisfy NOX
BART for the auxiliary boiler in our proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA’s proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
† This is a new revised BART limit proposed in the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA’s proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
‡ The EPA established this FIP BART limit on September 27, 2016. See final action (81 FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
68319).
a The EPA approved this BART alternative in the February 12, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze NO SIP Revision final action (83 FR 5927).
X
b There is an enforceable ban (not a current BART Determination) by the State on burning fuel oil for Lake Catherine’s unit 4 boiler until the
EPA approves a SIP revision with BART determinations for the fuel oil firing scenario.
2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX
SIP revision and the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ
evaluated the need for additional source
controls under the reasonable progress
requirements. In determining reasonable
progress, CAA section 169(A)(g)(1)
requires states to examine the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, and remaining
useful life. In the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision, the State
determined that no additional NOX
controls beyond participation in CSAPR
for O3 season NOX were necessary to
satisfy the reasonable progress
requirement with respect to NOX for the
first implementation period.49 As
discussed in Section II of our proposed
action on the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ
determined that no additional SO2 and
PM controls at Independence Units 1
and 2 or any other Arkansas sources are
necessary under reasonable progress for
the first implementation period.50
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
3. CAIR and CSAPR
In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,51
which participating states could rely on
in lieu of BART for EGUs.52 CAIR was
designed to address power plant
pollution transported from one state to
another via a cap-and-trade system to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions as the
49 The EPA approved this in the February 12,
2018 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP Revision
final action (83 FR 5927).
50 See the EPA’s proposed approval of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
51 See 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005).
52 See 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
target pollutants.53 In December 2008,
the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to the
EPA, leaving existing CAIR programs in
place while directing the EPA to replace
them with a new rule.54 Although CAIR
was remanded, CAIR remained in effect
at the time of the progress report’s
development and sources in Arkansas
continued to comply with the state and
federal requirements associated with
CAIR. CAIR consisted of two phases of
reductions for NOX and SO2. Phase I ran
from 2009 to 2014 and Arkansas’ NOX
budget amounted to 11,514 tons NOX
per annual O3 season. Phase II begun in
2015 and was set to continue
indefinitely with Arkansas’ NOX budget
set at 9,116 tons NOX per annual O3
season. Table 2.3 of the progress report
shows the NOX O3 season allocations
distributed among the different
Arkansas sources for the 2009 to 2017
time-period.
In 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR to
replace CAIR.55 In 2012, the EPA
published a final rule allowing states
that participate in the CSAPR trading
program to rely on CSAPR to satisfy
BART for EGUs,56 including states
participating only for O3 season NOX.57
CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to
reduce power plant emissions that
53 Although Arkansas was subject to certain NO
X
requirements of CAIR, including the statewide O3
season NOX budget, it elected not to rely on CAIR
in its 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP to satisfy
the NOX BART requirement for its EGUs. Note that
it would have been sufficient for Arkansas to rely
on CAIR to satisfy NOX BART.
54 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
55 See 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011).
56 See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
57 Arkansas EGUs are covered under CSAPR for
O3 season NOX. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30,
2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
contribute to O3 and PM2.5 pollution in
other states. The rule requires
reductions in O3 season NOX emissions
that cross state lines for certain states
under the O3 requirements, and
reductions in annual SO2 and NOX
emissions for certain states under the
PM2.5 requirements. The EPA set
emission budgets for each state covered
by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to
affected sources based on these state
emission budgets.58
Since promulgating the use of CSAPR
as an alternative to source-specific
BART for EGUs, the EPA has
promulgated an update to the CSAPR
program with more stringent budgets.59
The CSAPR update revised the O3
season NOX budget for Arkansas EGUs
from 15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048
tons NOX (10,132 tons NOX allocated to
existing EGUs) in 2017 with a further
reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018
and beyond.60 Participation in CSAPR
58 The rule provides flexibility to affected sources,
allowing sources in each state to determine their
own compliance path. This includes adding or
operating control technologies, upgrading or
improving controls, switching fuels, and using
allowances. Sources can buy and sell allowances
and bank (save) allowances for future use as long
as each source holds enough allowances to account
for its emissions by the end of the compliance
period.
59 See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we
finalized an update to CSAPR that addresses the
1997 O3 NAAQS portion of the remand as well as
the CAA requirements addressing interstate
transport for the 2008 O3 NAAQS.
60 CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation,
and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision generally upholding CSAPR but
remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions
budgets for a number of states. Arkansas’ O3 season
NOX budgets were not included in the remand. EME
Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11704
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
for O3 season NOX is federally
enforceable under 40 CFR 52.38.
On February 12, 2018, we approved
the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision (effective March 14, 2018)
which replaced all source-specific NOX
BART determinations for EGUs
established in the FIP with reliance
upon the CSAPR emissions trading
program for O3 season NOX as an
alternative to NOX BART.61 The O3
season NOX requirements under CSAPR
apply to all subject-to-BART units in
Table 1 of this proposed action except
the Domtar No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers,
and the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler.
The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision addressed the NOX BART
requirements for Bailey Unit 1,
McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek Boiler No.
1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White Bluff
Units 1 and 2, and the Auxiliary Boiler.
In that SIP submittal, ADEQ erroneously
identified White Bluff’s Auxiliary Boiler
as participating in CSAPR for O3 season
NOX and elected to rely on participation
in that trading program to satisfy the
Auxiliary Boiler’s NOX BART
requirements. Although we approved
the SIP submittal on February 12,
2018,62 our approval of the State’s
reliance on CSAPR for O3 season NOX
to satisfy the BART requirements for the
Auxiliary Boiler was made in error.
Therefore, we proposed to withdraw our
approval of the State’s reliance upon
CSAPR for the Auxiliary Boiler and
replace it with our approval of a sourcespecific 32.2 pph NOX BART emission
limit related to the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP submitted on
November 30, 2018.63
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
In accordance with Subchapter
11.4.1.6 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP, ADEQ tracked source
retirement and replacement through
ongoing point source inventories.64 65
The progress report showed that ADEQ
has performed this tracking. Five new
permitted Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) facilities were
inventoried and the new corresponding
total potential-to-emit (PTE) emissions
for NOX and SO2 were reported at 5,833
tpy and 7,374 tpy. The total actual NOX
61 See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the
proposed approval. See also 83 FR 5927 and 83 FR
5915 (February 12, 2018) for the final action.
62 See 83 FR 5927 (February 12, 2018).
63 See the EPA’s proposed approval on November
30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
64 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires the State of
Arkansas to consider source retirement and
replacement schedules in developing RPGs.
65 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires the State of
Arkansas to consider measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
and SO2 emissions,66 however, were
reported lower at 1,741 tpy and 3,303
tpy, respectively. In addition, sixteen
PSD facilities have shut down since
2008, resulting in a total reduction of
15,893 tpy in permitted NOX emissions
and a total reduction of 1,126 tpy in
permitted SO2 emissions.67
• Tier 2 Vehicle Emission
standards.72
• Heavy-Duty Highway Rule.73
• Highway Diesel and Non-Road
Diesel Rules.74
• Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule.75
• Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT).76
5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke
Management 68
7. EPA’s Conclusion on the Status of
Implementation of Measures
The EPA proposes to find that the
State has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding reporting the status
of implementation of measures in its
implementation plan. The State’s
progress report documented the status
of all measures included in its regional
haze SIP (as of the submission of the
progress report) and it also described
additional measures that came into
effect since the State’s 2008 regional
haze SIP was completed, including state
regulations and various federal
measures. All major control measures
were identified and the strategy behind
each control was explained. The State
included a summary of the
implementation status associated with
each measure and quantified the
benefits where possible. In addition, the
progress report SIP adequately outlined
the compliance timeframe for all
controls.
The progress report mentioned that
the State is currently relying on a Smoke
Management Plan (SMP) in its 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that the
Arkansas Forestry Commission
approved in 2007. Arkansas’ SMP was
designed to assure that prescribed fires
are planned and executed in a manner
designed to minimize the impacts from
smoke produced by prescribed fires.
The programs in this measure are
generally designed to limit increases in
emissions, rather than to reduce existing
emissions.69
6. Additional Federal Programs 70
The State of Arkansas also considered
in its progress report the following
ongoing pollution control programs in
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP as
controls used for continuing emission
reductions:
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standard
(MATS).71
66 As
reported by the facilities in their Annual
Emissions Inventory Report for 2012.
67 See Tables 2.4 through 2.6 of the progress
report.
68 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Arkansas to
consider smoke management techniques for the
purposes of agricultural and forestry management.
69 Documentation of this SMP program is in
Appendix 11.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze
SIP or a copy may be found at https://forestry.
arkansas.gov/Services/KidsTeachersEveryone/
Documents/ArkansasVSMG.pdf.
70 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) requires the State of
Arkansas to consider emission reductions from
ongoing pollution control programs in the
development of its long-term strategy.
71 See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). Arkansas
anticipated that reductions in SO2 emissions from
the State’s coal-fired EGUs would occur as a result
of the MATS rule. This rule allowed for the
installation of pollution control equipment to meet
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUUU—National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. At the time
the progress report was submitted, Flint Creek
planned to install a particular type of dry scrubber
that controls SO2 and other acid gases called Novel
Integrated Deacidification (NID) technology and
Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) to comply with
MATS. Since that time, Flint Creek did install the
NID system on boiler unit 1. Because the scrubber
system also meets the qualifications as being a
BART control, the State is complying with the more
stringent SO2 BART requirements included in the
FIP and is meeting both rules using the same
controls. The SO2 BART emission rate, therefore,
was set at 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on the installation
and operation of the NID technology.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72 EPA’s Tier 2 fleet averaging program for onroad vehicles, modeled after the California LEV
(Low Emissions Vehicle) II standards, became
effective in the 2005 model year. The mix of
vehicles a manufacturer sells each year must have
average NOX emissions below a specified value.
73 The Heavy-Duty Highway Rule was adopted on
January 18, 2001, by EPA with the objective of
reducing emissions from diesel engines by setting
a PM emission standard for new heavy-duty
engines, which took effect with the 2007 model
year. The rule also required reduction of sulfur in
diesel fuel to facilitate the use of modern pollution
control technology on these engines.
74 These rules were initially effective in 2004 and
were fully phased in by 2012. The non-road diesel
rule set standards that reduced emissions by more
than 90 percent from non-road diesel equipment
and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur
levels by 99 percent from previous levels. The
reduction in fuel sulfur levels applied to most nonroad diesel fuel in 2010 and applied to fuel used
in locomotives and marine vessels in 2012.
75 The Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule resulted in
better PM control from diesel engines. The EPA
regulations required that at least 80 percent of
highway diesel fuel in the United States be ULSD,
and by 2010, all highway diesel fuel became ULSD.
The EPA also required a major reduction in the
sulfur content of diesel fuel intended for use in
locomotive, marine, and non-road engines and
equipment including construction, agricultural,
industrial, and airport equipment.
76 The MACT standards are part of the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), provided under 40 CFR part 63. See 76
FR 64186, 64198 and 70 FR 39162. CENRAP
modeling demonstrated that VOCs from
anthropogenic sources are not significant visibilityimpairing pollutants at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
C. Emission Reductions From
Implementation of Measures
The State presented emission data in
its progress report that provided a
summary of the emission trends and
reductions achieved in the state through
the implementation of the measures in
the SIP. The State identified ammonium
sulfate, particulate organic matter, and
nitrate as the three largest pollutant
contributors to visibility impairment
caused by regional haze at Arkansas’
Class I areas for the first implementation
period.77 The progress report indicated
that the primary cause of ammonium
sulfate, the most significant haze
contributor in Arkansas, is SO2
precursor emissions. In 2011, point
sources contributed to 90 percent of the
overall SO2 emissions in Arkansas with
EGUs responsible for 78 percent of the
total SO2 emissions.78 For this reason,
the State focused on reporting emission
reductions from EGU point sources in
the progress report as an effective
method of improving visibility in
Arkansas.
The State reported EGU point source
emission data from Arkansas for NOX
and SO2 for the 2000 to 2011 timeperiod.79 There were not any emission
reductions from subject-to-BART
sources in Arkansas due to
implementation of BART limits when
the progress report was submitted.
Nevertheless, the overall EGU emissions
trended downward from the baseline for
NOX, with a slight uptick in 2011 for
SO2 emissions. Arkansas noted that as
of 2011, EGU emissions increased by
2,885 tpy for SO2 and decreased by
3,741 tpy for NOX from the 2002
baseline. During the 2002 to 2011 timespan, on a heat input basis, both NOX
and SO2 EGU emission rates (lb/
MMBtu) decreased. This indicates that
the overall average control efficiencies
improved and the slight SO2 emissions
uptick was a result of increased EGU
activity.80
Table 3 below, provided by the EPA
to complement the State’s report,
compares more recent emission trends
going past 2011.81 It compares the 2002
to 2011 annual EGU emission trends
provided by the State in the progress
report to more recent annual EGU
emission data provided by the EPA from
2012 to 2017.82 Table 3 shows that NOX
and SO2 EGU point source emissions
have decreased during the 2011 to 2017
time-period. Comparing 2011 emissions
to the 2018 projected emissions
developed for the 2008 SIP, the State
11705
projected annual SO2 emissions to
increase by an additional 125 tpy and
annual NOX emissions to decrease by an
additional 10,167 tpy in 2018 from 2011
observed emissions.83 The more recent
emission data, however, shows a large
decrease in SO2 emissions from EGUs.
Specifically, from 2014 to 2015, there
was a 30,354 tpy decrease in SO2
emissions and a 14,783 tpy decrease in
NOX emissions. This corresponds to a
decline in EGU activity as noted by the
decrease in heat input in 2015. EGU
activity has since increased from 2015
to 2017, but the emissions remain well
below 2014 emission levels. Overall,
from the 2002 to 2017, SO2 emissions
from EGUs have reduced by 22,969 tpy
(increased 2,885 tpy from 2002 to 2011,
then decreased 25,854 tpy from 2011 to
2017) and NOX emissions have reduced
by 14,579 tpy (decreased 3,741 tpy from
2002 to 2011, then decreased an
additional 10,838 tpy from 2011 to
2017). The State’s progress report
mentioned that further significant
emission reductions would be realized
from a final permit that was issued on
August 25, 2013, at Flint Creek for the
installation and operation of control
equipment to significantly reduce SO2
emissions.84
TABLE 3—ANNUAL NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM EGU POINT SOURCES IN ARKANSAS
NOX
(tpy)
Year
2002 .........................................................................
2005 .........................................................................
2008 .........................................................................
2011 .........................................................................
2012 * .......................................................................
2013 * .......................................................................
2014 * .......................................................................
2015 * .......................................................................
2016 * .......................................................................
2017 * .......................................................................
SO2
(tpy)
42,079
35,333
37,800
38,338
34,847
37,148
38,396
23,613
26,892
27,500
Heat input
(MMBtu)
70,738
66,190
73,289
73,623
76,326
73,578
75,898
45,544
46,573
47,769
NOX emission rate
(lb/MMBtu)
SO2 emission rate
(lb/MMBtu)
0.278
0.231
0.223
0.186
0.158
0.174
0.187
0.140
0.141
0.140
0.467
0.433
0.432
0.358
0.347
0.344
0.370
0.270
0.243
0.244
303,031,688
305,909,694
339,622,527
411,725,177
440,336,753
427,915,347
410,742,039
337,259,867
382,621,452
391,814,298
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS Gateway database.
Table 4, provided by the EPA,
compares National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) data for total point sources from
2002 to 2014. This complements the
categorized NEI point source data (EGU
and non-EGU) inventoried by the State
in the progress report from 2002 to
2011. It also provides reported
emissions data from more current NEI
versions than available when the
progress report was submitted in 2015.85
Table 4 shows that fine particle and
coarse mass PM emission reductions are
considerably lower than their NEI 2002
totals when compared to more recent
NEI data.86 PM10 point source emissions
decreased by 6,427 tpy (39%) and PM2.5
point source emissions decreased by
77 See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional
haze progress report (page 17). The percent
contributions (2007–2011) of the major haze
pollutant contributors for Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo are as follows: (65% and 56%) sulfate, (11%
and 16%) nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate
organic matter, 10% attributed to both sites for
coarse mass, EC, and soil.
78 See the Arkansas progress report (page 18).
79 See Table 3.1 in the Arkansas progress report
(page 35).
80 See Figure 3.2 in the Arkansas progress report
(page 38).
81 Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division
www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
82 Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division
www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
83 See Page 37 of the progress report.
84 See ADEQ Air Permit No. 027–AOP–R6 (AFIN
04–00107). This permit allowed for the installation
of pollution control equipment under the MATS
rule with an SO2 emission limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu,
and a compliance date of April 16, 2016. Since the
issuance of that permit, ADEQ has submitted the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision,
which establishes an SO2 BART emission limit of
0.06 lb/MMBtu, achievable by the equipment
installed to meet MATS. The SIP revision requires
compliance with the 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission
limit by ‘‘the effective date of the Administrative
Order,’’ which requires compliance by August 7,
2018.
85 The State noted that NEI emissions data for
2011 in the progress report was obtained from 2011
NEI version 1.
86 As reported in the online EPA Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for point
sources only.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11706
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
5,600 tpy (49%) for the 2002 to 2014
period. NOX emissions stayed relatively
steady at 71,000 tpy and SO2 emissions
decreased slightly by 4.6 percent for the
2002 to 2014 period. Although the
reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions
are not especially pronounced for that
time-period, the total point source
emission trends are consistent with
what is shown in Table 3 for EGU point
sources from 2002 to 2014. We
anticipate that the total NEI point source
data going forward after 2014 will
reflect the substantial decreases in PM,
SO2, and NOX emissions as already
displayed in the EGU point source
reductions reported by CAMD data in
Table 3.
TABLE 4—NEI TOTAL POINT SOURCE EMISSION DATA FOR ARKANSAS FOR 2002–2014
NOX
(tpy)
Year
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
70,726
59,431
75,045
71,402
71,588
In addition to the above reductions,
there will also be some additional future
reductions due to more stringent CSAPR
allocations and BART requirements
implemented from the recent Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
The CSAPR update revised the O3
season NOX budget for Arkansas units
from 15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048
tons NOX (10,132 tons NOX allocated to
existing EGUs) in 2017 with a further
reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018
and beyond. The 2017 actual O3 season
EGU emissions for Arkansas totaled
12,811 tons NOX. Some EGUs chose to
install combustion controls to comply
with CSAPR that would reduce
emissions year-round, not just in the O3
season. This includes the installation of
low NOX burners at the White Bluff and
Independence facilities. The 2018 actual
O3 season EGU emissions for Arkansas
totaled 10,952 tons NOX.87
The State noted that, along with the
replacement of CAIR with CSAPR, there
have been many changes to the ongoing
air pollution programs since EPA’s
partial approval of Arkansas’ regional
haze SIP in 2012. These changes
included more stringent emission
standards, renewable fuel standards,
fuel efficiency standards, marine and
aircraft standards, mercury and air
toxics standards, and various national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollution. Arkansas noted that these
more recent air pollution programs are
anticipated to result in even greater
emission reductions that could result in
further visibility improvement than the
programs in place at the time the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP revision
was submitted to the EPA.
Lastly, recent and planned
retirements of various plants may result
in further visibility improvement at
Arkansas Class I areas. In the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision,
ADEQ noted the planned retirement of
Lake Catherine by the end of 2028 and
Entergy’s plans to cease coal
combustion at the Independence facility
by the end of 2030. ADEQ also noted
that there have been recent changes in
operations at large point sources that
have historically impacted Arkansas
Class I areas, including the recent
retirement of the Big Brown Plant,
Sandow Plant, Monticello Plant, and the
Deely Plant in Texas. The coal-fired
units at the Tennessee Valley Authority
Allen Plant, located in Memphis,
Tennessee, were also scheduled to retire
by June 2018 and be replaced with
natural gas generators.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the State has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding a summary of
emission reductions achieved for
visibility impairing pollutants. Overall,
the State demonstrated the emission
reductions achieved for the major
contributing visibility impairing
pollutants in the State for the first
implementation period. Emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM, the main
contributors to regional haze in Class I
areas potentially affected by emissions
from Arkansas, have all been
decreasing. As demonstrated by the
more recent available data, the SO2 and
NOX haze pollutant precursors from
EGU point sources in the state have
decreased from the baseline levels in
2002, especially since 2015. Also, the
trend for fine particles and coarse mass
87 Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division
www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
88 The most and least impaired days in the
regional haze rule refers to the average visibility
impairment (measured in dv) for the twenty percent
of monitored days in a calendar year with the
highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment,
respectively, averaged over a five-year period (see
40 CFR 51.301). In this report, when we refer to
‘‘best days’’ we mean ‘‘least impaired’’ and when
we refer to ‘‘worst days’’ we mean ‘‘most impaired.’’
89 See Figures 4.1 to 4.2 and Tables 4.1 to 4.2 of
the progress report (pages 41–43).
90 Progress reports for the first implementation
period used specific terms to describe time-periods.
‘‘Baseline visibility conditions’’ refers to conditions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SO2
(tpy)
89,870
75,483
87,308
84,922
85,714
PM10
(tpy)
16,318
8,532
11,060
10,451
9,891
PM2.5
(tpy)
11,536
6,105
7,671
6,782
5,936
emissions, pollutants that directly create
haze, have been decreasing since 2002.
Overall visibility conditions are
improving as a result of these reductions
together with decreases from outside of
the state. With the implementation of
the new BART controls and more
stringent NOX allocations under CSAPR,
further emission reductions should be
realized and visibility impairment at
affected Class I areas should continue to
improve.
D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
Arkansas included in its progress
report the annual average visibility from
2001 to 2011 for the twenty percent best
(least impaired) and twenty percent
worst (most impaired) days at Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness
areas.88 Although visibility conditions
have varied from year-to-year, the
progress report showed that both Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo have displayed
an overall improvement in visibility
since 2001.89 Arkansas reported that
both areas showed improved visibility
from the 2000 to 2004 baseline during
the worst days for the most current
period (2007 to 2011) and for the period
previous to the most current (2005 to
2009) available at the time of the
progress report’s development.90 Both
class I areas similarly are showing
improvement from the baseline on the
twenty percent best days and satisfy the
goal of no visibility degradation for the
first implementation period. Table 5
shows that the visibilities at Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo during the
2007 to 2011 period were 0.96 dv and
0.67 dv below the baseline for the
twenty percent best days.
during the 2000 to 2004 time-period. ‘‘Current
visibility conditions’’ refers to the most recent fiveyear average data available at the time the State
submitted its progress report for public review.
‘‘Past five years’’ refers to the five-year average
previous to the five years used for ‘‘current visibility
conditions.’’
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11707
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—VISIBILITY AT ARKANSAS CLASS I AREAS FOR THE TWENTY PERCENT BEST DAYS
[Five-Year Average]
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
Class I area
Caney Creek Wilderness ..................................................................................................................
Upper Buffalo Wilderness .................................................................................................................
(2005–2009)
(2007–2011)
(dv)
(dv)
11.39
11.71
11.06
11.85
10.43
11.04
Most recent
minus baseline
(dv)
¥0.96
¥0.67
* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline.
In the State’s August 8, 2018
submittal (Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP), the State’s 2018 RPGs from
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP for
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were
revised downward to 22.47 dv and
22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst
days.91 These revised RPGs are more
stringent than what was established in
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
and account for the controls required in
the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP submittal.92 We proposed to agree
with the State’s newly revised 2018
RPGs for the twenty percent worst days
in our November 30, 2018 proposed
approval action.93 The Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
submittal did not revise the RPG for the
twenty percent best days that was
included in the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP.
Table 6 provides more recent
monitored visibility data presented by
the State in the August 8, 2018 SIP
revision for the twenty percent worst
days at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness areas.94 The observed values
exhibit a consistent downward trend in
the observations. When comparing the
revised 2018 RPGs with the observed
five-year visibility trends, Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo are already realizing
more visibility improvement than
needed to meet the revised 2018 RPGs.
Most recently, the visibility conditions
at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
during the 2012 to 2016 period were
1.83 dv and 1.95 dv below the 2018
revised RPGs.
TABLE 6—VISIBILITY AT ARKANSAS CLASS I AREAS FOR THE TWENTY PERCENT WORST DAYS
[Five-Year Average]
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
Class I area
Caney Creek Wilderness ..........................................................
Upper Buffalo Wilderness .........................................................
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the State has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) with respect to visibility
conditions at Arkansas’ Class I areas.
The State provided five-year average
baseline visibility conditions from 2000
to 2004, the five-year average visibility
conditions from 2007 to 2011, and the
five-year average visibility conditions
for 2005 to 2009. The State calculated
the change in visibility between the
baseline average and the most recent
five-year average available (2007 to
2011). The results were tabulated for the
twenty percent worst and best days and
then compared to the 2018 RPGs to
determine the amount of visibility
improvement achieved. Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas
have both demonstrated improved
visibility for the most impaired and
91 See spreadsheet, sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx,
provided at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/
planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
92 See page 54 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO
2
and PM SIP revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
(2005–2009)
(2007–2011)
(2009–2013)
(2012–2016)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
(dv)
26.36
26.27
25.33
25.86
23.00
24.15
least impaired days since 2001. Based
on the five-year rolling averages, both
wilderness areas have already exceeded
the amount of visibility improvement
needed to meet the more stringent
revised 2018 RPGs for the twenty
percent worst days. Analysis of the
visibility data from Caney Creek and
Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas also
shows that the goal of no visibility
degradation on the twenty percent best
days has been achieved.
E. Emission Tracking
In its progress report, ADEQ
presented categorized NEI emission
inventories for 2002, 2005, 2008, and
2011, as well as CENRAP projected
inventories for 2018. The pollutants
inventoried included SO2, NOX, NH3,
VOC, PM2.5, and PM10. The inventories
were categorized for all major visibilityimpairing pollutants under major
93 See the EPA’s proposed approval on November
30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
94 See spreadsheet, visibility-progress.xlsx,
provided at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/
planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22.22
22.15
2018
Revised RPGs
(dv)
20.64
20.56
22.47
22.51
anthropogenic source groupings. The
anthropogenic source categorization
included point and non-point EGUs; on
and non-road mobile sources; area
sources; fugitive and road dust; fire, and
agricultural/biogenic sources. The 2008
and 2011 NEI inventories were the most
recent comprehensive inventories of
updated actual emissions available at
the time the State prepared its progress
report. The State, therefore, emphasized
those NEI inventories in the progress
report and then compared the
categorized inventory changes from
2011 to the 2002 baseline emissions.95
A summary of the total state NEI
emissions from the progress report can
be seen below in Table 7 along with
more recent complementary data from
2014 provided by the EPA to show
emission trends going past 2011.
95 See Table 5.1 (page 46–47) of the progress
report.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11708
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE NEI EMISSIONS
[tpy]
Year
NOX
SO2
2002 .........................................................
2005 .........................................................
2008 .........................................................
2011 .........................................................
2014 * .......................................................
126,707
126,707
94,113
95,123
91,033
NH3
239,487
239,487
247,734
260,737
212,638
VOC
124,297
134,156
131,710
132,940
76,114
PM2.5
228,032
312,648
1,427,040
1,643,979
1,625,837
PM10
62,505
108,362
124,829
144,191
119,957
243,372
296,149
443,213
467,527
369,682
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS gateway database.
The NEI emissions increased from
2002 to 2011 except for SO2 emissions.
The State explained in the progress
report that the total SO2 emissions
decreased as a result of phasing in low
sulfur (500 ppm) Ultra-Low Sulfur
Diesel fuels for nonroad, locomotive,
and marine engines beginning in 2007.
The emission increase for the remaining
pollutants in table 7 was due to an
emission rise in 2011 that happened
across the board. Fires were the primary
cause of the emission increase for SO2,
PM2.5, PM10, and NH3, but road dust also
impacted PM during that time. Area
sources were the chief contributor to
NOX increases and agricultural sources
contributed the most to VOC emission
increases in 2011.96 The State believes
that much of the increases for NOX,
PM10, and PM2.5 may have been due to
the use of newer modeling
methodologies that were not available
when the baseline projections were
developed in 2002.97 The State also
observed that NOX and PM2.5 emissions
trended downward in the point EGU
category between 2002 and 2011.98
The updated 2014 NEI data in table 7
shows that the total state emissions
decreased from 2011 for all of the
visibility impairing pollutants except
VOCs, which slightly increased.99 The
source categories in table 8 below
(provided by the EPA) are the driving
factors causing the total NEI emission
decreases from 2011 to 2014.100 When
comparing the individual categories,
agricultural/biogenic and area source
emissions account for the majority of
emission increases from 2011 to 2014
with small increases also resulting from
fugitive dust and point sources. Those
increases are offset, though, by large
reductions in the rest of the categories,
resulting in overall net decreases of all
pollutant emissions. Although fire
emissions had a big impact on visibility
impairing pollutants in 2011, there was
a major improvement in 2014 indicated
by reductions of all pollutants except
NH3, especially PM and VOC emissions.
PM10, PM2.5, and VOC emissions from
fire showed large reductions of 26,678
tpy, 22,058 tpy, and 49,182 tpy
respectively. Likewise, road dust
previously impacted PM levels in 2011
but showed substantial reductions of
105,187 tpy PM10 and 11,448 tpy PM2.5
in 2014. Point sources had increases of
NOX, SO2, NH3, and VOC emissions but
they netted out due to overall net
decreases from the other source
categories. Lastly, mobile emissions
reduced for every pollutant except a
small inconsequential non-road mobile
increase for NH3. NOX and VOC
exhibited the most mobile emission
reductions of 15,124 tpy NOX and 8,397
tpy VOC.
TABLE 8—2014 EMISSION DATA (tpy) AND THE CATEGORY CHANGES SINCE 2011 FOR ARKANSAS
Category
NOX
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
NH3
VOC
Agricultural/Biogenic ..............
Area 101 ..................................
Fires .......................................
Fugitive Dust .........................
Road Dust .............................
Non-road Mobile ....................
On-road Mobile ......................
Point Sources ........................
18,588 (¥6,744) ..
15,472 (¥14,701)
8,743 (¥5,897) ....
0 ...........................
0 ...........................
18,819 (¥3,337) ..
79,428 (¥11,787)
71,588 (+186) .......
0 ...........................
321 (¥1,684) .......
4,624 (¥2,946) ....
0 ...........................
0 ...........................
41 (¥16) ..............
333 (¥27) ............
85,714 (+792) .......
153,477 (+17,805) ...
26,423 (+15,513) .....
59,755 (¥26,678) ...
17,143 (+1,953) .......
97,066 (¥105,187)
1,926 (¥391) ..........
4,001 (¥970) ..........
9,891 (¥560) ..........
30,009 (+2,875) ....
16,455 (+8,428) ....
50,198 (¥22,058)
1,714 (+195) .........
11,373 (¥11,448)
1,835 (¥376) .......
2,436 (¥545) .......
5,936 (¥846) .......
58,981 (¥58,976)
905 (+479) ............
13,094 (+824) .......
0 ...........................
0 ...........................
28 (+1) ..................
1,235 (¥72) .........
1,871 (+610) .........
1,342,516 (¥119,084)
69,117 (¥10,484)
133,197 (¥49,182)
0
0
23,204 (¥6,161)
33,171 (¥2,236)
24,632 (+1,821)
Total Emission Change ..
¥42,279 ...............
¥3,881 .................
¥98,515 ..................
¥23,775 ...............
¥57,134 ...............
¥185,326
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
* The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (¥) in emissions from 2011.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the State has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g). The State tracked changes in
emissions by category across the entire
emission inventory and the results show
that the emissions from SO2, NOX, and
PM, the main contributors of regional
haze in Arkansas, have all decreased
since the 2008 SIP submittal. The
96 See Table 5.1 of the progress report (page 46
to 47).
97 See page 47 of progress report. Emission
changes were seen in the on-road mobile source
inventory between 2008 and 2011 as a result of the
transition from EPA’s MOBILE6 model to the Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model for
estimation of emissions. Increases in on-road
mobile source PM10 and PM2.5 emissions have been
documented as part of the new model’s estimation
methodology. The transition to MOVES model
estimation methodology also resulted in increased
NOX emissions for on-road mobile sources.
Modeling figures for fires also accounted for a major
portion of the estimated emission increase for PM2.5
from 2008 to 2011.
98 See Table 5.4 of the progress report (Page 51).
99 See 70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase
since 2008, but CENRAP modeling demonstrated
that VOCs are not significant contributors to
visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
100 As reported in the online EPA Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
analysis provides the most recent period
for which data was available in practical
terms (2008 to 2011) from when the
State submitted its regional haze SIP.102
The EPA provided an additional update
101 See
Page 45 of the progress report.
ideally the five-year period to be
analyzed for emission inventory changes is the
time-period since the current regional haze SIP was
submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in
developing and reporting complete emissions
inventories once quality-assured emissions data
becomes available. Therefore, there is some
flexibility in the five-year time-period that states
can select.
102 While
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
with 2014 NEI data to complement the
State’s report. These data indicate that
overall emissions of all visibility
impairing pollutants have reduced from
2011 to 2014. SO2, NOX, and PM
emissions have continued to show a
downward trend since the 2008
submittal.103 As discussed in section
II.C. in this proposed rulemaking, more
recent available data shows that SO2
and NOX emissions from EGU point
sources in the state have decreased from
the baseline levels in 2002, especially
since 2015. The EPA concludes that the
State presented an adequate analysis
tracking emission trends for the key
visibility impairing pollutants across
Arkansas.
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
The State indicated in the progress
report 104 that there were no significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions that
limited or impeded progress in reducing
pollutant emissions and improving
visibility as contemplated by the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The State’s
Class I areas showed overall downward
trends in visibility impairment. The
State’s current analysis of emission
reductions and categorized inventories
presented in the progress report, along
with more recent emission data
evaluated by the EPA in this action (see
sections II.C and II.E), show that no
significant changes in emissions within
the state are occurring to impede
visibility improvement or adversely
affecting the two Class I areas in
Arkansas. There are also no significant
emission changes from sources outside
of Arkansas that are adversely affecting
Arkansas’ Class I areas. Through
consultation with adjacent states, it was
determined and agreed upon that
additional emission reductions from
other states are not necessary to address
visibility impairment at Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas for
the first implementation period.105 The
participating states also determined
before the 2008 SIP submittal through
regional modeling that Missouri’s Class
I areas were expected to be on course to
meet their respective 2018 RPGs. The
current data confirms the projected
trend and shows that all Class I areas
within and outside the state impacted
by Arkansas emissions are now
currently meeting their RPGs for the
first implementation period as
103 See
70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase
since 2008, but CENRAP modeling demonstrated
that VOCs are not significant contributors to
visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
104 See Page 54 of the progress report.
105 See 76 FR 64196.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
discussed in section II.G of this action.
No significant changes in emissions
have limited or impeded progress in
improving visibility. The EPA proposes
to conclude that the State has
adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding assessing any changes that
could impede visibility progress.
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To
Meet RPGs
In its progress report, the State
assessed the strategies in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP based upon
projected emissions and modeling
results. The State determined that the
strategies were sufficient to enable
Arkansas and other states with Class I
areas affected by emissions from
Arkansas to meet all established RPGs.
The evaluation set forth by the State in
the progress report for the Class I areas
in Arkansas was based on the RPGs
established in the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP that were
disapproved in the 2012 action.
As part of the 2018 Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision,
Arkansas reevaluated its RPGs and longterm strategy. The 2008 SIP RPGs for the
twenty percent worst days were recently
replaced by the State with new revised
RPGs 106 defined in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision.107 The 2018 RPGs for Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo were revised
slightly downward from the 2008 SIP
RPGs to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the
twenty percent worst days. The revised
2018 RPGs were estimated based on
scaling Arkansas SO42 and NO3
point source impacts from CENRAP’s
2018 CAMx modeling results by the
change in emissions of NOx and SO2
due to revised regional haze SIP
controls required by the end of 2018.
The State made updates to reflect the
most recent three years of data (2014 to
2016) for emissions and heat inputs that
were used for Arkansas EGUs.
Currently, both Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas are achieving
greater visibility improvement than the
revised 2018 RPGs.108 Based on
available monitored data, the current
visibility trendlines are below their
respective 2018 RPGs from the baseline
conditions and visibility is continuing
to improve.
106 See the sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx spreadsheet at
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/
regional-haze.aspx.
107 See page 48 of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision.
108 See Figures 11 and 12 on pages 50 to 52 of
the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11709
Sources in Arkansas also impact
Hercules Glades and Mingo Wilderness
Class I areas in Missouri. Arkansas
stated in its progress report that the
2018 RPGs for Missouri’s Class I areas
would be met, but it did not restate
those 2018 RPGs or compare them to the
available monitored data. Recent
information for these areas, however,
complements the State’s analysis and
shows that Missouri is indeed currently
on track to achieve its 2018 RPGs for
Hercules Glades and Mingo
Wilderness.109 The 2012 to 2016 fiveyear rolling average of observed
visibility impairment for the twenty
percent haziest days at Hercules Glades
Wilderness Area is 20.72 dv (2.34 dv
below Missouri’s 2018 RPG). The 2012
to 2016 five year-rolling average of
observed visibility impairment for the
twenty percent haziest days at Mingo
Wilderness Area is 22.34 dv (1.37 dv
below Missouri’s 2018 RPG goal).
Arkansas concluded that the visibility
improvement observed at the IMPROVE
monitors indicates that sources in
Arkansas are not interfering with the
achievement of Missouri’s 2018 RPGs
for Hercules Glades and Mingo
Wilderness Areas. Therefore, we are
proposing to find that Arkansas’
implementation plan is sufficient to
ensure that other states’ visibility RPGs
for the first planning period for their
respective Class I areas are being met.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the State has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) to assess the current strategy
to meet RPGs. The State has assessed
the implementation plan in place at the
time the progress report was submitted,
and we find that the implementation
plan as it currently exists is sufficient to
enable the state of Arkansas and other
nearby states to meet their RPGs. The
realized and planned controls and
reductions that form the current strategy
for this first implementation period are
sufficient to meet the revised RPGs as
established in the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Both
Class I areas in Arkansas are currently
meeting the revised 2018 RPGs for the
twenty percent worst days. Visibility
data from Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas also show that
the goal of no visibility degradation for
the twenty percent best days is being
achieved. Missouri’s two Class I areas
are also on track to achieve their
visibility reduction goals.
109 See Visibility Progress_Update_2016.xlsx in
the docket of this action.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11710
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring
Strategy
I. Determination of Adequacy of
Existing Implementation Plan
The monitoring strategy for regional
haze in Arkansas relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE 110
network, which is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze
nationwide. The IMPROVE network
provides a long-term record for tracking
visibility improvement or degradation.
Arkansas currently relies on data
collected through the IMPROVE
network to satisfy the regional haze
monitoring requirement as specified in
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional
Haze Rule.
In its progress report, Arkansas
summarized the existing IMPROVE
monitoring network and its intended
continued reliance on IMPROVE for
visibility planning. In Arkansas, there
are two IMPROVE sites. The first
IMPROVE site is located in Polk County
at the Ouachita National Forest and
represents the 14,460 acres of the Caney
Creek Wilderness. The second
IMPROVE site is located in Newton
County at the Ozark National Forest and
represents the 11,801 acres of the Upper
Buffalo Wilderness area, including the
original Wilderness and the additions to
it.111 Arkansas is committed to meeting
the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(iv), and reports annually to
the EPA visibility data for each of
Arkansas’ Class I areas. For the progress
report, Arkansas has evaluated its
monitoring network and found that
there have not been any changes from
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
network. Arkansas reaffirmed its
continued reliance upon the IMPROVE
monitoring network. Arkansas also
explained the importance of the
IMPROVE monitoring network for
tracking visibility trends at its Class I
areas and identified no expected
changes in this network. The EPA
proposes to conclude that the State has
adequately addressed the applicable
provision under 40 CFR 51.308 for a
visibility monitoring strategy.
Arkansas noted that it was committed
to correcting the portions of the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were
disapproved by the EPA and provided a
negative declaration stating that no
additional controls were necessary
during the first implementation
period.112 Since the progress report’s
submission in 2015, the EPA
promulgated a FIP and the State
subsequently submitted two SIP
revisions to fulfill its commitment to
address the disapproved portions
identified in the 2012 action (the 2017
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision and the 2018 Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision).113 When considering the new
SIP requirements; the SIP requirements
that we proposed for approval; the
remaining FIP elements; the visibility
and emission information provided in
the progress report; and the more recent
data evaluated by the EPA; it is clear
that the implementation plan is
adequate to meet its emission
reductions and visibility goals for the
first implementation period. Current
visibility conditions in Arkansas have
improved beyond the more stringent
2018 RPGs that were introduced in the
2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision. Visibility has also
improved at both Missouri Class I areas
affected by Arkansas sources. Lastly, the
updated emission trends show that SO2,
NOX, and PM emissions (the main
contributors to regional haze in
Arkansas) have all been decreasing. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,114 the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision (if EPA’s
proposed approval is finalized),115 and
the remaining part of the FIP that
addresses the BART and associated
long-term strategy requirements for
Domtar together fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP. Because the SIP and
FIP will ensure the control of SO2 and
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
110 See
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Data from
IMPROVE show that visibility impairment caused
by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most
national parks and wilderness areas. The average
visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national
parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in
the western United States is 100–150 km, or about
one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would
exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most
of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the
average visual range is less than 30 km, or about
one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions.
111 See Table 8.1 in the progress report (page 63).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
112 Specifically, the EPA disapproved certain
BART compliance dates; the State’s identification of
certain BART-eligible sources and subject-to-BART
sources; certain BART determinations for NOX, SO2,
and PM; the reasonable progress analysis and RPGs;
and a portion of the long-term strategy. The
remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP were approved.
113 See final action approved on February 12,
2018 for the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision (83 FR 5927) and the EPA’s proposed
approval on November 30, 2018 for the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (83 FR
62204).
114 Final action approved on February 12, 2018
(83 FR 5927).
115 Proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83
FR 62204).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX emission reductions relied upon by
Arkansas and other states in setting
their RPGs, the EPA is proposing to
approve Arkansas’ finding that there is
no need for revision of the existing
implementation plan to achieve the
RPGs for the Class I areas in Arkansas
and in nearby states impacted by
Arkansas sources. We, therefore,
propose to approve Arkansas’ negative
declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that
no additional controls are needed.
J. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
The Regional Haze Rule requires the
State to provide the designated Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) with an
opportunity for in-person consultation
at least sixty days prior to holding any
public hearings on a SIP revision for the
first implementation period. Arkansas
invited the FLMs to comment on its
draft progress report on April 25, 2014,
for a sixty-day comment period ending
June 24, 2014, that was extended until
June 27, 2014, per FLM request. The
FLM’s comments and Arkansas’
responses are presented in Appendix A
of the progress report. ADEQ also
engaged in multiple conference calls
arranged by CenSARA for the central
states with the designated FLMs which
took place on February 27, 2012, April
30, 2013, July 30, 2013, August 13,
2013, and September 12, 2013. The EPA
proposes to conclude that Arkansas has
adequately addressed the applicable
FLM provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i).
III. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
State of Arkansas’ regional haze fiveyear progress report SIP revision
(submitted June 2, 2015) as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA
is also proposing to approve the State of
Arkansas’ determination of adequacy
under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no
additional controls are needed. Lastly,
the EPA is proposing to find that the
State of Arkansas fulfilled its
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)
regarding state coordination with FLMs.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).In
addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–05861 Filed 3–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0619; FRL–9990–53–
Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Regional
Haze Five-Year Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Governor through the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) on September 28, 2016.
The SIP revision addresses requirements
of federal regulations that direct the
State to submit a periodic report
describing progress toward reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2016–0619, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
steib.clovis@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit any information electronically
that is considered Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or any other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include all
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11711
other file sharing systems). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Bill Deese, 214–665–7253,
deese.william@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clovis Steib, (214) 665–7566,
steib.clovis@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Bill Deese at 214–
665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ each mean the
EPA.
I. Background
A. Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA
Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the
nation’s national parks and wilderness
areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas where impairment results
from manmade air pollution.1 Congress
added section 169B to the CAA in 1990
that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA promulgated
final regulations addressing regional
haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze
Rule, which was most recently updated
1 Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was
identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although
states and tribes may designate additional areas as
Class I, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in
this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and
CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11697-11711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05861]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0426; FRL-9990-62-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor through the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on June 2, 2015.
The SIP submittal addresses requirements of the federal regulations
that direct the State to submit a periodic report that assesses
progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze with a determination of adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-
0426, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment with multimedia
submissions and should include all discussion points desired. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or their contents located outside
of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file
sharing systems). For additional submission methods, please contact
James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745, [email protected]. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, (214) 665-6745;
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' each mean ``the EPA.''
Table of Contents:
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
B. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze
C. Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision
II. Evaluation of Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP
Revision
A. Class I Areas
B. Status of Implementation of Measures
1. BART Controls
2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
3. CAIR and CSAPR
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management
6. Additional Federal Programs
7. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
C. Emission Reductions From Implementation of Measures
D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
E. Emission Tracking
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan
J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
III. The EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
Regional haze is visibility impairment that occurs over a wide
geographic area primarily from the pollution of fine particles
(PM2.5) emitted into the air.\1\ Fine particles causing haze
consist of sulfates (SO4\2\ -), nitrates
(NO3-), organics, elemental carbon (EC), and soil
dust.\2\ Airborne PM2.5 can scatter
[[Page 11698]]
and absorb the incident light and, therefore, lead to atmospheric
opacity and horizontal visibility degradation. Regional haze limits
visual distance and reduces color, clarity, and contrast of view.
PM2.5 can cause serious adverse health effects and mortality
in humans. It also contributes to environmental effects such as acid
deposition and eutrophication. Emissions that affect visibility include
a wide variety of natural and man-made sources. Reducing
PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is an
effective method of improving visibility. PM2.5 precursors
consist of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 microns
([micro]m) in diameter and usually form secondary in nature
indirectly from other sources. Particles less than or equal to 10
[micro]m in diameter are referred to as PM10. Particles
greater than PM2.5 but less than PM10 are
referred to as coarse mass. Coarse mass can contribute to light
extinction as well and is made up of primary particles directly
emitted into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, while
coarse particles tend to have a natural origin. Coarse mass settles
out from the air more rapidly than fine particles and usually will
be found relatively close to emission sources. Fine particles can be
transported long distances by wind and can be found in the air
thousands of miles from where they were formed.
\2\ Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as particles or
formed through reactions involving gaseous emissions. Elemental
carbon, in contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary
origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion of carbon-based
fuels. Elemental carbon particles are especially prevalent in diesel
exhaust and smoke from wild and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, ``Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE), shows that
visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all of
the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the
average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks
and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting
certain size criteria) in the western United States was 100-150
kilometers (km), or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist under estimated natural conditions.\4\ In most of the
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range
was less than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced
emissions of some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility
impairment and resulting in partially improved average visual
ranges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or miles, at
which a dark object can be viewed against the sky by a typical
observer.
\4\ 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
\5\ An interactive ``story map'' depicting efforts and recent
progress by EPA and states to improve visibility at national parks
and wilderness areas may be visited at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas where
impairment results from manmade air pollution.\6\ Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA promulgated final regulations addressing
regional haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, which was most
recently updated in 2017.\7\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the
existing 1980 visibility regulations and established a more
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in the EPA's broader visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. The regional haze regulations require states to
demonstrate reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of a
return to natural visibility conditions for Class I areas both within
and outside states by 2064. The CAA requirement in section 169A(b)(2)
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all fifty states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the
first implementation plan addressing visibility impairment caused by
regional haze no later than December 17, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
\7\ See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR
35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017
(82 FR 3079).
\8\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The EPA's regional haze regulations
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use
of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls at certain
categories of existing major stationary sources \9\[thinsp]built
between 1962 and 1977. These large, often under-controlled, older
stationary sources are required to procure, install, and operate BART
controls to address visibility impacts from them. Under the Regional
Haze Rule, any of these BART-eligible sources \10\ that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class
I area are determined to be subject-to-BART.\11\ States are directed to
conduct BART determinations for each source classified as subject-to-
BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states (or EPA in the case of
a FIP) to identify the level of control representing BART after
considering the five statutory factors set out in CAA section
169A(g)(2). States must establish emission limits, a schedule of
compliance, and other measures consistent with the BART determination
process for each source subject-to-BART. In lieu of requiring source-
specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt
alternative measures, as long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress toward improving visibility than BART. Namely, the
alternative must be ``better than BART.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of ``major
stationary sources'' potentially subject-to-BART).
\10\ See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify BART-eligible
Sources.
\11\ Under the BART Guidelines, states may select a visibility
impact threshold, measured in deciviews (dv), below which a BART-
eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document
this threshold in the SIP and state the basis for its selection of
that value. Any source with visibility impacts that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. The
BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting
different Class I areas. States should consider the number of
emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any visibility impact
threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. See 40
CFR 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1.
\12\ The required content of BART alternative measures is
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze
Arkansas submitted a regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008, to
address the requirements of the first regional haze implementation
period. On August 3, 2010, the State submitted a SIP revision with
mostly non-substantive changes that addressed Arkansas Pollution
Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19 Chapter 15.\13\ On
September 27, 2011, the State submitted supplemental information to
address the regional haze requirements. The EPA collectively refers to
the original 2008 submittal and these revisions together as the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. On March 12, 2012, the EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze
SIP.\14\ Specifically, the EPA disapproved
[[Page 11699]]
certain BART compliance dates; the State's identification of certain
BART-eligible sources and subject-to-BART sources; certain BART
determinations for NOX, SO2, and PM; the State's
reasonable progress analysis and RPGs; and a portion of the State's
long-term strategy (LTS). The remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP were approved. The final partial disapproval started
a two-year federal implementation plan (FIP) clock that obligated the
EPA to either approve a SIP revision or promulgate a FIP to address the
disapproved portions of the action.\15\ Because a SIP revision was not
received and since the FIP clock expired in April 2014, the EPA
promulgated a FIP (the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) on September 27,
2016 to address the disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP.\16\ Among other things, the FIP established SO2,
NOX, and PM emission limits under the BART requirements for
nine units at six facilities: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation
(AECC) Carl E. Bailey Plant Unit 1 Boiler; AECC John L. McClellan Plant
Unit 1 Boiler; SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; Entergy Lake
Catherine Plant Unit 4 Boiler; Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2
Boilers and the Auxiliary Boiler; and the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power
Boilers No. 1 and 2. The FIP also established SO2 and
NOX emission limits under the reasonable progress
requirements for the Entergy Independence Plant Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included APCEC
Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the state regulation that
identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas
and established BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources.
The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did not revise Arkansas' list of
BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART
requirements for affected sources. Instead, it included mostly non-
substantive revisions to the state regulation.
\14\ See the final action on March 12, 2012 (77 FR 14604).
\15\ Under CAA section 110(c), EPA is required to promulgate a
FIP within 2 years of the effective date of a finding that a state
has failed to make a required SIP submission or has made an
incomplete submission, or of the date that EPA disapproves a SIP in
whole or in part. The FIP requirement is terminated only if a state
submits a SIP, and EPA approves that SIP as meeting applicable CAA
requirements before promulgating a FIP. CAA section 302(y) defines
the term ``federal implementation plan'' in pertinent part, as a
plan (or portion thereof) promulgated by EPA ``to fill all or a
portion of a gap or otherwise correct all or a portion of an
inadequacy'' in a SIP, and which includes enforceable emission
limitations or other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives, such as marketable permits or
auctions or emissions allowances).
\16\ See FIP final action (81 FR 66332) as corrected on October
4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following petitions for reconsideration \17\ submitted by the
State, industry, and ratepayers, the EPA issued a partial
administrative stay of the effectiveness of the FIP for ninety days on
April 25, 2017.\18\ During that period, on July 12, 2017, the State
submitted a proposed SIP submittal (the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision) to address NOX BART
requirements for all EGUs and the reasonable progress requirements with
respect to NOX. These NOX provisions were
previously disapproved by the EPA in our 2012 final action for the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX
SIP submittal replaced all source-specific NOX BART
determinations established in the FIP with reliance upon the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for ozone
(O3) season NOX as an alternative to
NOX BART. The SIP submittal addressed the NOX
BART requirements for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek
Boiler No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and the
Auxiliary Boiler. The revision did not address NOX BART for
Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On February 12, 2018, we
took final action to approve the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX
SIP revision and to withdraw the corresponding parts of the FIP.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the docket associated with this proposed rulemaking for
a copy of the petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay
submitted by the State of Arkansas; Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy
Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy'');
AECC; and the Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA).
\18\ 82 FR 18994.
\19\ See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the proposed
approval. See also 83 FR 5915 and 83 FR 5927 (February 12, 2018) for
the final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State submitted another SIP revision (the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision) on August 8, 2018, that
addressed most of the remaining parts of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP disapproved in 2012. The August 8, 2018 SIP submittal was
intended to replace the federal SO2 and PM BART
determinations for EGUs as well as the reasonable progress
determinations established in the FIP with the State's own
determinations. Specifically, the SIP revision addressed the applicable
SO2 and PM BART requirements for Bailey Unit 1;
SO2 and PM BART requirements for McClellan Unit 1;
SO2 BART requirements for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1;
SO2 BART requirements for White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART requirements for the White
Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; \20\ and Lake Catherine Unit 4. The submittal
addressed the reasonable progress requirements for Independence Units 1
and 2 and all other sources in Arkansas. In addition, it established
revised RPGs for Arkansas' two Class I areas and revised the State's
long-term strategy provisions. The submittal did not address BART and
associated long-term strategy requirements for Domtar Ashdown Mill
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. On November 30, 2018, we proposed approval
of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision and to
withdraw the corresponding parts of the FIP.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision established a new NOX emission limit of 32.2 pph
for the Auxiliary Boiler to satisfy NOX BART and replace
the SIP determination that we previously approved in the Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision. In the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision, ADEQ incorrectly identified the
Auxiliary Boiler as participating in the CSAPR trading program for
O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX
BART requirements but the new source specific NOX BART
emission limit corrects that error.
\21\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval.
The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision also
addressed separate CAA requirements related to interstate visibility
transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not
propose action on that part of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), each state is required to submit a progress
report that evaluates progress toward the RPGs for each Class I area
within the state and each Class I area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the state. In addition, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires states to submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of adequacy of the existing regional haze
implementation plan.\22\ The progress report for the first planning
period is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze
SIP and must take the form of a SIP revision. Arkansas submitted its
initial regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the
progress report an assessment of whether the current
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet
all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze
Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. As such,
the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those
in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the
``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2, 2015, Arkansas submitted its progress report to the EPA
in the form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308. As described in
further detail in section II of this proposed rulemaking, to address
the progress report requirements, the State provided: (1) A description
of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a
summary of emission reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of
visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state (and for two
Class I areas in Missouri); (4) an analysis tracking the changes in
emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state that have limited or
[[Page 11700]]
impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving
visibility; (6) an assessment of whether the approved regional haze SIP
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State (and other
states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the state) to meet
all established RPGs; (7) a review of the State's visibility monitoring
strategy; and (8) a determination of adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
II. Evaluation of Arkansas' Regional Haze Progress Report SIP Revision
On June 2, 2015, the EPA received Arkansas' periodic report on
progress for the State's regional haze SIP in the form of a SIP
revision. That submission is the subject of this proposed approval. The
periodic report for the first implementation period assessed visibility
progress toward the 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in the state. It also
assessed visibility progress in general for two Class I areas in
Missouri that may be affected by emissions from within the state. The
progress report asserted that Arkansas was committed to remedying the
disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP submission.
At this time, the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,\23\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision (if EPA's proposed approval is finalized),\24\ and the
remaining part of the FIP that addresses the BART and associated long-
term strategy requirements for Domtar together fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. These deficiencies
were previously identified in 2012 by the EPA and acknowledged by ADEQ
in its June 2, 2015 progress report SIP. The 2018 Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP submission provides more recent
visibility information in addition to the visibility data presented by
ADEQ in the 2015 progress report. The recent data shows visibility
improvement that is exceeding the revised visibility goals set for 2018
for the Arkansas Class I areas. Furthermore, up-to-date emission trends
indicate that SO2, NOX, and PM emissions have all
been decreasing. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve Arkansas'
progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) and (h), as explained in further detail in each
subsequent section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
\24\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR
62204). We note that in the event this proposed rule is not
finalized, there is already FIP in place which addresses the
previously identified deficiencies. Thus, regardless of whether the
EPA finalizes the proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, Arkansas will have an
implementation plan in place that fully addresses the regional haze
requirements for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Class I Areas
Arkansas has two Class I areas within its borders that are
addressed in the progress report: Upper Buffalo and Caney Creek
Wilderness areas.\25\ Visibility impairment at Arkansas' two Class I
areas was tracked in units of deciviews,\26\ which is related to the
cumulative sum of visibility impairment from individual aerosol species
as measured by two monitors in the IMPROVE Network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Upper Buffalo Wilderness area, located in Newton County,
Arkansas, is an oak-hickory forest with intermittent portions of
shortleaf pine located in the Ozark National Forest and offers
12,108 acres of boulder strewn and rugged scenery along the Buffalo
River. Caney Creek Wilderness is located in Polk County, Arkansas,
and covers 14,460 acres on the southern edge of the Ouachita
National Forest and protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita
Mountains.
\26\ A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light
extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to
uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of
conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The preamble to the
Regional Haze Rule provides additional details about the deciview
(64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through collaboration with the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP),\27\ ADEQ worked with the central states to assess
state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class
I areas in Arkansas and those affected by emissions from Arkansas. ADEQ
used CENRAP as the main vehicle for developing its regional haze SIP
for the first implementation period. The results reported by ADEQ in
the progress report compared available monitored visibility conditions
to improvements that were projected based on the technical analysis and
emission inventories that were a part of the CENRAP modeling.\28\
CENRAP generated regional photochemical modeling results, visibility
projections, and source apportionment modeling to assist in identifying
contributions to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas in Arkansas. ADEQ also indicated through CENRAP
modeling results that two Class I areas outside Arkansas' borders at
Hercules Glades and Mingo Wilderness areas in Missouri were impacted by
emissions from within Arkansas. In the ensuing sections, we discuss how
the State addressed the progress report requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h) for these Class I areas, and we show our analysis and
proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied the
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The CENRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments,
state governments and various federal agencies representing the
central states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas,
Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota; and tribal governments included
in these states) that provided technical and policy tools for the
central states and tribes to comply with the EPA's Regional Haze
regulations. Due to lack of funding, CENRAP subsequently ceased to
function and Arkansas is communicating through the Central States
Air Resource Agencies (CenSARA) with the other states that were part
of CENRAP.
\28\ See the technical support document (TSD) for CENRAP
Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State
Implementation, found in Appendix 8.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP. The TSD can be found in the docket for the proposal at
https://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is EPA-R06-OAR-2008-
0727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Status of Implementation of Measures
The State evaluated the status of implementation of all measures in
its 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP in accordance with the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g).\29\ These measures were designed to address
sulfate, particulate organic matter, and nitrate, which are the three
largest contributors \30\ to visibility impairment at Upper Buffalo and
Caney Creek Wilderness areas. Ammonium sulfate is primarily from
SO2 precursor emissions from EGU point sources; \31\ nitrate
is primarily from mobile and point sources emissions; and particulate
organic matter is from area sources, particularly emissions from
fires.\32\ The major measures identified in the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP to control
[[Page 11701]]
these pollutants and listed in the progress report are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The progress report was not required to include information
on the status of implementation of measures that became part of the
implementation plan after the submission of the progress report.
However, the EPA is including a discussion of measures from the
recent SIP submittals to complement the progress report and to
provide up-to-date information since the progress report's
submission in 2015. Concerning the aspects of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP that had been disapproved by the EPA in 2012
before the 2015 submission of the progress report, none involved new
SIP measures with compliance deadlines prior to the submission of
the progress report. Thus, our 2012 disapprovals do not necessarily
affect the progress report requirement regarding reporting on the
status of implementation of measures included in the implementation
plan.
\30\ See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional haze
progress report (pages 16-17) which shows the 2007 to 2011 five-year
averages. The percent contributions of the major haze pollutant
contributors for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are as follows: (65%
and 56%) sulfate, (11% and 16%) nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate
organic matter, 10% attributed to both sites for coarse mass, EC,
and soil.
\31\ See Figure 2.3 of the progress report that shows Percent
Contribution by Source to SO2 Emissions in Arkansas for
2011: Non-EGU point sources account for 12 percent SO2
emissions, fires account for 8 percent, and approximately one
percent SO2 emissions are made up of area and mobile
sources (on- and off-road).
\32\ See progress report SIP revision (page 16).
BART Controls
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR
Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management
Additional Federal Programs
1. BART Controls
In the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, the State determined that
there were eighteen facilities in Arkansas with BART-eligible
sources.33 34 The State chose to exempt those sources that
did not contribute to visibility impairment by performing a source-
specific screening analysis using CALPUFF modeling. After eliminating
BART-eligible sources whose modeled contributions to visibility
impairment were below the 0.5 dv threshold limit, nine boiler units
from six different facilities were found to be subject-to-BART \35\ and
are reflected in Table 2.2 of the progress report.\36\ In addition to
these subject-to-BART units determined by the State in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, the progress report also included
additional units from Georgia-Pacific Paper. As discussed in section
I.B of this proposed action, the BART portion of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP was partially approved and partially disapproved in
our 2012 final action.\37\ We approved Arkansas' identification of
BART-eligible sources from the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP with the
exception of Georgia-Pacific's 6A Boiler, which we found to be BART-
eligible, instead of being excluded as stated by the State in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The EPA also approved the State's
identification of subject-to-BART sources, with the exception of the 6A
and 9A Boilers at Georgia-Pacific, which we found to be subject-to-BART
instead of exempt.\38\ Because of this, the progress report included
Georgia-Pacific's 6A and 9A Boilers as subject-to-BART at the time of
its submittal in 2015. However, despite the EPA's previous disapproval
of ADEQ's exemption finding, following the company's recent submission
of additional technical information and analyses, the EPA ultimately
agreed that Georgia Pacific's 6A and 9A Power Boilers are BART-
eligible, but are not subject-to-BART. ADEQ provided documentation
supporting this determination in Appendix A of the 2018 Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision that the EPA proposed
for approval on November 30, 2018. Therefore, the State's most recent
identification of subject-to-BART units in the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision is the same as originally presented
in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (see Table 1):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ BART-eligible sources include certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built between August 7, 1962 and
August 7, 1977 and have potential emissions greater than 250 tons
per year (tpy). See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify BART-
eligible Sources.
\34\ See Table 9.1 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP (page
45).
\35\ See Table 9.2 and Figure 9.2 of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP (page 48).
\36\ See Arkansas Regional Haze Progress Report (page 20).
\37\ See the final action at 77 FR 14604, March 12, 2012.
\38\ See 77 FR 14606.
Table 1--Subject-to-BART Units in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Unit ID
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant............ Unit 1 Boiler.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Unit 1 Boiler.
Corporation--Bailey Generating
Station.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Unit 1 Boiler.
Corporation--John L. McClellan
Generating Station.
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant........ Unit 4 Boiler.
Entergy White Bluff Plant........... Unit 1 Boiler.
Unit 2 Boiler.
Auxiliary Boiler.
Domtar--Ashdown Mill................ No. 1 Power Boiler.
No. 2 Power Boiler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ was unable to determine at the time of the progress report's
submission when revisions to the 2012 disapproved portions of the SIP
would be submitted to the EPA. ADEQ was working then with facilities
and the EPA to develop the required five-factor analyses to address the
disapproved BART determinations. Consequently, updated BART
determinations and emission limits were not listed in the progress
report by the State because they were not yet available. The BART
determinations that were approved in 2012 were findings that the
existing limitations met the BART requirements. Therefore, as of the
submittal date of the progress report, there were not any new emission
reductions from subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas due to
implementation of BART limits more stringent than the existing limits.
Accordingly, there were no required efforts to implement new measures
on which the progress report was required to provide information. The
EPA approved the following BART determinations in 2012 for the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP: PM determination on SWEPCO Flint Creek
Plant Boiler No. 1; SO2 and PM determinations for the
natural gas firing scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4; PM
determinations for both bituminous and sub-bituminous coal firing
scenarios for Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; and PM
determination for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Tables 4 and 5 from the proposal at 40 CFR 64186,
64210-64211 (October 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the June 2015 progress report submittal, the EPA
finalized a FIP in 2016 that established new BART emission limits for
the 2012 disapproved determinations.\40\ The FIP established
SO2, NOX, and PM emission limits under the BART
requirements for nine units at six facilities: SO2,
NOX, and PM BART for AECC Bailey Plant Unit 1 and the AECC
McClellan Plant Unit 1; SO2 and NOX BART for
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; NOX BART for the
natural gas firing scenario for Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4;
\41\ SO2 and NOX BART for
[[Page 11702]]
Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; SO2,
NOX, and PM BART for Entergy White Bluff Plant Auxiliary
Boiler; SO2 and NOX BART for Domtar Ashdown Mill
Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX and PM BART for
Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 2. The FIP also established
SO2 and NOX emission limits under the reasonable
progress requirements for Entergy Independence Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See final action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332) as
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
\41\ The 2012 action had disapproved SO2,
NOX, and PM BART for the fuel oil firing scenario for the
Entergy Lake Catherine Plant Unit 4, but a FIP BART determination
was not established. Instead, Entergy committed to not burn fuel oil
at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART for
SO2 and PM for the fuel oil firing scenario. This
commitment has now been made enforceable by the State through an
Administrative Order that has been adopted and incorporated in the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State mentioned in the progress report that it was committed to
correcting the 2012 disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP. As described below and elsewhere, the State has made two
submissions to fulfill this commitment. Each SIP revision contained
updated BART determinations intended to replace the applicable FIP
established limits from 2016.
First, on February 12, 2018, the EPA approved the 2017 Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision.\42\ That submittal addressed
the NOX BART determinations established in the FIP for the
Arkansas subject-to-BART EGUs by replacing them with reliance upon the
CSAPR emissions trading program for O3 season NOX
as an alternative to source-specific NOX BART. The Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision also established that no new
NOX emission controls were required beyond participation in
CSAPR for O3 season NOX for any source to achieve
reasonable progress for the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See final action on February 12, 2018 for the Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, on August 8, 2018, the State submitted the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. That submittal
addressed all remaining disapproved parts of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP, with exception of the BART and associated long-term strategy
requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. The
majority of the BART determinations in that SIP revision were
essentially identical to the BART determinations in the FIP except for
different BART requirements for White Bluff units 1 and 2.\43\ The
submittal established that each White Bluff unit was to comply with an
updated SO2 BART emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu. That is
based on the use of low sulfur coal and an enforceable commitment to
cease coal combustion by the end of 2028. The submittal also
established a new NOX emission limit of 32.2 pounds per hour
(pph) to satisfy NOX BART for White Bluff's auxiliary
boiler, replacing the determination in the Arkansas Regional
NOX SIP revision (relying upon CSAPR to satisfy
NOX BART) that we previously approved. The State made all of
these BART determinations enforceable through administrative
orders.\44\ The State determined that no additional SO2 or
PM controls beyond BART were necessary for reasonable progress during
the first planning period.\45\ The EPA proposed to approve a large
portion of the SIP revision on November 30, 2018.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For the White Bluff units, the FIP required an
SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu with a five-year
compliance date, based on the installation of dry scrubbers. The
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision does not
require the SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, but it
does require that Entergy move forward with its announced plans to
cease coal combustion at the White Bluff Units by 2028 and to meet
an SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu in the interim.
Once the units cease coal combustion, SO2 emissions are
expected to significantly decrease.
\44\ The Administrative Orders can be found in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM BART SIP Revision.
\45\ In the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision, part of ADEQ's basis for determining the sources to
further evaluate under the four reasonable progress factors was
analyses and determinations for whether sources were subject-to-BART
in the first implementation period. For the Domtar facility in
particular, the State relied on the fact that a FIP is in place to
address the BART requirements. In our November 30, 2018 proposed
approval (83 FR 62204), we proposed to agree that this is an
appropriate basis on which we find that nothing further is needed
for reasonable progress at this source. If ADEQ chooses to submit a
future SIP revision to address BART requirements for Domtar Power
Boilers No. 1 and No. 2, we will evaluate the SIP submittal at that
time and also whether it addresses reasonable progress requirements.
\46\ See proposed action on November 30, 2018 for the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (83 FR 62204). Note
that the SIP revision also addressed separate CAA requirements
related to interstate visibility transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not propose action on that part of
the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision,\47\ the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (if EPA's
proposed approval is finalized),\48\ and the remaining part of the FIP
that addresses the BART and associated long-term strategy requirements
for Domtar together fully address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP previously identified in 2012 by the EPA. The EPA is
collectively providing all of these updated BART determination emission
limits in Table 2 below since they were not all available at the time
of the progress report's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 for the Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927).
\48\ In the event that this proposed rule is not finalized, we
note that there is already a FIP in place which addresses the
previously identified deficiencies.
Table 2--Updated BART Determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART emission limit
Facility Unit -----------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant...... Unit 1 Boiler............. 0.06 lb/MMBtu**. Reliance on 0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Unit 1 Boiler............. Use fuel with Participation Use fuel with
Corporation--Bailey .......................... sulfur limit of in CSAPR sulfur limit of
Generating Station. .......................... 0.5% by weight Trading Program 0.5% by
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Unit 1 Boiler............. **. for O3 season weight.**
Corporation--John L. ................ NOX to satisfy ................
McClellan Generating Station. Use fuel with NOX BART a. Use fuel with
sulfur limit of sulfur limit of
0.5% by weight 0.5% by
**. weight.**
Entergy--Lake Catherine....... Unit 4 Boiler b........... (Natural gas (Natural gas
firing firing
scenario) Burn scenario) 45
natural gas pph and burn
only*. natural gas
only.*
Entergy--White Bluff.......... Unit 1 Boiler............. 0.60 lb/MMBtu 0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
[dagger].
Unit 2 Boiler............. 0.60 lb/ 0.1 lb/MMBtu.*
MMBtu[dagger].
Auxiliary Boiler.......... 105.2 pph**..... 32.2 pph***..... 4.5 pph.**
Domtar--Ashdown Mill.......... No. 1 Power Boiler........ 504 ppd [Dagger] 207.4 pph 0.07 lb/MMBtu.*
[Dagger].
[[Page 11703]]
No. 2 Power Boiler........ 91.5 pph 345 pp h[Dagger] PM standard
[Dagger]. under 40 CFR
part 63,
subpart DDDDD
as
revised.[Dagger
]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The EPA approved this BART limit in the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR 14604).
** This BART limit established in the FIP will be replaced with the State's own identical limit pending final
approval of the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA's proposed approval
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
*** Note that we previously withdrew the 32.2 pph NOX limit from the FIP and approved Arkansas' reliance upon
CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART (83 FR 5927). However, ADEQ's identification of the Auxiliary Boiler as
participating in CSAPR for O3 season NOX was in error. Therefore, we proposed to withdraw our prior approved
determination of the State's reliance upon CSAPR and replace it with 32.2 pph NOX to satisfy NOX BART for the
auxiliary boiler in our proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. See the EPA's
proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
[dagger] This is a new revised BART limit proposed in the August 8, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision. See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
[Dagger] The EPA established this FIP BART limit on September 27, 2016. See final action (81 FR 66332) as
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
a The EPA approved this BART alternative in the February 12, 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP Revision final
action (83 FR 5927).
b There is an enforceable ban (not a current BART Determination) by the State on burning fuel oil for Lake
Catherine's unit 4 boiler until the EPA approves a SIP revision with BART determinations for the fuel oil
firing scenario.
2. Reasonable Progress Source Controls
In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ
evaluated the need for additional source controls under the reasonable
progress requirements. In determining reasonable progress, CAA section
169(A)(g)(1) requires states to examine the cost of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts, and remaining useful life. In the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision, the State determined that no additional
NOX controls beyond participation in CSAPR for O3
season NOX were necessary to satisfy the reasonable progress
requirement with respect to NOX for the first implementation
period.\49\ As discussed in Section II of our proposed action on the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ
determined that no additional SO2 and PM controls at
Independence Units 1 and 2 or any other Arkansas sources are necessary
under reasonable progress for the first implementation period.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The EPA approved this in the February 12, 2018 Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP Revision final action (83 FR 5927).
\50\ See the EPA's proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision on November 30, 2018 (83 FR
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CAIR and CSAPR
In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,\51\ which participating states could
rely on in lieu of BART for EGUs.\52\ CAIR was designed to address
power plant pollution transported from one state to another via a cap-
and-trade system to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions
as the target pollutants.\53\ In December 2008, the D.C. Circuit
remanded CAIR to the EPA, leaving existing CAIR programs in place while
directing the EPA to replace them with a new rule.\54\ Although CAIR
was remanded, CAIR remained in effect at the time of the progress
report's development and sources in Arkansas continued to comply with
the state and federal requirements associated with CAIR. CAIR consisted
of two phases of reductions for NOX and SO2.
Phase I ran from 2009 to 2014 and Arkansas' NOX budget
amounted to 11,514 tons NOX per annual O3 season.
Phase II begun in 2015 and was set to continue indefinitely with
Arkansas' NOX budget set at 9,116 tons NOX per
annual O3 season. Table 2.3 of the progress report shows the
NOX O3 season allocations distributed among the
different Arkansas sources for the 2009 to 2017 time-period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005).
\52\ See 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005).
\53\ Although Arkansas was subject to certain NOX
requirements of CAIR, including the statewide O3 season
NOX budget, it elected not to rely on CAIR in its 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP to satisfy the NOX BART
requirement for its EGUs. Note that it would have been sufficient
for Arkansas to rely on CAIR to satisfy NOX BART.
\54\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR to replace CAIR.\55\ In 2012, the
EPA published a final rule allowing states that participate in the
CSAPR trading program to rely on CSAPR to satisfy BART for EGUs,\56\
including states participating only for O3 season
NOX.\57\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to reduce power
plant emissions that contribute to O3 and PM2.5
pollution in other states. The rule requires reductions in
O3 season NOX emissions that cross state lines
for certain states under the O3 requirements, and reductions
in annual SO2 and NOX emissions for certain
states under the PM2.5 requirements. The EPA set emission
budgets for each state covered by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to
affected sources based on these state emission budgets.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011).
\56\ See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
\57\ Arkansas EGUs are covered under CSAPR for O3
season NOX. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011).
\58\ The rule provides flexibility to affected sources, allowing
sources in each state to determine their own compliance path. This
includes adding or operating control technologies, upgrading or
improving controls, switching fuels, and using allowances. Sources
can buy and sell allowances and bank (save) allowances for future
use as long as each source holds enough allowances to account for
its emissions by the end of the compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since promulgating the use of CSAPR as an alternative to source-
specific BART for EGUs, the EPA has promulgated an update to the CSAPR
program with more stringent budgets.\59\ The CSAPR update revised the
O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas EGUs from
15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048 tons NOX
(10,132 tons NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2017 with a
further reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018 and beyond.\60\
Participation in CSAPR
[[Page 11704]]
for O3 season NOX is federally enforceable under
40 CFR 52.38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an
update to CSAPR that addresses the 1997 O3 NAAQS portion
of the remand as well as the CAA requirements addressing interstate
transport for the 2008 O3 NAAQS.
\60\ CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July
28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding
CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for
a number of states. Arkansas' O3 season NOX
budgets were not included in the remand. EME Homer City Generation
v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2018, we approved the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision (effective March 14, 2018) which replaced
all source-specific NOX BART determinations for EGUs
established in the FIP with reliance upon the CSAPR emissions trading
program for O3 season NOX as an alternative to
NOX BART.\61\ The O3 season NOX
requirements under CSAPR apply to all subject-to-BART units in Table 1
of this proposed action except the Domtar No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers,
and the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler. The Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision addressed the NOX BART
requirements for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1, Flint Creek Boiler
No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4; White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and the
Auxiliary Boiler. In that SIP submittal, ADEQ erroneously identified
White Bluff's Auxiliary Boiler as participating in CSAPR for
O3 season NOX and elected to rely on
participation in that trading program to satisfy the Auxiliary Boiler's
NOX BART requirements. Although we approved the SIP
submittal on February 12, 2018,\62\ our approval of the State's
reliance on CSAPR for O3 season NOX to satisfy
the BART requirements for the Auxiliary Boiler was made in error.
Therefore, we proposed to withdraw our approval of the State's reliance
upon CSAPR for the Auxiliary Boiler and replace it with our approval of
a source-specific 32.2 pph NOX BART emission limit related
to the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP submitted on
November 30, 2018.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See 82 FR 42627 (September 11, 2017) for the proposed
approval. See also 83 FR 5927 and 83 FR 5915 (February 12, 2018) for
the final action.
\62\ See 83 FR 5927 (February 12, 2018).
\63\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
In accordance with Subchapter 11.4.1.6 of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, ADEQ tracked source retirement and replacement
through ongoing point source inventories.64 65 The progress
report showed that ADEQ has performed this tracking. Five new permitted
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) facilities were
inventoried and the new corresponding total potential-to-emit (PTE)
emissions for NOX and SO2 were reported at 5,833
tpy and 7,374 tpy. The total actual NOX and SO2
emissions,\66\ however, were reported lower at 1,741 tpy and 3,303 tpy,
respectively. In addition, sixteen PSD facilities have shut down since
2008, resulting in a total reduction of 15,893 tpy in permitted
NOX emissions and a total reduction of 1,126 tpy in
permitted SO2 emissions.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires the State of Arkansas to
consider source retirement and replacement schedules in developing
RPGs.
\65\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires the State of Arkansas to
consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities.
\66\ As reported by the facilities in their Annual Emissions
Inventory Report for 2012.
\67\ See Tables 2.4 through 2.6 of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Agriculture and Forestry Smoke Management \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Arkansas to consider
smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and
forestry management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The progress report mentioned that the State is currently relying
on a Smoke Management Plan (SMP) in its 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
that the Arkansas Forestry Commission approved in 2007. Arkansas' SMP
was designed to assure that prescribed fires are planned and executed
in a manner designed to minimize the impacts from smoke produced by
prescribed fires. The programs in this measure are generally designed
to limit increases in emissions, rather than to reduce existing
emissions.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Documentation of this SMP program is in Appendix 11.1 of
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP or a copy may be found at https://forestry.arkansas.gov/Services/KidsTeachersEveryone/Documents/ArkansasVSMG.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Additional Federal Programs \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) requires the State of Arkansas to
consider emission reductions from ongoing pollution control programs
in the development of its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Arkansas also considered in its progress report the
following ongoing pollution control programs in the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP as controls used for continuing emission reductions:
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012). Arkansas anticipated
that reductions in SO2 emissions from the State's coal-
fired EGUs would occur as a result of the MATS rule. This rule
allowed for the installation of pollution control equipment to meet
requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units. At the time the progress report was
submitted, Flint Creek planned to install a particular type of dry
scrubber that controls SO2 and other acid gases called
Novel Integrated Deacidification (NID) technology and Activated
Carbon Injection (ACI) to comply with MATS. Since that time, Flint
Creek did install the NID system on boiler unit 1. Because the
scrubber system also meets the qualifications as being a BART
control, the State is complying with the more stringent
SO2 BART requirements included in the FIP and is meeting
both rules using the same controls. The SO2 BART emission
rate, therefore, was set at 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on the installation
and operation of the NID technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 Vehicle Emission standards.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ EPA's Tier 2 fleet averaging program for on-road vehicles,
modeled after the California LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle) II
standards, became effective in the 2005 model year. The mix of
vehicles a manufacturer sells each year must have average
NOX emissions below a specified value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The Heavy-Duty Highway Rule was adopted on January 18,
2001, by EPA with the objective of reducing emissions from diesel
engines by setting a PM emission standard for new heavy-duty
engines, which took effect with the 2007 model year. The rule also
required reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel to facilitate the use of
modern pollution control technology on these engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Diesel and Non-Road Diesel Rules.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ These rules were initially effective in 2004 and were fully
phased in by 2012. The non-road diesel rule set standards that
reduced emissions by more than 90 percent from non-road diesel
equipment and, beginning in 2007, the rule reduced fuel sulfur
levels by 99 percent from previous levels. The reduction in fuel
sulfur levels applied to most non-road diesel fuel in 2010 and
applied to fuel used in locomotives and marine vessels in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Rule resulted in better PM
control from diesel engines. The EPA regulations required that at
least 80 percent of highway diesel fuel in the United States be
ULSD, and by 2010, all highway diesel fuel became ULSD. The EPA also
required a major reduction in the sulfur content of diesel fuel
intended for use in locomotive, marine, and non-road engines and
equipment including construction, agricultural, industrial, and
airport equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The MACT standards are part of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), provided under 40
CFR part 63. See 76 FR 64186, 64198 and 70 FR 39162. CENRAP modeling
demonstrated that VOCs from anthropogenic sources are not
significant visibility-impairing pollutants at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. EPA's Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures
The EPA proposes to find that the State has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding reporting
the status of implementation of measures in its implementation plan.
The State's progress report documented the status of all measures
included in its regional haze SIP (as of the submission of the progress
report) and it also described additional measures that came into effect
since the State's 2008 regional haze SIP was completed, including state
regulations and various federal measures. All major control measures
were identified and the strategy behind each control was explained. The
State included a summary of the implementation status associated with
each measure and quantified the benefits where possible. In addition,
the progress report SIP adequately outlined the compliance timeframe
for all controls.
[[Page 11705]]
C. Emission Reductions From Implementation of Measures
The State presented emission data in its progress report that
provided a summary of the emission trends and reductions achieved in
the state through the implementation of the measures in the SIP. The
State identified ammonium sulfate, particulate organic matter, and
nitrate as the three largest pollutant contributors to visibility
impairment caused by regional haze at Arkansas' Class I areas for the
first implementation period.\77\ The progress report indicated that the
primary cause of ammonium sulfate, the most significant haze
contributor in Arkansas, is SO2 precursor emissions. In
2011, point sources contributed to 90 percent of the overall
SO2 emissions in Arkansas with EGUs responsible for 78
percent of the total SO2 emissions.\78\ For this reason, the
State focused on reporting emission reductions from EGU point sources
in the progress report as an effective method of improving visibility
in Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the 2015 regional haze
progress report (page 17). The percent contributions (2007-2011) of
the major haze pollutant contributors for Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo are as follows: (65% and 56%) sulfate, (11% and 16%)
nitrate, (15% and 18%) particulate organic matter, 10% attributed to
both sites for coarse mass, EC, and soil.
\78\ See the Arkansas progress report (page 18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State reported EGU point source emission data from Arkansas for
NOX and SO2 for the 2000 to 2011 time-period.\79\
There were not any emission reductions from subject-to-BART sources in
Arkansas due to implementation of BART limits when the progress report
was submitted. Nevertheless, the overall EGU emissions trended downward
from the baseline for NOX, with a slight uptick in 2011 for
SO2 emissions. Arkansas noted that as of 2011, EGU emissions
increased by 2,885 tpy for SO2 and decreased by 3,741 tpy
for NOX from the 2002 baseline. During the 2002 to 2011
time-span, on a heat input basis, both NOX and
SO2 EGU emission rates (lb/MMBtu) decreased. This indicates
that the overall average control efficiencies improved and the slight
SO2 emissions uptick was a result of increased EGU
activity.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See Table 3.1 in the Arkansas progress report (page 35).
\80\ See Figure 3.2 in the Arkansas progress report (page 38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below, provided by the EPA to complement the State's
report, compares more recent emission trends going past 2011.\81\ It
compares the 2002 to 2011 annual EGU emission trends provided by the
State in the progress report to more recent annual EGU emission data
provided by the EPA from 2012 to 2017.\82\ Table 3 shows that
NOX and SO2 EGU point source emissions have
decreased during the 2011 to 2017 time-period. Comparing 2011 emissions
to the 2018 projected emissions developed for the 2008 SIP, the State
projected annual SO2 emissions to increase by an additional
125 tpy and annual NOX emissions to decrease by an
additional 10,167 tpy in 2018 from 2011 observed emissions.\83\ The
more recent emission data, however, shows a large decrease in
SO2 emissions from EGUs. Specifically, from 2014 to 2015,
there was a 30,354 tpy decrease in SO2 emissions and a
14,783 tpy decrease in NOX emissions. This corresponds to a
decline in EGU activity as noted by the decrease in heat input in 2015.
EGU activity has since increased from 2015 to 2017, but the emissions
remain well below 2014 emission levels. Overall, from the 2002 to 2017,
SO2 emissions from EGUs have reduced by 22,969 tpy
(increased 2,885 tpy from 2002 to 2011, then decreased 25,854 tpy from
2011 to 2017) and NOX emissions have reduced by 14,579 tpy
(decreased 3,741 tpy from 2002 to 2011, then decreased an additional
10,838 tpy from 2011 to 2017). The State's progress report mentioned
that further significant emission reductions would be realized from a
final permit that was issued on August 25, 2013, at Flint Creek for the
installation and operation of control equipment to significantly reduce
SO2 emissions.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
\82\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
\83\ See Page 37 of the progress report.
\84\ See ADEQ Air Permit No. 027-AOP-R6 (AFIN 04-00107). This
permit allowed for the installation of pollution control equipment
under the MATS rule with an SO2 emission limit of 0.2 lb/
MMBtu, and a compliance date of April 16, 2016. Since the issuance
of that permit, ADEQ has submitted the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, which establishes an
SO2 BART emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, achievable by
the equipment installed to meet MATS. The SIP revision requires
compliance with the 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit by
``the effective date of the Administrative Order,'' which requires
compliance by August 7, 2018.
Table 3--Annual NOX and SO2 Emissions From EGU Point Sources in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat input NOX emission rate SO2 emission rate
Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) (MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................................................. 42,079 70,738 303,031,688 0.278 0.467
2005.............................................................. 35,333 66,190 305,909,694 0.231 0.433
2008.............................................................. 37,800 73,289 339,622,527 0.223 0.432
2011.............................................................. 38,338 73,623 411,725,177 0.186 0.358
2012 *............................................................ 34,847 76,326 440,336,753 0.158 0.347
2013 *............................................................ 37,148 73,578 427,915,347 0.174 0.344
2014 *............................................................ 38,396 75,898 410,742,039 0.187 0.370
2015 *............................................................ 23,613 45,544 337,259,867 0.140 0.270
2016 *............................................................ 26,892 46,573 382,621,452 0.141 0.243
2017 *............................................................ 27,500 47,769 391,814,298 0.140 0.244
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS Gateway database.
Table 4, provided by the EPA, compares National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) data for total point sources from 2002 to 2014. This complements
the categorized NEI point source data (EGU and non-EGU) inventoried by
the State in the progress report from 2002 to 2011. It also provides
reported emissions data from more current NEI versions than available
when the progress report was submitted in 2015.\85\ Table 4 shows that
fine particle and coarse mass PM emission reductions are considerably
lower than their NEI 2002 totals when compared to more recent NEI
data.\86\ PM10 point source emissions decreased by 6,427 tpy
(39%) and PM2.5 point source emissions decreased by
[[Page 11706]]
5,600 tpy (49%) for the 2002 to 2014 period. NOX emissions
stayed relatively steady at 71,000 tpy and SO2 emissions
decreased slightly by 4.6 percent for the 2002 to 2014 period. Although
the reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions are not
especially pronounced for that time-period, the total point source
emission trends are consistent with what is shown in Table 3 for EGU
point sources from 2002 to 2014. We anticipate that the total NEI point
source data going forward after 2014 will reflect the substantial
decreases in PM, SO2, and NOX emissions as
already displayed in the EGU point source reductions reported by CAMD
data in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The State noted that NEI emissions data for 2011 in the
progress report was obtained from 2011 NEI version 1.
\86\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.
Table 4--NEI Total Point Source Emission Data for Arkansas for 2002-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tpy)
Year NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 70,726 89,870 16,318 11,536
2005............................................ 59,431 75,483 8,532 6,105
2008............................................ 75,045 87,308 11,060 7,671
2011............................................ 71,402 84,922 10,451 6,782
2014............................................ 71,588 85,714 9,891 5,936
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above reductions, there will also be some
additional future reductions due to more stringent CSAPR allocations
and BART requirements implemented from the recent Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. The CSAPR update revised the
O3 season NOX budget for Arkansas units from
15,110 tons NOX in 2015 to 12,048 tons NOX
(10,132 tons NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2017 with a
further reduction to 9,210 tons NOX (7,781 tons
NOX allocated to existing EGUs) in 2018 and beyond. The 2017
actual O3 season EGU emissions for Arkansas totaled 12,811
tons NOX. Some EGUs chose to install combustion controls to
comply with CSAPR that would reduce emissions year-round, not just in
the O3 season. This includes the installation of low
NOX burners at the White Bluff and Independence facilities.
The 2018 actual O3 season EGU emissions for Arkansas totaled
10,952 tons NOX.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State noted that, along with the replacement of CAIR with
CSAPR, there have been many changes to the ongoing air pollution
programs since EPA's partial approval of Arkansas' regional haze SIP in
2012. These changes included more stringent emission standards,
renewable fuel standards, fuel efficiency standards, marine and
aircraft standards, mercury and air toxics standards, and various
national emission standards for hazardous air pollution. Arkansas noted
that these more recent air pollution programs are anticipated to result
in even greater emission reductions that could result in further
visibility improvement than the programs in place at the time the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP revision was submitted to the EPA.
Lastly, recent and planned retirements of various plants may result
in further visibility improvement at Arkansas Class I areas. In the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, ADEQ noted
the planned retirement of Lake Catherine by the end of 2028 and
Entergy's plans to cease coal combustion at the Independence facility
by the end of 2030. ADEQ also noted that there have been recent changes
in operations at large point sources that have historically impacted
Arkansas Class I areas, including the recent retirement of the Big
Brown Plant, Sandow Plant, Monticello Plant, and the Deely Plant in
Texas. The coal-fired units at the Tennessee Valley Authority Allen
Plant, located in Memphis, Tennessee, were also scheduled to retire by
June 2018 and be replaced with natural gas generators.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding a
summary of emission reductions achieved for visibility impairing
pollutants. Overall, the State demonstrated the emission reductions
achieved for the major contributing visibility impairing pollutants in
the State for the first implementation period. Emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM, the main contributors to
regional haze in Class I areas potentially affected by emissions from
Arkansas, have all been decreasing. As demonstrated by the more recent
available data, the SO2 and NOX haze pollutant
precursors from EGU point sources in the state have decreased from the
baseline levels in 2002, especially since 2015. Also, the trend for
fine particles and coarse mass emissions, pollutants that directly
create haze, have been decreasing since 2002. Overall visibility
conditions are improving as a result of these reductions together with
decreases from outside of the state. With the implementation of the new
BART controls and more stringent NOX allocations under
CSAPR, further emission reductions should be realized and visibility
impairment at affected Class I areas should continue to improve.
D. Visibility Conditions and Changes
Arkansas included in its progress report the annual average
visibility from 2001 to 2011 for the twenty percent best (least
impaired) and twenty percent worst (most impaired) days at Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas.\88\ Although visibility conditions
have varied from year-to-year, the progress report showed that both
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo have displayed an overall improvement in
visibility since 2001.\89\ Arkansas reported that both areas showed
improved visibility from the 2000 to 2004 baseline during the worst
days for the most current period (2007 to 2011) and for the period
previous to the most current (2005 to 2009) available at the time of
the progress report's development.\90\ Both class I areas similarly are
showing improvement from the baseline on the twenty percent best days
and satisfy the goal of no visibility degradation for the first
implementation period. Table 5 shows that the visibilities at Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo during the 2007 to 2011 period were 0.96 dv and
0.67 dv below the baseline for the twenty percent best days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The most and least impaired days in the regional haze rule
refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in dv) for the
twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest
and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged
over a five-year period (see 40 CFR 51.301). In this report, when we
refer to ``best days'' we mean ``least impaired'' and when we refer
to ``worst days'' we mean ``most impaired.''
\89\ See Figures 4.1 to 4.2 and Tables 4.1 to 4.2 of the
progress report (pages 41-43).
\90\ Progress reports for the first implementation period used
specific terms to describe time-periods. ``Baseline visibility
conditions'' refers to conditions during the 2000 to 2004 time-
period. ``Current visibility conditions'' refers to the most recent
five-year average data available at the time the State submitted its
progress report for public review. ``Past five years'' refers to the
five-year average previous to the five years used for ``current
visibility conditions.''
[[Page 11707]]
Table 5--Visibility at Arkansas Class I Areas for the Twenty Percent Best Days
[Five-Year Average]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000- Most recent
Class I area 2004) (dv) (2005-2009) (2007-2011) minus baseline
(dv) (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness.......................... 11.39 11.06 10.43 -0.96
Upper Buffalo Wilderness........................ 11.71 11.85 11.04 -0.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline.
In the State's August 8, 2018 submittal (Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP), the State's 2018 RPGs from the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were
revised downward to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst
days.\91\ These revised RPGs are more stringent than what was
established in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and account for the
controls required in the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP submittal.\92\ We proposed to agree with the State's newly revised
2018 RPGs for the twenty percent worst days in our November 30, 2018
proposed approval action.\93\ The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP submittal did not revise the RPG for the twenty percent best
days that was included in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See spreadsheet, sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx, provided at
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
\92\ See page 54 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision.
\93\ See the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR
62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 provides more recent monitored visibility data presented by
the State in the August 8, 2018 SIP revision for the twenty percent
worst days at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas.\94\ The
observed values exhibit a consistent downward trend in the
observations. When comparing the revised 2018 RPGs with the observed
five-year visibility trends, Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are already
realizing more visibility improvement than needed to meet the revised
2018 RPGs. Most recently, the visibility conditions at Caney Creek and
Upper Buffalo during the 2012 to 2016 period were 1.83 dv and 1.95 dv
below the 2018 revised RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See spreadsheet, visibility-progress.xlsx, provided at
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
Table 6--Visibility at Arkansas Class I Areas for the Twenty Percent Worst Days
[Five-Year Average]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000-
Class I area 2004) (dv) (2005-2009) (2007-2011) (2009-2013) (2012-2016) 2018 Revised
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) RPGs (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness.................................. 26.36 25.33 23.00 22.22 20.64 22.47
Upper Buffalo Wilderness................................ 26.27 25.86 24.15 22.15 20.56 22.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) with respect
to visibility conditions at Arkansas' Class I areas. The State provided
five-year average baseline visibility conditions from 2000 to 2004, the
five-year average visibility conditions from 2007 to 2011, and the
five-year average visibility conditions for 2005 to 2009. The State
calculated the change in visibility between the baseline average and
the most recent five-year average available (2007 to 2011). The results
were tabulated for the twenty percent worst and best days and then
compared to the 2018 RPGs to determine the amount of visibility
improvement achieved. Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas
have both demonstrated improved visibility for the most impaired and
least impaired days since 2001. Based on the five-year rolling
averages, both wilderness areas have already exceeded the amount of
visibility improvement needed to meet the more stringent revised 2018
RPGs for the twenty percent worst days. Analysis of the visibility data
from Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas also shows that the
goal of no visibility degradation on the twenty percent best days has
been achieved.
E. Emission Tracking
In its progress report, ADEQ presented categorized NEI emission
inventories for 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011, as well as CENRAP projected
inventories for 2018. The pollutants inventoried included
SO2, NOX, NH3, VOC, PM2.5,
and PM10. The inventories were categorized for all major
visibility-impairing pollutants under major anthropogenic source
groupings. The anthropogenic source categorization included point and
non-point EGUs; on and non-road mobile sources; area sources; fugitive
and road dust; fire, and agricultural/biogenic sources. The 2008 and
2011 NEI inventories were the most recent comprehensive inventories of
updated actual emissions available at the time the State prepared its
progress report. The State, therefore, emphasized those NEI inventories
in the progress report and then compared the categorized inventory
changes from 2011 to the 2002 baseline emissions.\95\ A summary of the
total state NEI emissions from the progress report can be seen below in
Table 7 along with more recent complementary data from 2014 provided by
the EPA to show emission trends going past 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See Table 5.1 (page 46-47) of the progress report.
[[Page 11708]]
Table 7--Comparison of Total State NEI Emissions
[tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year SO2 NOX NH3 VOC PM2.5 PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.................................................... 126,707 239,487 124,297 228,032 62,505 243,372
2005.................................................... 126,707 239,487 134,156 312,648 108,362 296,149
2008.................................................... 94,113 247,734 131,710 1,427,040 124,829 443,213
2011.................................................... 95,123 260,737 132,940 1,643,979 144,191 467,527
2014 *.................................................. 91,033 212,638 76,114 1,625,837 119,957 369,682
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS gateway database.
The NEI emissions increased from 2002 to 2011 except for
SO2 emissions. The State explained in the progress report
that the total SO2 emissions decreased as a result of
phasing in low sulfur (500 ppm) Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuels for
nonroad, locomotive, and marine engines beginning in 2007. The emission
increase for the remaining pollutants in table 7 was due to an emission
rise in 2011 that happened across the board. Fires were the primary
cause of the emission increase for SO2, PM2.5,
PM10, and NH3, but road dust also impacted PM
during that time. Area sources were the chief contributor to
NOX increases and agricultural sources contributed the most
to VOC emission increases in 2011.\96\ The State believes that much of
the increases for NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
may have been due to the use of newer modeling methodologies that were
not available when the baseline projections were developed in 2002.\97\
The State also observed that NOX and PM2.5
emissions trended downward in the point EGU category between 2002 and
2011.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See Table 5.1 of the progress report (page 46 to 47).
\97\ See page 47 of progress report. Emission changes were seen
in the on-road mobile source inventory between 2008 and 2011 as a
result of the transition from EPA's MOBILE6 model to the Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model for estimation of
emissions. Increases in on-road mobile source PM10 and
PM2.5 emissions have been documented as part of the new
model's estimation methodology. The transition to MOVES model
estimation methodology also resulted in increased NOX
emissions for on-road mobile sources. Modeling figures for fires
also accounted for a major portion of the estimated emission
increase for PM2.5 from 2008 to 2011.
\98\ See Table 5.4 of the progress report (Page 51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated 2014 NEI data in table 7 shows that the total state
emissions decreased from 2011 for all of the visibility impairing
pollutants except VOCs, which slightly increased.\99\ The source
categories in table 8 below (provided by the EPA) are the driving
factors causing the total NEI emission decreases from 2011 to
2014.\100\ When comparing the individual categories, agricultural/
biogenic and area source emissions account for the majority of emission
increases from 2011 to 2014 with small increases also resulting from
fugitive dust and point sources. Those increases are offset, though, by
large reductions in the rest of the categories, resulting in overall
net decreases of all pollutant emissions. Although fire emissions had a
big impact on visibility impairing pollutants in 2011, there was a
major improvement in 2014 indicated by reductions of all pollutants
except NH3, especially PM and VOC emissions.
PM10, PM2.5, and VOC emissions from fire showed
large reductions of 26,678 tpy, 22,058 tpy, and 49,182 tpy
respectively. Likewise, road dust previously impacted PM levels in 2011
but showed substantial reductions of 105,187 tpy PM10 and
11,448 tpy PM2.5 in 2014. Point sources had increases of
NOX, SO2, NH3, and VOC emissions but
they netted out due to overall net decreases from the other source
categories. Lastly, mobile emissions reduced for every pollutant except
a small inconsequential non-road mobile increase for NH3.
NOX and VOC exhibited the most mobile emission reductions of
15,124 tpy NOX and 8,397 tpy VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See 70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase since 2008, but
CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs are not significant
contributors to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
\100\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) Gateway database.
Table 8--2014 Emission Data (tpy) and the Category Changes Since 2011 for Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3 VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural/Biogenic........... 18,588 (-6,744)......... 0....................... 153,477 (+17,805)......... 30,009 (+2,875)........ 58,981 (-58,976)....... 1,342,516 (-119,084)
Area \101\...................... 15,472 (-14,701)........ 321 (-1,684)............ 26,423 (+15,513).......... 16,455 (+8,428)........ 905 (+479)............. 69,117 (-10,484)
Fires........................... 8,743 (-5,897).......... 4,624 (-2,946).......... 59,755 (-26,678).......... 50,198 (-22,058)....... 13,094 (+824).......... 133,197 (-49,182)
Fugitive Dust................... 0....................... 0....................... 17,143 (+1,953)........... 1,714 (+195)........... 0...................... 0
Road Dust....................... 0....................... 0....................... 97,066 (-105,187)......... 11,373 (-11,448)....... 0...................... 0
Non-road Mobile................. 18,819 (-3,337)......... 41 (-16)................ 1,926 (-391).............. 1,835 (-376)........... 28 (+1)................ 23,204 (-6,161)
On-road Mobile.................. 79,428 (-11,787)........ 333 (-27)............... 4,001 (-970).............. 2,436 (-545)........... 1,235 (-72)............ 33,171 (-2,236)
Point Sources................... 71,588 (+186)........... 85,714 (+792)........... 9,891 (-560).............. 5,936 (-846)........... 1,871 (+610)........... 24,632 (+1,821)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emission Change....... -42,279................. -3,881.................. -98,515................... -23,775................ -57,134................ -185,326
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (-) in emissions from 2011.
The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The State
tracked changes in emissions by category across the entire emission
inventory and the results show that the emissions from SO2,
NOX, and PM, the main contributors of regional haze in
Arkansas, have all decreased since the 2008 SIP submittal. The analysis
provides the most recent period for which data was available in
practical terms (2008 to 2011) from when the State submitted its
regional haze SIP.\102\ The EPA provided an additional update
[[Page 11709]]
with 2014 NEI data to complement the State's report. These data
indicate that overall emissions of all visibility impairing pollutants
have reduced from 2011 to 2014. SO2, NOX, and PM
emissions have continued to show a downward trend since the 2008
submittal.\103\ As discussed in section II.C. in this proposed
rulemaking, more recent available data shows that SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGU point sources in the state have
decreased from the baseline levels in 2002, especially since 2015. The
EPA concludes that the State presented an adequate analysis tracking
emission trends for the key visibility impairing pollutants across
Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See Page 45 of the progress report.
\102\ While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for
emission inventory changes is the time-period since the current
regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in
developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once
quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, there
is some flexibility in the five-year time-period that states can
select.
\103\ See 70 FR 39162. VOC emissions did increase since 2008,
but CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs are not significant
contributors to visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
The State indicated in the progress report \104\ that there were no
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility as
contemplated by the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The State's Class
I areas showed overall downward trends in visibility impairment. The
State's current analysis of emission reductions and categorized
inventories presented in the progress report, along with more recent
emission data evaluated by the EPA in this action (see sections II.C
and II.E), show that no significant changes in emissions within the
state are occurring to impede visibility improvement or adversely
affecting the two Class I areas in Arkansas. There are also no
significant emission changes from sources outside of Arkansas that are
adversely affecting Arkansas' Class I areas. Through consultation with
adjacent states, it was determined and agreed upon that additional
emission reductions from other states are not necessary to address
visibility impairment at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness areas
for the first implementation period.\105\ The participating states also
determined before the 2008 SIP submittal through regional modeling that
Missouri's Class I areas were expected to be on course to meet their
respective 2018 RPGs. The current data confirms the projected trend and
shows that all Class I areas within and outside the state impacted by
Arkansas emissions are now currently meeting their RPGs for the first
implementation period as discussed in section II.G of this action. No
significant changes in emissions have limited or impeded progress in
improving visibility. The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has
adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding assessing any changes that could impede visibility progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See Page 54 of the progress report.
\105\ See 76 FR 64196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet RPGs
In its progress report, the State assessed the strategies in the
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP based upon projected emissions and
modeling results. The State determined that the strategies were
sufficient to enable Arkansas and other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arkansas to meet all established RPGs. The
evaluation set forth by the State in the progress report for the Class
I areas in Arkansas was based on the RPGs established in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were disapproved in the 2012 action.
As part of the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision, Arkansas reevaluated its RPGs and long-term strategy. The
2008 SIP RPGs for the twenty percent worst days were recently replaced
by the State with new revised RPGs \106\ defined in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.\107\ The 2018 RPGs
for Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo were revised slightly downward from
the 2008 SIP RPGs to 22.47 dv and 22.51 dv for the twenty percent worst
days. The revised 2018 RPGs were estimated based on scaling Arkansas
SO4\2-\ and NO3\-\ point source impacts from
CENRAP's 2018 CAMx modeling results by the change in emissions of NOx
and SO2 due to revised regional haze SIP controls required
by the end of 2018. The State made updates to reflect the most recent
three years of data (2014 to 2016) for emissions and heat inputs that
were used for Arkansas EGUs. Currently, both Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas are achieving greater visibility improvement
than the revised 2018 RPGs.\108\ Based on available monitored data, the
current visibility trendlines are below their respective 2018 RPGs from
the baseline conditions and visibility is continuing to improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See the sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx spreadsheet at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
\107\ See page 48 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision.
\108\ See Figures 11 and 12 on pages 50 to 52 of the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources in Arkansas also impact Hercules Glades and Mingo
Wilderness Class I areas in Missouri. Arkansas stated in its progress
report that the 2018 RPGs for Missouri's Class I areas would be met,
but it did not restate those 2018 RPGs or compare them to the available
monitored data. Recent information for these areas, however,
complements the State's analysis and shows that Missouri is indeed
currently on track to achieve its 2018 RPGs for Hercules Glades and
Mingo Wilderness.\109\ The 2012 to 2016 five-year rolling average of
observed visibility impairment for the twenty percent haziest days at
Hercules Glades Wilderness Area is 20.72 dv (2.34 dv below Missouri's
2018 RPG). The 2012 to 2016 five year-rolling average of observed
visibility impairment for the twenty percent haziest days at Mingo
Wilderness Area is 22.34 dv (1.37 dv below Missouri's 2018 RPG goal).
Arkansas concluded that the visibility improvement observed at the
IMPROVE monitors indicates that sources in Arkansas are not interfering
with the achievement of Missouri's 2018 RPGs for Hercules Glades and
Mingo Wilderness Areas. Therefore, we are proposing to find that
Arkansas' implementation plan is sufficient to ensure that other
states' visibility RPGs for the first planning period for their
respective Class I areas are being met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See Visibility Progress_Update_2016.xlsx in the docket of
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that the State has adequately
addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to assess
the current strategy to meet RPGs. The State has assessed the
implementation plan in place at the time the progress report was
submitted, and we find that the implementation plan as it currently
exists is sufficient to enable the state of Arkansas and other nearby
states to meet their RPGs. The realized and planned controls and
reductions that form the current strategy for this first implementation
period are sufficient to meet the revised RPGs as established in the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Both Class I
areas in Arkansas are currently meeting the revised 2018 RPGs for the
twenty percent worst days. Visibility data from Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo Wilderness areas also show that the goal of no visibility
degradation for the twenty percent best days is being achieved.
Missouri's two Class I areas are also on track to achieve their
visibility reduction goals.
[[Page 11710]]
H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy
The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Arkansas relies upon
participation in the IMPROVE \110\ network, which is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze nationwide. The IMPROVE network
provides a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or
degradation. Arkansas currently relies on data collected through the
IMPROVE network to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as
specified in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Data from IMPROVE show
that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually
all the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. The
average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and
memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting
certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 km,
or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist
without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I
areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30
km, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under
estimated natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its progress report, Arkansas summarized the existing IMPROVE
monitoring network and its intended continued reliance on IMPROVE for
visibility planning. In Arkansas, there are two IMPROVE sites. The
first IMPROVE site is located in Polk County at the Ouachita National
Forest and represents the 14,460 acres of the Caney Creek Wilderness.
The second IMPROVE site is located in Newton County at the Ozark
National Forest and represents the 11,801 acres of the Upper Buffalo
Wilderness area, including the original Wilderness and the additions to
it.\111\ Arkansas is committed to meeting the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(iv), and reports annually to the EPA visibility data for
each of Arkansas' Class I areas. For the progress report, Arkansas has
evaluated its monitoring network and found that there have not been any
changes from the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP network. Arkansas
reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network.
Arkansas also explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at its Class I areas and
identified no expected changes in this network. The EPA proposes to
conclude that the State has adequately addressed the applicable
provision under 40 CFR 51.308 for a visibility monitoring strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Table 8.1 in the progress report (page 63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan
Arkansas noted that it was committed to correcting the portions of
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that were disapproved by the EPA
and provided a negative declaration stating that no additional controls
were necessary during the first implementation period.\112\ Since the
progress report's submission in 2015, the EPA promulgated a FIP and the
State subsequently submitted two SIP revisions to fulfill its
commitment to address the disapproved portions identified in the 2012
action (the 2017 Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision and
the 2018 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision).\113\ When considering the new SIP requirements; the SIP
requirements that we proposed for approval; the remaining FIP elements;
the visibility and emission information provided in the progress
report; and the more recent data evaluated by the EPA; it is clear that
the implementation plan is adequate to meet its emission reductions and
visibility goals for the first implementation period. Current
visibility conditions in Arkansas have improved beyond the more
stringent 2018 RPGs that were introduced in the 2018 Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Visibility has also improved
at both Missouri Class I areas affected by Arkansas sources. Lastly,
the updated emission trends show that SO2, NOX,
and PM emissions (the main contributors to regional haze in Arkansas)
have all been decreasing. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,\114\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision (if EPA's proposed approval is finalized),\115\ and the
remaining part of the FIP that addresses the BART and associated long-
term strategy requirements for Domtar together fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. Because the SIP
and FIP will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX
emission reductions relied upon by Arkansas and other states in setting
their RPGs, the EPA is proposing to approve Arkansas' finding that
there is no need for revision of the existing implementation plan to
achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas in Arkansas and in nearby states
impacted by Arkansas sources. We, therefore, propose to approve
Arkansas' negative declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no
additional controls are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Specifically, the EPA disapproved certain BART compliance
dates; the State's identification of certain BART-eligible sources
and subject-to-BART sources; certain BART determinations for
NOX, SO2, and PM; the reasonable progress
analysis and RPGs; and a portion of the long-term strategy. The
remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP were
approved.
\113\ See final action approved on February 12, 2018 for the
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision (83 FR 5927) and
the EPA's proposed approval on November 30, 2018 for the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision (83 FR 62204).
\114\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
\115\ Proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
The Regional Haze Rule requires the State to provide the designated
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for in-person
consultation at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearings
on a SIP revision for the first implementation period. Arkansas invited
the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on April 25, 2014, for
a sixty-day comment period ending June 24, 2014, that was extended
until June 27, 2014, per FLM request. The FLM's comments and Arkansas'
responses are presented in Appendix A of the progress report. ADEQ also
engaged in multiple conference calls arranged by CenSARA for the
central states with the designated FLMs which took place on February
27, 2012, April 30, 2013, July 30, 2013, August 13, 2013, and September
12, 2013. The EPA proposes to conclude that Arkansas has adequately
addressed the applicable FLM provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i).
III. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the State of Arkansas' regional
haze five-year progress report SIP revision (submitted June 2, 2015) as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of Arkansas'
determination of adequacy under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no additional
controls are needed. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to find that the
State of Arkansas fulfilled its requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)
regarding state coordination with FLMs.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does
[[Page 11711]]
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).In addition, the
SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-05861 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
