Air Plan Approval; NC; Blue Ridge Paper SO2, 53715-53722 [2020-17231]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53715-53722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17231]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0001; FRL-10013-25-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; NC; Blue Ridge Paper SO2 Emission Limits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve, through parallel processing, a draft source-specific State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North 
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality 
(DAQ) through a letter dated June 24, 2020. North Carolina's June 24, 
2020, draft source-specific SIP revision requests that EPA incorporate 
into the SIP more stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) permit 
limits than those currently contained in the SIP for the Blue Ridge 
Paper Products, LLC (also known as BRPP) facility located in the 
Beaverdam Township Area of Haywood County, North Carolina. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve, into the SIP, specific 
SO2 permit limits and associated operating restrictions, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting (MRR) and testing compliance 
requirements established in a BRPP title V operating permit as 
permanent and enforceable SO2 control measures. North 
Carolina submitted these limits to support its recommendation that EPA 
designate the Beaverdam Township Area as ``attainment/unclassifiable'' 
under the 2010 primary SO2 national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS or standard) (also referred to as the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS). The purpose of this rulemaking is not to take 
action on whether these SO2 emissions limits are adequate 
for EPA to designate the Beaverdam Township Area as attainment under 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will determine the 
air quality status and designate remaining undesignated areas for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, including the Beaverdam Township 
Area, in a separate action. This proposed SIP approval does not 
prejudge that future designation action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0001 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to 
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider 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 and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9009. Mr. Evan Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 53716]]

Table of Contents

I. What is parallel processing?
II. What action is EPA proposing?
III. What is the background for this proposed action?
IV. Why did North Carolina submit the draft source-specific SIP 
revision for BRPP?
V. What criteria are EPA using to review this SIP revision?
VI. What did North Carolina submit in the draft source-specific SIP 
revision for BRPP?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Proposed Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is parallel processing?

    Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent 
state and Federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the state 
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA 
before conducting its public hearing and completing its public comment 
process under state law. EPA reviews this proposed state action and 
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking under Federal law. In some 
cases, EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal 
Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its 
public hearing and conducting its public comment process. The state and 
EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the 
state action and Federal action. If, after completing its public 
comment process and after EPA's public comment process has run, the 
state changes its final submittal from the proposed submittal, EPA 
evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another notice 
of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to proceed to 
taking final action on the changed submittal and describing the state's 
changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking action by 
EPA will occur only after the final submittal has been adopted by the 
state and formally provided to EPA.
    In this case, however, EPA's and North Carolina's processes have 
not been perfectly concurrent. North Carolina's submittal was noticed 
for public comment by the State on June 24, 2020, and submitted to EPA 
for parallel processing on June 24, 2020; the submission has not yet 
been submitted in final form. The State's public comment period closed 
on July 27, 2020. After North Carolina submits the formal SIP revision, 
EPA will evaluate the submittal. If the State changes the formal 
submittal from the proposed submittal, EPA will evaluate those changes 
for significance. If EPA finds any such changes to be significant, then 
the Agency intends to determine whether to re-propose the action based 
upon the revised submission or to proceed to take final action on the 
submittal as changed by the State. Although EPA was unable to have a 
concurrent public comment process with the State, North Carolina's 
request for parallel processing allows EPA to begin action on the 
State's proposed submittal in advance of a formal, final submission.

II. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's June 24, 2020, draft 
source-specific SIP revision to incorporate, into the North Carolina 
SIP, specific SO2 permit limits and associated operating 
restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance requirements contained in 
title V operating permit number 08961T29 (T29) issued to BRPP by DAQ, 
on June 2, 2020. Specifically, EPA is proposing to incorporate into the 
North Carolina SIP the maximum permitted SO2 emission limits 
and compliance requirements for the seven largest SO2 
emission sources at BRPP. Currently, there are no source-specific 
SO2 limits in the North Carolina SIP for BRPP. These 
permitted SO2 emission limits that EPA proposes to approve 
are therefore in addition to and therefore more stringent than 
generally applicable SO2 requirements currently in the SIP 
for BRPP. Incorporating specific SO2 permit limits and 
associated operating restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance 
parameters for BRPP into the North Carolina SIP would establish these 
specific SO2 permitted limits and associated operating and 
compliance parameters as permanently federally enforceable control 
measures and strengthen the North Carolina SIP. More detail on these 
emission limits and conditions is provided below.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to act on North Carolina's 
request to approve into the SIP specific SO2 permit limits 
(listed in Table 1 below), and associated operating, MRR, and testing 
requirements established in permit T29 at section 2.2.J thereby making 
these limits permanently federally enforceable to strengthen the North 
Carolina SIP. This rulemaking does not address whether the specific 
SO2 permit limits and compliance permit conditions from 
operating permit T29 are adequate for EPA to promulgate an attainment/
unclassifiable designation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for 
the Beaverdam Township Area near BRPP, and EPA does not seek and will 
not respond to comments on that issue in taking final action on this 
SIP. EPA intends to designate the Beaverdam Township Area near BRPP 
under a separate national action for all remaining undesignated areas 
in the country, and any comments on the adequacy of the new limits to 
provide for attainment should be directed to EPA's docket for that 
action. See docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037.

III. What is the background for this proposed action?

    The following provides the relevant background related to the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS and this proposed action.

A. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 22, 2010, EPA published notice of a revision of the primary 
SO2 NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard 
of 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520.\1\ Under EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
met at a monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th 
percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than 
or equal to 75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix T). See 40 CFR 50.17. The 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
violated at an ambient air quality monitoring site (or in the case of 
dispersion modeling, at an ambient air quality receptor location) when 
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 
1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in 
accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. The existing primary 
(health-based) standard provides health protection for at-risk groups 
against respiratory effects following short-term (e.g., 5-minute) 
exposures to SO2 in ambient air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On February 25, 2019, based on a review of the full body of 
currently available scientific evidence and exposure/risk 
information, EPA retained the existing 2010 1-hour SO2 
primary NAAQS. See 84 FR 9866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. SO2 NAAQS Implementation

    After EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to 
designate all areas of the country as either ``nonattainment,'' 
``attainment,'' or ``unclassifiable,'' for that NAAQS pursuant to 
section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The process for 
designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is 
contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires EPA to 
complete the initial designations process within 2 years of 
promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator has 
insufficient information to make these designations by that deadline, 
EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing 
designations by up to 1 year.

[[Page 53717]]

    Through a Federal Register notice published on August 3, 2012, EPA 
announced that the Agency had insufficient information to complete the 
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard within 2 years 
anticipated by the CAA and extended the designations deadline to June 
3, 2013. See 77 FR 46295. EPA completed the first round of designations 
(``Round 1'') \2\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 
2013, designating 29 areas in 16 states as nonattainment for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on violating ambient air monitors. 
See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). At that time, EPA was not yet 
prepared to issue designations for the remaining areas of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``Round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, three lawsuits were filed against EPA in different 
United States (U.S.) District Courts alleging that the Agency had 
failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not 
designating all portions of the country by the June 3, 2013, deadline. 
Under a consent decree entered by the court on March 2, 2015, in one of 
those cases, EPA was required to complete the remaining area 
designations according to a specific schedule with the following 
deadlines: July 2, 2016 (``Round 2''), December 31, 2017 (``Round 3''), 
and December 31, 2020 (``Round 4'').3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for 
Round 2 designations on June 30, 2016 (see 81 FR 45039 (July 12, 
2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (see 81 FR 89870 (December 13, 
2016)). EPA and state documents and public comments related to the 
Round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \4\ EPA signed Federal Register notices of promulgation for 
Round 3 designations on December 21, 2017 (see 83 FR 1098) (January 
9, 2018) and on March 28, 2018 (see 83 FR 14597 (April 5, 2018)). 
EPA and state documents and public comments related to the Round 3 
final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for SO2 
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air 
quality characterization requirements in a final rule entitled ``Data 
Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' also known as the 
DRR. The DRR required state air agencies to characterize air quality, 
through air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with 
sources that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of 
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA 
or state air agencies \5\ and to provide this information to inform 
EPA's future designations. For states that chose to use ambient air 
monitoring to characterize air quality in areas with large 
SO2 sources and satisfy the DRR, air agencies were required 
to deploy and begin operation of the monitors by January 1, 2017. EPA 
is required, pursuant to the March 2, 2015, court order, to finalize 
designations for the last remaining areas in the country (i.e., for 
those areas that deployed SO2 monitors to characterize 
SO2 air quality or Round 4) by December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by 
specified dates, could elect to impose federally-enforceable 
emissions limitations on those sources restricting their annual 
SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide 
documentation that the sources have been shut down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 5, 2019, EPA issued a guidance memorandum, from Peter 
Tsirigotis, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, entitled ``Area Designations for 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Round 4'' (also known as Round 4 
SO2 Designation Guidance) to provide information on the 
schedule and process for Round 4 area designations, which will address 
areas such as the Beaverdam Township Area that have not yet been 
designated under the NAAQS. In EPA's Round 4 SO2 Designation 
Guidance, the Agency explained that EPA might consider, on a case-by-
case basis, a designation other than nonattainment for areas with 
violating monitors where the source impacting the monitor has recently 
become subject to and is complying with permanent and federally 
enforceable SO2 emission limits and modeling of those limits 
shows attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but the monitored 
design value does not yet account for these recent emissions 
reductions. EPA further explained that such new SO2 
emissions limits would need to be permanently federally enforceable and 
in effect before EPA finalizes the designation for the area for them to 
be considered in determining what available information is 
representative of the current air quality conditions in the area. EPA 
stated that in such circumstances, modeling of the new allowable 
emissions, which should follow the Guideline on Air Quality Models 
(Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51), can provide a more accurate 
characterization of current conditions at the time of designation than 
would monitoring of past conditions.

C. BRPP--Haywood County (Beaverdam Township)

    BRPP, a subsidiary of Evergreen Packaging, is located in the City 
of Canton in Beaverdam Township, Haywood County, North Carolina, 25 
kilometers (km) west of Asheville, North Carolina. The facility is 
located on a 200-acre site in downtown Canton on the Pigeon River. BRPP 
is a vertically integrated pulp and paper mill that produces specialty 
paperboard packaging products, and its primary operations are 
classified under North American Industry Classification System 322121 
(Paper Except Newsprint Mills). The facility utilizes multiple boilers 
to produce steam for energy generation and provide heat for the pulping 
and paper making processes. The power boilers include two natural gas-
fired package boilers: No. 1 and No. 2 Natural Gas Package Boilers 
(Unit ID G11050 and G11051); two coal-fired boilers: Riley Coal 
(G11039) and Riley Bark Boiler (G11042); and one coal/biomass fired 
boiler: No. 4 Power Boiler (G11040). The facility also operates two 
recovery boilers. Through cogeneration, by utilization of steam-driven 
turbines, the facility produces most of the electricity and steam 
required to run internal operations. Product paper is produced from the 
pulp on four paper machines. For additional facility process 
description, please see North Carolina's June 24, 2020, draft source-
specific SIP revision.
    BRPP was determined to be a source subject to further 
characterization pursuant to EPA's SO2 DRR because the 
source emitted more than 2,000 tpy of SO2 in 2014.\6\ In 
accordance with the DRR, through a letter dated June 30, 2016,\7\ DAQ 
chose the monitoring pathway to characterize SO2 air quality 
in the vicinity of BRPP. In the Round 3 designation recommendation to 
EPA,\8\ North Carolina requested EPA designate the Beaverdam Township 
Area for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the court-ordered 
December 31, 2020 (Round 4) deadline based on 3 years (2017-2019) of 
ambient air quality monitoring data at

[[Page 53718]]

the Canton DRR site monitor (AQS ID: 37-087-0013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to the DRR, on January 15, 2016, North Carolina 
submitted to EPA a final list identifying DRR sources in the State 
(i.e., sources that emitted greater than 2,000 tpy of SO2 
emissions) including the BRPP facility in the Beaverdam Township 
Area.
    \7\ Letter entitled ``Characterization of Air Quality Near 
Facilities Subject to SO2 Data Requirements Rule'' from 
Pat McCroy, Governor of North Carolina, to Heather McTeer Toney, 
Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4. This letter is included in 
the docket for this proposed rulemaking and can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/north_carolina_source_characterization.pdf.
    \8\ January 13, 2017, letter entitled ``North Carolina's 
Recommendation on Boundaries for the 2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard''. This 
letter can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/nc-rec-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the DRR, DAQ sited the Canton DRR site monitor near the 
area of maximum concentration (i.e., approximately 150 feet west of 
BRPP's fence line) in accordance with EPA's draft monitoring technical 
assistant documents (TADs) \9\ and regulatory monitoring requirements 
at 40 CFR part 58. The Canton DRR site monitor began operation on 
November 15, 2016, but did not begin reporting data until January 1, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented 
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document,- February 2016 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf). North Carolina's 2016-2017 Monitoring Network 
Plan at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/ncplan2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Why did North Carolina submit the draft source-specific SIP 
revision for BRPP?

    Subsequent to the Canton DRR site monitor commencing operation, the 
monitor measured a number of exceedances of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard in 2017. In an effort to address the 
SO2 exceedances, North Carolina and BRPP entered into a 
Special Order by Consent 2017-002 (SOC) \10\ on October 9, 2017, to 
implement facility process modifications, upgrade existing control 
equipment, as well as to install new control equipment to comply with 
the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard \11\ 
by May 20, 2019, that cumulatively resulted in control and reduction of 
facility-wide SO2 emissions. The MACT standards control 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and BRPP's planned facility 
improvements for HAPs also reduced SO2 emissions. Specific 
to SO2, the SOC required BRPP to submit to DAQ a permit 
application and modeling analysis by March 1, 2018, to characterize the 
facility's emission sources and develop allowable SO2 
emission limitations based on modeled predictions of ambient 
SO2 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Attachment 1 in DAQ's June 24, 2020, source-specific 
SIP revision found in the docket for this proposed action. SOC 2017-
002 was entered into pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.110 by and between BRPP and the Environmental Management 
Commission.
    \11\ 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD, National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (40 CFR 
63.7480-63.7575).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 12, 2019, DAQ issued a modification to BRPP's title V 
permit (Permit No. 08961T26 or T26) reflecting the requirements of the 
SOC with DAQ regarding development of SO2 allowable emission 
limits supported by DAQ's modeled prediction of those limits resulting 
in attainment of the SO2 standard.\12\ Subsequent title V 
permit modifications resulted in the current title V permit--08961T29 
or T29.\13\ North Carolina is requesting EPA incorporate specific 
SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters from permit 
T29 into the source-specific portion of the North Carolina SIP. DAQ 
established these specific SO2 emission limits and 
compliance parameters pursuant to North Carolina's SIP-approved Rule 
15A.NCAC.02D. 0501(c), Compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. As stated in Section 2.2.J of permit T29, pursuant to 15A 
NCAC 02D .0501(c), when controls more stringent than named in the 
applicable emission standards in Section .0500 are required to prevent 
violation of the ambient air quality standards or are required to 
create an offset, the permit shall contain a condition requiring these 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ On February 28, 2018, BRPP submitted to DAQ a permit 
application for the significant modification of its title V 
operating permit in accordance with the SOC. See DAQ's June 24, 
2020, source-specific SIP revision Attachment 2 entitled ``Air 
Permit Application for Incorporation of SO2 Emission 
Limits into the Canton Mill's Permit February 2018, Updated March 
2019.''
    \13\ Permit T29 and other versions issued after T26 permit did 
not modify any SO2 emissions limitations or significantly 
change the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or testing 
requirements established in T26. See Footnote #1 above. For a 
description of permit modifications, see Table 2 in North Carolina's 
June 24, 2020 draft SIP submission (pages 13 through 16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What criteria are EPA using to review this SIP revision?

    EPA is evaluating North Carolina's June 24, 2020, draft source-
specific SIP revision on the basis of whether it strengthens North 
Carolina's SIP. As mentioned above, there are no source-specific 
SO2 requirements for BRPP in North Carolina's SIP. The new 
SO2 permit limits and associated operating restrictions, 
MRR, and testing compliance parameters in BRPP's title V operating 
permit number T29 are authorized under 15A NCAC 02D .0501(c), which 
expressly requires more stringent controls to prevent violations of 
ambient air standards. EPA preliminarily concurs that these 
requirements are in addition to and more stringent than generally 
applicable SO2 control requirements in the SIP for BRPP and 
will therefore strengthen North Carolina's SIP. The adequacy of these 
SO2 permit limits and compliance parameters for providing 
for attainment is not a prerequisite for approval of these requirements 
into the SIP. However, EPA is working with North Carolina in the 
context of the separate area designations action to analyze whether 
modeling of these new permitted emission limits, once made permanently 
federally enforceable, would demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS and 
provide a more accurate characterization of current air quality 
conditions in the Beaverdam Township Area at the time of final 
designation than would the 3-year design value of the air quality 
monitor for the period of 2017-2019. If EPA approves these 
SO2 permit limits and associated compliance parameters into 
the SIP in a timely fashion, EPA could evaluate a modeling 
demonstration that these limits provide for attainment as part of the 
rulemaking on the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designation for the 
Beaverdam Township Area in Haywood County, North Carolina. However, if 
EPA approves this SIP under CAA section 110, such approval would not 
prejudge the outcome of EPA's forthcoming designation of the Beaverdam 
Township Area, as that future determination is occurring as part of a 
separate national notice and comment rulemaking under CAA section 
107.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the SIP submission, NC DAQ also references supplemental 
air quality modeling information NC DAQ previously provided to EPA 
to support approval of North Carolina's CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``Good Neighbor'' SIP for the SO2 
NAAQS. EPA is not taking any action regarding CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), nor is it prejudging any such submission or 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What did North Carolina submit in the draft source-specific SIP 
revision for BRPP?

    North Carolina's June 24, 2020, draft source-specific SIP revision 
specifically requests that EPA incorporate into the SIP the maximum 
allowable SO2 emissions limits for seven emissions sources, 
including operational and compliance requirements, from permit T29 
because these units are the highest SO2 emitting sources at 
the facility. These SO2 emissions limits are listed in Table 
1 below. Specifically, North Carolina's June 24, 2020, draft SIP 
revision requests that EPA incorporate specific permit conditions from 
section 2.2.J of permit T29 including portions of Table 2.2.J.1 and 
section 2.2.J.1.(c) through (i) which also include specific cross-
reference permit conditions at section 2.2.D.1. These seven emission 
units are the No. 10 and 11 Recovery Furnaces (G08020 and G08021); No. 
4 and 5 Lime Kilns (G09028 and G09029); and Riley Coal (G11039), Riley 
Bark (G11042) and No. 4 (G11040) Power Boilers.

[[Page 53719]]



 Table 1--Permit T29 SO2 Emission Limits Proposed for Incorporation Into
                         the North Carolina SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SO2 permitted
                                                         emission limit
                                     Emission unit       Title V  Permit
       Emission Unit ID               description       No. 08961T29 (lb/
                                                               hr)
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G08020........................  No. 10 Recovery                     28.0
                                 Furnace-BLS--normal                0.54
                                 Operation.
                                No. 10 Recovery
                                 Furnace-ULSD--startup
                                 and shutdown.
G08021........................  No. 11 Recovery                     28.0
                                 Furnace-BLS--normal                0.54
                                 operation.
                                No. 11 Recovery
                                 Furnace-ULSD--startup
                                 and shutdown.
G09028........................  No. 4 Lime Kiln.......              6.28
G09029........................  No. 5 Lime Kiln.......             10.47
G11039........................  Riley Coal Boiler.....             61.32
G11040........................  No. 4 Power Boiler....             82.22
G11042........................  Riley Bark Boiler.....             68.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BRPP implemented facility improvements and control measures to 
reduce SO2 emissions and corresponding ambient 
SO2 concentrations to comply with the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, in response to the SOC, BRPP 
implemented the construction, installation, and operation of multiple 
process improvements from March 28, 2015 to May 20, 2019. These 
improvements are discussed in Table 2 of North Carolina's June 24, 
2020, draft SIP revision and summarized below.
    On March 29, 2016, DAQ issued an air construction permit 
authorizing BRPP to proceed with facility-wide modifications for 
purposes of compliance with the Boiler MACT standards. On May 23, 2017, 
BRPP began operating two new natural gas-fired boilers, No.1 and No. 2 
natural gas package boilers (G11050 and G11051). BRPP permanently shut 
down coal-fired boiler, Big Bill (G11037) on July 12, 2017, and Peter G 
(G11038) on November 30, 2017, to reduce SO2 emissions. The 
two new natural gas package boilers replace these two coal-fired units. 
On November 17, 2017, BRPP installed natural gas burners on the No. 4 
Power Boiler (G11040). BRPP commenced operation of new wet scrubbers on 
the Riley Coal (G11039) and the No. 4 Power Boilers on June 29, 2018, 
and August 1, 2018, respectively. On November 7, 2018, BRPP completed 
the conversion of auxiliary fuel for the recovery furnaces No. 10 and 
No. 11 (G08020 and G08021) from No. 6 fuel oil to ultra-low sulfur 
diesel (ULSD) fuel.
    On November 12, 2019, DAQ issued permit T26, which established 
facility-wide enforceable SO2 emission limits for 19 
emission units at BRPP that emit SO2 and associated 
operating restrictions, MRR and testing compliance parameters. Table 
2.2.J.1 of permit T29 lists the maximum permitted SO2 
emission limits established at BRPP. These control measures implemented 
at BRPP between 2017 and 2019 resulted in the reduction of actual 
SO2 emissions from 5,875 tons in 2017 to 405 tons in 2019, a 
93 percent reduction (reduction of 5,470 tons). Between 2018-2019 the 
facility reduced emissions from 2,901 tons to 405 tons, respectively) 
or 86 percent (2,496 tons).
    Below is a description of the seven major SO2-emitting 
units at BRPP with emissions limits that DAQ has requested EPA 
incorporate into the North Carolina SIP to ensure the modeled emission 
limits are permanently federally enforceable for each emission unit:
     No. 10 and No. 11 Recovery Furnace (G08020 and G08021)--
These two emission units recover pulping chemicals from spent pulping 
liquor (black liquor). Each recovery furnace is subject to a pair of 
SO2 permitted limits based on ULSD and black liquor solids 
(BLS) fuel usage. The ULSD is used specifically during startup and 
shutdown, and the BLS is used during normal operation. During start-up, 
fuel oil is burned for a period of time to warm up the furnace. The 
exhaust parameters during startup differ from that of normal operation 
(i.e., the exhaust flow and temperature are lower when only startup 
fuel is being fired). Each recovery furnace is subject to two 
enforceable SO2 emission limits for start-up and shutdown 
(0.54 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) firing only ULSD fuel oil (with a 
maximum sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm))(section 
2.2.J.1.c.i.) and a separate enforceable emission limit of 28.0 lb/hr 
when firing black liquor solids. These units are not equipped with 
control devices and are required to conduct source testing annually 
under condition 2.2.J.1.d to determine compliance with the emission 
limits listed in Table 2.2.J.1. of title V permit T29 and are required 
to maintain records for start-up and shutdown operations and fuel oil 
supply.
     No. 4 Power, Riley Coal, and Riley Bark--These coal-fired 
boilers are subject to enforceable SO2 emission limits of 
82.22 lb/hr, 61.32 lb/hr and 68.00 lb/hr, respectively. These coal-
fired boilers are operated to produce steam for energy generation and 
provide heat for the pulping and paper making processes. The Riley Coal 
and No. 4 Power Boilers are each equipped with a caustic wet scrubber, 
and the Riley Barker has a venturi-type wet scrubber with caustic 
addition. For the three boilers, the wet scrubber on each boiler is 
required to be operated continuously and is considered a part of the 
physical and operational design of the boilers. Each scrubber is 
subject to MRR, testing, and compliance certification requirements 
specified in T29 permit conditions 2.2.J.1.c.i.vii and 2.2.J.1.(d) 
through (i) which include Boiler MACT parametric monitoring 
requirements.\15\ These three coal-fired units are not equipped with 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to continuously collect, 
record, and report emission data for compliance with an array of 
enforceable emission standards and other regulatory requirements. In 
lieu of CEMS, the permit requires BRPP to install, operate, and 
maintain a

[[Page 53720]]

continuous monitoring system (CMS) \16\ for the wet scrubbers 
parametric monitoring pursuant to the Boiler MACT monitoring 
requirements at 40 CFR 63.7525 (d) through (g) and Sec.  63.7535.\17\ 
BRPP is required to continuously monitor the minimum scrubbing liquid 
pH and recirculation liquid flowrate to verify compliance with the 
applicable SO2 emissions for these three boilers. Minimum 
parametric values for the scrubbing liquid pH and recirculation liquid 
flowrate are established through performance testing and shown in Table 
2.2 J.2 of permit T29 for the wet scrubbers (permit conditions 
2.2.J.1.c.vii.A through E). The facility is required to determine the 
source-specific scrubber liquid pH and flow rate calculated as 3-hour 
block averages based on three 1-hour source test runs to determine 
continuous compliance with the SO2 permit limit in Table 2.2 
J.1 as required at condition 2.2.J.1.c.vii. Condition 2.2.J.1.c.vii.E. 
requires BRPP to maintain the parametric scrubbing flow rate and pH 
levels at or above the minimum levels confirmed or re-established by 
the most recent performance test performed pursuant to condition 
2.2.J.1.d and approved by DAQ that demonstrates compliance with the 
corresponding emission limits. Maintaining the 3-hour block averages 
for the pH and scrubber liquid flow at or above the minimum values is 
expected to result in maintaining compliance with emission rate. For 
the Riley Coal, Riley Bark, and No. 4 Power Boiler scrubbers, Table 2.2 
J.2 identifies the parameters that BRPP is required to monitor--the 
minimum pH and recirculation flow rate (gpm) and provides the values 
for pH and recirculation flow rate (gpm) from the most recent 
SO2 performance testing, and the date of the latest testing 
for the three coal-fired boilers. Table 2.2 J.2 simply shows the values 
confirmed or re-established by the most recent performance testing that 
demonstrated compliance at the time of permit issuance as explained in 
condition 2.2.J.vii.E. For purposes of the source-specific SIP 
revision, condition 2.2.J.vii.E provides the enforceable provision for 
parametric monitoring--BRPP is required to meet the minimum values 
confirmed or re-established in the most recent performance testing. 
BRPP is required to conduct periodic performance testing of the wet and 
venturi scrubbers. If the currently applicable parametric values are 
revised in subsequent performance testing,\18\ the newly established 
values are enforceable upon approval by DAQ.\19\ Deviations from the 
applicable parameters must be reported to the DAQ. For the Riley Coal 
and No. 4 Power Boilers, testing is required on an annual basis or, 
once a test is conducted such that the results of the test are less 
than 80 percent of the SO2 emission limit, BRPP will be 
required to stack test only once every five years as required at 
condition 2.2.J.1.d Table 2.2 .J.3 in T29 identifies which units are 
subject to performance testing as required at condition 2.2.J.1.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Parametric monitoring is a common method to ensure 
continuous compliance with an emissions limit in lieu of continuous 
direct sampling/monitoring of the subject pollutant, in this case 
SO2. This is a common regulatory approach used in various 
Federal regulations such as the MACT and New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS). In parametric monitoring, certain performance 
parameters that are critical to the proper operation of the emission 
control device are continuously monitored. These parameters can 
include scrubber recirculation flow, pH, and pressure drop. The 
compliance parameter minimum levels are typically established during 
emission source testing to ensure operating at those parameter 
levels meets the underlying emission control requirement.
    \16\ 40 CFR 63.1 defines CMS as a comprehensive term that may 
include, but is not limited to, continuous emission monitoring 
systems, continuous opacity monitoring systems, continuous parameter 
monitoring systems, or other manual or automatic monitoring that is 
used for demonstrating compliance with an applicable regulation on a 
continuous basis as defined by the regulation.
    \17\ Pursuant to 63.7525 (d) through (g), BRPP must operate the 
CMS in accordance with the criteria on the collection of data and 
recordkeeping, inspection, and validation requirements at 63.7525(d) 
(except (d)(4)) and 63.7535; and must meet the criteria for the 
operation of flow and pH sensors of 63.7525(e) and (g). In lieu of 
the 30-day rolling average per 62.7525(d)(4), BRPP is required to 
maintain the 3-hour block average for the parameters in Table 
2.2.J.2 at or above the levels required in the permit.
    \18\ The initial parametric monitoring ranges identified in 
Table 2.2.J.2 have already been established by performance tests; 
any tests conducted subsequent to that time are used to either 
confirm that the monitoring ranges are still valid or to re-
establish new ranges if the tests indicate that is necessary.
    \19\ If revised parametric values are approved based on 
subsequent performance testing, the permit may be revised to change 
the values shown in Table 2.2 J.2, pursuant to condition 2.2.J.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No. 4 and No. 5 Lime Kilns--The No. 4 Lime Kiln (G09028) 
is subject to an enforceable SO2 emissions limit of 6.28 lb/
hr and is equipped with a wet scrubber. The No. 5 Lime Kiln (G09029) is 
subject to an enforceable SO2 emissions limit of 10.47 lb/hr 
and equipped with a venturi-type wet scrubber.\20\ These two emission 
units are part of the Kraft pulp mill chemical recovery cycle and, 
following startup, they calcine lime mud (CaCO3) to produce 
lime product (CaO). During normal operation, the kilns emit very little 
SO2 because the calcium in the lime mud acts as a natural 
scrubbant by absorbing sulfur. The wet scrubbers are primarily in place 
to control emissions of particulate matter (PM) and total reduced 
sulfur (TRS), as required at condition 2.1.O.1, but also control 
emissions of SO2 during startup and can provide some control 
of SO2 during normal operation. The lime kilns burn a 
combination of No. 6 fuel oil and natural gas during both startup and 
normal operation, with the majority of the heat input coming from 
natural gas. The kilns go through startup approximately once per month 
for Kiln No. 4 and every other month for Kiln No. 5. To ensure 
compliance with the hourly SO2 emissions limit, BRPP is 
required to continuously operate the scrubbers and comply with the 
operating restrictions, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements set forth in conditions 2.2.J.1.d through (i) including 
Table 2.2 J.3. In the case of the lime kilns, the parametric monitoring 
requirements for SO2 in permit T29 refer to pre-existing air 
permit and regulatory requirements for proper scrubber operation and 
air emissions control in condition 2.2.D.1, which establish conditions 
for the Federal MACT Standard 40 CFR part 63 Subpart MM ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical 
Recovery Combustion Sources.'' As such, the facility is required to 
operate the scrubbers for PM control (which also results in 
SO2 control) by regulations that are in addition to the 
SO2 control requirements specified in condition 2.2.J of 
permit T29. These requirements, namely conditions 2.2.D.1(f) through 
(r) as they apply to lime kilns #4 and 5, are cross referenced in 
condition 2.2.J.1 of the permit as the basis to ensure compliance with 
the SO2 emission limits in Table 2.2 J.1. Thus, BRPP must 
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous parameter 
monitoring system that can be used to determine and record the pressure 
drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rates. These 
parameters are continuously monitored, recorded, and reduced to 3-hour 
averages for comparison to the minimum operating limits established in 
accordance with condition 2.2.D.1.h and those in Table 2.2 D.2. 
Parameters must be maintained above the minimum established values. 
Deviations from the established parameters must be reported to DAQ. To 
verify compliance with the emission limitations in permit T29, BRPP is 
required to perform annual testing or, once a test is conducted such 
that the results of the test are less than 50 percent of the emission 
limit, the facility is required to stack test only once every five 
years pursuant to condition 2.2.J.1.d. This reduction in testing 
frequency for sources with control devices, monitored operating 
parameter limits, and margins of

[[Page 53721]]

compliance are consistent with the federal rules applicable to the 
facility (i.e., NSPS, MACT, compliance assurance monitoring, and title 
V) and EPA guidance. BRPP is in the process of upgrading its scrubbers 
for lime kilns 4 and 5. Thus, in the permit T29, Table 2.2 D-2 
establishes operating parameter limits for operations prior to and 
after the upgrades. For lime kiln #4, recirculation liquid flow and 
differential pressure must meet the minimum operating limits 
established in Table 2.2 D-2 identified as applicable prior to the 
upgrade. Following the upgrade, BRPP will be required to meet the 
minimum values for these parameters recommended by the manufacturer as 
an interim measure and will be required to conduct testing to establish 
site-specific limits. Similarly, for lime kiln #5, the permit requires 
BRPP to meet minimum operating limits in Table 2.2 D-2 prior to the 
upgrade. Lime kiln #5 uses a venturi-type scrubber and is required to 
meet minimum limits for venturi liquid flow, quench liquid flow, and 
differential pressure. Again, following the upgrade, this scrubber is 
required to meet manufacturer's recommended minimums for these 
parameters as an interim measure and conduct testing to establish site-
specific limits. NC DAQ interprets condition 2.2.J.1.c.iii to require 
BRPP to meet the operating limits in Table 2.2 D-2, including any 
operating limits established through testing under 2.2.D.1.h, in 
accordance with the monitoring exceedance provision 2.2.D.1.j., to 
ensure the SO2 emission limitations in Table 2.2 J.1 will 
not be exceeded for these lime kilns. The scrubber-specific minimum 
monitoring parameters from performance tests approved by the DAQ will 
supersede the manufacturer's recommended limits without requiring a 
permit or SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Source testing was conducted on each lime kiln during 
normal operation, and the source test results showed that the 
emission rate for each kiln was much lower than the emission rate, 
calculated using the emission factor that was used to establish the 
SO2 limit. The permitted emission rate is therefore 
conservative, and normal emission rates are expected to be quite 
low, based on stack test results, and contribute little to the 
facility's ambient SO2 impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include, in a final EPA rule, 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing the incorporation by 
reference into North Carolina's SIP the conditions identified below 
from title V operating Permit No. 08961T29 issued by DAQ to BRPP with 
an effective date of June 2, 2020. These permit conditions relate to 
enforcement of and compliance with SO2 emission limitations 
at BRPP for seven SO2 emitting units. Specifically, DAQ has 
requested EPA incorporate into the North Carolina SIP condition 2.2.J.b 
and the lb/hr SO2 emission limitations in Table 2.2 J.1 for 
the No. 10 and No. 11 Recovery Furnaces (G08020 and G08021), No. 4 and 
No. 5 Lime Kilns (G09028 and G09029) and Riley Bark, Riley Coal, and 
No. 4 Power Boilers (G11042, G11039 and G11040). North Carolina has 
also requested EPA incorporate into the SIP the following operating, 
MRR, and testing conditions to ensure compliance with SO2 
emission limitations identified in Table 2.2 J.1 of condition 
2.2.J.1.b: (1) For the No. 10 and No. 11 Recovery Furnaces (G08020 and 
G08021)--condition 2.2.J.1.c.i; (2) for No. 4 and No. 5 Lime Kilns 
(G09028 and G09029)--condition 2.2.J.1.c.iii; condition 2.2 D.1.f.ii; 
Table 2.2.D-2; condition 2.2 D.1.h; condition 2.2 D.1.i.ii; condition 
2.2 D.1.j.ii; conditions 2.2 D.1.l.ii, 2.2 D.1.l.iii, 2.2 D.1.l.iv, 2.2 
D.1.l.v, 2.2 D.1.l.vii, and 2.2 D.1.l.viii; condition 2.2 D.1.m; 
condition 2.2 D.1.n; condition 2.2 D.1.o, and condition 2.2 D.1.p.iii; 
(3) for the Riley Bark, Riley Coal and No. 4 Power Boilers (G11042, 
G11039 and G11040)--condition 2.2.J.1.c.vii, including Table 2.2 J.2; 
(4) Testing--condition 2.2.J.1.d and Table.2.2 J.3, (5) condition 
2.2.J.1.e; (6) Recordkeeping--conditions 2.2 J.1.g.i, 2.2 J.1.g.ii, and 
2.2 J.1.g.iii; (7) Reporting--conditions 2.2.J.1.h and 2.2.J.1.i. EPA 
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

VIII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve SO2 emissions limits and 
associated operating restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance 
parameters from BRPP's title V operating permit T29 into the North 
Carolina SIP. EPA confirms that the SO2 emissions limits and 
associated operating restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance 
parameters for BRPP are more stringent than requirements that are 
currently approved into the North Carolina SIP for BRPP. By 
incorporating these SO2 permit limits and associated 
operating restrictions, MRR, and testing compliance parameters into the 
North Carolina SIP, these requirements will become permanently 
federally enforceable and strengthen the North Carolina SIP.

IX. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed 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) and 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).
    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.

[[Page 53722]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-17231 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P