Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions, 15104-15132 [2021-05362]
Download as PDF
15104
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. This
final action withdraws a FIP that applies
to two individually identified units at
one facility in Arkansas. There are no
Indian reservation lands in Arkansas.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks 16 applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be
economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12866; and (2)
concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that we have reason to
believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. EPA interprets E.O.
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis
required under Section 5–501 of the
E.O. has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it implements
specific standards established by
Congress in statutes.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
this action is subject to the requirements
of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP
under CAA section 110(c).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of particular
applicably. EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding this
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability that
only affects one individually identified
facility in Arkansas.
M. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 21, 2021.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best available retrofit
technology, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter,
Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
Dioxide, Visibility.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E—Arkansas
§ 52. 173
[Amended]
FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0189; FRL–10019–
63–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Arkansas
Regional Haze and Visibility Transport
State Implementation Plan Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a revision to the Arkansas
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Arkansas
through the Arkansas Department of
Energy and Environment, Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) on August
13, 2019. The SIP submittal addresses
requirements of the Act and the
Regional Haze Rule for visibility
protection in mandatory Class I Federal
areas (Class I areas) for the first
implementation period. The EPA is
approving an alternative measure to best
available retrofit technology (BART) at
the Domtar Ashdown Mill for sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM),
and nitrogen oxide (NOX); and elements
of the SIP submittal that relate to these
BART requirements at this facility. In
addition, we are approving the
withdrawal from the SIP of the
previously approved PM10 BART limit
for Power Boiler No. 1. The EPA is also
concurrently approving Arkansas’
interstate visibility transport provisions
from the August 8, 2018, regional haze
SIP submittal as supplemented by the
visibility transport provisions in the
October 4, 2019, interstate transport SIP
submittal, which covers the following
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS): The 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS; the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008
and 2015 eight-hour ozone (O3) NAAQS;
the 2010 one-hour nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. In conjunction with our
final approval of these SIP revisions, we
are finalizing in a separate rulemaking,
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, our withdrawal of the
Federal implementation plan (FIP)
provisions for the Domtar Ashdown
Mill.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
2. In § 52.173, remove and reserve
paragraph (c).
[FR Doc. 2021–05361 Filed 3–19–21; 8:45 am]
16 62
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Sfmt 4700
This rule is effective on April 21,
2021.
The EPA has established a
docket of all documents for this action
at https://www.regulations.gov under
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2015–
0189. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201
Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas TX 72570,
214–665–6745; grady.james@epa.gov.
Please call or email Mr. Grady or Mr.
Bill Deese at 214–665–7253 if you need
alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Principles
B. Requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
C. BART Requirements
D. BART Alternative Requirements
E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
F. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional
Haze
G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Submittal
H. Arkansas Visibility Transport
II. Summary of Proposed Action and Our
Final Decisions
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. Demonstration That the BART
Alternative Is Better-Than-BART
B. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
C. Requirements for Emission Reductions
To Occur During the First
Implementation Period and for a
Compliance Schedule
D. The CAA Section 110(l) AntiBacksliding Provision
E. Interstate Visibility Transport and
Regional Haze Reasonable Progress
Requirements
F. Comments From Domtar
IV. Final Action
A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Submittal
B. Arkansas Visibility Transport
C. CAA Section 110(l)
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Principles
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities that are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
fine particulates (PM2.5) 1 into the air.
Fine particulates which cause haze are
sulfates (SO42-), nitrates (NO3-), organic
carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust.2 PM2.5 precursors consist of
SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3). Airborne PM2.5 can scatter 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. Natural
sources can include windblown dust
and soot from wildfires. Man-made
sources can include major and minor
stationary sources, mobile sources, and
area sources. Reducing PM2.5 and its
precursor gases in the atmosphere is an
effective method of improving visibility.
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 mandatory Class I Federal
areas 4 in the western United States was
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 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
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15105
100–150 kilometers (km), or about onehalf to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions.5 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. Since the
promulgation of the original Regional
Haze Rule in 1999, CAA programs have
reduced emissions of haze-causing
pollution, lessening visibility
impairment and resulting in improved
average visual ranges.6
B. Requirements of the CAA and the
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A, enacted as part 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. Congress
added section 169B to the CAA in 1990,
which strengthened the visibility
protection program of the Act, 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 restoring
natural visibility conditions for Class I
areas 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
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 (FLM). 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).
5 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999).
6 An interactive story map depicting efforts and
recent progress by the EPA and states to improve
visibility at national parks and wilderness areas
may be visited at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
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).
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15106
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Islands. States were required to submit
the first implementation plan
addressing visibility impairment caused
by regional haze no later than December
17, 2007.8
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
C. BART Requirements
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA
directs states to evaluate the use of
BART controls at certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built
between 1962 and 1977.9 Under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii), any BART-eligible
source 10 that is reasonably anticipated
to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area is classified
as subject-to-BART.11 States are directed
to conduct BART determinations to
address visibility impacts for each
source classified as subject-to-BART.
These large, often under-controlled,
older stationary sources are then
required to procure, install, and operate
the BART controls established in these
determinations to reduce visibility
impairment. The determinations must
be based on an analysis of the best
system of continuous emission control
technology available and associated
emission reductions achievable. States
are required to identify the level of
control representing BART after
considering the five statutory factors set
out in CAA section 169A(g)(2) for the
potential BART controls.12 States must
establish emission limits, a schedule of
8 See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Also, under 40 CFR
51.308(f)–(i), the EPA requires subsequent updates
to the regional haze SIPs for each implementation
period. The next update for the second
implementation period is due by July 31, 2021.
9 See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7), which lists the 26
source categories of major stationary sources
potentially subject-to-BART.
10 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
fall within one of 26 source categories that began
operation on or after August 7, 1962, and were in
existence on August 7, 1977, with potential
emissions greater than 250 tons per year (tpy). (See
40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, section II).
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
specify 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 part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1).
12 The five statutory factors in determining BART
controls are: (1) Costs of compliance, (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts, (3) any
existing control technology present at the source,
(4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5)
the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of
such technology.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
compliance, and other measures
consistent with the BART determination
process for each source subject-toBART.
D. BART Alternative Requirements
A State may opt to implement or
require participation in an emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure rather than require sources
subject-to-BART to install, operate, and
maintain BART. Such an emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure must achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and
operation of BART. In order to
demonstrate that the alternative
program achieves greater reasonable
progress than source-specific BART, a
state must demonstrate that its SIP
meets the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv). Among other
things, the state must conduct an
analysis of BART and the associated
reductions for each source subject-toBART covered by the alternative
program, and compare the reductions
and visibility improvements of the
alternative program to what would have
been achieved by BART.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)E),
the state must provide a determination
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise
based on the ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’
that the alternative measure achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides two
specific tests applicable under specific
circumstances for determining whether
the alternative measure achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. Under
the first test, if the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different
than under BART, and the alternative
measure results in greater emission
reductions, then the alternative measure
may be deemed to achieve greater
reasonable progress. Under the second
test, if the distribution of emissions is
significantly different, then the State
must conduct dispersion modeling to
determine the difference in visibility
between BART and the alternative
measure for each impacted Class I area,
for the twenty percent best and worst
days. The modeling would demonstrate
greater reasonable progress if both of the
following two criteria are met: (i)
Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area, and (ii) there is an overall
improvement in visibility, determined
by comparing the average difference
between BART and the alternative over
all affected Class I areas.
Alternatively, under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), states may show based
on the ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ that
the alternative achieves greater
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and
operation of BART at the covered
sources. As stated in the EPA’s revisions
to the Regional Haze Rule governing
alternatives to source-specific BART
determinations, weight of evidence
demonstrations attempt to make use of
all available information and data which
can inform a decision while recognizing
the relative strengths and weaknesses of
that information in arriving at the
soundest decision possible.13 This array
of information and other relevant data
must be of sufficient quality to inform
the comparison of visibility impacts
between BART and the alternative. A
weight of evidence comparison may be
warranted when there is confidence that
the difference in visibility impacts
between BART and the alternative
scenarios are expected to be large
enough to show that an alternative is
better than BART. The EPA will
carefully consider this evidence in
evaluating any SIPs submitted by States
employing such an approach.
Finally, under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)
and (iv), all emission reductions for the
alternative program must take place
during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze, and all the
emission reductions resulting from the
alternative program must be surplus to
those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP.
E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) to (iv) requires each
state to include in its SIP a long-term
strategy for the planning period that
addresses regional haze visibility
impairment for each Class I area located
within the state and outside the state
that may be affected by emissions
generated from within the state. The
long-term strategy is the vehicle for
ensuring continuing reasonable progress
toward achieving natural visibility
conditions. It is a compilation of all
control measures in the SIP that a state
will use during the implementation
period to meet the applicable reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established under
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) for each Class I
13 See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006).
Factors which can be used in a weight of evidence
determination in this context may include, but not
be limited to, future projected emissions levels
under the alternative as compared to under BART;
future projected visibility conditions under the two
scenarios; the geographic distribution of sources
likely to reduce or increase emissions under the
alternative as compared to BART sources;
monitoring data and emissions inventories; and
sensitivity analyses of any models used.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
area.14 The RPGs established by the
State provide an assessment of the
visibility improvement anticipated to
result for that planning period.15
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that a
state consider certain minimum factors
(the long-term strategy factors) in
developing its long-term strategy for
each Class I area.16 States have
significant flexibility in establishing
RPGs during the first planning period
and must determine whether additional
measures beyond BART are needed for
reasonable progress. Under CAA section
169A(g)(1), once a set of potential
control measures have been identified
for a selected source, the State must
collect data on and apply the four
statutory factors that will be considered
in selecting the measure(s) for that
source that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. The four statutory
factors used to characterize potential
emission controls are as follows: (1) The
costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
14 See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) to (iv). For the first
planning period, contributing and impacted states
must develop coordinated emission management
strategies. Impacted states must demonstrate that
they have included all measures necessary in their
SIPs to obtain their share of emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for a Class I area. States
must document the technical basis that they relied
upon to determine the apportionment of emission
reduction obligations necessary and identify the
baseline emissions inventory on which their
strategies are based. States must also identify all
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment
considered in developing the strategy, such as
major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources,
and area sources.
15 The process for setting RPGs is as follows: (1)
Identify sources that impact visibility; (2) evaluate
potential controls based on consideration of the
four reasonable progress factors; (3) project the
visibility conditions based on implementation of
on-the-books and additional selected controls; (4)
compare the projected visibility conditions to the
uniform rate of progress (URP) needed to attain
natural visibility conditions by year 2064 for each
Class I area; (5) determine an RPG for each Class
I area based on this analysis that will improve the
visibility at or beyond the URP on the most
impaired days and ensure no degradation for the
least impaired days. The Regional Haze Rule allows
for the selection of an RPG at a given Class I area
that provides for a slower rate of improvement than
the URP for that area, but in that case a state must
demonstrate that the URP is not reasonable and that
the RPG selected is. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
16 These factors are: (1) Emission reductions due
to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance
to achieve the reasonable progress goal; (4) source
retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural and
forestry management purposes including plans as
currently exist within the state for these purposes;
(6) enforceability of emissions limitations and
control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect
on visibility due to projected changes in point, area,
and mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long-term strategy.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. A state planning to
consider visibility benefits will also
need to characterize those benefits
(often referred to as the 5th factor).17
States must demonstrate in their
regional haze SIPs how these factors are
considered when selecting the controls
for their long-term strategies and
provide an assessment of the visibility
improvement anticipated to establish
RPGs for each applicable Class I area.
This is commonly referred to this as the
‘‘reasonable progress analysis’’ or ‘‘fourfactor analysis.’’
F. Previous Actions on Arkansas
Regional Haze
The State of Arkansas submitted a
regional haze SIP on September 9, 2008,
intended 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 15.18 On September 27, 2011,
the State submitted a supplemental
letter that clarified several aspects of the
2008 submittal. The EPA collectively
refers to the original 2008 submittal, the
supplemental letter, and the 2010
revision 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.19 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 PM10; the State’s reasonable
progress analysis; and a portion of the
State’s long-term strategy. The
remaining provisions of the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP were
approved. The final partial disapproval
started a two-year FIP clock that
obligated the EPA to either approve a
17 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007,
memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions
1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1).
18 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.
19 See the final action on (March 12, 2012) (77 FR
14604).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15107
SIP revision and/or promulgate a FIP to
address the disapproved portions of the
SIP.20 Because a SIP revision addressing
the deficiencies was not approved and
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.21 Among other things, the FIP
established SO2, NOX, and PM10
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; American Electric
Power/Southwestern Electric Power
Company (AEP/SWEPCO) Flint Creek
Plant Boiler No. 1; Entergy22 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 and administrative stay
submitted by the State, industry, and
ratepayers, on April 14, 2017,23 the EPA
announced our decision to reconsider
several elements of the FIP 24 and on
April 25, 2017, the EPA issued a partial
administrative stay of the effectiveness
of the FIP for ninety days.25 During that
period, Arkansas started to address the
disapproved portions of its regional
haze SIP through several phases of SIP
revisions. On July 12, 2017, the State
submitted its Phase I SIP submittal (the
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision) to address NOX BART
requirements for all electric generating
20 Under CAA section 110(c), the EPA is required
to promulgate a FIP within two 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 effective date that
the EPA disapproves a SIP in whole or in part. The
FIP requirement is terminated only if a state
submits a SIP, and the EPA approves that SIP as
meeting applicable CAA requirements before
promulgating a FIP.
21 See FIP final action on September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
68319).
23 Copies of the petitions for reconsideration and
administrative stay submitted by the State of
Arkansas; Entergy; Arkansas Electric Cooperative
Corporation (AECC); and the Energy and
Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA) are
available in the docket of this action.
24 Letter from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, EPA,
to Nicholas Jacob Bronni and Jamie Leigh Ewing,
Arkansas Attorney General’s Office (April 14, 2017).
A copy of this letter is included in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPAR06OAR-2015-0189-0240.
25 See 82 FR 18994.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15108
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
units (EGUs) and the reasonable
progress requirements with respect to
NOX. These NOX provisions were
previously disapproved by the EPA in
our 2012 final action on the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
submittal replaced all source-specific
NOX BART determinations for EGUs
established in the FIP with reliance
upon the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) emissions trading program for
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 NOX provisions of the
FIP.26
The State submitted its Phase II 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 that were
disapproved in the March 12, 2012,
action. The August 8, 2018, SIP
submittal was intended to replace the
federal SO2 and PM10 BART
determinations 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 PM10 BART requirements for Bailey
Unit 1; SO2 and PM10 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 PM10 BART requirements for the
White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; 27 and
included a requirement that Lake
Catherine Unit 4 not burn fuel oil until
SO2 and PM BART determinations for
the fuel oil firing scenario are approved
26 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.
27 The Arkansas Regional Haze SO and PM SIP
2
revision established a new NOX emission limit of
32.2 pounds per hour (pph) for the Auxiliary Boiler
to satisfy NOX BART and replaced the SIP
determination that we previously approved in our
final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision. In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision, DEQ incorrectly identified the Auxiliary
Boiler as participating in the CSAPR trading
program for O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX
BART requirements. The new source-specific NOX
BART emission limit that we approved in our final
action on the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision corrected that error.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
into the SIP by the EPA.28 The submittal
addressed the reasonable progress
requirements with respect to SO2 and
PM10 emissions 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 longterm strategy requirements for Domtar
Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2. On September 27, 2019, we took final
action to approve a portion of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision and to withdraw the
corresponding parts of the FIP.29 30 The
August 8, 2018, SIP also contained a
discussion of the interstate visibility
transport provisions, as discussed in
more detail in Section I.H of this final
action.
G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Submittal
On August 13, 2019, DEQ submitted
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision (Phase III SIP revision),
which we are finalizing approval of in
this action. This submittal contains an
alternative measure to address BART
and the associated long-term strategy
requirements for two subject-to-BART
sources (Power Boilers No. 1 and 2) at
the Domtar Ashdown paper mill located
in Ashdown, Arkansas. Power Boiler
No. 1 was first installed in 1967–1968.
At the time of SIP submittal and our
proposed approval, the unit was
28 The 2012 action disapproved SO , NO , and
2
X
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,
the FIP included a requirement that Entergy not
burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final
EPA approval of BART determinations for SO2,
NOX, and PM. In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX
SIP revision, Arkansas relied on participation in
CSAPR for O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX BART
requirement for its subject-to-BART EGUs,
including Lake Catherine Unit 4. When we took
final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision, we also took final action to withdraw the
FIP NOX emission limit for the natural gas firing
scenario for Lake Catherine Unit 4. In the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision, Entergy
committed to not burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine
Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART for SO2
and PM. This commitment was made enforceable
by the State through an Administrative Order that
was adopted and incorporated in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
29 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for
proposed action and 84 FR 51033 (September 27,
2019) for final 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 take action on that
part of the submittal. We are acting on the interstate
visibility transport portion of the Arkansas Regional
Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision in this final action.
30 See 84 FR 51056 (September 27, 2019) for the
final withdrawal action.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
permitted to burn only natural gas.31 It
was capable of burning a variety of other
fuels too, including bark, wood waste,
tire-derived fuel (TDF), municipal yard
waste, pelletized paper fuel, fuel-oil,
and reprocessed fuel-oil, but was not
authorized to do so. It was equipped
with a wet electrostatic precipitator
(WESP) 32 but the requirements to
operate the WESP were removed when
the permit was modified to combust
natural gas only. In 2020, DEQ received
a disconnection notice 33 for Power
Boiler No. 1 and it is now permanently
retired. Power Boiler No. 1 has a design
heat input rating of 580 million British
Thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and
an average steam generation rate of
approximately 120,000 pounds per hour
(pph). Power Boiler No. 2 was installed
in 1975 and is authorized to burn a
variety of fuels including coal,
petroleum coke, TDF, natural gas, wood
waste, clean cellulosic biomass (e.g.
bark, wood residuals, and other woody
biomass materials), and wood chips
used to absorb oil spills. It is equipped
with a traveling grate; 34 a combustion
air system that includes over-fire air; 35
multi-clones for PM10 removal; 36 and
two venturi scrubbers in parallel for
removal of SO2 and remaining
particulates. Power Boiler No. 2 has a
heat input rating of 820 MMBtu/hr and
an average steam generation rate of
approximately 600,000 pph.
DEQ’s original BART analyses and
determinations (dated October 2006 and
March 2007) for Power Boilers No. 1
and 2 were included in the 2008
31 Power Boiler No. 1 operates as natural gas only
subject to the Gas 1 subcategory defined under 40
CFR 63.7575. See DEQ Air Permit No. 0287–AOP–
R22 (page 64) in the docket of this action.
32 An electrostatic precipitator is an air pollution
control device that functions by electrostatically
charging particles in a gas stream that passes
through collection plates with wires. The ionized
particulate matter is attracted to and deposited on
the plates as the cleaner air passes through. A wet
electrostatic precipitator is designed to operate with
water vapor saturated air streams to remove liquid
droplets such as sulfuric acid.
33 See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice
from Domtar for Power Boiler No. 1 (SN-03) in the
docket of this action.
34 A traveling grate is a moving grate used to feed
fuel to the boiler for combustion.
35 Over-fire air typically recirculates a portion of
the flue gas back to both the fuel-rich zone and the
combustion zone to achieve complete burnout by
encouraging the formation of nitrogen (N2) rather
than NOX.
36 A cyclone separator is an air pollution control
device shaped like a conical tube that creates an air
vortex as air moves through it causing larger
particles (PM10) to settle as the cleaner air passes
through. Multi-clones are a sequence of cyclone
separators in parallel used to treat a higher volume
of air. In this particular case, the cleaner air travels
to the venturi scrubbers to remove the smaller
remaining particles like PM2.5 and SO2.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.37 In our
2012 partial approval/partial
disapproval action, we approved DEQ’s
identification of these two units as
BART-eligible; DEQ’s determination
that these units are subject-to-BART;
and DEQ’s PM10 BART determination
for Power Boiler No. 1.38 In that action,
we also disapproved the SO2 and NOX
BART determinations for Power Boiler
No. 1; and the SO2, NOX, and PM10
BART determinations for Power Boiler
No. 2. In the 2016 Arkansas Regional
Haze FIP and its associated technical
support document (TSD),39 the EPA
promulgated SO2, NOX, and PM10
emission limits for these boilers. The
FIP BART limits were based on
consideration of the 2006 and 2007
BART analyses, a revised BART analysis
(dated May 2014),40 and additional
information provided by Domtar for the
disapproved BART determinations. On
March 20, 2018, Domtar provided DEQ
with a proposed BART alternative based
on changing boiler operations as part of
the company’s planned re-purposing
and mill transformation from paper
production to fluff pulp production. On
September 5, 2018, Domtar further
revised its BART alternative approach
in response to additional boiler
operation changes planned at the
Ashdown Mill.41 In October 2018, DEQ
proposed a SIP revision that included
Domtar’s BART alternative approach to
address the BART requirements for
Power Boilers 1 and 2 at the Ashdown
Mill.42 The October 2018 proposal
37 See ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determination Domtar Industries Inc., Ashdown
Mill (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated October
31, 2006 and revised on March 26, 2007, prepared
by Trinity Consultants Inc. This was included as
part of the Phase III submittal and included in the
docket of this action.
38 See the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR
14604).
39 See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
68319) and the associated TSD, ‘‘AR020.0002–00
TSD for EPA’s Proposed Action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP’’ in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2015–0189 for the FIP BART analysis for SO2 and
NOX for Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and
PM10 for Power Boiler No. 2. This was included as
part of the Phase III submittal and included in the
docket of this action.
40 See ‘‘Supplemental BART Determination
Information Domtar A.W. LLC, Ashdown Mill
(AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated June 28, 2013
and revised on May 16, 2014, prepared by Trinity
Consultants Inc. in conjunction with Domtar A.W.
LLC. This was included as part of the Phase III SIP
submittal and is included in the docket of this
action.
41 See section III.B of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III submittal and the associated September 4,
2018, ‘‘Ashdown Mill BART Alternative TSD’’ in
the docket of this action.
42 The proposed October 2018 SIP revision was
intended to replace the portion of our FIP
addressing Domtar and would also resolve the
claims regarding Domtar in petitions for review of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
included an administrative order as the
enforceable mechanism for the emission
limits established under the BART
alternative; and the order also contained
monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements for the
boilers. During the State’s public
comment period, Domtar submitted
comments stating that while it agrees
with the BART alternative approach and
with the emission limits themselves, it
does not agree with the use of the
administrative order as the enforceable
mechanism of the proposed SIP
revision. Domtar requested that the
portion of its New Source Review (NSR)
permit containing the regional haze
requirements be included in the
proposed SIP revision as the enforceable
mechanism instead of the
administrative order. DEQ addressed
Domtar’s request in April 2019 by
proposing a supplemental SIP revision
to the October 2018 proposal. The
supplemental SIP revision proposal
replaced the administrative order with
the incorporation of certain provisions
of Domtar’s revised NSR permit into the
SIP as the enforceable mechanism for
Domtar’s regional haze requirements.
On August 1, 2019, DEQ issued a final
minor permit modification letter to
Domtar,43 which included enforceable
emission limitations and compliance
schedules for the BART alternative.
DEQ submitted its third corrective
regional haze SIP submittal to the EPA
on August 13, 2019, which is the subject
of this final action (the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision).
The Phase III SIP revision includes
Domtar’s BART alternative approach
and revises all of the prior BART
determinations for Power Boilers No. 1
and 2 at the Ashdown Mill. The Phase
III SIP submittal also incorporates
plantwide provisions from the August 1,
2019, permit including emission limits
and conditions for implementing the
BART alternative.44 With final approval
the FIP that are currently being held in abeyance,
State of Arkansas v. EPA, No. 16–4270 (8th Cir.).
43 See DEQ Air permit #0287–AOP–R22 (effective
August 1, 2019) included as part of the Phase III
submittal and is included in the docket of this
action.
44 See DEQ Air permit #0287–AOP–R22, Section
VI, Plantwide Conditions #32 to #43. The ‘‘Regional
Haze Program (BART Alternative) Specific
Conditions’’ portion of the Plantwide Conditions
section of the permit states the following: ‘‘For
compliance with the CAA Regional Haze Program’s
requirements for the first planning period, the No.
1 and 2 Power Boilers are subject-to-BART
alternative measures consistent with 40 CFR 51.308.
The terms and conditions of the BART alternative
measures are to be submitted to EPA for approval
as part of the Arkansas SIP. Upon initial EPA
approval of the permit into the SIP, the permittee
shall continue to be subject to the conditions as
approved into the SIP even if the conditions are
revised as part of a permit amendment until such
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15109
of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision in this action, DEQ now has
a fully-approved regional haze SIP for
the first implementation period. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision (Phase I SIP),45 the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision
(Phase II SIP),46 and the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
together fully address all deficiencies of
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
that EPA previously identified in the
March 12, 2012 partial approval/partial
disapproval action.47
H. Arkansas Visibility Transport
We are also addressing the interstate
visibility transport element required
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in
this final action from multiple SIP
revisions for several NAAQS. Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA direct each
state to develop and submit to the EPA
a SIP that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS.48 This type of SIP submission
is referred to as an infrastructure SIP.
Section 110(a)(1) provides the timing
and procedural requirements for
infrastructure SIPs. Specifically, each
state is required to make a new SIP
submission within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised
primary or secondary NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) lists the substantive elements
that states must address for
infrastructure SIPs to be approved by
the EPA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes
four distinct elements related to
interstate transport of air pollution,
commonly referred to as prongs, that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
the third and fourth prongs are codified
in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). These four
prongs prohibit any source or type of
emission activities in one state from:
time as the EPA approves any revised conditions
into the SIP. The permittee shall remain subject to
both the initial SIP-approved conditions and the
revised conditions, until EPA approves the revised
conditions.’’
45 See final action approved on February 12, 2018
(83 FR 5927).
46 See final action approved on September 27,
2019 (84 FR 51033) and the proposed approval on
November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
47 The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal did not revise any aspects of the previous
Phase I or II SIP revisions.
48 See the final rules promulgating the revised
NAAQS: 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006); 77 FR
50033 (August 20, 2012); 80 FR 11573 (March 4,
2015); 80 FR 38419 (July 6, 2015); 78 FR 53269
(August 29, 2013); 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016); 75 FR 35520 (June
22, 2010); 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010); and 78
FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15110
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
• Contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1);
• Interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 2);
• Interfering with measures that
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (prong 3); and
• Interfering with measures that
protect visibility in another state (prong
4 or ‘‘visibility transport’’).
We are only addressing the prong 4
element in this final approval. The
prong 4 element is consistent with the
requirements in the regional haze
program, which explicitly require each
state to address its share of emission
reductions needed to meet the RPGs for
surrounding Class I areas. The EPA most
recently issued guidance that addressed
prong 4 on September 13, 2013.49 The
2013 guidance indicates that a state can
satisfy prong 4 requirements with a
fully-approved regional haze SIP that
meets 40 CFR 51.308 or 309.
Alternatively, in the absence of a fullyapproved regional haze SIP, a state may
meet the prong 4 requirements through
a demonstration showing that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere
with another air agency’s plans to
protect visibility. Lastly, the guidance
states that prong 4 is pollutant-specific,
so infrastructure SIPs only need to
address the particular pollutant
(including precursors) for which there is
a new or revised NAAQS for which the
SIP is being submitted that is interfering
with visibility protection.
On March 24, 2017, the State
submitted a SIP revision that addressed
all four infrastructure prongs from
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 lead
(Pb) NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. We deferred taking action on
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of
that infrastructure SIP for a future
rulemaking with the exception of the
2008 Pb NAAQS.50 On August 8, 2018,
the State also included a discussion on
visibility transport in its regional haze
Phase II SIP revision, but we deferred
taking action on the visibility transport
requirements in that submittal too.51 In
the Phase II SIP revision, the State
considered all Class I areas in Arkansas
and also considered those in Missouri,
which is the only State that was
49 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ by Stephen D.
Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32–35).
50 The EPA approved the visibility transport
requirement for the 2008 Pb NAAQS only in the
February 2018 final action effective March 16, 2018
(see 83 FR 6470).
51 See 84 FR 51033, 51054 (September 27, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
determined to potentially be impacted
by sources from within Arkansas for the
first implementation period. Missouri is
currently not relying on emission
reductions from Domtar in its regional
haze plan. DEQ concluded that Missouri
is on track to achieve its visibility goals;
that observed visibility progress from
Arkansas sources are not interfering
with Missouri’s RPG achievements for
Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo
National Wildlife Refuge; and that no
additional controls on Arkansas sources
are necessary to ensure that other states’
Class I areas meet their visibility goals
for the first planning period. On October
4, 2019, the State submitted the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP revision to meet the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) regarding interstate
transport for the 2015 O3 NAAQS. In
that SIP submittal, Arkansas also
addressed the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
prong 4 visibility transport obligations
in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and we are
finalizing approval of those prong 4
requirements in this action. The State’s
prong 4 visibility transport analysis in
the October 4, 2019 submittal
supersedes the prong 4 visibility
transport portion of the March 24, 2017,
infrastructure SIP submittal and
supplements the August 8, 2018, Phase
II Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision 52 for the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 and 2015 O3
NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements in the
October 4, 2019, SIP submission have
been or will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.
II. Summary of Proposed Action and
Our Final Decisions
On March 16, 2020, we published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) 53 proposing to approve the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision submitted by DEQ on August
13, 2019. The SIP submittal addressed
requirements of the Act and the
Regional Haze Rule for visibility
protection in mandatory Federal Class I
areas for the first implementation
52 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for
proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27,
2019) for final action. The Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision addressed separate CAA
requirements related to interstate visibility
transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but
we did not take action on that part of the submittal.
We are acting on the prong 4 portion of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision
in this final action.
53 See March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR
14847).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
period. The EPA proposed to approve
an alternative measure to BART for SO2,
PM, and NOX at the Domtar Ashdown
Mill and elements of the SIP submittal
that relate to these BART requirements
at this facility. We are finalizing our
determination in the NPRM that the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision meets all of the applicable
regional haze BART alternative
provisions set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv) for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill. We are also finalizing
our approval of specific plantwide
permit provisions as the enforceable
mechanism for the BART alternative
emission limits and conditions for
implementing the BART alternative. We
are finalizing our approval of the
reasonable progress components under
40 CFR 51.308(d) relating to Domtar
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. With the
final approval of the BART alternative
requirements for the Domtar Ashdown
Mill in this action, DEQ has satisfied all
long-term strategy requirements under
section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). We also
proposed to approve Arkansas’
consultation with FLMs and Missouri
and our determination that the SIP
submittal satisfies the consultation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). We also
agreed with DEQ’s determination that
the revised 2018 RPGs in the Phase II
action do not need to be further revised.
We proposed to approve Arkansas’
request to withdrawal from the
approved SIP the previously approved
PM10 BART limit for Power Boiler No.
1. and the regional haze FIP provisions
for the Domtar Ashdown Mill, and we
are finalizing the withdrawal of those
provisions in a separate rulemaking
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
The EPA also proposed to approve in
its NPRM Arkansas’ interstate visibility
transport provisions from the August 8,
2018, regional haze Phase II SIP
submittal as supplemented by the
visibility transport provisions in the
October 4, 2019, interstate transport SIP
submittal, which cover the following six
NAAQS: The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour
O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2
NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS. We are finalizing our approval
of the prong 4 portions of these SIP
submittals addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for these NAAQS on
the basis that with our approval of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision in this notice, Arkansas has a
fully-approved regional haze SIP. The
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
revision,54 the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision,55 and the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision together fully address the
deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP that were identified
in the March 12, 2012, partial approval/
partial disapproval action. As an
alternative basis for approval of the
State’s CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
prong 4 submittals for these NAAQS, we
are finalizing our determination that
Arkansas has provided an adequate
demonstration in the October 4, 2019
submittal that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with other
air agencies’ plans to protect visibility.
The public comment period for the
NPRM closed on April 15, 2020. We
received two sets of public comments
concerning our proposed action. The
comments are included in the publicly
posted docket associated with this
action at https://www.regulations.gov.
We received a comment letter with
adverse comments dated April 15, 2020,
submitted on behalf of the National
Parks Conservation Association, the
Sierra Club, and Earthjustice regarding
our proposed approval. We also
received another comment letter dated
April 15, 2020, from Domtar that was
largely in support of our proposed
approval. Below we provide a summary
of the comments with our detailed
responses. The complete comments can
be found in the docket associated with
this final rulemaking. After careful
consideration of the public comments
received, we have decided to finalize
our action with no changes from the
proposed action. For our complete,
comprehensive evaluation of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision, please refer to the proposed
approval (See 85 FR 14847). Our final
actions regarding the NPRM are
summarized in section IV of this notice.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
A. Demonstration That the BART
Alternative Is Better-Than-BART
Comment A.1: The BART alternative
measure submitted by the State fails to
demonstrate that the BART alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART. Rather than submit a
revised BART analysis determination,
DEQ’s Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP includes what it asserts are
approvable SIP measures in a BART
alternative for two subject-to-BART
54 Final
action approved on February 12, 2018 (83
FR 5927).
55 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for
proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27,
2019) for final approval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
sources (Power Boilers No. 1 and 2) at
the Domtar Ashdown paper mill located
in Ashdown, Arkansas. Compared to
BART, the BART alternative results in
an overall (Power Boilers No. 1 and 2)
increase in sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions and decrease in NOX
emissions. While DEQ claims that the
NOX decrease mitigates the SO2
increase, the SIP fails to demonstrate the
BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the BART
alternative measure submitted by the
State fails to demonstrate that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART.
As explained in the proposed action,
the BART alternative would result in an
overall decrease in SO2, NOX, and
particulate matter (PM10) emissions
from the baseline for both power boilers
at Domtar Ashdown paper mill. The
BART alternative results in greater
emission reductions of NOX and PM10
than the BART controls in the FIP. The
BART alternative controls would reduce
NOX and PM10 emissions by 1,096 and
111 tons per year (tpy), respectively,
from the baseline. The BART alternative
results in a smaller reduction in SO2
emissions compared to the BART
controls (BART achieves 3,051 tpy SO2
reduction) but still achieves a decrease
of 1,637 tpy SO2 from the baseline.
Despite a smaller reduction in SO2
emissions than BART (a 1,414 tpy SO2
difference), the BART alternative results
in 300 tpy fewer NOX emissions and 157
tpy fewer PM10 emissions compared to
BART. Model results show that the
additional reduction in NOX emissions
under the BART alternative controls
results in more overall modeled
visibility improvement across the
impacted Class I areas than BART even
with the smaller reduction in SO2
emissions.
We explained in our proposed action
that greater visibility improvement
occurs because Domtar’s baseline NOX
emissions are the primary driver of
visibility impacts from the source and
contribute more to visibility impairment
across the four-affected Class I areas in
Arkansas and Missouri for Power Boiler
No. 1, and also contribute more at Caney
Creek for Power Boiler No. 2 than other
pollutants emitted by the source. DEQ
first included an analysis utilizing
method 1 56 that shows that the BART
alternative controls achieve greater
56 Method 1 assessed visibility impairment on a
per source per pollutant basis and Method 2
allowed for interaction of the pollutants from both
boilers. See descriptions of method 1 and 2
modeling evaluations in the March 16, 2020
proposed approval (85 FR 14847, 14857–14858).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15111
overall cumulative reductions in
visibility impairment (as expressed by
the change in deciviews or Ddv) from
the baseline across the four Class I areas
when compared to BART (0.549 Ddv for
the alternative versus 0.473 Ddv for
BART). DEQ then determined that the
BART alternative controls reduce the
overall visibility impairment from the
baseline by 0.520 Ddv under its method
2 evaluation and is greater than the
overall visibility improvement modeled
under BART, which is 0.516 Ddv. The
DEQ noted that the most impacted Class
I area, Caney Creek (1.137 dv baseline
impairment), improved the greatest
(0.384 Ddv) with the BART alternative
under method 2, and would experience
greater visibility improvement under the
BART alternative scenario than under
the BART scenario, which improves by
0.361 Ddv.
The State’s weight of evidence
analysis of visibility improvement in the
SIP was supported by our analysis of
various metrics, which reinforced that
the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress. We analyzed the
pollutant species contribution to
visibility impacts at the Class I areas
from each power boiler. Specifically, for
Power Boiler No. 1, baseline modeled
nitrate (NO3¥) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) impacts had the highest
contribution to visibility impairment at
all Class I areas. For Power Boiler No.
2, baseline modeled NO3¥ and NO2
impacts are the primary driver for
visibility impacts at Caney Creek, which
is the Class I area impacted the most by
the Domtar units. For Power Boiler No.
2, the visibility impacts resulting from
NOX at Caney Creek outweigh SO42¥
species contributions (from SO2
precursors) to impacts at the other three
Class I areas combined. In addition to
pollutant species contributions to
impacts, we also considered the ten
highest impacted days.57 This analysis
provided a broader look at those days
with the highest impacts at each Class
I area. The results were consistent with
57 The ‘‘ten highest impacted days’’ means the 8th
to 17th highest days at each Class I area. The 98th
percentile means that for a given distribution, it is
equal to or higher than 98 percent of the rest of the
distribution. The 98th percentile impact day means
that only two percent of the 365 days in a calendar
year, or 7.3 days (rounded up to 8 days) have higher
impacts. The simplified chemistry in the CALPUFF
model tends to magnify the actual visibility effects
of that source so it is appropriate to use the 98th
percentile, or 8th highest day, to not give undue
weight to the extreme tail of the distribution. This
approach will effectively capture the sources that
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area,
while minimizing the likelihood that the highest
modeled visibility impacts might be caused by
unusual meteorology or conservative assumptions
in the model. See 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July 6, 2005),
Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for
BART Determinations.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15112
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the State’s analysis based on the 98th
percentile day, which was selected as
representative of the highest impact (the
8th highest day). The average results
across the top ten highest impacted days
also supported our position that it is
appropriate to give greater weight to
Caney Creek impacts (0.9819 dv
baseline impairment) in our
consideration of whether the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART since they are
much larger than impacts at the other
Class I areas. The BART alternative
resulted in more visibility improvement
at Caney Creek and slightly less at the
other Class I areas when compared to
the BART limits, but the visibility
improvement at Caney Creek
outweighed the difference in visibility
benefit at the other three Class I areas
altogether. On average, the BART
alternative controls achieved greater
overall visibility improvement from the
baseline compared to BART for the ten
highest impacted days (0.439 Ddv for
the alternative versus 0.423 Ddv for
BART). Our analysis of the ten highest
impacted days similarly supported the
conclusion that the BART alternative
provides for greater reasonable progress
than BART. Finally, we complemented
the State’s analysis by evaluating the
modeled number of days impacted by
Domtar over 1.0 dv and 0.5 dv for each
scenario at each Class I area. This
compared the frequency and duration of
higher visibility impacts between the
two control scenarios. The BART FIP
limits and the BART alternative both
reduce the total modeled number of
days with visibility impacts over 1.0 dv
from fifteen days in the baseline to four
days for each scenario. For the metric of
days with modeled visibility impacts
over 0.5 dv, the FIP limits and the BART
alternative showed nearly identical
reduction in the number of days, but
very slightly favored the FIP limits over
the BART alternative (from 82 to 36
days for the FIP limits compared to 37
days for the BART alternative). This
single metric, however, on which BART
performed slightly better than the BART
alternative (days impacted over 0.5 dv)
is not sufficient to outweigh the
substantial evidence presented using the
other metrics as to the relatively greater
benefits of the BART alternative over
BART. These different metrics reinforce
the State’s analysis in the SIP that
greater reasonable progress was
achieved by the BART alternative.58
The State’s weight of evidence
analysis of emission reductions and
58 See discussion regarding the different metrics
in the March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR
14847, 14859–14860).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
visibility improvement (using the 98th
percentile metric) as complemented by
our analysis of different metrics, justify
our approval of the State’s
determination that the BART alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). The State followed the
prescribed process for determining the
level of control required for the BART
alternative for the Domtar Ashdown
Mill and adequately supported its
determination with analysis that meets
the requirements under section 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
Comment A.2: EPA proposes
approving the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP and relaxing the BART
emission limitations established in its
2016 FIP. The proposed facility-wide
emission limitation would allow for
fewer emission reductions from the
Domtar Ashdown Mill. EPA’s proposal
reverses course on its FIP, failing to
make reasonable progress on reducing
visibility impairment in Class I areas in
accordance with the CAA mandates and
requirements.
Response: The BART alternative
establishes pollutant-specific limits at
each of the two BART sources at the
Ashdown Mill. There is no ‘‘facilitywide emission limitation’’ as stated by
the commenter. In addition, we disagree
with the commenter that the EPA is
reversing course on its FIP by relaxing
BART limitations established in the FIP,
and thus failing to make reasonable
progress and reduce visibility
impairment in Class I areas in
accordance with the CAA and its
mandates.
The BART alternative results in larger
reductions in NOX and PM emissions
than required by the FIP, while SO2
emissions are not reduced to the same
extent as would be required under the
FIP. As explained in our response to
comment A.1 of this final action and
also in section IV of our proposed
action, our analysis of the State’s weight
of evidence conclusion as
complemented by EPA’s analysis,
demonstrate that the State has met the
BART and reasonable progress
requirements for regional haze under
the applicable provisions of the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule. Thus, the
proposed withdrawal of the BART
provisions in the FIP and replacement
with the BART alternative requirements
in the SIP will not result in a failure to
meet the applicable requirements.
The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal
of the corresponding parts of the FIP
pertaining to Domtar will also not
reverse course from the prior FIP with
respect to the separate reasonable
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
progress requirements for Arkansas. As
mentioned in section IV of our proposed
action, we determined in our September
27, 2019 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision that Arkansas had
fully addressed the reasonable progress
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
for the first implementation period in
that final action. In that action, we also
noted that the 2016 FIP BART
determination requirements for Domtar
were still in place but we agreed with
the State that as long as those
requirements continued to be addressed
by the measures in the FIP, nothing
further is needed to satisfy the
reasonable progress requirements for the
first implementation period. In the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal, the State assessed whether
changes would be needed with respect
to the reasonable progress analysis,
based on any differences between the
SIP and FIP-based measures for Domtar.
The BART alternative analysis
performed for the Domtar power boilers
was based, in part, on an assessment of
the same factors that must be addressed
in the reasonable progress analysis. The
FIP BART determination analysis was
compared to the proposed BART
alternative controls in the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal.
The BART alternative measures for
Domtar resulted in greater overall
visibility improvement than the BART
requirements in the FIP and the
previously approved BART PM10 limit
for Power Boiler No. 1. As a result,
nothing further is needed to satisfy the
reasonable progress requirements for the
first implementation period. For these
reasons, approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and
concurrent withdrawal of the
corresponding parts of the FIP do not
interfere or reverse course from the FIP
with respect to the CAA requirements
pertaining to BART or reasonable
progress under 40 CFR 51.308(d) or (e).
Comment A.3: EPA’s proposal cobbles
together two pieces of information (a
comparison of emission reductions and
a modeling analysis) and fails to
demonstrate that the BART alternative
is clearly better than BART. The
Regional Haze Rule provides different
regulatory tests for a state to use to
demonstrate that a BART alternative is
better than BART. Arkansas claims that
it used the ‘‘clear weight of evidence
test,’’ but the information it provides
falls under 40 CFR 51.308(e): An
emission reduction comparison and
modeling. The information Arkansas
provides fails to meet the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(e). Therefore, it is
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
unreasonable for EPA to provide weight
to the information.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the
information on which our approval of
the State’s SIP is based fails to provide
an adequate clear weight of evidence
analysis to meet the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(e). The commenter is
apparently alleging that the analysis
provided by the State instead falls under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) rather than under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) because it is
based on an emission reduction
comparison and modeling. The
argument that the kind of data and
analysis to be used under the clear
weight of evidence test must somehow
be sufficiently different from what
would be required under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) is not a reasonable
interpretation of these regulations. EPA
interprets 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) as
permitting data and analysis that may be
relevant under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
analysis to be used in supporting a clear
weight of evidence demonstration.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the state must provide a determination
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise
based on ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ that
the alternative measure achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. The
State relied on a modeling analysis to
determine if the BART alternative could
be shown to make greater reasonable
progress than BART, but that modeling
was different than the modeling
described under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The State used an air quality modeling
methodology approach using the
maximum 98th percentile visibility
impact of three modeled years using the
CALPUFF model instead of modeled
overall visibility conditions for the
twenty percent best and worst days, as
would be required under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). The State’s approach could
be considered a modified version of the
two-part modeling test under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) and is more appropriate to
classify under the weight of evidence
analysis approach instead allowed
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
The State’s methodology and analysis
under the clear weight of evidence test
is reasonable. The State’s CALPUFF
modeling approach utilizing the 98th
percentile visibility impacts is
consistent with the approach
recommended by the BART
guidelines 59 for comparing different
control options at a single source when
developing BART determinations
relying on the 98th percentile visibility
59 See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y section III.A.3 and
IV.D.5, ‘‘Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
impact as the key metric. It is also
consistent with the methodology
followed in EPA’s 2016 FIP BART
determination 60 61 for Domtar.
CALPUFF is a single source air
quality model that is recommended in
the BART Guidelines. Since CALPUFF
was used for this BART alternative
analysis, the modeling results were
post-processed in a manner consistent
with the BART guidelines. This
approach is, therefore, acceptable and
reasonable for the comparison of the
proposed BART alternative to the FIP
BART determination for Domtar since it
is the same modeling used to determine
BART in the FIP, and the BART
alternative is focused on only the BART
sources at Domtar. The State also
considered two methods of modeling
evaluation provided by Domtar for this
approach of using the maximum 98th
percentile visibility impact. Method 1
assessed visibility impairment on a per
source per pollutant basis and method
2 allowed for interaction of the
pollutants from both boilers. The State
followed the same general CALPUFF
modeling protocol and used the same
meteorological data inputs for the BART
alternative assessment as discussed in
Appendix B to the FIP TSD. Only the
modeled emission rates changed to
represent the modeled scenarios for
each method.
DEQ determined that the visibility
benefits as measured under method 2
and the previous FIP BART
determination formed an appropriate
BART benchmark for the purposes of
the evaluation of Domtar’s BART
alternative. We continue to agree with
DEQ that because method 2 provides for
the full chemical interaction of
emissions from both power boilers,
method 2 analysis results are a reliable
assessment of the anticipated overall
visibility improvement of controls
utilizing the 98th percentile impact.
Under the weight of evidence approach,
we made use of all available information
and data which could inform our
decision while recognizing the relative
strengths and weaknesses of that
information in arriving at the soundest
decision possible.62 This array of
60 See proposed FIP on April 8, 2015 (80 FR
18979).
61 See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66332) as corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
68319) and the associated TSD, ‘‘AR020.0002–00
TSD for EPA’s Proposed Action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP’’ in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2015–0189 for the FIP BART analysis for SO2 and
NOX for Power Boiler No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and
PM10 for Power Boiler No. 2. This was included as
part of the Phase III submittal and included in the
docket of this action.
62 See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006).
Factors which can be used in a weight of evidence
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15113
information and other relevant data was
of sufficient quality to inform our
comparison of visibility impacts
between BART and the BART
alternative. We carefully considered this
evidence in evaluating the Arkansas
Phase III SIP revision submitted by the
State. Overall, the difference in
visibility impacts between the BART
and the BART alternative scenarios was
large enough to show that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART based on the clear
weight of the evidence.
As explained in response to comment
A.1 in section III.A of this final action,
we evaluated DEQ’s analysis and
additional model results (relying
primarily on the analysis of the 98th
percentile impacts),63 the analysis of
emission reductions,64 and the analysis
of Domtar’s visibility impacts due to
NO3¥ compared to SO4¥.65 In
addition, we also considered our
analysis of the ten highest impacted
days (8th to 17th highest) 66 and our
analysis of the number of days impacted
over 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv.67 All of these
metrics, except the number of days
impacted over 0.5 dv (which only very
slightly favored BART), provided
substantial evidence and collectively
supported the conclusion that the BART
alternative provides for greater
reasonable progress than BART. For
these reasons, we are finalizing our
approval of the State’s weight of
evidence analysis approach and the
conclusions reached by the State. In the
course of evaluating the SIP submittal,
EPA developed some additional
analysis that complements and supports
determination in this context may include, but not
be limited to, future projected emissions levels
under the alternative as compared to under BART;
future projected visibility conditions under the two
scenarios; the geographic distribution of sources
likely to reduce or increase emissions under the
alternative as compared to BART sources;
monitoring data and emissions inventories; and
sensitivity analyses of any models used.
63 See Tables 7 and 8 of the proposed approval,
85 FR 14847, 14858.
64 See Tables 5 and 6 of the proposed approval,
85 FR 14847, 14856–14857.
65 See Appendix C ‘‘Supplemental BART
Determination Information Domtar A.W. LLC,
Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41–00002),’’ originally dated
June 28, 2013 and revised on May 16, 2014,
prepared by Trinity Consultants Inc. in conjunction
with Domtar A.W. LLC.
66 See 85 FR 14847, 14859. This data is based on
the CALPUFF modeling provided by Domtar and
relied on by the State in the Phase III SIP. See
‘‘EPA–CALPUFF summary for Method 2.xlsx’’ for
the EPA’s summary of the modeling data, available
in the docket for this action.
67 See 85 FR 14847, 14860. This data is based on
the CALPUFF modeling provided by Domtar and
relied on by the State in the Phase III SIP revision.
See ‘‘EPA–CALPUFF summary for Method 2.xlsx’’
for the EPA’s summary of the modeling data,
available in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15114
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the State’s analysis. Taken as a whole,
the record supports approval of the
State’s determination that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART under the clear
weight of evidence pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
Comment A.4: EPA fails to provide a
basis to rely on a comparison of
emissions. EPA merely presents the
emission reductions under BART and
the alternative, but fails to explain the
strengths and weaknesses of this
information and does not assign any
weight to the emission comparison. A
comparison of multiple pollutant
species emission levels alone is not
informative without visibility modeling.
The pollutants’ differing visibility
impacts and complex interactions
between them and in the atmosphere
make it extremely difficult to discern
their collective impacts without
visibility modeling. EPA has
consistently relied on modeling to
assess the visibility impacts under these
circumstances.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that EPA ‘‘merely
presents the emission reductions under
BART and the alternative.’’ In our
proposed action,68 our basis for
presenting the emission reduction
information laid the foundation for
describing the differences in visibility
outcomes achieved between the FIP and
the BART alternative, leading EPA to
agree with the State that there was a
need to support the BART alternative
with visibility modeling. The State first
showed reduced emissions from the
baseline and then used the modeling to
support a conclusion that the emission
reduction differences between the FIP
BART benchmark and BART alternative
were acceptable because NOX precursor
emissions are the main driver
contributing to the visibility impacts
from this source. Thus, the State
proceeded to conduct precisely the
modeling analysis the commenter seems
to assert is required, using CALPUFF.
Indeed, recognizing the potential
interaction between multiple species of
visibility pollutants, the State used
Method 2 in evaluating the visibility
consequences of the BART alternative
compared to the BART benchmark. EPA
has relied on the modeling submitted by
the State in reaching a conclusion that
the SIP submittal is approvable. While
EPA does not concede that modeling is
required in all cases to conduct an
approvable ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’
analysis under 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
modeling was in fact done in this
instance to support the analysis. This
68 85
FR 14847, 14857.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
comment is thus premised on a
misunderstanding of the record.
To the extent the commenter is
asserting that the emissions
comparisons alone cannot be used as
even one part of a weight of evidence
demonstration, the commenter is
mistaken in how a ‘‘weight of evidence’’
analysis is conducted. The term
‘‘weight’’ connotes that multiple pieces
of evidence are brought together and
analyzed as a whole.69 Comparative
emissions data is obviously a critical
piece of that evidentiary record, and
provides a foundation on which further
analysis, such as modeling, may be
conducted. To assert that EPA must
ignore emissions comparisons—or any
single piece of evidence—because it
does not provide, on its own, a
sufficient basis to make a ‘‘weight of
evidence’’ determination is both
illogical and a misreading of EPA’s
regulations. We also note that the
regulations require an analysis of
emission reductions under BART and
the alternative, see 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) and (D).
Comment A.5: EPA should not
provide weight to modeling data of
insufficient quality, which fails to meet
the requirements of the regulations. It is
disingenuous for EPA to suggest that the
CALPUFF model is a ‘‘modified’’
version of the two-part modeling test.
EPA has consistently interpreted the
two-part dispersion modeling test under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to mean the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) model, and not
CALPUFF. EPA and states have
consistently used CAMx to assess
whether a BART alternative would
result in ‘‘greater reasonable progress’’
under the two-prong test. CAMx and
CALPUFF are vastly different models
and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) requires a
specific type of dispersion modeling.
EPA’s suggestion that use of CALPUFF
is acceptable because it ‘‘is consistent
with the approach recommended by the
BART guidelines for comparing
different control options at a single
source when developing BART
determinations relying on the 98th
percentile visibility impact as the key
metric’’ also fails. A comparison of
control options at a single source
compares changes in the emission
reductions in one pollutant, but does
not compare the complexities involved
in analyzing interactions between
multiple pollutants. It is also irrelevant
that only the BART sources at Domtar
are under consideration. While the FIP
considered each pollutant separately,
the alternative attempts to analyze and
69 See
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006).
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
take credit for combined emission
reductions from three pollutants as it
fails to actually assess the effect of the
alternative on visibility as compared to
BART.
Response: We disagree with the
comment that CAMx must be used for
the two-part test under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) or that CALPUFF cannot be
used to support the determination here,
which is not under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
in any case. The first point is irrelevant
because the State is not proceeding
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3); however, it
is worth noting that the regulatory text
does not require the use of CAMx.
CALPUFF is also an air dispersion
model, and one that the Agency has
recognized as available for use for BART
alternatives under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).70
Regarding the use of CALPUFF, we
did not suggest that CALPUFF was
replacing CAMx under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). We logically examined the
two-part analysis under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) in the proposed action to
show how the State arrived at
classifying the approach as a weight of
evidence approach. Our choice of using
the term ‘‘modified’’ to describe the
relationship of this analysis to the twopart test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was
intended to describe how the State’s
approach was similar to 40
CFR51.308(e)(3) in considering
distribution of emissions and visibility
improvements using modeling, but
different from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
because the analysis based on the
CALPUFF modeling focused on the 98th
percentile visibility impacts instead of
the twenty percent best and worst days
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Therefore, the State’s weight of evidence
analysis is acceptable under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) and should not be
judged according to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The commenter’s objection to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) not being met is immaterial
since the weight of evidence approach
followed in the SIP submittal does not
fall under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) but under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
The commenter states that EPA is
wrong to consider CALPUFF as
acceptable just because it ‘‘is consistent
with the approach recommended by the
BART guidelines for comparing
different control options at a single
source when developing BART
determinations relying on the 98th
percentile visibility impact as the key
metric.’’ The commenter points out that
a comparison of control options at a
single source compares changes in the
emission reductions in one pollutant,
70 See
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
71 FR 60612, 60616.
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
but does not compare the complexities
involved in analyzing interactions
between multiple pollutants. We
disagree with this point in relation to
the alternative analysis here. First,
particularly for purposes of a BART
alternative analysis for a single facility
(with two BART units), EPA’s
regulations recognize CALPUFF to be an
acceptable model, (explaining that
CALPUFF is particularly suited for
BART and BART alternative
applications at a single source).71
Further, Method 2, incorporated by the
State in its SIP submittal, is a full
assessment method where all sources
and pollutants are combined into a
single CALPUFF modeling run per year
for the baseline and each control
scenario. Method 2 allows for
interaction of the pollutants from both
boilers, as emitted pollutants from each
unit disperse and compete for the same
reactants in the atmosphere, providing
modeled overall impacts due to
emissions from both units. It is because
of this that method 2 analysis results are
a more reliable assessment of the
anticipated overall visibility
improvement of controls under each
scenario. Thus, this is an entirely
suitable application of the CALPUFF
model, and the commenter is incorrect
to state that the CALPUFF modeling did
not account for the interactive chemistry
of visibility pollutants.
EPA recognizes that the CALPUFF
model includes simplified chemistry to
account for interactions between
pollutants. The simplified chemistry
tends to magnify the actual visibility
effects of a single source; thus, it is
appropriate to use the 98th percentile to
avoid overprediction and not give
undue weight to the extreme tail of the
distribution. This approach will
effectively capture the sources that
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area, while minimizing the
likelihood that the highest modeled
visibility impacts might be caused by
unusual meteorology or conservative
assumptions in the model.
The EPA has previously recognized
this approach of using CALPUFF as an
acceptable approach in the past when
analyzing BART alternatives that only
include emission reductions at a single
or small group of BART sources.
Specifically, we approved this approach
for the State of Arizona which
established a BART alternative for
Steam Units 2 and 3 at Arizona Electric
Power Cooperative’s Apache Generating
71 See
71 FR 60616.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
Station.72 See also 70 FR 60616
(recognizing CALPUFF as particularly
appropriate for single-source
applications).
The commenter states that the FIP
considered each pollutant separately,
whereas the alternative attempts to
analyze and take credit for combined
emission reductions from three
pollutants, which allegedly fails to
assess the effect of the alternative on
visibility as compared to BART. The
commenter is incorrect in their premise.
The CALPUFF modeling in the FIP
evaluated each unit separately, but
modeled the visibility impacts from all
pollutants from that unit. For example,
in evaluating the visibility benefit from
NOX controls on Power Boiler No. 1, the
NOX emissions varied between each
control scenario modeled, while the SO2
and PM emissions were included but
held constant in these NOX control
scenarios. In evaluating the BART
alternative, the State provided EPA with
two separate methods of using the
CALPUFF modeling to evaluate
visibility impacts of the BART
alternative as compared to BART,
including Method 2 (described above)
that modeled all pollutants from both
BART units to assess the total visibility
impact from these two units.
For these reasons, we disagree that the
modeling data was of insufficient
quality and failed to meet the
requirements of the regulations.
Comment A.6: EPA lacks authority to
give one Class I area more weight than
others. EPA suggests that it is reasonable
to give one of the Class I areas ‘‘greater
weight’’ when considering visibility
benefits and cherry-picks the Class I
area with the greatest visibility
improvement, which is closest to
Domtar. Focusing on that Class I area
serves to support a source’s preferred
control outcome. Showing that one
Class I area will have greater visibility
benefits does nothing to tip the weight
of evidence scale in favor of the BART
alternative. It merely shows one area
will see more benefits. In addition, EPA
fails to provide a basis for applying the
0.5 deciview threshold used by the State
to determine if a source contributes to
visibility impairment at a Class I area
with the BART alternative analysis.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that EPA ‘‘cherry
picks’’ the Class I areas with the greatest
visibility improvement. We considered
many metrics in analyzing the weight of
evidence approach by the State,
including the overall visibility
72 See Arizona’s September 19, 2014 proposed
approval (79 FR 56322) which was finalized on
April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19220).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15115
improvement on average across the four
impacted Class I areas. As a whole,
these factors supported a conclusion
that the BART alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART
at the subject facility. One metric that
we analyzed was the breakdown of
pollutant speciation impacts across each
Class I area due to modeled emissions
from each power boiler. We highlighted
impacts at Caney Creek specifically in
this analysis because Domtar’s
Ashdown facility impacts this Class I
area the greatest, and this is due to NOX
emissions from Power Boiler No. 2. We
also found that NOX emissions
contributed more to visibility
impairment across all four Class I areas
for Power Boiler No. 1. The greater
impact due to NOX emissions is relevant
because it demonstrates that the higher
SO2 emissions allowed under the BART
alternative is offset by the larger
reduction in NOX emissions. This is just
one factor among many that we
considered in analyzing the State’s
weight of evidence approach as
explained in the proposed approval and
in preceding responses in this final
approval. We took into account the
visibility impacts at all impacted Class
I areas (individually and on average)
and did not solely focus on the benefits
at the most impacted area.
We disagree with the assertion that
we are supporting the source’s preferred
control outcome instead of addressing
emissions cumulatively across all Class
I areas. The commenter points out that
the court in Nat’l Parks Conservation
Ass’n v. EPA held that EPA’s analysis in
reviewing SIP submittals must take into
account the visibility impacts at all
impacted Class I areas rather than
focusing solely on the benefits at the
most impacted areas, 803 F.3d 151, 165
(3d Cir. 2015). However, the facts of
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA,
are not analogous to the facts
surrounding our proposed approval. In
Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA,
the court was reviewing EPA’s approval
of the state’s assessment of the
visibility-improvement factor within the
five-factor BART analysis. The state
calculated visibility improvement that
could be achieved at Class I areas by
implementing additional controls at
BART-eligible sources.73 The state’s
calculations for each source, however,
took into account only the potential
impact such controls would have on the
visibility in the Class I area most
severely impacted by the source. The
state did not consider ‘‘cumulative
visibility impact,’’ which the EPA itself
had conceded was improper under the
73 Id.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
at 164.
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15116
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
visibility BART factor.74 The court in
NPCA rejected that this flaw in the
State’s analysis could be dismissed as
harmless error.75
In this action, by contrast, both the
State and EPA have evaluated the
cumulative visibility impacts across all
of the affected Class I areas. The State
considered this with both of its methods
of analysis, and EPA coupled those
results with our own analysis of
cumulative visibility improvement. DEQ
first included an analysis utilizing
method 1 that shows that the BART
alternative controls achieve greater
overall cumulative reductions in
visibility impairment from the baseline
cumulatively across the four Class I
areas when compared to BART (0.549
Ddv for the alternative versus 0.473 Ddv
for BART). DEQ also determined using
method 2 that the BART alternative
controls reduce the overall cumulative
visibility impairment from the baseline
by 0.520 Ddv, which is greater than the
overall visibility improvement modeled
under BART, which is 0.516 Ddv. We
complemented the State’s analysis by
comparing the average visibility impact
across the top ten highest impacted days
at each Class I area (average 8th to 17th
highest). This analysis provided a
broader look at those days with the
highest impacts at each Class I area. The
results were consistent with the State’s
analysis based on the 98th percentile
day, which was selected as
representative of the highest impact
(i.e., the 8th highest day). The BART
alternative controls achieve greater
overall visibility improvement from the
baseline compared to BART for the ten
highest impacted days (0.439 Ddv for
the alternative versus 0.423 Ddv for
BART). Thus, visibility benefits at each
Class I area were considered and
analyzed by multiple metrics that
confirmed our proposed approval of the
alternative.
The commenter argues that EPA ‘‘fails
to provide a basis for applying the 0.5
deciview threshold used by the State to
determine if a source contributes to
visibility impairment at a Class I area
with the BART alternative analysis,’’
noting that numerous BART
determinations relied on lower deciview
thresholds that resulted in significant
emission reducing outcomes. The
meaning of this comment is not clear.
EPA did not apply a 0.5 deciview
threshold to cut off its evaluation of
other Class I areas. However, it is
reasonable to provide additional
analysis when one Class I area is much
more heavily impacted by a source than
74 Id.
75 Id.
at 165.
at 167.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
others. In the case of Domtar, the
baseline visibility impacts at Caney
Creek are much larger than impacts at
the other Class I areas, so it is
reasonable to give greater weight to
visibility benefits at Caney Creek
resulting from the alternative as
compared to BART. The level of
visibility benefit from controls at the
other three Class I areas are smaller than
those at Caney Creek, and the baseline
visibility impacts of the source at these
areas was well below the 0.5 dv
threshold used by the State to determine
if a source contributes to visibility
impairment at a Class I area. In making
this observation, we do not categorically
dismiss or ignore impacts to other Class
I areas below 0.5 or any other threshold.
We simply note that the changes in
visibility at these other Class I areas
were individually very small and
collectively smaller than the
comparative gain in visibility achieved
by the BART alternative at Caney Creek.
The commenter mentioned that
Congress provided no authority for EPA
to treat one Class I area differently from
others. As mentioned previously, we
treated all Class I areas the same and
measured the cumulative visibility
impacts across all of them using
multiple metrics. We specifically
analyzed the effects at Caney Creek,
since it is the Class I area impacted the
most. But that analysis does not show
favoritism and merely provides one
metric for interpreting how impacts are
correlated to overall emissions from the
source at each Class I area.
B. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
Comment B.1: EPA lacks authority to
approve the State’s SIP submission with
respect to provisions pertaining to
alternative test methods. EPA proposes
to allow the State to authorize
alternative sampling or monitoring
methods (equivalent to methods in the
permit) that EPA would concur on,
outside the SIP process. Specifically,
EPA proposes approving permit
conditions 35 and 42 as a part of the
SIP. Neither the State’s SIP nor EPA’s
proposal explains what criteria and
process EPA would use to approve an
alternative method. Arkansas’ alteration
or elimination of SIP requirements can
have no effect for purposes of federal
law unless and until EPA ratifies that
action with a SIP revision that is subject
to the SIP requirements, including
provisions for public notice and
comment. Moreover, the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions
in the State’s SIP are not approvable and
therefore, those methods cannot be used
a basis for assessing whether an
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
alternative method is approvable. Based
on Arkansas’ SIP provisions, there is no
way for the public to assess whether an
alternative method will comply with the
Act. Therefore, EPA should not approve
these provisions because they are
inconsistent with the requirements of
CAA section 110(i), 110(l) and 110(k)(3).
Response: We recognize that the
commenter raises a concern that the
State’s ability to authorize (with EPA
concurrence) alternative test methods in
conditions 35 and 42 may be
inconsistent with the Act insofar as
‘‘[n]either the State’s SIP nor EPA’s
proposed approval explains what
criteria and process EPA would use to
approve an alternative method.’’ In
general, EPA agrees that SIP provisions
cannot authorize a State to make
changes in the EPA-approved and
federally enforceable SIP requirements
applicable to sources without going
through the statutorily required SIPrevision process. EPA refers to SIP
provisions that purport to authorize
States to make unilateral changes to
existing SIP requirements as
impermissible ‘‘director’s discretion’’
provisions. However, EPA interprets the
CAA to allow two types of such
provisions: (i) Where the provision
provides director’s discretion for the
State to make changes, but specifies that
such changes have no effect for
purposes of federal law or alter SIP
requirements unless and until the EPA
approves the changes through a SIP
revision pursuant to CAA requirements;
or (ii) where the provision provides
director’s discretion that is adequately
bounded, such that at the time EPA
approves the SIP provision the agency
can evaluate it for compliance with
applicable CAA requirements and
evaluate the potential impacts of the
State’s exercise of that discretion. EPA
interprets CAA section 110(i) to allow
SIP provisions with director’s discretion
of either type. In the case of an
adequately bounded provision, EPA
considers such provisions consistent
with section 110(i) because, at the time
of initial approval into the SIP, the
agency will already have evaluated the
provision for compliance with
applicable requirements and evaluated
the potential impacts from exercise of
the discretion. By their terms,
conditions 35 and 42 do not specify that
DEQ must seek a SIP revision to change
the required monitoring at the source.
Thus, to be approvable, EPA would
have to determine that the State’s
discretion in these provisions is
adequately bounded and assess the
potential impacts from the exercise of
that authority.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
In response to the commenter’s
concerns, EPA has further evaluated
conditions 35 and 42 to determine
whether they provide adequate
bounding, allowing EPA to assess the
provisions for compliance with
applicable requirements and the
potential impacts that could result from
DEQ’s potential exercise of the
discretion to authorize alternative
monitoring. In support of EPA’s
proposed approval of plantwide
conditions 35 and 42 into the Arkansas
SIP, DEQ provided additional
information in a letter (dated December
3, 2020) to EPA to clarify the process
and standards that the State shall follow
and apply to approve the use of any
alternative method under plantwide
conditions 35 and 42 of the Domtar
permit.76 DEQ notes in the letter that
DEQ has received a disconnection
notice 77 for Power Boiler No. 1 and that
it is now permanently retired. In
accordance with plantwide condition
34, Power Boiler No. 1 is in compliance
with the BART alternative limits by
virtue of being permanently retired and,
therefore, not emitting any of the
relevant visibility pollutants. The
numerical emission limits will still
apply, even though the unit has been
taken out of service. As a result, the
process to be used by DEQ in its
approval of any request for an
alternative sampling or monitoring
method is only applicable to Power
Boiler No. 2 under plantwide condition
42.
For Power Boiler No. 2, which
currently relies on a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to
monitor SO2 and NOX emissions, DEQ
explained in its letter that it will use the
criteria for alternate monitoring systems
contained in 40 CFR part 75, subpart E
in its evaluation of the approvability of
any request for an alternative sampling
or monitoring method for SO2 and NOX
emissions. More specifically, the State
explained that any request for approval
of an alternative sampling or monitoring
method under plantwide condition 42
shall meet the general demonstration
requirements for alternative monitoring
systems under 40 CFR 75.40 and require
Domtar (or the current owner of the
Ashdown Mill) to demonstrate
adequately that the average hourly
emission data for SO2, NOX, and/or
volumetric flow in the proposed
alternative sampling or monitoring has
the same or better precision, reliability,
76 See December 3, 2020 clarification letter to EPA
from DEQ posted in the docket of this action.
77 See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice
from Domtar for Power Boiler No. 1 (SN–03) in the
docket of this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
accessibility, and timeliness as that
provided by the currently applicable
continuous emission monitoring system
(see criteria in 40 CFR 75.41–75.46).
Furthermore, DEQ will require all
information in 40 CFR 75.48 of Domtar
(or the current owner of Ashdown Mill)
in the application for certification or
recertification of the alternative
monitoring system. DEQ notes that the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75, subpart
E shall be met by the alternative
monitoring system when compared to a
contemporaneously operating, fully
certified continuous emission
monitoring system or a
contemporaneously operating reference
method, where the appropriate
reference methods are listed in 40 CFR
75.22.
With respect to any request for
alternative sampling or monitoring
methods for PM10 under plantwide
condition 42, we note that Power Boiler
No. 2 is subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDD and reference is made
to those requirements for PM10
compliance demonstrations in
plantwide condition 41. Condition 41
clearly explains that the applicable
PM10 compliance demonstration
requirements from 40 CFR part 63
subpart DDDDD shall be utilized by
Domtar (or the current owner of
Ashdown Mill). These requirements,
which are at 40 CFR 63.7505—63.7541,
do not cease and are ongoing. In
response to comment B.8 in section III
of this final action, we address the
alternative option provided in the
permit for monitoring emissions from
Power Boiler #2 when that unit is
combusting natural gas.
DEQ explained in its letter that it
expects that Domtar will work with both
DEQ and EPA in the development of
equivalent testing protocols before
seeking approval from DEQ (with EPA
concurrence) and before performing the
equivalency testing. The alternate
sampling or monitoring protocol
submittal to DEQ must contain EPA’s
official letter of documented
recommendations and concurrence, as
required for DEQ approval. Although
not the same as EPA approval of an
alternative sampling or monitoring
requirement through a SIP revision, in
the case of a valid director’s discretion
provision that is already adequately
bounded, EPA considers the inclusion
of consultation with EPA an extra
measure of assurance that any such
alternative will be appropriate. Given
the process that DEQ will follow and
standards that DEQ will apply in
evaluating any potential alternative (and
EPA’s consultation in the process) EPA
anticipates that DEQ’s exercise of its
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15117
well bounded discretion to authorize
alternative sampling or monitoring will
not result in adverse impacts, e.g.,
adverse impacts on regional haze
requirements that are relevant to this
SIP submission.
Based on the information contained in
DEQ’s December 3, 2020, letter which
forms a critical part of the record basis
for EPA’s approval of this submittal,
EPA has determined that conditions 35
and 42 as supplemented by the letter are
adequately bounded director’s
discretion provisions. In particular, EPA
agrees with DEQ that the criteria in 40
CFR part 75, subpart E for SO2 and NOX
emissions and in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDD for PM10 emissions are
appropriate to evaluate the
approvability of any alternative
sampling or monitoring methods and
establish the proper bounds for DEQ’s
exercise of discretion and EPA approval
for any future requests from the source
to use alternative sampling and
monitoring methods. Further, in
determining whether it is appropriate
for EPA to provide its concurrence to
any future request for a change in
sampling and monitoring methods
under these conditions, EPA reserves
the right to withhold its concurrence if
EPA determines that the request falls
outside the process and bounds
specified in DEQ’s letter. In such
circumstances, the CAA would require
that the State seek to make the change
through the normal SIP revision
process.
For these reasons, these permit
provisions are consistent with the
requirements of CAA sections 110(i),
110(l) and 110(k)(3).
Comment B.2: The Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP for Domtar does not satisfy the
requirement to provide for periodic
testing of stationary sources and to use
enforceable test methods for each
emission limit specified in the plan, and
should therefore be disapproved. For
example, the SIP lacks specificity
regarding test methods in permit
conditions 38 and 40. Permit condition
38 refers to 40 CFR part 60, without
identifying the specific rule provisions
that apply. Similarly, permit condition
40 fails to identify the specific AP–42
emission factor.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the SIP lacks specificity
regarding test methods in permit
conditions 38 and 40 for the boilers. The
commenter states that permit condition
38 refers to 40 CFR part 60 regarding
utilizing CEMS without identifying the
specific rule provisions that apply. In
permit condition 38, the State provided
that ‘‘the permittee shall demonstrate
compliance with the 30-boiler operating
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15118
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
day rolling average SO2 and NOX limits
utilizing a continuous emissions
monitor (CEMS) subject to 40 CFR part
60.’’ Permit condition 38 identifies the
source category type as being a boiler
and the pollutants to be monitored by
CEMS as SO2 and NOX. It is clear from
the pollutant, fuel type, and the nature
of the emission unit which of the tests
would apply under 40 CFR 60 for
demonstrating compliance. That is
sufficient information to locate the
performance specifications and quality
assurance procedures for Power Boiler
No. 2 to determine how to utilize CEMS
to determine compliance with the SO2
and NOX limits of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision.
The State is being all-inclusive when
referring to Part 60 to include all of the
general provisions in Subpart A related
to CEMS, such as 40 CFR 60.8 for
performance tests, 40 CFR 60.13
pertaining to monitoring requirements,
and Appendix B to Part 60, which
includes performance specifications for
CEMS. In addition, these permit
conditions also implement APCEC Rule
19.703—Continuous Emission
Monitoring,78 which is already part of
the approved SIP, and applies to this
source.79 Specific condition 54 of the
permit provides additional information
regarding CEMS requirements for Power
Boiler No 2. Specifically, it says, ‘‘The
permittee shall install, calibrate,
maintain and operate continuous
emissions monitoring systems for
measuring SO2 emissions, NOX
78 Under APCEC Rule 19.703—Continuous
Emission Monitoring, any stationary source subject
to this regulation shall, as required by federal law
and upon request of the Department: (A) Install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain equipment to
continuously monitor or determine federally
regulated air pollutant emissions in accordance
with applicable performance specifications in 40
CFR part 60 Appendix B as of the effective date of
the federal final rule published by EPA in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR
11271), and quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR
part 60 Appendix F as of the effective date of the
federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal
Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11274), and
other methods and conditions that the Department,
with the concurrence of the EPA, shall prescribe.
Any source listed in a category in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix P as of the effective date of the federal
final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register
on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), or in 40 CFR
part 60 as of August 30, 1992, shall adhere to all
continuous emissions monitoring or alternative
continuous emission monitoring requirements
stated therein, if applicable. (B) Report the data
collected by the monitoring equipment to the
Department at such intervals and on such forms as
the Department shall prescribe, in accordance with
40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 4.0 (Minimum
Data Requirements) as of the effective date of the
federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal
Register on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), and
any other applicable reporting requirements
promulgated by the EPA.
79 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
emissions, and either oxygen or carbon
dioxide. The CEMS shall have readouts
which demonstrate compliance with
any of the applicable limits for the
pollutant in question. The permittee
shall comply with the DEQ CEMS
conditions found in Appendix B. [Reg.
19.703, 40 CFR 52, Subpart E, and Ark.
Code Ann. § 8–4–203 as referenced by
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 8–4–304 and 8–4–
311].’’ Appendix B sections II through
IV of the permit lay out specific
guidelines for CEMS operating
conditions.
The commenter also states that permit
condition 40 fails to identify the specific
AP–42 emission factors. Condition 40
refers to ‘‘the applicable natural gas AP–
42 emission factors’’ and provides an
appropriate description because the
applicable emission factors are based on
the nature of the emissions unit, fuel,
and pollutants in question. As
explained in the proposed approval,80 if
Power Boiler No. 2 switches to natural
gas combustion, the applicable natural
gas AP–42 emission factors of 0.6 lb
SO2/MMscf, 280 lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6
lb PM10/MMscf in conjunction with
natural gas fuel usage records shall be
used to demonstrate compliance with
the BART emission limits.81 Therefore,
the boiler will operate under CEMs, and
these AP–42 emissions factors would
only be used for estimation of emissions
if Power Boiler No. 2 burns natural gas.
We note, just as we did in the FIP, for
which these provisions are
replacing,82 83 that burning only natural
80 See
85 FR 14847, 14862.
AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, section 1.4, Tables 1.4–1
and 2 pertaining to natural gas combustion.
82 See 40 CFR 52.173(c)(8)(iv) and (v). However,
the FIP regulations required burning only pipeline
quality natural gas, and no such requirement to
burn only pipeline quality natural gas can be
located in the permit or the SIP for this unit.
Nonetheless, there is no indication (nor has the
commenter supplied any such information) that
burning other types of natural gas would result in
SO2 emissions that would even approach the BART
alternative emission limit.
83 Table 1.4–2 from Fifth Edition Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, section 1.4
indicates that the AP–42 factor contemplates
varying amounts of sulfur and the potential need to
adjust the emission factor. The AP–42 factor for
sulfur from natural gas (0.6 lb/106 scf) is based on
100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO2. It assumes
a sulfur content for natural gas of 2,000 grains/106
scf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be
converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by
multiplying the SO2 emission factor by the ratio of
the site-specific sulfur content (grains/106 scf) to
2,000 grains/106 scf. To convert the emission factors
in the AP–42 tables on a volume basis (lb/106 scf)
to an energy basis (lb/MMBtu) divide by a heating
value of 1,020 MMBtu/106 scf. Then, multiply the
result by the heat input capacity of the boiler
(MMBtu/hr) to get a mass flow rate (lb/hr).
Accordingly, an AP factor of 0.6 lb SO2/MMscf
81 See
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
gas would very likely be sufficient in
itself to demonstrate that the boiler is
complying with the SO2 emission limit.
SO2 emissions from combustion of
natural gas are inherently very low and
are virtually eliminated during the
combustion process. Any SO2 emissions
will be in trace amounts well below the
BART alternative emission limit so
there should be no concern that the
alternative limit for SO2 will be met.
NOX and PM10 emissions are also
expected to be lower than the BART
alternative emission limit for natural gas
combustion.84 85 Using the most
conservative NOX, SO2, and PM10 AP–
42 factors (highest factor) for boiler
combustion indicates that the BART
alternative emission limits will be met
even when firing natural gas at full
capacity. Based on this information, any
ambiguity in the use of AP–42 factors
for compliance using only natural gas is
not of concern because of the
characteristically lower emissions
during natural gas combustion. When
natural gas is used, the limits in the
BART alternative demonstration will be
met. DEQ has the State authority to
enforce these emission factors to
document compliance and EPA will
have federal authority once this
approval takes effect.
The State made clear in its SIP
submittal that the BART alternative SIP
requirements for this source would be
implemented in conjunction with
preexisting SIP requirements for
monitoring, reporting, and
multiplied by Power Boiler No. 2 maximum heat
input of 820 MMBtu/hr would result in 0.5 lb/hr
SO2, showing that the sulfur emissions would be
very low and almost negligible. It is also more
conservative than the FIP (‘‘pipeline quality natural
gas’’ would result in 1.2 lb/hr SO2 assuming
pipeline natural gas contains 0.5 grains or less of
total sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet). These
results are well below the BART alternative limit
for SO2 of 435 lb/hr.
84 From Table 1.4–1 of Fifth Edition Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, section 1.4 we
can also appropriately select the most conservative
NOX emission factor based on the design heat input
capacity for Power Boiler No. 2 of 820 MMBtu/hr.
From this, we can choose emission factors from the
combustor type. The applicable AP–42 emission
factor (280 lb NOX/MMscf) is consistent with what
was used in the FIP for a large wall-fired boiler
> 100 MMBtu/hr. This is the highest emission factor
in the table for NOX and results in 225 lb/hr NOX
(985 tpy NOX) which can be calculated from the
heat input capacity of the boiler (820 MMBtu/hr)
similarly as explained in previous footnote. The
result is less than both the FIP NOX limit of 345
lb/hr (1,511 tpy) and the BART alternative NOX rate
of 293 lb/hr (1,283 tpy).
85 From Table 1.4–2 of Fifth Edition Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, section 1.4 an
AP factor of 7.6 lb PM10/MMscf represents total PM
and equates to 6.1 lb/hr PM applying a heat input
capacity of 820 MMBtu/hr. This is less than the
BART alternative rate of 81.6 lb/hr PM.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
recordkeeping, thus ensuring that the
emissions limitations applicable to this
source under the BART alternative are
practically enforceable. See Aug. 2019
SIP Submittal at 2. These provisions of
Arkansas’s air regulations have been
approved by EPA into Arkansas’
federally enforceable SIP.86 In
particular, APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7—
Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements, sets forth the powers of
DEQ in requiring sampling, monitoring,
and reporting requirements at stationary
sources. Specifically, any stationary
source is subject to air emission
sampling (APCEC Rule 19.702); 87
continuous emission monitoring
(APCEC Rule 19.703); recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (APCEC
Rule 19.705); 88 and Public Availability
86 See 40 CFR 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
87 Under APCEC Rule 19.702—Air Emissions
Sampling, any stationary source subject to this
regulation shall be subject to the following
requirements: (A) Sampling Ports To provide any
sampling ports, at the request of the Department,
required for federally regulated air pollutant
emissions sampling, including safe and easy access
to such ports. (B) Sampling To conduct federally
regulated air pollutant emissions sampling, at the
request of the Department, to determine the rate,
opacity, composition, and/or contaminant
concentration of the emissions. All compliance
testing shall be done at the expense of the permittee
by an independent firm, unless otherwise approved
by the Department. Sampling shall not be required
for those pollutants with continuous emissions
monitors. (C) Averaging Times All compliance
testing averaging times shall be consistent with the
averaging times of the applicable federally regulated
air pollutant emissions limitations stated in the
applicable permit, which in no case shall be greater
than the minimum averaging times of the applicable
NAAQS. (D) Process Rates Unless otherwise
approved by the Department, all federally regulated
air pollutant emissions sampling shall be performed
with the equipment being tested operating at least
at ninety percent of its permitted capacity.
Emissions results shall be extrapolated to correlate
with 100 percent of permitted capacity to determine
compliance.
88 Under APCEC Rule 19.705—Record Keeping
and Reporting Requirements, any stationary source
subject to this regulation shall, upon request by the
Department: (A) Maintain records on the nature and
amounts of federally regulated air pollutants
emitted to the air by the equipment in question. All
records, including compliance status reports and
excess emissions measurements shall be retained
for at least five (5) years, and shall be made
available to any agent of the Department or EPA
during regular business hours. (B) Supply the
following information, correlated in units of the
applicable emissions limitations, to the Department:
(1) General process information related to the
emissions of federally regulated air pollutants into
the air. (2) Emissions data obtained through
sampling or continuous emissions monitoring. (C)
Information and data shall be submitted to the
Department by a responsible official on such forms
and at such time intervals as prescribed by
applicable federal regulations or the Department.
Reporting periods shall be a twelve-month period.
(D) Each emission inventory is to be accompanied
by a certifying statement, signed by the owner(s) or
operator(s) and attesting that the information
contained in the inventory is true and accurate to
the best knowledge of the certifying official. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
of Emissions Data (APCEC Rule
19.706).89 All of these requirements will
become federally enforceable against
Domtar with EPA’s final approval of this
SIP submittal. For these reasons,
conditions 38 and 40 contain sufficient
specificity regarding testing for
compliance for Power Boiler No. 2.
Comment B.3: The provisions for
recordkeeping are inadequate for permit
conditions 36 and 43. In addition to
failing to require that ‘‘owners and
operators’’ are subject to these
provisions, these provisions fail to
specify necessary specifics to determine
compliance. For example, these
provisions lack requirements that
records shall be maintained for CEMS
data; quality assurance and quality
control activities for emissions
measuring systems; major maintenance
activities conducted on emission units,
control equipment, and CEMS; and any
other records required by the underlying
requirements.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the
provisions for recordkeeping are
inadequate for conditions 36 and 43.
The commenter cites CAA section
110(a)(2)(F), 40 CFR 51 Subpart K,90 and
the BART guidelines 91 in identifying
the applicable recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.92 However,
these requirements do not mandate the
level of specificity the commenter
would like to see regarding
recordkeeping, and the commenter cites
no authority for the notion that that
level of specificity is required. Nor did
the commenter cite any examples from
other BART alternative actions that
would demonstrate that the level of
specificity of the recordkeeping
requirements here is inconsistent with
what has been approved in other SIPs.
Commenter’s suggestions do not reflect
how the regulations are worded
regarding recordkeeping and reporting,
therefore, we conclude that the
commenter has failed to establish how
the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 51 Subpart K,
and the BART guidelines are not met by
certification shall include the full name, title,
signature, date of signature, and telephone number
of the certifying official.
89 Emissions data obtained by the Department
shall be correlated in units of applicable emissions
limitations and be made available to the public at
the Department’s central offices during normal
business hours.
90 40 CFR 51.210–214.
91 Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule, Appendix Y.
92 See Laumann Legal comments on behalf of the
National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra
Club, and Earthjustice (pages 11–13).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15119
conditions 36 and 43.93 Permit
conditions 36 and 43 clearly require
maintaining ‘‘all records’’ necessary to
determine compliance ‘‘for at least 5
years.’’ This is sufficient under the
regional haze regulations. Further, such
broad terms encompass many if not all
of the specific enumerated types of
records the commenter claims should be
retained. The recordkeeping provisions
in conditions 36 and 43 are, therefore,
not lacking and are sufficient enough on
their own merit to meet 40 CFR 51
Subpart K and the BART-alternative
requirements of subpart P. As
mentioned in the previous response,
Appendix B sections II through IV of the
permit lay out specific guidelines for
CEMS operating conditions. These
CEMS conditions are reflected in and
administered by the State under APCEC
Rule 19.703—Continuous Emission
Monitoring. The State applies APCEC
Rule 19.705 94—Record Keeping and
Reporting Requirements to air pollution
sources subject to the regulation.95 The
State made clear in its August 2019 SIP
Submittal, at page 2, that these
provisions apply to the Domtar
Ashdown Mill for purposes of
implementing the BART alternative
emission limitations at Power Boilers
No. 1 and No. 2. These requirements
will become federally enforceable
93 We note that section 110(a)(2)(F) of the statute
only establishes such requirements ‘‘as may be
prescribed by the Administrator.’’ Therefore, the
language of 110(a)(2)(F) does not apply directly to
our evaluation of a SIP revision. Rather, the specific
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements that apply to our evaluation of the SIP
revision are those that have been ‘‘prescribed,’’ i.e.,
promulgated, in the governing regulations at
subparts K and P of Part 51.
94 Under APCEC Rule 19.705—Record Keeping
and Reporting Requirements, the State, ‘‘maintains
records on the nature and amounts of federally
regulated air pollutants emitted to the air by the
equipment in question. All records, including
compliance status reports and excess emissions
measurements shall be retained for at least five
years, and shall be made available to any agent of
the Department or EPA during regular business
hours. Stationary sources are subject to supply the
following information, correlated in units of the
applicable emissions limitations, to the DEQ: (1)
General process information related to the
emissions of federally regulated air pollutants into
the air. (2) Emissions data obtained through
sampling or continuous emissions monitoring.
Information and data shall be submitted to the
Department by a responsible official on such forms
and at such time intervals as prescribed by
applicable federal regulations or the Department.
Reporting periods shall be a twelve-month period.
Each emission inventory is to be accompanied by
a certifying statement, signed by the owner(s) or
operator(s) and attesting that the information
contained in the inventory is true and accurate to
the best knowledge of the certifying official. The
certification shall include the full name, title,
signature, date of signature, and telephone number
of the certifying official.’’
95 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15120
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
against Domtar with final approval of
this SIP submittal.
The commenter lastly mentioned that
these conditions fail to require that
‘‘owners and operators’’ are subject to
the provisions in them. We address this
in response to comment B.5 in section
III.B of this final action. As mentioned
in that response, we recognize Domtar
as both the permittee and the owner
subject to the permit conditions.
Further, because the permit conditions
are being incorporated into the state’s
SIP, they are state- and federallyenforceable on any owner or operator of
this facility regardless of any changes
that may occur in ownership of the
facility or in the permit itself. Therefore,
Domtar and any future owner or
operator is subject to the provisions
being approved in this action, including
conditions 36 and 43, and DEQ will
continue to enforce these measures with
EPA oversight.
Comment B.4: EPA’s proposal
suggests there are reporting
requirements for Power Boiler No. 1 in
conditions 33 to 36 and in conditions 38
to 43 for Power Boiler No. 2 but these
provisions do not contain requirements
for reporting. The SIP lacks any
requirements for reporting and EPA
must disapprove the SIP.
Response: The commenter asserts that
conditions 33 to 36 for Power Boiler No.
1 and conditions 38 to 43 for Power
Boiler No. 2 fail to contain reporting
requirements as EPA suggests. However,
permit conditions 36 and 43 state that
all records ‘‘shall be made available to
any agent of DEQ or EPA upon request.’’
Accordingly, the records will be
provided upon request by DEQ or EPA.
This is sufficient to satisfy periodic
reporting of records in 40 CFR 51.211.
The general BART alternative
implementation requirements of
51.308(e)(2)(iii), which do not include a
requirement of reporting on any specific
time period, are also met. The
commenter also suggests that the State
is required to provide periodic reporting
requirements as stated in 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(F)(ii) and the BART
guidelines. However, section
110(a)(2)(F) requires EPA to ‘‘prescribe’’
its requirements, and thus this provision
is implemented through the applicable
regulations. The BART guidelines call
for adequate reporting and
recordkeeping so that air quality agency
personnel can determine the
compliance status of the source. Permit
conditions 36 and 43 clearly require
maintaining ‘‘all records’’ necessary to
determine compliance ‘‘for at least 5
years’’ and permit conditions 36 and 43
state that all records ‘‘shall be made
available to any agent of DEQ or EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
upon request’’ so determination of
compliance can be made.
Further, other SIP-approved
provisions of Arkansas’ regulations also
apply, ensuring the reporting
obligations of 51.211 and the BARTalternative implementation measures of
51.308(e)(2)(iii) are satisfied. The
commenter mentions that the SIP lacks
any requirements for reporting, but that
is not the case. APCEC Rule 19 Chapter
7—Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements, sets forth the powers of
DEQ in requiring sampling, monitoring,
and reporting requirements at stationary
sources.96 As mentioned previously, the
State made clear in its SIP submittal that
the BART alternative SIP requirements
for this source would be implemented
in conjunction with preexisting SIP
requirements for sampling, monitoring,
and reporting requirements under
APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7, thus ensuring
that the emissions limitations applicable
to this source under the BART
alternative are practically enforceable.97
Per APCEC Rule 19.705(C), Domtar must
submit annual reports demonstrating
compliance with applicable emission
limitations. In addition, they must keep
all records demonstrating compliance
for at least five years (APCEC Rule
19.705(A)). Inspectors audit these
records during site inspections.
Therefore, Domtar does have a preexisting annual reporting requirement,
and, with the approval of the BARTalternative emission limits into the
State’s regional haze SIP, their
compliance with these emission limits
will also be a part of that annual report
going forward. For these reasons, the
SIP is not lacking reporting
requirements, including any periodic
reporting requirement as required under
part 51, subpart K.
It is also worth noting that as a source
subject to Title V requirements, it is
subject to annual deviation reports
under APCEC Rule 26.703(E)(3)(c). In
addition, as a major source it is required
to provide an annual emissions
inventory. EPA finds that the reporting
requirements applicable to Domtar
under this SIP submittal are sufficient to
meet the requirements of the BART
alternative regulations and subpart K.
Comment B.5: The SIP fails to require
that the source surveillance provisions
apply to owners and operators. The
source surveillance provisions must
apply to owners and operators of the
source instead of the Title V permittee
in permit condition 32. This provision
does not meet the requirements of
96 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
97 See Aug. 2019 SIP Submittal at 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
subpart K. If the Title V permit were to
expire, there would be no permittee to
hold accountable. EPA must therefore
disapprove this provision of the SIP
because it fails to identify the
appropriate liable entity. Similarly,
permit condition 33 fails to specify the
entity responsible for making the
demonstration, and therefore, EPA must
also disapprove this provision.
Response: The commenter stated that
the SIP fails to require that the source
surveillance provisions apply to owners
and operators. EPA disagrees with this
comment because the terms of the
permit are incorporated into the SIP and
are therefore applicable to both the
permittee and any other owner or
operator of this facility. Currently, those
entities are one and the same: Domtar.
Because conditions 32 and 33 in the
permit both say ‘‘permittee’’ instead of
‘‘owner and operator,’’ the commenter
asserts that nobody will be subject to the
provisions in these conditions if the
Title V permit were to expire. This is
incorrect, and nothing in the State’s SIP
submittal or any other information
before the EPA suggests that this is how
these terms are to be interpreted. The
terms ‘‘permittee’’ and ‘‘owner’’ are both
used in the permit. Domtar is
recognized as both the owner of the
Ashdown mill who operates the boilers
and the permittee of the Title V permit
containing the revised conditions
implementing the BART alternative.
‘‘The BART Alternative specific
conditions’’ portion of the plantwide
conditions section of the permit clarifies
that the permittee is the one who is
subject to these conditions.
In addition, these requirements would
not cease to apply if Domtar were for
any reason to cease to be the permittee.
Although ‘‘permittee’’ is being used in
the wording of the permit conditions,
these conditions are being approved
into the State’s SIP and are state- and
federally-enforceable by virtue of being
in the SIP. As the State’s SIP submittal
explains,98 ‘‘For compliance with the
CAA Regional Haze Program’s
requirements for the first planning
period, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers
are subject-to-BART alternative
measures consistent with 40 CFR
51.308. The terms and conditions of the
BART alternative measures are to be
submitted to EPA for approval as part of
the Arkansas SIP. Upon initial EPA
approval of the permit into the SIP, the
permittee shall continue to be subject to
the conditions as approved into the SIP
98 See DEQ Air permit #0287–AOP–R22 (page
203), the ‘‘Regional Haze Program (BART
Alternative) Specific Conditions’’ portion of the
Plantwide Conditions section of the permit, Section
VI, Plantwide Conditions #32 to #43.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
even if the conditions are revised as part
of a permit amendment until such time
as the EPA approves any revised
conditions into the SIP. The permittee
shall remain subject to both the initial
SIP-approved conditions and the
revised conditions, until EPA approves
the revised conditions’’ (emphasis
added). Because of this, should the Title
V permit expire, be modified, or
transferred, any person who owns or
operates this facility, including the
current permittee, will still be subject to
these conditions as a result of their
being incorporated into the federally
enforceable SIP. We note in addition
that permits are transferable due to
changes in ownership of a source, given
proper notification to the director
including required disclosures.99 In
terms of expiration, the Arkansas
program is based on a one permit
system meaning that a source contains
a single document that contains both the
Title I New Source Review (NSR) and
Title V permit conditions/requirements.
The conditions of the NSR permit do
not ever expire. Title V permits do have
a permit expiration date, but the
expiration of the Title V permit does not
impact the ‘‘status’’ of NSR permit
requirements.100 These requirements
live on unless modified/removed via an
NSR permit action. Because NSR permit
changes are automatically updated in
the Title V permit there isn’t any impact
on operational status if the NSR permit
was modified.
Therefore, the provisions in
conditions 32 and 33 and in other
provisions addressing ownership will
continue to be enforceable
requirements, regardless of who owns or
operates this facility, and DEQ and EPA
will continue to be able to enforce these
measures. We, therefore, disagree that
these conditions need to place
requirements on the ‘‘owners and
operators’’ rather than the ‘‘permittee’’
to be permanently enforceable.
Comment B.6: The SIP lacks
enforceable provisions regarding
permanent retirement. The SIP provides
an option for permanent retirement of
Power Boiler No. 1, but permit
condition 34 lacks enforceable language.
This permit condition and EPA’s
proposal lack the details necessary for
enforcement. For example, it fails to
99 See the criteria for change of ownership
addressed in APCEC Reg.19.407(B).
100 To avoid expiration, sources apply for a
renewal of the Title V permit at least six months
prior to expiration in order to operate under a
permit shield (in cases where a renewed permit is
not issued prior to expiration). If a case exists where
a source does not meet this six-month timeline, the
Title V permit would expire according to the
expiration date and the source could no longer
operate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
explain what a ‘‘disconnection notice’’
is and what information is contained in
the notice. Therefore, the public is
unable to assess whether a
‘‘disconnection notice’’ is a permanent
action that satisfies the BART
requirements. EPA is prohibited from
approving this additional BART
alternative since the condition contains
vague and unenforceable language.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the SIP lacks
enforceable provisions in condition 34
regarding permanent retirement. The
term ‘‘disconnection notice’’ is selfdefining in that it simply describes DEQ
receiving communication in the form of
a notice after Power Boiler No. 1 has
already been taken out of service and is
permanently retired. ‘‘Permanently
retired’’ self-evidently means that once
the power boiler is taken out of service
it will never operate again. Indeed, this
has already occurred. As indicated in a
November 18, 2020, letter 101 to DEQ
from Domtar, the No. 1 Power Boiler
was placed in standby mode and
stopped operating in April 2016. That
letter also documented that the unit was
disconnected and permanently retired
on August 6, 2018, with the removal of
a section of boiler feedwater piping that
prevents the boiler from producing
steam. In addition, finalization of the
permit amendment 0287–AOP–R23
removed authority for Domtar to operate
No. 1 Power Boiler. As stated in an
April 15, 2020, permit revision,102 ‘‘By
request of the facility, this source has
been retired and removed from the
permit as a source in permit revision
#23. The specific conditions have been
marked, by request of the facility, as
reserved in order to not change the
numbering of the subsequent
conditions. SN–03 is subject to the
Regional Haze Program, specifically the
BART Alternative. These conditions can
be found starting with Plantwide
Condition 32.’’ Because Domtar has
requested that Power Boiler No. 1 be
retired and removed as a source from
the permit, the source specific permit
provisions have been removed from the
permit for Power Boiler No. 1 and they
are not authorized to operate the unit.
Power Boiler No. 1 is in compliance
with the BART alternative limits by
virtue of being permanently retired and
therefore not emitting any of the
relevant visibility pollutants. The
numerical emission limits will apply,
even though the unit has been taken out
101 See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice
from Domtar for Power Boiler No. 1 (SN–03) in the
docket of this action.
102 See DEQ Air Permit No. 0287–AOP–R23
included in the docket of this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15121
of service. DEQ has State authority
established in its SIP, including APCEC
Rule Chapter 7, for any other reporting
requirements including documenting
source retirement of this unit.103 For
this reason, this condition does not lack
enforceable provisions for retirement.
Comment B.7: The SIP neither
specifies a compliance date nor requires
compliance at all times. BART must
reflect the best system of continuous
emission reduction and the BART limits
must apply at all times. EPA must
clarify that the permit conditions
proposed for approval in the SIP apply
at all times. Furthermore, permit
conditions 38 and 41 cross reference test
methods found in other regulations that
are inconsistent with the BART
requirements since they do not require
compliance at all times and exempt
emissions during certain activities.
These regulations and associated test
methods are inconsistent with BART in
that they do not require compliance at
all times and exempt emissions during
certain activities.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the permit conditions
do not apply at all times. There is no
language in the proposed limits to
suggest that they do not apply at all
times. Conditions 32 and 37, which
describe the emission rates for the
power boilers, both say, ‘‘The permittee
shall not exceed the emission rates set
forth in the following table. The limits
are based on a 30-day boiler operating
day rolling average. 30 boiler operating
day rolling average is defined as the
arithmetic average of 30 consecutive
daily values in which there is any hour
of operation, and where each daily
value is generated by summing the
pounds of pollutant for that day and
dividing the total by the sum of the
hours the boiler was operating that day.
A day is from 6 a.m. one calendar day
to 6 a.m. the following calendar day.
[Reg.19.304, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), and 40
CFR 52.173].’’ The language for permit
conditions 38 and 41 describes ongoing
compliance action into the future and
does not indicate that the emission
limits would cease or not apply
continuously. Therefore, the BART
alternative limits that we proposed to
approve do indeed apply at all times.
The commenter argues that certain
permit conditions cross-reference test
methods in other regulations (i.e., the
NESHAP, MACT and NSPS), which
they allege are inconsistent with BART
requirements since they do not require
compliance at all times and exempt
emissions during certain activities. The
103 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15122
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
commenter specifically identifies this
flaw in condition 38 pertaining to 40
CFR 60 and condition 41 pertaining to
40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD. Programs
like the NESHAP, MACT, and NSPS
have different requirements, such as
performance testing that is carried out
over certain time frames that
demonstrates compliance for particular
pollutants. While those types of
emission tests may have been designed
to serve a different regulatory purpose,
they are not in conflict with the BART
requirements; nor do they override the
BART alternative emission limits
express set forth in the permit. There is
no legal or regulatory barrier to
incorporating performance testing
requirements found in other regulatory
programs as a means of implementing
and ensuring compliance with a BART
alternative. The commenter fails to
demonstrate with reasonable specificity
how the use of testing requirements that
are intended to meet other criteria are in
conflict or fail to meet the BART
alternative requirements.
Further, the State made clear which
test methods from those regulations are
required for demonstrating compliance
with these conditions. With respect to
condition 38’s reference to 40 CFR 60,
the requirement to use CEMS to
demonstrate compliance for SO2 and
NOX is clear, unambiguous, and
continuous. The State is being allinclusive when referring to Part 60 to
include all of the general provisions in
Subpart A related to CEMS such as 40
CFR 60.8 for performance tests, 40 CFR
60.13 pertaining to monitoring
requirements, and Appendix B to Part
60 that includes performance
specifications. In addition, these permit
conditions also implement APCEC Rule
19.703—Continuous Emission
Monitoring, which is already part of the
approved SIP, and applies to this
source. Appendix B sections II through
IV of the permit lay out specific
guidelines for CEMS operating
conditions. With respect to condition
41’s reference to 40 CFR 63 subpart
DDDDD, condition 41 clearly explains
that the applicable PM10 compliance
demonstration requirements from 40
CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD shall be
utilized. These requirements, which are
at 40 CFR 63.7505–63.7541, do not
cease and are ongoing. In response to
comment B.8 in section III of this final
action, we address the alternative option
provided in the permit for monitoring
emissions from Power Boiler #2 when
that unit is combusting natural gas.
Either method, however, provides for
demonstration of continuous
compliance with the BART alternative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
emission limits for PM10. For these
reasons, the test methods in conditions
38 and 41 are sufficient to provide
continuous compliance and are not in
conflict with the BART requirements.
The commenter particularly notes that
because the permit conditions do not
reference specific sections in these
regulations, it is unclear whether the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
emissions are included or exempt from
monitoring. The commenter does not
establish with reasonable specificity
which of the performance testing or
monitoring requirements from part 60 or
part 63 would be affected here by
provisions in those parts relating to
‘‘startup, shutdown, and malfunction.’’
Also, Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part
63 shows that SSM plan requirements
and actions taken to minimize
emissions during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are not required for subpart
DDDDD.
The commenter lastly mentions that
the State’s SIP fails to include the
schedule and timetable for compliance.
We address comments regarding the
schedule and timetable for compliance
in response to comment C.1 in section
III.C of this final action. These new
BART alternative limits became
enforceable by the State immediately
upon issuance of a minor modification
letter sent by the State to Domtar on
February 28, 2019. The two Domtar
power boilers have already been
operating at emission levels below the
proposed BART alternative emission
limits since December 2016, three years
before the limits became enforceable,
continuing to do so through February
2019 and up to the present. The BART
alternative limits and all associated
permit conditions will become federally
enforceable upon the effective date of
this final action approving the SIP.
Comment B.8: The PM10 test method
for Power Boiler No. 2 permit is
inappropriately conditioned on
applicability under another regulation.
The BART emission limits must have
test methods that apply at all times.
Permit condition 41 lacks enforceability
in this regard. This permit condition is
conditioned on when a National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) rule applies to this
boiler. In other words, ‘‘while’’ the
boiler ‘‘is subject to’’ the NESHAP, the
requirements of the NESHAP rule are
used to demonstrate compliance. In the
event this boiler is no longer subject to
the NESHAP, there would no longer be
compliance demonstration requirements
for the BART emission limits. This
provision lacks specificity regarding the
specific test methods in 40 CFR part 63
subpart DDDDD that apply and fails to
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
identify what entity is required to meet
these requirements.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the PM10 test method
for Power Boiler No. 2 permit is
inappropriately conditioned on
applicability under another regulation.
The commenter suggests that the word
‘‘while’’ in condition 41 is being used to
allow avoidance of the BART alternative
emission limit for PM10. As we
explained in our proposed action,104
‘‘Since Power Boiler No. 2 is subject to
40 CFR part 63 subpart [DDDDD], the
applicable PM10 compliance
demonstration requirements under the
Boiler MACT shall be utilized to
demonstrate compliance for PM10
emissions (condition 41). If Power
Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas
combustion, the applicable natural gas
AP–42 emission factors of 0.6 lb SO2/
MMscf, 280 lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb
PM10/MMscf in conjunction with
natural gas fuel usage records (condition
40) shall be used to demonstrate
compliance with the BART emission
limits.’’ 105 Therefore, ‘‘while’’ is used to
draw a contrasting relationship between
MACT, subpart DDDDD, and switching
to natural gas combustion. If Power
Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas, fuel
usage records will then apply for
compliance demonstration. If the boiler
does not burn natural gas only, then
Power Boiler No. 2 is subject to 40 CFR
63 subpart DDDDD as an ongoing
requirement for PM10, and that
requirement would not cease at any
time.
The commenter also claims that
permit condition 41 fails to identify
which specific test methods found in 40
CFR 63 subpart DDDDD would apply.
We disagree with this statement.
Although the revised permit condition
41 does not spell out specific test
methods, that does not mean it is not
clear which test methods apply. In
regard to 40 CFR 63 DDDDD, boiler
MACT test methods are quite detailed
and specific and are based on the
source-specific unit type and pollutant
emissions to be tested. It is clear from
the pollutant, fuel type, and the nature
of the emission unit here which of the
tests would apply under DDDDD.
Therefore, there is sufficient
information to determine compliance.
Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part 63
shows the applicable general provisions
and includes performance testing
requirements in 40 CFR 63.7.
104 See
85 FR 14847, 14862.
AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, section 1.4, Tables 1.4–1
and 2 pertaining to natural gas combustion.
105 See
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Continuous compliance is demonstrated
for PM10 under MACT, subpart DDDDD
by maintaining the appropriate
operating limit, depending on the
control technology used (see Table 4 of
subpart DDDDD). In this case, Power
Boiler No. 2 uses venturi scrubbers so a
site-specific minimum scrubber
pressure drop and minimum flow rate
operating limit according to 40 CFR
63.7530 would be used as the operating
parameters. If no control device is used
to demonstrate compliance with the
PM10 limit, the facility must monitor
operating load (see item 8 of Table 4 and
item 10 of Table 8) based on the
operating limit set during the most
recent PM10 performance test (item 8 of
Table 4 of subpart DDDDD), or by
maintaining fuel records (40 CFR
63.7555(d)(1)) which is what will occur
if Power Boiler No. 2 burns natural gas,
as previously stated. Using the most
conservative PM10 AP–42 factor (highest
factor) for boiler combustion indicates
that the BART alternative emission
limits will be met even when firing
natural gas at full capacity.
Finally, the commenter mentions that
this provision fails to identify what
entity is required to meet these
requirements (i.e., the owner or
operator). The has been addressed
previously in our response to comment
B.5.
Comment B.9: The permit conditions
appear to preclude the use of any
credible evidence. EPA’s proposal fails
to explain whether the test procedures
in the permit conditions are the ‘‘only’’
evidence that may be used to
demonstrate compliance. EPA must
disapprove the State’s SIP submittal if
approving these permit conditions were
to preclude the use of any credible
evidence.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the permit conditions in
any way preclude or appear to preclude
the use of any credible evidence. The
commenter does not identify anything
in the permit or the Arkansas SIP that
would preclude the use of other credible
evidence. Both the SIP and the permit
make clear that credible evidence can be
used to determine compliance.
First, the SIP includes APCEC
Regulation 19.701—Purpose, which
states, ‘‘The purpose of this chapter is
to generally define the powers of the
Department in requiring sampling,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
at stationary sources. The Department
shall enforce all properly incorporated
and delegated federal testing
requirements at a minimum. Any
credible evidence based on sampling,
monitoring, and reporting may be used
to determine violations of applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
emission limitations’’ Similarly, general
provision #27 of the Domtar permit
provides that, ‘‘Any credible evidence
based on sampling, monitoring, and
reporting may be used to determine
violations of applicable emission
limitations. [Reg.18.1001, Reg.19.701,
Ark. Code Ann. § 8–4–203 as referenced
by Ark. Code Ann. §§ 8–4–304 and 8–
4–311, and 40 CFR 52 Subpart E]’’
Lastly, the Credible Evidence Revisions
rule revised 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, and
61 to permit the use of any credible
evidence (i.e., both reference test data
and comparable non-reference test data)
to prove or disprove CAA violations in
enforcement actions. In this regard, the
preamble to the rule states: ‘‘These
revisions make clear that enforcement
authorities can prosecute actions based
exclusively on any credible evidence,
without the need to rely on any data
from a particular reference test.’’ 106
Therefore, although the permit does not
specifically identify all types of
evidence that may be used to determine
compliance or non-compliance, neither
the permit conditions nor the SIP
preclude the use of any credible
evidence. Furthermore, any attempt to
specifically enumerate the types of
evidence that may be used to determine
compliance would undermine the
purpose of the Credible Evidence
Revisions rule. Thus, the requirement in
subpart K, 40 CFR 51.212(c), is met.
Comment B.10: The proposal lacks an
analysis and determination as to
whether the monitoring requirements
are met. Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) covers
monitoring emissions by owners and
operators from stationary sources, and
40 CFR 51.214 contains explicit
monitoring requirements. EPA’s
proposal fails to explain whether the
permit conditions proposed for
approving into the SIP meet these
requirements.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the proposal
lacks an analysis and determination as
to whether the permit conditions meet
the monitoring requirements in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 40 CFR
51.214. The Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision meets the
applicable monitoring requirements
under 40 CFR 51.214. In addition, it
meets the applicable requirements
found in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), which
discusses rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement of BART alternatives.
This is established through our analysis
of the monitoring regime discussed
above in response to comments 2.B.3,
106 Credible Evidence Revisions, 62 FR 8314,
8316 (February 24, 1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15123
2.B.4, and 2.B.7. Commenter does not
provide any further information with
reasonable specificity as to how the
applicable monitoring requirements in
subparts K or P fail to be met. As
discussed previously, the Arkansas SIP
includes procedures in APCEC
Regulation 19.703,107 including detailed
information regarding CEMS, which
DEQ has authority to administer. These
procedures are already part of the
State’s plan requiring monitoring of this
source’s emissions. Because these
monitoring provisions have already
been adopted into the Arkansas SIP, the
permit conditions pertaining to the
BART alternative conditions will be
administered under these existing
approved provisions for monitoring.
This is sufficient to meet the monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR 51.214 and 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, the
applicable monitoring requirements for
this SIP revision are being met.108
C. Requirements for Emissions
Reductions To Occur During the First
Implementation Period and a
Compliance Schedule
Comment C.1: The SIP fails to
demonstrate that emission reductions
occurred during the first planning
period by December 31, 2018 pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). EPA’s
proposal describes the emission
reductions, but fails to explain whether
the SIP contains the provisions
necessary to satisfy regulatory
107 APCEC Rule 19.703 includes detailed
information regarding Continuous Emissions
Monitoring. Any stationary source subject to this
regulation shall, as required by federal law and
upon request of the Department: (A) Install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain equipment to
continuously monitor or determine federally
regulated air pollutant emissions in accordance
with applicable performance specifications in 40
CFR part 60 Appendix B as of the effective date of
the federal final rule published by EPA in the
Federal Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR
11271), and quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR
part 60 Appendix F as of the effective date of the
federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal
Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11274), and
other methods and conditions that the Department,
with the concurrence of the EPA, shall prescribe.
Any source listed in a category in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix P as of the effective date of the federal
final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register
on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), or in 40 CFR
part 60 as of August 30, 1992, shall adhere to all
continuous emissions monitoring or alternative
continuous emission monitoring requirements
stated therein, if applicable. (B) Report the data
collected by the monitoring equipment to the
Department at such intervals and on such forms as
the Department shall prescribe, in accordance with
40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 4.0 (Minimum
Data Requirements) as of the effective date of the
federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal
Register on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), and
any other applicable reporting requirements
promulgated by the EPA.
108 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
15124
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
requirements. For example, there are no
compliance dates in the SIP that shows
the emission limitations were
enforceable in the first planning period.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the SIP
that demonstrates the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements applied during the first
planning period. Therefore, EPA lacks a
basis to approve the SIP as meeting the
element of the rule that the emission
reductions occurred within the first
planning period. Related to this issue,
EPA’s proposal suggests that the SIP
included compliance schedules for
Domtar, but the SIP fails to include any
compliance schedules.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that the SIP fails to
demonstrate that the required emission
reductions occurred during the first
planning period or that the SIP
otherwise fails to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). In our
proposed approval, we explained that
even though the BART alternative
emission limits became enforceable by
the State upon issuance of a minor
modification letter sent by the State to
Domtar on February 28, 2019,109 Domtar
provided documentation demonstrating
that Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have
been operating at emission levels below
the BART alternative emission limits
since December 2016. This shows that
although the limits became enforceable
shortly after the 2008 to 2018 planning
period ended, Domtar had been in
compliance with those limits for three
years prior to the first planning period
ending. Domtar’s emission levels
remained below the BART alternative
levels up to the point at which the
State’s BART alternative emission limits
and associated requirements became
enforceable in February 2019. This is
sufficient for the SIP submittal to meet
the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
The commenter argues that there is
nothing in the SIP that demonstrates the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements applied to the
source during the first planning period.
First, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) does not
impose this requirement and neither
does any other provision of the BART
alternative regulations. Rather, in order
to demonstrate that BART alternative
emission limits are being achieved by
the end of the first planning period, ‘‘the
State must provide a detailed
description of the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure,
including schedules for
implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical
procedures for implementing the
program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement.’’ 110 EPA does not
interpret this language as requiring that
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with
a BART alternative must be in place and
be state- or federally-enforceable before
the end of the first planning period. The
SIP must include such requirements,
but with respect to demonstrating when
they are applied to the source, it is
reasonable that such requirements
accompany the BART alternative. As
discussed in the paragraph above, the
reductions secured under the BART
alternative have been documented to
occur before the end of the first
planning period, and the documentation
further demonstrates that the requisite
emission levels were maintained up
until the point that the State imposed
the enforceable BART-alternative
emission limits and associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements on the source.
This is sufficient to satisfy 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
In particular, the compliance
documentation included a letter dated
December 20, 2018, submitted to DEQ
by Domtar,111 providing emissions data
for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 from
December 2016 to November 2018. The
letter noted that because Power Boiler
No. 1 has been in standby mode, it has
emitted zero emissions since early 2016.
The letter also provided CEMS daily
average and thirty-day rolling average
emissions data for SO2 and NOX for
Power Boiler No. 2 from December 1,
2016 through November 30, 2018. Based
on that CEMS data, the highest thirtyday rolling averages for Power Boiler
No. 2 were found to be 294 pph SO2 and
179 pph NOX, which are below the
BART alternative emission limits of 435
pph SO2 and 293 pph NOX. The
December 20, 2018 letter explained that
compliance with the PM10 BART
alternative limit for Power Boiler No. 2
is demonstrated via compliance with
the Boiler MACT. Based on previous
compliance stack testing results
conducted by Domtar in January 2016,
PM10 emissions for Power Boiler No. 2
are equal to 34 pph PM10, which is
below the BART alternative PM10
110 See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
letter from Domtar to DEQ entitled,
‘‘Demonstration of Compliance with Proposed
BART Alternative,’’ included with the SIP revision
documenting compliance with the Phase III SIP
emission limits.
111 See
109 See Minor Modification Letter entitled,
‘‘Application for Minor Modification Determination
of Qualifying Minor Modification,’’ included with
the SIP revision and in the docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emission limit of 81.6 pph PM10.112 This
demonstrates that Power Boilers No. 1
and No. 2 at the Ashdown Mill satisfy
the timing requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii) and shows that the
necessary emission reductions
associated with the BART alternative
occurred during the first long-term
strategy period for regional haze.
In addition to being in compliance
before the first implementation period
ended, Domtar submitted additional
letters to DEQ showing continued
compliance for both power boilers. The
letters contained CEMS emission data
from January 2018 to April 2019.113
This CEMS data demonstrated
continued compliance for Power Boiler
No. 2 by showing emission levels below
the BART alternative emission limits
beyond 2018. Domtar noted that Power
Boiler No. 1 continued to be in standby
mode and that its emissions have been
zero since early 2016.The Domtar letters
also noted that the CEMS daily average
and thirty-day rolling average emissions
for SO2 and NOX were below the BART
alternative limits for each month from
January 2018 to April 2019.
Additionally, based on the previous
January 2016 Boiler MACT stack testing
results, actual PM10 emissions from
Power Boiler No. 2 were conservatively
estimated to be 48 pph PM10, which is
below the BART alternative emission
limit of 81.6 pph PM10 for Power Boiler
No. 2.
The commenter argues that there are
no compliance dates in the SIP that
show that the emission limitations were
enforceable in the first planning period.
This is not required by EPA’s
regulations, as explained above. In
addition, there is no schedule for future
compliance because the source is
already complying with the emission
limits which are already in place and
enforceable through the State permit.
Upon the effective date of this final
action the emission limits (and
associated requirements) will be
federally enforceable. These provisions
have never been administratively or
judicially stayed, are currently in effect,
and will remain in effect; the source has
been compliant with those
requirements. We note with respect to
the SO2 and NOX BART limits
112 See information provided in letters dated
December 20, 2018, and January 19, 2017,
submitted by Domtar to DEQ. These letters can be
found in the ‘‘Documentation of Compliance with
Phase III SIP Emission Limits’’ section of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision.
113 See letters from Domtar to DEQ dated
February 21, 2019; March 15, 2019; April 16, 2019;
and May 16, 2019. These letters can be found in the
‘‘Documentation of Compliance with Phase III SIP
Emission Limits’’ section of the Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase III SIP revision.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
promulgated by the FIP, which is now
being withdrawn in this action, the
compliance schedule did not require
that these limits be in effect until
October 27, 2021. Domtar has been in
compliance with those schedules for
both boilers for the past three years.
For these reasons, the State’s BART
alternative SIP revision for Domtar
Ashdown Mill meets the provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii): It documents
that the required reductions took place
during the period of the first long-term
strategy (i.e. before the end of 2018) and
those reductions continued up until the
point the enforceable BART alternative
emission limits took effect at the state
level. The BART alternative limits are
now in effect, satisfying the
implementation-schedule requirement
of (e)(2)(iii), and the SIP establishes
relevant monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as set forth in
plantwide permit conditions 32 to 43
and the associated provisions of the
State’s SIP-approved monitoring and
compliance regulations found at APCEC
Rule 19, Chapter 7.114
D. The CAA 110(l) Anti-Backsliding
Provision
Comment D.1: The proposed rule
violates the Clean Air Act’s ‘‘antibacksliding’’ requirement at 42 U.S.C.
7410(l) because compared to the
existing federal plan, the State’s plan
would result in greater air pollution.
EPA’s proposal explains that ‘‘[b]ased
on an assessment of current air quality
in the areas most affected by this SIP
revision, we are concluding that the less
stringent SO2 emission limits in the
Phase III SIP will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS.’’ EPA’s
proposal fails to explain and provide
information regarding what areas it
assessed and the basis for its
assessment. Moreover, EPA’s analysis
only considers regional haze and the
NAAQS, and not other CAA
requirements such as PSD increments.
Moreover, the increase in SO2 emissions
under the SIP relative to the FIP violates
the Clean Air Act’s section 110(l) antibacksliding provision, which provides
that ‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress . . . or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ Section
110(l) prohibits plan revisions that
would interfere with any applicable
requirement, including a BART
determination. When determining
114 See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved
regulations in the Arkansas SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
whether a plan revision interferes with
NAAQS attainment, EPA has
interpreted section 110(l) as preventing
plan revisions that would increase
overall air pollution or worsen air
quality. In Kentucky Resources Council,
Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006), EPA interpreted section 110(l) as
allowing the agency to approve a plan
revision that weakened some existing
control measures while strengthening
others, but only ‘‘[a]s long as actual
emissions in the air are not increased.’’
The Eleventh Circuit and the Seventh
Circuit have upheld EPA’s section 110(l)
interpretation as prohibiting plan
revisions that would increase emissions
or worsen air quality.115 In a discussion
regarding a challenge to the Nevada
regional haze plan, the Ninth Circuit
also suggested that a haze plan that
‘‘weakens or removes any pollution
controls’’ would violate section
110(l).116 Emissions under the Domtar
BART alternative would increase, which
is plainly at odds with CAA antibacksliding requirements and the
interpretation of these provisions in
various circuit courts.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter that ‘‘the proposed rule
violates the CAA’s anti-backsliding
requirement due to an increase in SO2
emissions under the SIP relative to the
FIP.’’ For the reasons explained below,
EPA concludes that CAA section 110(l)
does not prohibit approval of this SIP.
Under CAA Section 110(l), the EPA
cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 117 Section
110(l) applies to all requirements of the
CAA, and it applies to all areas of the
country, whether attainment,
nonattainment, unclassifiable, or
maintenance for one or more of the six
criteria pollutants. The EPA interprets
section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS
that are in effect, including those for
115 Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015);
Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277
(11th Cir. 2013).
116 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064
(9th Cir. 2014).
117 Note that ‘‘reasonable further progress’’ as
used in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that
term as defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C.
7501(a)), and as such means reductions required to
attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under
section 109. This term as used in section 110(l) (and
defined in section 301(a)) is not synonymous with
‘‘reasonable progress’’ as that term is used in the
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l)
provides that the EPA cannot approve plan
revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress
requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other applicable
requirements’’ of the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15125
which SIP submissions have not been
made. A section 110(l) demonstration
should address all pollutants whose
emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of
a plan revision, even if the SIP
provision was originally adopted only to
address one particular NAAQS. In
general, the level of rigor needed for any
CAA section 110(l) demonstration will
vary depending on the nature of the
revision. Where available attainment
demonstration or maintenance plans
indicate that any change in emissions
will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable CAA requirement, EPA may
rely on such plans to demonstrate that
section 110(l) does not prohibit
approval of the plan.
A state, instead of submitting an air
quality analysis showing that the
revision will not interfere with any
applicable requirement, may substitute
equivalent emissions reductions to
compensate for any change to a plan to
ensure actual emissions to the air are
not increased and thus preserve status
quo air quality. Equivalent emissions
reductions are reductions that are equal
to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure
approved into the plan. To show that
compensating emissions reductions are
equivalent, adequate justification must
be provided. The compensating,
equivalent reductions should represent
actual emissions reductions achieved in
a contemporaneous time frame to the
change of the existing control measure
in order to preserve the status quo air
quality. In addition to being
contemporaneous, the equivalent
emissions reductions should also be
permanent, enforceable, quantifiable,
and surplus. A showing that the
substitute measures preserve status quo
air quality is generally sufficient to
demonstrate noninterference through
this alternative approach.
As an initial matter, the commenter
misstates the EPA’s interpretation of
CAA section 110(l). Neither EPA nor
any court has concluded, as the
commenter asserts, that plan revisions
are permissible only if emissions to the
air are not increased. The case cited by
the commenter, Kentucky Resources
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th
Cir. 2006), involved a situation in which
the state had opted to substitute
equivalent emission reductions to
compensate for emission changes
associated with the plan revision, and
the EPA concluded that the offsetting
emission reductions were adequate to
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15126
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
maintain the status quo air quality.118
Because no attainment demonstrations
were available to guide an analysis of
whether the revision would interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS, the EPA
had relied on its conclusion that status
quo air quality would be maintained
instead of conducting an air quality
analysis evaluating the impact on
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. The court upheld, as a
reasonable reading of the statute entitled
to deference, the EPA’s conclusion that
approval of the SIP revision was
permissible in those circumstances.119
The court held that the use of substitute
measures was permissible, not that such
measures were required in every
circumstance.120
The Seventh Circuit decision
mentioned by commenter—Indiana v.
EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015)—does
not support commenter’s argument.
This case emphasizes that the EPA is
required to determine whether the
revision would, going forward, interfere
with attainment. In Indiana, the court
rejected arguments that the revised
program could not be approved because
it had led to a past O3 NAAQS
exceedance.121 The court also agreed
that it was permissible for EPA to rely
on the fact that the state demonstrated
that substitute measures more than
offset any increase associated with the
plan revision. In the context of
reviewing whether the substitute
measures were sufficient, the court
explained that ‘‘EPA can approve a SIP
revision unless the agency finds it will
make the air quality worse.’’ 122 In doing
so, however, the court did not hold that
substitute measures are always required
to demonstrate noninterference under
CAA section 110(l) or that section 110(l)
prohibits approval of any SIP revision
which leads to an increase in
emissions.123
The Ninth Circuit decision
commenters cite—WildEarth Guardians
v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014)—
also does not establish that EPA is
prohibited from approving this SIP. In
WildEarth Guardians, the Ninth Circuit
118 See Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 996
(evaluating the EPA’s conclusion that the
reductions were adequate to maintain status quo air
quality).
119 See id. at 995.
120 In that same case, the court emphasized that
‘‘it seems fairly clear that Congress did not intend
that the EPA reject each and every SIP revision that
presents some remote possibility for interference.
Thus, where the EPA does not find that a SIP
revision would interfere with attainment, approval
of the revision does no violence to the statute.’’
Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 994.
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
rejected a challenge to an EPA action
approving a haze plan and concluded
that WildEarth had identified ‘‘nothing
in the SIP that weakens or removes any
pollution controls. And even if the SIP
merely maintained the status quo, that
would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ For
that reason, the court concluded that
WildEarth had failed to show that EPA’s
approval of the SIP contravened CAA
section 110(l).124 In brief, the court
explained that a plan approval that does
not weaken or remove pollution
controls would not violate section
110(l). The court did not, however,
suggest that any plan that weakens or
removes pollution controls would
necessarily violate CAA section 110(l).
Several courts have deferred to EPA’s
interpretation of the phrase ‘‘would
interfere’’ in CAA Section 110(l).125 In
addition, determinations that are
scientific in nature are entitled to the
most deference on review.126 The
county that Domtar is located in (Little
River County) was previously
designated as ‘‘Attainment/
Unclassifiable.’’ for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.127 In addition, EPA has
evaluated the air quality impact of the
repeal of the FIP requiring BART
controls and the approval of the BART
alternative limits. As mentioned in the
proposed approval, the BART
alternative limits do not reduce SO2
emissions as much as the BART controls
in the FIP; however, all areas in
Arkansas have been and are currently
attaining all of the NAAQS, even though
the SO2 BART controls for Domtar have
not been implemented. Those controls
were not obligated to be in place until
October 27, 2021, when the BART
emission limits would have taken effect
under the FIP. Therefore, even though
the BART alternative will not achieve
the same level of emission reductions
for SO2 as the BART FIP would have (in
2021), there is no reason to expect that
this will negatively impact current air
quality, which is already sufficient to
attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas and
(as discussed further below) any other
areas that could be impacted by SO2
emissions from this source. Further, the
State of Missouri did not rely on
reductions from Domtar for its regional
haze plans, and the EPA is not aware of
(nor has commenter identified) any
124 Id.
at 1074.
e.g., Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711
F.3d 1277, 1292–93 (11th Cir. 2013); Galveston–
Houston Ass’n for Smog Prevention v. EPA, 289
Fed. Appx. 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2008); Kentucky
Resources Council, 467 F.3d at 995.
126 See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423
F.3d 989, 997 (9th Cir. 2005).
127 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
125 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
other air quality analyses that rely on
implementation of the BART
requirements for Domtar in the FIP. The
proposed withdrawal of the BART
provisions in the FIP and replacement
with the BART alternative requirements
in the SIP will not cause air quality to
become worse than current air quality or
interfere with existing plans to attain
and maintain the NAAQS.
The more stringent SO2 emission
limits for Domtar in the BART FIP did
not go into effect before the SIP BART
alternative replaced them. Given that
current air quality is already sufficient
to attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas
and any other areas that could be
impacted by SO2 emissions from this
source, there is no evidence that
withdrawal of the SO2 limits in the FIP
for Domtar and the approval of the SO2
emission limits in the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
will interfere with attainment of the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS or the 2006
24-hour or the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS (of which SO2 is a precursor).
In addition, Domtar provided
documentation demonstrating that
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have actually
been operating at emission levels below
the BART alternative emission limits
since December 2016. At this time, all
areas that would be potentially
impacted by the increase in SO2
emissions allowed under the SIP
revision as compared to the FIP are
attaining the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS without the FIP-required
controls being in operation. Based on
this assessment of current air quality in
the areas most affected by this SIP
revision, we conclude that the less
stringent SO2 emission limits in the
Phase III SIP will not interfere with
attainment of these NAAQS.
The commenter states that EPA’s
proposal fails to explain and provide
information regarding what areas it
assessed and the basis for its
assessment. With respect to regional
haze requirements, we disagree with the
commenter. We explained in the
proposal that we considered all Class I
areas in Arkansas and also considered
those in Missouri, which is the only
State that was determined to potentially
be impacted by sources from within
Arkansas for the first implementation
period. Missouri is currently not relying
on emission reductions from Domtar in
its regional haze plan.
Further, there are no PM2.5 or SO2
nonattainment areas in any other state
that could be impacted by the emissions
from Domtar. Regarding PM
nonattainment areas in other states, EPA
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
previously approved Arkansas’
interstate transport SIP submittals under
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
established that emissions from
Arkansas do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour or
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state.128 Concerning SO2 nonattainment
areas in other states,129 the nearest SO2
nonattainment area to Domtar is within
Titus County, Texas, approximately 100
km away. EPA designated part of Titus
County, around the Monticello Power
Plant, as nonattainment in Round 2 of
the SO2 designations process.130 Domtar
is also not near any large SO2 sources
in other states. Large SO2 sources greater
than 100 tpy SO2 in Oklahoma [IP
Vaillant Paper Mill (100 km away) and
Hugo Station (119 km away)] and Texas
[Welsh Power Plant (95 km away)] are
all approximately 100 km away from
Domtar, which is too far for Domtar to
contribute to air quality in those areas.
50 km is the useful distance to which
AERMOD is considered accurate.
Therefore, under the Data Requirements
Rule (DRR), sources beyond 50 km were
determined to not cause concentration
gradient impacts within the area of
analysis. The distance between Domtar
and any of the large SO2 sources in
neighboring states makes it unlikely that
SO2 emissions from Arkansas interact
with emissions from another state in
such a way as to contribute to existing
nonattainment of the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS. The DRR SO2 monitor 131 for
the Welsh Power Plant (the closest large
source to Domtar), showed attainment
and characterized the air quality design
value for 2017 to 2019 as 28 parts per
billion (ppb) SO2 which is below the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb
SO2. For these reasons, we conclude
that emissions from Domtar will not
adversely impact air quality in PM2.5 or
SO2 nonattainment areas in any other
state.
The commenter argues that DEQ
addressed the reasonable progress
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
based on faulty analysis that the BART
alternative for Domtar is approvable. We
addressed objections to the BART
alternative under 40 CFR 51.308(e) in
section III.A of this final action and
explained why the BART alternative
provides greater reasonable progress for
regional haze. We also explained how
the reasonable progress requirements for
regional haze under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
are being met, and found that reasonable
progress was not impacted by the
transition from the BART FIP
requirements to the BART alternative at
Domtar. Therefore, the BART alternative
does not interfere with ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ under the Regional Haze Rule
as an ‘‘other CAA requirement’’ that
could be affected under CAA 110(l).
The commenter mentioned that EPA’s
analysis only considers regional haze
and the NAAQS, and not the other CAA
requirements, for example, PSD
increments. The commenter asserts that,
for this reason also, EPA fails to
demonstrate that withdrawing the FIP
and approving the State’s SIP complies
with Section 110(l) of the Act. EPA did
not evaluate PSD increments in the
proposal for two reasons: (1) Both power
boilers were in operation before the
major source baseline trigger dates for
all three pollutants with increments
(SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10/PM2.5); and (2)
both the FIP limits and alternative
BART limits are less than past actual
emissions (both on an annual tons per
year basis and a short-term emission
rate basis), so increment around the
Domtar facility was being expanded, not
consumed. We noted in our proposed
approval that the BART alternative
emission rates were 44 percent lower for
SO2 and 51 percent lower for NO2
compared to previously permitted
15127
emission rates.132 Based on this and the
knowledge that the power boilers
historically have operated greater than
56 percent of their permitted rates on a
short term and annual basis, it can be
concluded that increment was being
expanded by the BART alternative. The
major source baseline trigger date for
PM/PM10/PM2.5 and SO2 increment was
August 7, 1977. The major source
baseline trigger date for NOX was
February 8, 1988. Both Power Boiler No.
1 and Power Boiler No. 2 are baseline
increment sources since they received
permits and/or were in operation before
the major source baseline date for NOX,
SO2 and PM/PM10/PM2.5 increments.
PM/PM10/PM2.5, SO2, and NOX all have
annual increment standards; SO2 has a
three-hour and a 24-hour increment
standard, and PM/PM10/PM2.5 all have
24-hour Class II increment standards.
The Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
that Domtar facility is located in is
AQCR 22, and the minor source baseline
date for AQCR 22 was triggered for PM/
PM10/PM2.5 and SO2 by a PSD permit
modification (Domtar permit 287–AR–3)
on May 31, 1983.133 134 The NOX minor
source baseline date was triggered for
NOX in AQCR 22 by a PSD permit
modification (Domtar permit 946–A) on
August 31, 1989.135
The conversion of Power Boiler No. 1
to burn only natural gas was an
increment expanding change. For the
purpose of overall increment analysis,
we evaluated the emissions of Power
Boiler No. 1 prior to the conversion of
only burning natural gas as these
emissions were part of the pre-BART
baseline. As can be seen in Table 1, the
annual emission limits (tpy) for the
Arkansas BART alternative are less than
the Arkansas baseline actual emissions
for SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10/PM2.5.
Therefore, the Arkansas BART
alternative results in annual increment
expansion for all three pollutants.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Emission rates (tpy)
Condition
SO2
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Arkansas Baseline (Actual Emissions) ........................................................................................
Arkansas BART FIP ....................................................................................................................
Arkansas BART Alternative .........................................................................................................
BART Alternative Reduction from Baseline (Baseline Minus Alternative) ..................................
128 See 78 FR 53269 (August 30, 2013) regarding
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 83 FR 47569
(November 7, 2018) regarding the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
129 See TSD associated with the Arkansas SO
2
transport final action (84 FR 55864) in Docket
number EPA–R06–OAR–2019–0438 titled,
‘‘Technical Support Document Arkansas SIP
Addressing the Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
Requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard March 2019.’’ (pages 24–25)
130 See 81 FR 89870.
131 Texas installed and began operation of a new,
approved monitor in Titus County on December 7,
2016 to characterize air quality around the Welsh
Power Plant.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NOX
3,544
493
1,907
1,637
132 See
3,216
2,420
2,120
1,096
PM10
491
537
380
111
proposed approval notice (85 FR 14854).
AQCR Map (https://
www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/aqcr.pdf).
134 Arkansas Minor Source Baseline Dates
(https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/
minor_source_baseline_dates.pdf).
135 Id.
133 Arkansas
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15128
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
As can be seen in Table 2, the shortterm emission limits (pph) for the
Arkansas BART alternative are less than
the previously permitted limits, the
Arkansas baseline (2001–2003 actual
emissions), and the BART FIP baseline
emissions (mixture of 2001–2003 and
2009–2011 actual emissions) for SO2,
NOX, and PM/PM10/PM2.5. Therefore,
the Arkansas BART alternative results
in short-term increment expansion for
SO2 and PM/PM10/PM2.5 pollutants
(there is no short term increment for
NOX). Therefore, removal of the FIP and
approval of the Arkansas BART
alternative would not interfere with PSD
increments.
TABLE 2—SHORT TERM EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Emission Rate (pph)
(30 boiler-operating day rolling average)
Condition
SO2
Power Boiler No. 1 (580 MMBTU/hr)
Previously Permitted (Prior to natural gas conversion) * .....................................................
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001–2003) ........................................................................
BART FIP Baseline ..............................................................................................................
Arkansas BART Alternative ** ..............................................................................................
Power Boiler No. 2 (820 MMBTU/hr)
Previously Permitted .............................................................................................................
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001–2003) ........................................................................
BART FIP Baseline ..............................................................................................................
Arkansas BART Alternative ** ..............................................................................................
Power Boiler No. 1 & Power Boiler No. 2
Previously Permitted (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion) * ......................
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001–2003) ........................................................................
BART FIP Baseline ..............................................................................................................
Arkansas BART Alternative ** ..............................................................................................
NOX
PM10
1,285
442.5
21.0
0.5
247.5
179.5
207.4
191.1
343
169.5
30.4
5.2
984
788.2
788.2
435
574
526.8
526.8
293
82
81.6
81.6
81.6
2,269
1,230.7
809.2
435.5
821.5
706.3
734.2
484.1
425
251.1
112
86.8
* Not 30 boiler-operating day rolling average (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion). See Permit No. 287–AOP–R2 (8/16/2001).
DEQ permits for Domtar are available at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql/p_facil_info.aspx?AFINDash=41-00002&AFIN=4100002.
** See Plantwide Condition #32 of DEQ Air Permit No. 0287–AOP–R22 limits in Table 1 of the proposed approval (85 FR 14854).
As discussed above, EPA’s technical
documentation shows that approval of
the Arkansas SIP submittal is not
prohibited under CAA section 110(l). As
also explained above, CAA section
110(l) does not prohibit states from
submitting a SIP less stringent than a
FIP or replacing a SIP with a less
stringent SIP. Even though the
requirements adopted in the SIP
revision here do not match the
emissions limitations in the FIP, there is
no expectation that approval of the SIP
will interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
requirements under the Act.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
E. Interstate Visibility Transport and
Regional Haze Reasonable Progress
Requirements
Comment E.1: A state can satisfy
prong 4 interstate transport
requirements with a fully approved
regional haze SIP. EPA’s proposal
contains numerous fatal flaws and EPA
cannot approve the State’s SIP submittal
for Domtar Ashdown Mill. Therefore,
EPA similarly cannot approve prong 4
since the State does not have a fully
approvable regional haze SIP. Similarly,
EPA cannot determine the State’s SIP
meets the reasonable progress
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
since the State’s BART alternative fails
to comply with the Act and regulations.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
prohibited from approving the Arkansas
SIP submission regarding interstate
visibility transport requirements and
regional haze reasonable progress
requirements. As explained in our
proposed rule,136 a state can
demonstrate compliance with CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 by
either having a fully-approved regional
haze SIP or by demonstrating that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not
interfere with another air agency’s plans
to protect visibility.137 The State
addressed interstate visibility transport
requirements in its 2018 Phase II SIP
revision, as supplemented by the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP revision (submitted
October 4, 2019), for the following
NAAQS: the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour
O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2
NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS. The State’s analysis in the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP supersedes the interstate
visibility transport portion of the 2017
infrastructure SIP.138
136 See
85 FR 14847.
‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ by Stephen D.
Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32–35).
138 See 83 FR 6470. The State submitted a SIP
revision that addressed all four infrastructure
prongs from section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 lead
137 See
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
As to the first basis for approval, the
Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision 139 (Phase I), the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision 140 (Phase II), and this action
(the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision) together fully address the
State’s outstanding regional haze
requirements for the first planning
period and address the deficiencies of
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
that were identified in EPA’s March 12,
2012, action. Thus, Arkansas now has a
fully-approved regional haze SIP for the
first planning period. This is sufficient
under EPA’s 2013 infrastructure SIP
guidance to determine that Arkansas has
also adequately addressed interstate
visibility transport under ‘‘prong 4’’ for
the above-listed NAAQS.
As an alternative basis for approval of
Arkansas’ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
prong 4 SIP submittals, EPA finds that
DEQ provided an adequate
demonstration that it is not interfering
with other states’ visibility programs in
the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP submittal, which
addressed the prong 4 requirements for
(Pb) NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. We deferred taking action on the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of that
infrastructure SIP for a future rulemaking with the
exception of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
139 83 FR 5927.
140 84 FR 51033.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
the six NAAQS previously mentioned.
Arkansas documented its
apportionment of emission reduction
obligations needed at the affected Class
I areas in other states and provided a
demonstration that the SIP includes
approved federally enforceable
measures that contribute to achieving
the 2018 RPGs set for those areas.141
The demonstration showed that
emissions within Arkansas’ jurisdiction
do not interfere with other air agencies’
plans to protect visibility, as expressed
via the 2018 reasonable progress goals
for Class I areas in other states. In
particular, Arkansas’ SIP submittals
demonstrated that the RPGs for the only
two Class I areas outside Arkansas
potentially impacted by Arkansas
emissions, Hercules-Glades Wilderness
and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge, in
Missouri, were achieving the visibility
goals that were determined through
interstate consultation. Further, the
emissions from certain EGU sources in
Arkansas are demonstrated to be below
the levels Arkansas had agreed to in the
interstate consultation process.
For these reasons, Arkansas has
fulfilled its prong 4 visibility transport
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour
O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2
NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2
NAAQS in accordance with EPA’s 2013
infrastructure SIP guidance. This
alternative basis for approving these SIP
submittals is not dependent on
Arkansas having a fully approved
Regional Haze SIP for the first planning
period, and it is not dependent on the
emission reductions achieved by the
BART alternative for the two BART
sources at Domtar Ashdown Mill. Thus,
this basis for these prong 4 approvals is
independent and severable from any
other aspect of this action. Such
approvals, on this basis, would not be
affected by any administrative or
judicial action altering, modifying,
vacating, remanding, staying, or
enjoining any other aspect of this action.
The commenter’s objections to EPA
approving reasonable progress
requirements have been addressed in
previous responses in this document.
F. Comments From Domtar
Comment F.1: Overall the commenter
agrees with EPA’s summary of ADEQ’s
BART Alternative for the Ashdown
Mill, and further agrees that the BART
Alternative, by the clear weight of
evidence, achieves greater reasonable
progress than the FIP. Commenter
supports EPA’s determination that the
141 See
142 See March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR
14847).
85 FR 14847, 14865.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
BART Alternative meets the applicable
Regional Haze requirements and
supports approving DEQ’s Regional
Haze Phase III SIP submittal.
Commenter also agrees and supports
EPA’s determination that with this
submittal ADEQ has satisfied all of the
regional haze first planning period SIP
requirements for Domtar.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of our proposed
approval.
Comment F.2: The commenter
believes a sufficient demonstration was
made to grant an exemption under 40
CFR 51.303. However, for purposes of
these comments, the commenter
supports EPA’s proposal with the
reservation that it reserves the right to
raise challenges to EPA’s modeling
approach in any effort to impose further
reductions on the Ashdown Mill
emissions in any subsequent Regional
Haze SIP proceedings that may involve
the Ashdown Mill.
Response: We appreciate the
commenter’s support of our proposed
approval. An exemption under 40 CFR
51.303 is outside the scope of this
action.
Comment F.3: Two nonsubstantive
corrections were suggested for
consideration to make the proposed
action record factually correct, but do
not affect the BART alternative limits or
conditions: 142
• At 14851, middle column about
two-thirds of the way down, referring to
Power Boiler 1: ‘It is equipped with a
wet electrostatic precipitator. . . .’ It
should be stated ‘It was. . . .’ The wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer
needed after the boiler was converted to
burn natural gas.
• At 14855, middle column just above
Table 2, referring to the FIP’s nitrogen
oxide (NOX) BART determination for
Power Boiler 2: ‘. . . achieved by the
installation and operation of low NOX
burners.’ The reference to low NOX
burners needs to be removed.’’
Response: The EPA agrees with
commenter’s non substantive textual
edits and the proposed SIP approval
should read as follows:
At 14851, ‘‘It is equipped with a wet
electrostatic precipitator’’ should be
changed to read:
‘‘It was equipped with a wet
electrostatic precipitator.’’ With the
conversion and permit modification to
burn only natural gas, the wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer
needed to control PM emissions from
Power Boiler 1.
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15129
At 14855, ‘‘The NOX Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is
an emission limit of 345 pph on a thirty
boiler-operating-day rolling average,
achieved by the installation and
operation of low NOX burners’’ should
be changed to read: ‘‘The NOX BART
determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is
an emission limit of 345 pph on a thirty
boiler-operating-day rolling average
consistent with the installation and
operation of low NOX burners.’’ (see 81
FR 66332, 66348). A BART
determination is an emission limit
based on the determination of a
particular control strategy considering
the BART factors, rather than a
requirement to undertake the selected
control.
These non-substantive textual edits
do not impact our analysis and our final
decision regarding approval of the
BART alternative for Power Boilers No.
1 and 2.
IV. Final Action
A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Submittal
We finalize approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
(submitted August 13, 2019) as meeting
the applicable regional haze BART
alternative provisions set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2) for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill. Specifically, we finalize
approval of the regional haze programspecific plantwide conditions 32 to 43
from section VI of permit revision
#0287–AOP–R22 (effective August 1,
2019) into the SIP for implementing the
Domtar BART alternative. These
plantwide conditions of permit #0287–
AOP–R22 143 include SO2, NOX, and
PM10 emission limits and associated
conditions for implementing these
BART alternative limits for Power Boiler
No. 1 and Power Boiler No. 2.
We finalize approval of the reasonable
progress components under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1), to the extent they relate to
Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. With
the approved Phase I and II SIP revision
requirements and the Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase III BART alternative
requirements being approved in this
final action, Arkansas has addressed all
reasonable progress requirements under
40 CFR51.308(d)(1) with a fullyapproved regional haze SIP. We,
143 The permittee will continue to be subject to
the conditions as approved into the SIP even if the
conditions are revised as part of a permit
amendment by DEQ until such time as EPA
approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The
permittee shall remain subject to both the initial
SIP-approved conditions and the revised SIP
conditions, unless and until EPA approves the
revised conditions.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15130
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
therefore, finalize approval of the
emission limits and schedules of
compliance long-term strategy element
under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill
in the August 13, 2019, submittal. With
the final approval of the BART
alternative requirements for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill being addressed in this
action, DEQ has satisfied all long-term
strategy requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), as pertains to the first
planning period for regional haze. We
agree with DEQ’s determination that the
revised 2018 RPGs in the Phase II action
do not need to be revised further. We
finalize approval of the State’s
withdrawal of the current PM10 BART
determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for
Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, and approve its
replacement with the PM10 BART
alternative limit in the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal.
We finalize approval of Arkansas’
consultation with FLMs and Missouri
and finalize our determination that the
SIP submittal satisfies the consultation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
B. Arkansas Visibility Transport
We finalize approval of the portion of
the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP revision (submitted
October 4, 2019) addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4
visibility transport for the following six
NAAQS: 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS;
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008
and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the
2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. We also
finalize approval of the visibility
transport portion of the 2018 Phase II
SIP revision, as supplemented by the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP revision. The State’s
analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
supersedes the visibility transport
portion of the 2017 infrastructure SIP.
We finalize approval of the prong 4
portions of these SIP submittals on the
basis that Arkansas has a fully-approved
regional haze SIP with our final
approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. The Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision,144 the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision,145 and the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
together fully address the deficiencies of
144 Final action approved on February 12, 2018
(83 FR 5927).
145 See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for
proposed approval and 84 FR 51033 (September 27,
2019) for final approval.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
that were identified in the March 12,
2012 partial approval/partial
disapproval action. Arkansas has a
fully-approved regional haze SIP
comprised of the portion of the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP approved
in our 2012 final action, the Arkansas
Regional Haze NOX SIP revision, the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision, and the Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase III SIP revision. A fullyapproved regional haze plan ensures
that emissions from Arkansas sources
do not interfere with measures required
to be included in another air agencies’
plans to protect visibility. As an
alternative basis for approval of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for
these NAAQS, we finalize a
determination that Arkansas has
provided an adequate demonstration in
the October 4, 2019 submittal showing
that emissions within its jurisdiction do
not interfere with other air agencies’
plans to protect visibility.
C. CAA Section 110(l)
We finalize our determination that
approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision and concurrent
withdrawal of the corresponding parts
of the FIP meet the provisions of CAA
section 110(l).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of revisions
to the Arkansas source specific
requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov a (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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);
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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, 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 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 21, 2021.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best available retrofit
technology, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Interstate
transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional
haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility.
Dated: March 10, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E—Arkansas
2. In § 52.170:
a. The table in paragraph (d), entitled
‘‘EPA-Approved Arkansas SourceSpecific Requirements’’ is amended by
adding an entry for ‘‘Domtar Ashdown
Mill’’ at the end of the table.
■ b. In paragraph (e), the third table
titled ‘‘EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures in the Arkansas SIP’’ is
amended by adding an entry for
‘‘Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Revision’’ at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 52.170
*
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
15131
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
EPA-APPROVED ARKANSAS SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
State
approval/
effective
date
Name of source
Permit or order No.
*
Domtar Ashdown Mill .........
*
*
Permit ................................
#0287–AOP–R22 ..............
EPA approval date
*
*
8/1/2019 3/22/2021 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Comments
*
*
Approval of plantwide conditions 32 to
43 of section VI from the permit, addressing emission limits for SO2, NOX,
and PM10 and conditions for implementing the BART alternative for
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2.
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE ARKANSAS SIP
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
Name of SIP provision
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
*
Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP Revision.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
Statewide ...........................
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
State
submittal/
effective
date
EPA approval date
*
*
8/13/2019 3/22/2021 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
*
Approval of regional haze SIP revision
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown mill
that addresses SO2, NOX, and PM10
BART alternative requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2); reasonable
progress components under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1); and long-term strategy
components
under
40
CFR
51.308(d)(3) for this facility.
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
15132
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE ARKANSAS SIP—Continued
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS
Interstate Transport SIP
Revision.
Statewide ...........................
10/4/2019
3/22/2021 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP Revision.
Statewide ...........................
8/8/2018
3/22/2021 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
3. In § 52.173, add paragraphs (h) and
(i) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.173
Visibility protection.
*
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
State
submittal/
effective
date
Name of SIP provision
*
*
*
*
(h) Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP Revision. The Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase III SIP Revision submitted
on August 13, 2019, is approved as
follows:
(1) The clear weight of evidence
determination that the BART alternative
for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 satisfies
all of the applicable regional haze
provisions set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv) for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill with respect to SO2,
NOX, and PM10.
(2) The regional haze program-specific
plantwide conditions 32 to 43 from
section VI of Permit #0287–AOP–R22
are approved for Power Boilers No. 1
and 2 for the Domtar Ashdown Mill,
which contain SO2, NOX, and PM10
emission limits and conditions for
implementing the BART alternative.
(3) The approval of the withdrawal of
the current PM10 BART determination of
0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1
in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
and replacement with the PM10 BART
alternative limit in the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP Revision.
(4) The reasonable progress
components under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill
are approved.
(5) The long-term strategy component
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill
that includes the emission limits and
schedules of compliance component
under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3) is
approved.
(6) Consultation and coordination in
the development of the SIP revision
with the FLMs and with other states
with Class I areas affected by emissions
from Arkansas sources, as required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Mar 19, 2021
Jkt 253001
EPA approval date
under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i), is approved.
(i) Portions of the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
Revision and Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP Revision addressing
Visibility Transport. The portion of the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP revision addressing the
visibility transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Arkansas
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008
and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the
2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS are
approved. The visibility transport
portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, as
supplemented by the Arkansas 2015 O3
NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
revision, is also approved.
[FR Doc. 2021–05362 Filed 3–19–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Explanation
Approval of visibility transport portion of
this interstate transport SIP revision
that
addresses
CAA
section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the following
NAAQS: 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS;
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS;
the 2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and
the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Approval of visibility transport portion of
this regional haze SIP revision, as
supplemented by the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP
Revision.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Inspector General
42 CFR Part 1001
RIN 0936–AA08
Fraud and Abuse; Removal of Safe
Harbor Protection for Rebates
Involving Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Creation of New
Safe Harbor Protection for Certain
Point-of-Sale Reductions in Price on
Prescription Pharmaceuticals and
Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager
Service Fees; Additional Delayed
Effective Date
Office of Inspector General
(OIG), Health and Human Services
(HHS).
ACTION: Final rule; notification of courtordered delay of effective date.
AGENCY:
As required by an order
issued by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, this action
provides notice of the delay of the
effective date of certain amendments to
the safe harbors to the Federal antikickback statute that were promulgated
in a final rule (‘‘Fraud And Abuse;
Removal of Safe Harbor Protection for
Rebates Involving Prescription
Pharmaceuticals And Creation of New
Safe Harbor Protection for Certain Pointof-Sale Reductions in Price on
Prescription Pharmaceuticals and
Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager
Service Fees’’) published on November
30, 2020. The new effective date for
these certain amendments is January 1,
2023.
DATES: As of March 18, 2021, the
January 29, 2021 effective date of the
amendments to 42 CFR 1001.952(h)(6)
SUMMARY:
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\22MRR1.SGM
22MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15104-15132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-10019-63-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and
Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of a
revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Arkansas through the Arkansas Department of Energy and
Environment, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on August 13,
2019. The SIP submittal addresses requirements of the Act and the
Regional Haze Rule for visibility protection in mandatory Class I
Federal areas (Class I areas) for the first implementation period. The
EPA is approving an alternative measure to best available retrofit
technology (BART) at the Domtar Ashdown Mill for sulfur dioxide
(SO2), particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxide
(NOX); and elements of the SIP submittal that relate to
these BART requirements at this facility. In addition, we are approving
the withdrawal from the SIP of the previously approved PM10
BART limit for Power Boiler No. 1. The EPA is also concurrently
approving Arkansas' interstate visibility transport provisions from the
August 8, 2018, regional haze SIP submittal as supplemented by the
visibility transport provisions in the October 4, 2019, interstate
transport SIP submittal, which covers the following national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS): The 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour ozone (O3) NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. In conjunction with our final approval of these
SIP revisions, we are finalizing in a separate rulemaking, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, our withdrawal of the
Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions for the Domtar Ashdown
Mill.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 21, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket of all documents for this
action at https://www.regulations.gov under
[[Page 15105]]
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas TX 72570, 214-665-6745; [email protected]. Please call or
email Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 if you need
alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Principles
B. Requirements of the CAA and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
C. BART Requirements
D. BART Alternative Requirements
E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
F. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze
G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal
H. Arkansas Visibility Transport
II. Summary of Proposed Action and Our Final Decisions
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. Demonstration That the BART Alternative Is Better-Than-BART
B. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
C. Requirements for Emission Reductions To Occur During the
First Implementation Period and for a Compliance Schedule
D. The CAA Section 110(l) Anti-Backsliding Provision
E. Interstate Visibility Transport and Regional Haze Reasonable
Progress Requirements
F. Comments From Domtar
IV. Final Action
A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal
B. Arkansas Visibility Transport
C. CAA Section 110(l)
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Principles
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) \1\ into
the air. Fine particulates which cause haze are sulfates
(SO42-), nitrates (NO3-),
organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust.\2\
PM2.5 precursors consist of SO2, NOX,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3). Airborne PM2.5 can scatter 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. Natural sources can include windblown
dust and soot from wildfires. Man-made sources can include major and
minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. Reducing
PM2.5 and its precursor gases in the atmosphere is an
effective method of improving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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 mandatory Class I Federal areas \4\ 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.\5\ 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. Since the promulgation of the original Regional Haze Rule
in 1999, CAA programs have reduced emissions of haze-causing pollution,
lessening visibility impairment and resulting in improved average
visual ranges.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ 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 (FLM). 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).
\5\ 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999).
\6\ An interactive story map depicting efforts and recent
progress by the EPA and states to improve visibility at national
parks and wilderness areas may be visited at: https://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A, enacted as part 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.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990, which strengthened the
visibility protection program of the Act, 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
restoring natural visibility conditions for Class I areas 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
[[Page 15106]]
Islands. States were required to submit the first implementation plan
addressing visibility impairment caused by regional haze no later than
December 17, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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). Also, under 40 CFR 51.308(f)-(i), the
EPA requires subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs for each
implementation period. The next update for the second implementation
period is due by July 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. BART Requirements
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use
of BART controls at certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977.\9\ Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii),
any BART-eligible source \10\ that is reasonably anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area is classified
as subject-to-BART.\11\ States are directed to conduct BART
determinations to address visibility impacts for each source classified
as subject-to-BART. These large, often under-controlled, older
stationary sources are then required to procure, install, and operate
the BART controls established in these determinations to reduce
visibility impairment. The determinations must be based on an analysis
of the best system of continuous emission control technology available
and associated emission reductions achievable. States are required to
identify the level of control representing BART after considering the
five statutory factors set out in CAA section 169A(g)(2) for the
potential BART controls.\12\ States must establish emission limits, a
schedule of compliance, and other measures consistent with the BART
determination process for each source subject-to-BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7), which lists the 26 source
categories of major stationary sources potentially subject-to-BART.
\10\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that fall within
one of 26 source categories that began operation on or after August
7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977, with potential
emissions greater than 250 tons per year (tpy). (See 40 CFR 51
Appendix Y, section II).
\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 specify 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 part 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1).
\12\ The five statutory factors in determining BART controls
are: (1) Costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, (3) any existing control technology present
at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5)
the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. BART Alternative Requirements
A State may opt to implement or require participation in an
emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than
require sources subject-to-BART to install, operate, and maintain BART.
Such an emissions trading program or other alternative measure must
achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART. In order to demonstrate that the
alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress than source-
specific BART, a state must demonstrate that its SIP meets the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv). Among other things, the
state must conduct an analysis of BART and the associated reductions
for each source subject-to-BART covered by the alternative program, and
compare the reductions and visibility improvements of the alternative
program to what would have been achieved by BART.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)E), the state must provide a
determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the
``clear weight of evidence'' that the alternative measure achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides two
specific tests applicable under specific circumstances for determining
whether the alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART. Under the first test, if the distribution of emissions is
not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative
measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative
measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. Under the
second test, if the distribution of emissions is significantly
different, then the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine
the difference in visibility between BART and the alternative measure
for each impacted Class I area, for the twenty percent best and worst
days. The modeling would demonstrate greater reasonable progress if
both of the following two criteria are met: (i) Visibility does not
decline in any Class I area, and (ii) there is an overall improvement
in visibility, determined by comparing the average difference between
BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.
Alternatively, under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), states may show
based on the ``clear weight of evidence'' that the alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART at the covered sources. As stated in
the EPA's revisions to the Regional Haze Rule governing alternatives to
source-specific BART determinations, weight of evidence demonstrations
attempt to make use of all available information and data which can
inform a decision while recognizing the relative strengths and
weaknesses of that information in arriving at the soundest decision
possible.\13\ This array of information and other relevant data must be
of sufficient quality to inform the comparison of visibility impacts
between BART and the alternative. A weight of evidence comparison may
be warranted when there is confidence that the difference in visibility
impacts between BART and the alternative scenarios are expected to be
large enough to show that an alternative is better than BART. The EPA
will carefully consider this evidence in evaluating any SIPs submitted
by States employing such an approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006). Factors which
can be used in a weight of evidence determination in this context
may include, but not be limited to, future projected emissions
levels under the alternative as compared to under BART; future
projected visibility conditions under the two scenarios; the
geographic distribution of sources likely to reduce or increase
emissions under the alternative as compared to BART sources;
monitoring data and emissions inventories; and sensitivity analyses
of any models used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) and (iv), all emission
reductions for the alternative program must take place during the
period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze, and all the
emission reductions resulting from the alternative program must be
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
E. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) to (iv)
requires each state to include in its SIP a long-term strategy for the
planning period that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for
each Class I area located within the state and outside the state that
may be affected by emissions generated from within the state. The long-
term strategy is the vehicle for ensuring continuing reasonable
progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. It is a
compilation of all control measures in the SIP that a state will use
during the implementation period to meet the applicable reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) for each
Class I
[[Page 15107]]
area.\14\ The RPGs established by the State provide an assessment of
the visibility improvement anticipated to result for that planning
period.\15\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that a state consider
certain minimum factors (the long-term strategy factors) in developing
its long-term strategy for each Class I area.\16\ States have
significant flexibility in establishing RPGs during the first planning
period and must determine whether additional measures beyond BART are
needed for reasonable progress. Under CAA section 169A(g)(1), once a
set of potential control measures have been identified for a selected
source, the State must collect data on and apply the four statutory
factors that will be considered in selecting the measure(s) for that
source that are necessary to make reasonable progress. The four
statutory factors used to characterize potential emission controls are
as follows: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. A state planning to consider visibility benefits will
also need to characterize those benefits (often referred to as the 5th
factor).\17\ States must demonstrate in their regional haze SIPs how
these factors are considered when selecting the controls for their
long-term strategies and provide an assessment of the visibility
improvement anticipated to establish RPGs for each applicable Class I
area. This is commonly referred to this as the ``reasonable progress
analysis'' or ``four-factor analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) to (iv). For the first planning
period, contributing and impacted states must develop coordinated
emission management strategies. Impacted states must demonstrate
that they have included all measures necessary in their SIPs to
obtain their share of emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs
for a Class I area. States must document the technical basis that
they relied upon to determine the apportionment of emission
reduction obligations necessary and identify the baseline emissions
inventory on which their strategies are based. States must also
identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment
considered in developing the strategy, such as major and minor
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
\15\ The process for setting RPGs is as follows: (1) Identify
sources that impact visibility; (2) evaluate potential controls
based on consideration of the four reasonable progress factors; (3)
project the visibility conditions based on implementation of on-the-
books and additional selected controls; (4) compare the projected
visibility conditions to the uniform rate of progress (URP) needed
to attain natural visibility conditions by year 2064 for each Class
I area; (5) determine an RPG for each Class I area based on this
analysis that will improve the visibility at or beyond the URP on
the most impaired days and ensure no degradation for the least
impaired days. The Regional Haze Rule allows for the selection of an
RPG at a given Class I area that provides for a slower rate of
improvement than the URP for that area, but in that case a state
must demonstrate that the URP is not reasonable and that the RPG
selected is. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
\16\ These factors are: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goal; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5)
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for
these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and
control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility
due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions
over the period addressed by the long-term strategy.
\17\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Previous Actions on Arkansas Regional Haze
The State of Arkansas submitted a regional haze SIP on September 9,
2008, intended 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.\18\ On September 27, 2011, the State submitted a supplemental
letter that clarified several aspects of the 2008 submittal. The EPA
collectively refers to the original 2008 submittal, the supplemental
letter, and the 2010 revision 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.\19\ 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 PM10; the State's reasonable progress
analysis; and a portion of the State's long-term strategy. The
remaining provisions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP were
approved. The final partial disapproval started a two-year FIP clock
that obligated the EPA to either approve a SIP revision and/or
promulgate a FIP to address the disapproved portions of the SIP.\20\
Because a SIP revision addressing the deficiencies was not approved and
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.\21\ Among
other things, the FIP established SO2, NOX, and
PM10 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; American Electric Power/Southwestern Electric Power
Company (AEP/SWEPCO) Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; Entergy22 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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.
\19\ See the final action on (March 12, 2012) (77 FR 14604).
\20\ Under CAA section 110(c), the EPA is required to promulgate
a FIP within two 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 effective date that the EPA
disapproves a SIP in whole or in part. The FIP requirement is
terminated only if a state submits a SIP, and the EPA approves that
SIP as meeting applicable CAA requirements before promulgating a
FIP.
\21\ See FIP final action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332) as
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay
submitted by the State, industry, and ratepayers, on April 14,
2017,\23\ the EPA announced our decision to reconsider several elements
of the FIP \24\ and on April 25, 2017, the EPA issued a partial
administrative stay of the effectiveness of the FIP for ninety
days.\25\ During that period, Arkansas started to address the
disapproved portions of its regional haze SIP through several phases of
SIP revisions. On July 12, 2017, the State submitted its Phase I SIP
submittal (the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision) to
address NOX BART requirements for all electric generating
[[Page 15108]]
units (EGUs) and the reasonable progress requirements with respect to
NOX. These NOX provisions were previously
disapproved by the EPA in our 2012 final action on the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
submittal replaced all source-specific NOX BART
determinations for EGUs established in the FIP with reliance upon the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for
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 NOX provisions of
the FIP.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Copies of the petitions for reconsideration and
administrative stay submitted by the State of Arkansas; Entergy;
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC); and the Energy and
Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA) are available in the
docket of this action.
\24\ Letter from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, EPA, to
Nicholas Jacob Bronni and Jamie Leigh Ewing, Arkansas Attorney
General's Office (April 14, 2017). A copy of this letter is included
in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPAR06-OAR-2015-0189-0240.
\25\ See 82 FR 18994.
\26\ 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 its Phase II 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 that were disapproved in the March 12, 2012, action.
The August 8, 2018, SIP submittal was intended to replace the federal
SO2 and PM10 BART determinations 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 PM10 BART requirements for
Bailey Unit 1; SO2 and PM10 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 PM10 BART
requirements for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; \27\ and included a
requirement that Lake Catherine Unit 4 not burn fuel oil until
SO2 and PM BART determinations for the fuel oil firing
scenario are approved into the SIP by the EPA.\28\ The submittal
addressed the reasonable progress requirements with respect to
SO2 and PM10 emissions 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 September 27, 2019, we took final action
to approve a portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and
PM SIP revision and to withdraw the corresponding parts of the
FIP.29 30 The August 8, 2018, SIP also contained a
discussion of the interstate visibility transport provisions, as
discussed in more detail in Section I.H of this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision established a new NOX emission limit of 32.2
pounds per hour (pph) for the Auxiliary Boiler to satisfy
NOX BART and replaced the SIP determination that we
previously approved in our final action on the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision. In the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision, DEQ incorrectly identified the
Auxiliary Boiler as participating in the CSAPR trading program for
O3 season NOX to satisfy the NOX
BART requirements. The new source-specific NOX BART
emission limit that we approved in our final action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision corrected that
error.
\28\ The 2012 action 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, the FIP included a requirement that Entergy
not burn fuel oil at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final EPA approval
of BART determinations for SO2, NOX, and PM.
In the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP revision, Arkansas
relied on participation in CSAPR for O3 season
NOX to satisfy the NOX BART requirement for
its subject-to-BART EGUs, including Lake Catherine Unit 4. When we
took final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision, we also took final action to withdraw the FIP
NOX emission limit for the natural gas firing scenario
for Lake Catherine Unit 4. In the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision, Entergy committed to not burn
fuel oil at Lake Catherine Unit 4 until final EPA approval of BART
for SO2 and PM. This commitment was made enforceable by
the State through an Administrative Order that was adopted and
incorporated in the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision.
\29\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed action and
84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final 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 take action on
that part of the submittal. We are acting on the interstate
visibility transport portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision in this final action.
\30\ See 84 FR 51056 (September 27, 2019) for the final
withdrawal action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal
On August 13, 2019, DEQ submitted the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase
III SIP revision (Phase III SIP revision), which we are finalizing
approval of in this action. This submittal contains an alternative
measure to address BART and the associated long-term strategy
requirements for two subject-to-BART sources (Power Boilers No. 1 and
2) at the Domtar Ashdown paper mill located in Ashdown, Arkansas. Power
Boiler No. 1 was first installed in 1967-1968. At the time of SIP
submittal and our proposed approval, the unit was permitted to burn
only natural gas.\31\ It was capable of burning a variety of other
fuels too, including bark, wood waste, tire-derived fuel (TDF),
municipal yard waste, pelletized paper fuel, fuel-oil, and reprocessed
fuel-oil, but was not authorized to do so. It was equipped with a wet
electrostatic precipitator (WESP) \32\ but the requirements to operate
the WESP were removed when the permit was modified to combust natural
gas only. In 2020, DEQ received a disconnection notice \33\ for Power
Boiler No. 1 and it is now permanently retired. Power Boiler No. 1 has
a design heat input rating of 580 million British Thermal units per
hour (MMBtu/hr) and an average steam generation rate of approximately
120,000 pounds per hour (pph). Power Boiler No. 2 was installed in 1975
and is authorized to burn a variety of fuels including coal, petroleum
coke, TDF, natural gas, wood waste, clean cellulosic biomass (e.g.
bark, wood residuals, and other woody biomass materials), and wood
chips used to absorb oil spills. It is equipped with a traveling grate;
\34\ a combustion air system that includes over-fire air; \35\ multi-
clones for PM10 removal; \36\ and two venturi scrubbers in
parallel for removal of SO2 and remaining particulates.
Power Boiler No. 2 has a heat input rating of 820 MMBtu/hr and an
average steam generation rate of approximately 600,000 pph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Power Boiler No. 1 operates as natural gas only subject to
the Gas 1 subcategory defined under 40 CFR 63.7575. See DEQ Air
Permit No. 0287-AOP-R22 (page 64) in the docket of this action.
\32\ An electrostatic precipitator is an air pollution control
device that functions by electrostatically charging particles in a
gas stream that passes through collection plates with wires. The
ionized particulate matter is attracted to and deposited on the
plates as the cleaner air passes through. A wet electrostatic
precipitator is designed to operate with water vapor saturated air
streams to remove liquid droplets such as sulfuric acid.
\33\ See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice from Domtar for
Power Boiler No. 1 (SN[hyphen]03) in the docket of this action.
\34\ A traveling grate is a moving grate used to feed fuel to
the boiler for combustion.
\35\ Over-fire air typically recirculates a portion of the flue
gas back to both the fuel-rich zone and the combustion zone to
achieve complete burnout by encouraging the formation of nitrogen
(N2) rather than NOX.
\36\ A cyclone separator is an air pollution control device
shaped like a conical tube that creates an air vortex as air moves
through it causing larger particles (PM10) to settle as
the cleaner air passes through. Multi-clones are a sequence of
cyclone separators in parallel used to treat a higher volume of air.
In this particular case, the cleaner air travels to the venturi
scrubbers to remove the smaller remaining particles like
PM2.5 and SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEQ's original BART analyses and determinations (dated October 2006
and March 2007) for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 were included in the 2008
[[Page 15109]]
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.\37\ In our 2012 partial approval/partial
disapproval action, we approved DEQ's identification of these two units
as BART-eligible; DEQ's determination that these units are subject-to-
BART; and DEQ's PM10 BART determination for Power Boiler No.
1.\38\ In that action, we also disapproved the SO2 and
NOX BART determinations for Power Boiler No. 1; and the
SO2, NOX, and PM10 BART determinations
for Power Boiler No. 2. In the 2016 Arkansas Regional Haze FIP and its
associated technical support document (TSD),\39\ the EPA promulgated
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits for
these boilers. The FIP BART limits were based on consideration of the
2006 and 2007 BART analyses, a revised BART analysis (dated May
2014),\40\ and additional information provided by Domtar for the
disapproved BART determinations. On March 20, 2018, Domtar provided DEQ
with a proposed BART alternative based on changing boiler operations as
part of the company's planned re-purposing and mill transformation from
paper production to fluff pulp production. On September 5, 2018, Domtar
further revised its BART alternative approach in response to additional
boiler operation changes planned at the Ashdown Mill.\41\ In October
2018, DEQ proposed a SIP revision that included Domtar's BART
alternative approach to address the BART requirements for Power Boilers
1 and 2 at the Ashdown Mill.\42\ The October 2018 proposal included an
administrative order as the enforceable mechanism for the emission
limits established under the BART alternative; and the order also
contained monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the
boilers. During the State's public comment period, Domtar submitted
comments stating that while it agrees with the BART alternative
approach and with the emission limits themselves, it does not agree
with the use of the administrative order as the enforceable mechanism
of the proposed SIP revision. Domtar requested that the portion of its
New Source Review (NSR) permit containing the regional haze
requirements be included in the proposed SIP revision as the
enforceable mechanism instead of the administrative order. DEQ
addressed Domtar's request in April 2019 by proposing a supplemental
SIP revision to the October 2018 proposal. The supplemental SIP
revision proposal replaced the administrative order with the
incorporation of certain provisions of Domtar's revised NSR permit into
the SIP as the enforceable mechanism for Domtar's regional haze
requirements. On August 1, 2019, DEQ issued a final minor permit
modification letter to Domtar,\43\ which included enforceable emission
limitations and compliance schedules for the BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See ``Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination
Domtar Industries Inc., Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41-00002),'' originally
dated October 31, 2006 and revised on March 26, 2007, prepared by
Trinity Consultants Inc. This was included as part of the Phase III
submittal and included in the docket of this action.
\38\ See the March 12, 2012 final action (77 FR 14604).
\39\ See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332) as
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319) and the associated TSD,
``AR020.0002-00 TSD for EPA's Proposed Action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP'' in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189 for the FIP
BART analysis for SO2 and NOX for Power Boiler
No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and PM10 for
Power Boiler No. 2. This was included as part of the Phase III
submittal and included in the docket of this action.
\40\ See ``Supplemental BART Determination Information Domtar
A.W. LLC, Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41-00002),'' originally dated June 28,
2013 and revised on May 16, 2014, prepared by Trinity Consultants
Inc. in conjunction with Domtar A.W. LLC. This was included as part
of the Phase III SIP submittal and is included in the docket of this
action.
\41\ See section III.B of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
submittal and the associated September 4, 2018, ``Ashdown Mill BART
Alternative TSD'' in the docket of this action.
\42\ The proposed October 2018 SIP revision was intended to
replace the portion of our FIP addressing Domtar and would also
resolve the claims regarding Domtar in petitions for review of the
FIP that are currently being held in abeyance, State of Arkansas v.
EPA, No. 16-4270 (8th Cir.).
\43\ See DEQ Air permit #0287-AOP-R22 (effective August 1, 2019)
included as part of the Phase III submittal and is included in the
docket of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEQ submitted its third corrective regional haze SIP submittal to
the EPA on August 13, 2019, which is the subject of this final action
(the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision). The Phase III SIP
revision includes Domtar's BART alternative approach and revises all of
the prior BART determinations for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 at the
Ashdown Mill. The Phase III SIP submittal also incorporates plantwide
provisions from the August 1, 2019, permit including emission limits
and conditions for implementing the BART alternative.\44\ With final
approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision in this
action, DEQ now has a fully-approved regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision (Phase I SIP),\45\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision (Phase II SIP),\46\ and the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision together fully address all deficiencies of the
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP that EPA previously identified in the
March 12, 2012 partial approval/partial disapproval action.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See DEQ Air permit #0287-AOP-R22, Section VI, Plantwide
Conditions #32 to #43. The ``Regional Haze Program (BART
Alternative) Specific Conditions'' portion of the Plantwide
Conditions section of the permit states the following: ``For
compliance with the CAA Regional Haze Program's requirements for the
first planning period, the No. 1 and 2 Power Boilers are subject-to-
BART alternative measures consistent with 40 CFR 51.308. The terms
and conditions of the BART alternative measures are to be submitted
to EPA for approval as part of the Arkansas SIP. Upon initial EPA
approval of the permit into the SIP, the permittee shall continue to
be subject to the conditions as approved into the SIP even if the
conditions are revised as part of a permit amendment until such time
as the EPA approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The
permittee shall remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved
conditions and the revised conditions, until EPA approves the
revised conditions.''
\45\ See final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR
5927).
\46\ See final action approved on September 27, 2019 (84 FR
51033) and the proposed approval on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 62204).
\47\ The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal did not
revise any aspects of the previous Phase I or II SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Arkansas Visibility Transport
We are also addressing the interstate visibility transport element
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in this final action
from multiple SIP revisions for several NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA direct each state to develop and submit to the EPA a SIP
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a
new or revised NAAQS.\48\ This type of SIP submission is referred to as
an infrastructure SIP. Section 110(a)(1) provides the timing and
procedural requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Specifically, each
state is required to make a new SIP submission within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised primary or secondary NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) lists the substantive elements that states must address for
infrastructure SIPs to be approved by the EPA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
includes four distinct elements related to interstate transport of air
pollution, commonly referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs are codified in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the third and fourth prongs are codified
in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). These four prongs prohibit any source
or type of emission activities in one state from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See the final rules promulgating the revised NAAQS: 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006); 77 FR 50033 (August 20, 2012); 80 FR 11573
(March 4, 2015); 80 FR 38419 (July 6, 2015); 78 FR 53269 (August 29,
2013); 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016);
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010); 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010); and 78
FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15110]]
Contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS
in another state (prong 1);
Interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(prong 2);
Interfering with measures that prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3); and
Interfering with measures that protect visibility in
another state (prong 4 or ``visibility transport'').
We are only addressing the prong 4 element in this final approval.
The prong 4 element is consistent with the requirements in the regional
haze program, which explicitly require each state to address its share
of emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for surrounding Class I
areas. The EPA most recently issued guidance that addressed prong 4 on
September 13, 2013.\49\ The 2013 guidance indicates that a state can
satisfy prong 4 requirements with a fully-approved regional haze SIP
that meets 40 CFR 51.308 or 309. Alternatively, in the absence of a
fully-approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the prong 4
requirements through a demonstration showing that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with another air agency's plans to
protect visibility. Lastly, the guidance states that prong 4 is
pollutant-specific, so infrastructure SIPs only need to address the
particular pollutant (including precursors) for which there is a new or
revised NAAQS for which the SIP is being submitted that is interfering
with visibility protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' by
Stephen D. Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 24, 2017, the State submitted a SIP revision that
addressed all four infrastructure prongs from section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. We deferred taking action on the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of that infrastructure SIP for a
future rulemaking with the exception of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\50\ On
August 8, 2018, the State also included a discussion on visibility
transport in its regional haze Phase II SIP revision, but we deferred
taking action on the visibility transport requirements in that
submittal too.\51\ In the Phase II SIP revision, the State considered
all Class I areas in Arkansas and also considered those in Missouri,
which is the only State that was determined to potentially be impacted
by sources from within Arkansas for the first implementation period.
Missouri is currently not relying on emission reductions from Domtar in
its regional haze plan. DEQ concluded that Missouri is on track to
achieve its visibility goals; that observed visibility progress from
Arkansas sources are not interfering with Missouri's RPG achievements
for Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge; and
that no additional controls on Arkansas sources are necessary to ensure
that other states' Class I areas meet their visibility goals for the
first planning period. On October 4, 2019, the State submitted the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision to
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) regarding interstate
transport for the 2015 O3 NAAQS. In that SIP submittal,
Arkansas also addressed the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010
NO2 NAAQS prong 4 visibility transport obligations in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and we are finalizing approval of those prong 4
requirements in this action. The State's prong 4 visibility transport
analysis in the October 4, 2019 submittal supersedes the prong 4
visibility transport portion of the March 24, 2017, infrastructure SIP
submittal and supplements the August 8, 2018, Phase II Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision \52\ for the 2006 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 and 2015 O3 NAAQS, the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. All other
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements in the October 4, 2019, SIP
submission have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The EPA approved the visibility transport requirement for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS only in the February 2018 final action effective
March 16, 2018 (see 83 FR 6470).
\51\ See 84 FR 51033, 51054 (September 27, 2019).
\52\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval
and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final action. The Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision addressed separate
CAA requirements related to interstate visibility transport under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), but we did not take action on that
part of the submittal. We are acting on the prong 4 portion of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision in this
final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Proposed Action and Our Final Decisions
On March 16, 2020, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) \53\ proposing to approve the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision submitted by DEQ on August 13, 2019. The SIP submittal
addressed requirements of the Act and the Regional Haze Rule for
visibility protection in mandatory Federal Class I areas for the first
implementation period. The EPA proposed to approve an alternative
measure to BART for SO2, PM, and NOX at the
Domtar Ashdown Mill and elements of the SIP submittal that relate to
these BART requirements at this facility. We are finalizing our
determination in the NPRM that the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision meets all of the applicable regional haze BART alternative
provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) to (iv) for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill. We are also finalizing our approval of specific plantwide
permit provisions as the enforceable mechanism for the BART alternative
emission limits and conditions for implementing the BART alternative.
We are finalizing our approval of the reasonable progress components
under 40 CFR 51.308(d) relating to Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and 2.
With the final approval of the BART alternative requirements for the
Domtar Ashdown Mill in this action, DEQ has satisfied all long-term
strategy requirements under section 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). We also
proposed to approve Arkansas' consultation with FLMs and Missouri and
our determination that the SIP submittal satisfies the consultation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). We
also agreed with DEQ's determination that the revised 2018 RPGs in the
Phase II action do not need to be further revised. We proposed to
approve Arkansas' request to withdrawal from the approved SIP the
previously approved PM10 BART limit for Power Boiler No. 1.
and the regional haze FIP provisions for the Domtar Ashdown Mill, and
we are finalizing the withdrawal of those provisions in a separate
rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR 14847).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also proposed to approve in its NPRM Arkansas' interstate
visibility transport provisions from the August 8, 2018, regional haze
Phase II SIP submittal as supplemented by the visibility transport
provisions in the October 4, 2019, interstate transport SIP submittal,
which cover the following six NAAQS: The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-
hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and
the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. We are finalizing our approval
of the prong 4 portions of these SIP submittals addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for these NAAQS on the basis that with our approval
of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision in this notice,
Arkansas has a fully-approved regional haze SIP. The Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP
[[Page 15111]]
revision,\54\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision,\55\ and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
together fully address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP that were identified in the March 12, 2012, partial approval/
partial disapproval action. As an alternative basis for approval of the
State's CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 submittals for these
NAAQS, we are finalizing our determination that Arkansas has provided
an adequate demonstration in the October 4, 2019 submittal that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
\55\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval
and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public comment period for the NPRM closed on April 15, 2020. We
received two sets of public comments concerning our proposed action.
The comments are included in the publicly posted docket associated with
this action at https://www.regulations.gov. We received a comment
letter with adverse comments dated April 15, 2020, submitted on behalf
of the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, and
Earthjustice regarding our proposed approval. We also received another
comment letter dated April 15, 2020, from Domtar that was largely in
support of our proposed approval. Below we provide a summary of the
comments with our detailed responses. The complete comments can be
found in the docket associated with this final rulemaking. After
careful consideration of the public comments received, we have decided
to finalize our action with no changes from the proposed action. For
our complete, comprehensive evaluation of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision, please refer to the proposed approval (See 85
FR 14847). Our final actions regarding the NPRM are summarized in
section IV of this notice.
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. Demonstration That the BART Alternative Is Better-Than-BART
Comment A.1: The BART alternative measure submitted by the State
fails to demonstrate that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. Rather than submit a revised BART
analysis determination, DEQ's Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
includes what it asserts are approvable SIP measures in a BART
alternative for two subject-to-BART sources (Power Boilers No. 1 and 2)
at the Domtar Ashdown paper mill located in Ashdown, Arkansas. Compared
to BART, the BART alternative results in an overall (Power Boilers No.
1 and 2) increase in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and
decrease in NOX emissions. While DEQ claims that the
NOX decrease mitigates the SO2 increase, the SIP
fails to demonstrate the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the BART
alternative measure submitted by the State fails to demonstrate that
the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART.
As explained in the proposed action, the BART alternative would
result in an overall decrease in SO2, NOX, and
particulate matter (PM10) emissions from the baseline for
both power boilers at Domtar Ashdown paper mill. The BART alternative
results in greater emission reductions of NOX and
PM10 than the BART controls in the FIP. The BART alternative
controls would reduce NOX and PM10 emissions by
1,096 and 111 tons per year (tpy), respectively, from the baseline. The
BART alternative results in a smaller reduction in SO2
emissions compared to the BART controls (BART achieves 3,051 tpy
SO2 reduction) but still achieves a decrease of 1,637 tpy
SO2 from the baseline. Despite a smaller reduction in
SO2 emissions than BART (a 1,414 tpy SO2
difference), the BART alternative results in 300 tpy fewer
NOX emissions and 157 tpy fewer PM10 emissions
compared to BART. Model results show that the additional reduction in
NOX emissions under the BART alternative controls results in
more overall modeled visibility improvement across the impacted Class I
areas than BART even with the smaller reduction in SO2
emissions.
We explained in our proposed action that greater visibility
improvement occurs because Domtar's baseline NOX emissions
are the primary driver of visibility impacts from the source and
contribute more to visibility impairment across the four-affected Class
I areas in Arkansas and Missouri for Power Boiler No. 1, and also
contribute more at Caney Creek for Power Boiler No. 2 than other
pollutants emitted by the source. DEQ first included an analysis
utilizing method 1 \56\ that shows that the BART alternative controls
achieve greater overall cumulative reductions in visibility impairment
(as expressed by the change in deciviews or [Delta]dv) from the
baseline across the four Class I areas when compared to BART (0.549
[Delta]dv for the alternative versus 0.473 [Delta]dv for BART). DEQ
then determined that the BART alternative controls reduce the overall
visibility impairment from the baseline by 0.520 [Delta]dv under its
method 2 evaluation and is greater than the overall visibility
improvement modeled under BART, which is 0.516 [Delta]dv. The DEQ noted
that the most impacted Class I area, Caney Creek (1.137 dv baseline
impairment), improved the greatest (0.384 [Delta]dv) with the BART
alternative under method 2, and would experience greater visibility
improvement under the BART alternative scenario than under the BART
scenario, which improves by 0.361 [Delta]dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Method 1 assessed visibility impairment on a per source per
pollutant basis and Method 2 allowed for interaction of the
pollutants from both boilers. See descriptions of method 1 and 2
modeling evaluations in the March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR
14847, 14857-14858).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's weight of evidence analysis of visibility improvement
in the SIP was supported by our analysis of various metrics, which
reinforced that the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress. We analyzed the pollutant species contribution to visibility
impacts at the Class I areas from each power boiler. Specifically, for
Power Boiler No. 1, baseline modeled nitrate (NO3-) and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) impacts had the highest contribution
to visibility impairment at all Class I areas. For Power Boiler No. 2,
baseline modeled NO3- and NO2 impacts are the
primary driver for visibility impacts at Caney Creek, which is the
Class I area impacted the most by the Domtar units. For Power Boiler
No. 2, the visibility impacts resulting from NOX at Caney
Creek outweigh SO42- species
contributions (from SO2 precursors) to impacts at the other
three Class I areas combined. In addition to pollutant species
contributions to impacts, we also considered the ten highest impacted
days.\57\ This analysis provided a broader look at those days with the
highest impacts at each Class I area. The results were consistent with
[[Page 15112]]
the State's analysis based on the 98th percentile day, which was
selected as representative of the highest impact (the 8th highest day).
The average results across the top ten highest impacted days also
supported our position that it is appropriate to give greater weight to
Caney Creek impacts (0.9819 dv baseline impairment) in our
consideration of whether the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART since they are much larger than impacts
at the other Class I areas. The BART alternative resulted in more
visibility improvement at Caney Creek and slightly less at the other
Class I areas when compared to the BART limits, but the visibility
improvement at Caney Creek outweighed the difference in visibility
benefit at the other three Class I areas altogether. On average, the
BART alternative controls achieved greater overall visibility
improvement from the baseline compared to BART for the ten highest
impacted days (0.439 [Delta]dv for the alternative versus 0.423
[Delta]dv for BART). Our analysis of the ten highest impacted days
similarly supported the conclusion that the BART alternative provides
for greater reasonable progress than BART. Finally, we complemented the
State's analysis by evaluating the modeled number of days impacted by
Domtar over 1.0 dv and 0.5 dv for each scenario at each Class I area.
This compared the frequency and duration of higher visibility impacts
between the two control scenarios. The BART FIP limits and the BART
alternative both reduce the total modeled number of days with
visibility impacts over 1.0 dv from fifteen days in the baseline to
four days for each scenario. For the metric of days with modeled
visibility impacts over 0.5 dv, the FIP limits and the BART alternative
showed nearly identical reduction in the number of days, but very
slightly favored the FIP limits over the BART alternative (from 82 to
36 days for the FIP limits compared to 37 days for the BART
alternative). This single metric, however, on which BART performed
slightly better than the BART alternative (days impacted over 0.5 dv)
is not sufficient to outweigh the substantial evidence presented using
the other metrics as to the relatively greater benefits of the BART
alternative over BART. These different metrics reinforce the State's
analysis in the SIP that greater reasonable progress was achieved by
the BART alternative.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The ``ten highest impacted days'' means the 8th to 17th
highest days at each Class I area. The 98th percentile means that
for a given distribution, it is equal to or higher than 98 percent
of the rest of the distribution. The 98th percentile impact day
means that only two percent of the 365 days in a calendar year, or
7.3 days (rounded up to 8 days) have higher impacts. The simplified
chemistry in the CALPUFF model tends to magnify the actual
visibility effects of that source so it is appropriate to use the
98th percentile, or 8th highest day, to not give undue weight to the
extreme tail of the distribution. This approach will effectively
capture the sources that contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area, while minimizing the likelihood that the highest
modeled visibility impacts might be caused by unusual meteorology or
conservative assumptions in the model. See 70 FR 39104, 39121 (July
6, 2005), Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for BART
Determinations.
\58\ See discussion regarding the different metrics in the March
16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR 14847, 14859-14860).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's weight of evidence analysis of emission reductions and
visibility improvement (using the 98th percentile metric) as
complemented by our analysis of different metrics, justify our approval
of the State's determination that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). The
State followed the prescribed process for determining the level of
control required for the BART alternative for the Domtar Ashdown Mill
and adequately supported its determination with analysis that meets the
requirements under section 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
Comment A.2: EPA proposes approving the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP and relaxing the BART emission limitations established in
its 2016 FIP. The proposed facility-wide emission limitation would
allow for fewer emission reductions from the Domtar Ashdown Mill. EPA's
proposal reverses course on its FIP, failing to make reasonable
progress on reducing visibility impairment in Class I areas in
accordance with the CAA mandates and requirements.
Response: The BART alternative establishes pollutant-specific
limits at each of the two BART sources at the Ashdown Mill. There is no
``facility-wide emission limitation'' as stated by the commenter. In
addition, we disagree with the commenter that the EPA is reversing
course on its FIP by relaxing BART limitations established in the FIP,
and thus failing to make reasonable progress and reduce visibility
impairment in Class I areas in accordance with the CAA and its
mandates.
The BART alternative results in larger reductions in NOX
and PM emissions than required by the FIP, while SO2
emissions are not reduced to the same extent as would be required under
the FIP. As explained in our response to comment A.1 of this final
action and also in section IV of our proposed action, our analysis of
the State's weight of evidence conclusion as complemented by EPA's
analysis, demonstrate that the State has met the BART and reasonable
progress requirements for regional haze under the applicable provisions
of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Thus, the proposed withdrawal of
the BART provisions in the FIP and replacement with the BART
alternative requirements in the SIP will not result in a failure to
meet the applicable requirements.
The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and concurrent
withdrawal of the corresponding parts of the FIP pertaining to Domtar
will also not reverse course from the prior FIP with respect to the
separate reasonable progress requirements for Arkansas. As mentioned in
section IV of our proposed action, we determined in our September 27,
2019 Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision that
Arkansas had fully addressed the reasonable progress requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) for the first implementation period in that final
action. In that action, we also noted that the 2016 FIP BART
determination requirements for Domtar were still in place but we agreed
with the State that as long as those requirements continued to be
addressed by the measures in the FIP, nothing further is needed to
satisfy the reasonable progress requirements for the first
implementation period. In the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
submittal, the State assessed whether changes would be needed with
respect to the reasonable progress analysis, based on any differences
between the SIP and FIP-based measures for Domtar. The BART alternative
analysis performed for the Domtar power boilers was based, in part, on
an assessment of the same factors that must be addressed in the
reasonable progress analysis. The FIP BART determination analysis was
compared to the proposed BART alternative controls in the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP submittal. The BART alternative measures
for Domtar resulted in greater overall visibility improvement than the
BART requirements in the FIP and the previously approved BART
PM10 limit for Power Boiler No. 1. As a result, nothing
further is needed to satisfy the reasonable progress requirements for
the first implementation period. For these reasons, approval of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal
of the corresponding parts of the FIP do not interfere or reverse
course from the FIP with respect to the CAA requirements pertaining to
BART or reasonable progress under 40 CFR 51.308(d) or (e).
Comment A.3: EPA's proposal cobbles together two pieces of
information (a comparison of emission reductions and a modeling
analysis) and fails to demonstrate that the BART alternative is clearly
better than BART. The Regional Haze Rule provides different regulatory
tests for a state to use to demonstrate that a BART alternative is
better than BART. Arkansas claims that it used the ``clear weight of
evidence test,'' but the information it provides falls under 40 CFR
51.308(e): An emission reduction comparison and modeling. The
information Arkansas provides fails to meet the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e). Therefore, it is
[[Page 15113]]
unreasonable for EPA to provide weight to the information.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
information on which our approval of the State's SIP is based fails to
provide an adequate clear weight of evidence analysis to meet the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e). The commenter is apparently alleging
that the analysis provided by the State instead falls under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) rather than under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) because it is
based on an emission reduction comparison and modeling. The argument
that the kind of data and analysis to be used under the clear weight of
evidence test must somehow be sufficiently different from what would be
required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) is not a reasonable interpretation
of these regulations. EPA interprets 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) as
permitting data and analysis that may be relevant under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) analysis to be used in supporting a clear weight of
evidence demonstration.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state must provide a
determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on ``clear
weight of evidence'' that the alternative measure achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. The State relied on a modeling analysis
to determine if the BART alternative could be shown to make greater
reasonable progress than BART, but that modeling was different than the
modeling described under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). The State used an air
quality modeling methodology approach using the maximum 98th percentile
visibility impact of three modeled years using the CALPUFF model
instead of modeled overall visibility conditions for the twenty percent
best and worst days, as would be required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The State's approach could be considered a modified version of the two-
part modeling test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) and is more appropriate to
classify under the weight of evidence analysis approach instead allowed
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
The State's methodology and analysis under the clear weight of
evidence test is reasonable. The State's CALPUFF modeling approach
utilizing the 98th percentile visibility impacts is consistent with the
approach recommended by the BART guidelines \59\ for comparing
different control options at a single source when developing BART
determinations relying on the 98th percentile visibility impact as the
key metric. It is also consistent with the methodology followed in
EPA's 2016 FIP BART determination 60 61 for Domtar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y section III.A.3 and IV.D.5,
``Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.''
\60\ See proposed FIP on April 8, 2015 (80 FR 18979).
\61\ See final FIP action on September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332) as
corrected on October 4, 2016 (81 FR 68319) and the associated TSD,
``AR020.0002-00 TSD for EPA's Proposed Action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze FIP'' in Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189 for the FIP
BART analysis for SO2 and NOX for Power Boiler
No. 1; and SO2, NOX, and PM10 for
Power Boiler No. 2. This was included as part of the Phase III
submittal and included in the docket of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPUFF is a single source air quality model that is recommended in
the BART Guidelines. Since CALPUFF was used for this BART alternative
analysis, the modeling results were post-processed in a manner
consistent with the BART guidelines. This approach is, therefore,
acceptable and reasonable for the comparison of the proposed BART
alternative to the FIP BART determination for Domtar since it is the
same modeling used to determine BART in the FIP, and the BART
alternative is focused on only the BART sources at Domtar. The State
also considered two methods of modeling evaluation provided by Domtar
for this approach of using the maximum 98th percentile visibility
impact. Method 1 assessed visibility impairment on a per source per
pollutant basis and method 2 allowed for interaction of the pollutants
from both boilers. The State followed the same general CALPUFF modeling
protocol and used the same meteorological data inputs for the BART
alternative assessment as discussed in Appendix B to the FIP TSD. Only
the modeled emission rates changed to represent the modeled scenarios
for each method.
DEQ determined that the visibility benefits as measured under
method 2 and the previous FIP BART determination formed an appropriate
BART benchmark for the purposes of the evaluation of Domtar's BART
alternative. We continue to agree with DEQ that because method 2
provides for the full chemical interaction of emissions from both power
boilers, method 2 analysis results are a reliable assessment of the
anticipated overall visibility improvement of controls utilizing the
98th percentile impact. Under the weight of evidence approach, we made
use of all available information and data which could inform our
decision while recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of
that information in arriving at the soundest decision possible.\62\
This array of information and other relevant data was of sufficient
quality to inform our comparison of visibility impacts between BART and
the BART alternative. We carefully considered this evidence in
evaluating the Arkansas Phase III SIP revision submitted by the State.
Overall, the difference in visibility impacts between the BART and the
BART alternative scenarios was large enough to show that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART based on the
clear weight of the evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006). Factors which
can be used in a weight of evidence determination in this context
may include, but not be limited to, future projected emissions
levels under the alternative as compared to under BART; future
projected visibility conditions under the two scenarios; the
geographic distribution of sources likely to reduce or increase
emissions under the alternative as compared to BART sources;
monitoring data and emissions inventories; and sensitivity analyses
of any models used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in response to comment A.1 in section III.A of this
final action, we evaluated DEQ's analysis and additional model results
(relying primarily on the analysis of the 98th percentile impacts),\63\
the analysis of emission reductions,\64\ and the analysis of Domtar's
visibility impacts due to NO3- compared to
SO4-.\65\ In addition, we also considered our analysis of
the ten highest impacted days (8th to 17th highest) \66\ and our
analysis of the number of days impacted over 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv.\67\ All
of these metrics, except the number of days impacted over 0.5 dv (which
only very slightly favored BART), provided substantial evidence and
collectively supported the conclusion that the BART alternative
provides for greater reasonable progress than BART. For these reasons,
we are finalizing our approval of the State's weight of evidence
analysis approach and the conclusions reached by the State. In the
course of evaluating the SIP submittal, EPA developed some additional
analysis that complements and supports
[[Page 15114]]
the State's analysis. Taken as a whole, the record supports approval of
the State's determination that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART under the clear weight of evidence
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Tables 7 and 8 of the proposed approval, 85 FR 14847,
14858.
\64\ See Tables 5 and 6 of the proposed approval, 85 FR 14847,
14856-14857.
\65\ See Appendix C ``Supplemental BART Determination
Information Domtar A.W. LLC, Ashdown Mill (AFIN 41-00002),''
originally dated June 28, 2013 and revised on May 16, 2014, prepared
by Trinity Consultants Inc. in conjunction with Domtar A.W. LLC.
\66\ See 85 FR 14847, 14859. This data is based on the CALPUFF
modeling provided by Domtar and relied on by the State in the Phase
III SIP. See ``EPA-CALPUFF summary for Method 2.xlsx'' for the EPA's
summary of the modeling data, available in the docket for this
action.
\67\ See 85 FR 14847, 14860. This data is based on the CALPUFF
modeling provided by Domtar and relied on by the State in the Phase
III SIP revision. See ``EPA-CALPUFF summary for Method 2.xlsx'' for
the EPA's summary of the modeling data, available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment A.4: EPA fails to provide a basis to rely on a comparison
of emissions. EPA merely presents the emission reductions under BART
and the alternative, but fails to explain the strengths and weaknesses
of this information and does not assign any weight to the emission
comparison. A comparison of multiple pollutant species emission levels
alone is not informative without visibility modeling. The pollutants'
differing visibility impacts and complex interactions between them and
in the atmosphere make it extremely difficult to discern their
collective impacts without visibility modeling. EPA has consistently
relied on modeling to assess the visibility impacts under these
circumstances.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA
``merely presents the emission reductions under BART and the
alternative.'' In our proposed action,\68\ our basis for presenting the
emission reduction information laid the foundation for describing the
differences in visibility outcomes achieved between the FIP and the
BART alternative, leading EPA to agree with the State that there was a
need to support the BART alternative with visibility modeling. The
State first showed reduced emissions from the baseline and then used
the modeling to support a conclusion that the emission reduction
differences between the FIP BART benchmark and BART alternative were
acceptable because NOX precursor emissions are the main
driver contributing to the visibility impacts from this source. Thus,
the State proceeded to conduct precisely the modeling analysis the
commenter seems to assert is required, using CALPUFF. Indeed,
recognizing the potential interaction between multiple species of
visibility pollutants, the State used Method 2 in evaluating the
visibility consequences of the BART alternative compared to the BART
benchmark. EPA has relied on the modeling submitted by the State in
reaching a conclusion that the SIP submittal is approvable. While EPA
does not concede that modeling is required in all cases to conduct an
approvable ``clear weight of evidence'' analysis under
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), modeling was in fact done in this instance to
support the analysis. This comment is thus premised on a
misunderstanding of the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 85 FR 14847, 14857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent the commenter is asserting that the emissions
comparisons alone cannot be used as even one part of a weight of
evidence demonstration, the commenter is mistaken in how a ``weight of
evidence'' analysis is conducted. The term ``weight'' connotes that
multiple pieces of evidence are brought together and analyzed as a
whole.\69\ Comparative emissions data is obviously a critical piece of
that evidentiary record, and provides a foundation on which further
analysis, such as modeling, may be conducted. To assert that EPA must
ignore emissions comparisons--or any single piece of evidence--because
it does not provide, on its own, a sufficient basis to make a ``weight
of evidence'' determination is both illogical and a misreading of EPA's
regulations. We also note that the regulations require an analysis of
emission reductions under BART and the alternative, see 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C) and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 71 FR 60612, 60622 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment A.5: EPA should not provide weight to modeling data of
insufficient quality, which fails to meet the requirements of the
regulations. It is disingenuous for EPA to suggest that the CALPUFF
model is a ``modified'' version of the two-part modeling test. EPA has
consistently interpreted the two-part dispersion modeling test under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3) to mean the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) model, and not CALPUFF. EPA and states have
consistently used CAMx to assess whether a BART alternative would
result in ``greater reasonable progress'' under the two-prong test.
CAMx and CALPUFF are vastly different models and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
requires a specific type of dispersion modeling. EPA's suggestion that
use of CALPUFF is acceptable because it ``is consistent with the
approach recommended by the BART guidelines for comparing different
control options at a single source when developing BART determinations
relying on the 98th percentile visibility impact as the key metric''
also fails. A comparison of control options at a single source compares
changes in the emission reductions in one pollutant, but does not
compare the complexities involved in analyzing interactions between
multiple pollutants. It is also irrelevant that only the BART sources
at Domtar are under consideration. While the FIP considered each
pollutant separately, the alternative attempts to analyze and take
credit for combined emission reductions from three pollutants as it
fails to actually assess the effect of the alternative on visibility as
compared to BART.
Response: We disagree with the comment that CAMx must be used for
the two-part test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or that CALPUFF cannot be
used to support the determination here, which is not under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) in any case. The first point is irrelevant because the
State is not proceeding under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3); however, it is worth
noting that the regulatory text does not require the use of CAMx.
CALPUFF is also an air dispersion model, and one that the Agency has
recognized as available for use for BART alternatives under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 71 FR 60612, 60616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the use of CALPUFF, we did not suggest that CALPUFF was
replacing CAMx under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). We logically examined the
two-part analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) in the proposed action to
show how the State arrived at classifying the approach as a weight of
evidence approach. Our choice of using the term ``modified'' to
describe the relationship of this analysis to the two-part test under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was intended to describe how the State's approach
was similar to 40 CFR51.308(e)(3) in considering distribution of
emissions and visibility improvements using modeling, but different
from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) because the analysis based on the CALPUFF
modeling focused on the 98th percentile visibility impacts instead of
the twenty percent best and worst days required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Therefore, the State's weight of evidence analysis is acceptable under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) and should not be judged according to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). The commenter's objection to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) not
being met is immaterial since the weight of evidence approach followed
in the SIP submittal does not fall under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) but under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
The commenter states that EPA is wrong to consider CALPUFF as
acceptable just because it ``is consistent with the approach
recommended by the BART guidelines for comparing different control
options at a single source when developing BART determinations relying
on the 98th percentile visibility impact as the key metric.'' The
commenter points out that a comparison of control options at a single
source compares changes in the emission reductions in one pollutant,
[[Page 15115]]
but does not compare the complexities involved in analyzing
interactions between multiple pollutants. We disagree with this point
in relation to the alternative analysis here. First, particularly for
purposes of a BART alternative analysis for a single facility (with two
BART units), EPA's regulations recognize CALPUFF to be an acceptable
model, (explaining that CALPUFF is particularly suited for BART and
BART alternative applications at a single source).\71\ Further, Method
2, incorporated by the State in its SIP submittal, is a full assessment
method where all sources and pollutants are combined into a single
CALPUFF modeling run per year for the baseline and each control
scenario. Method 2 allows for interaction of the pollutants from both
boilers, as emitted pollutants from each unit disperse and compete for
the same reactants in the atmosphere, providing modeled overall impacts
due to emissions from both units. It is because of this that method 2
analysis results are a more reliable assessment of the anticipated
overall visibility improvement of controls under each scenario. Thus,
this is an entirely suitable application of the CALPUFF model, and the
commenter is incorrect to state that the CALPUFF modeling did not
account for the interactive chemistry of visibility pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 71 FR 60616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that the CALPUFF model includes simplified chemistry
to account for interactions between pollutants. The simplified
chemistry tends to magnify the actual visibility effects of a single
source; thus, it is appropriate to use the 98th percentile to avoid
overprediction and not give undue weight to the extreme tail of the
distribution. This approach will effectively capture the sources that
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, while minimizing
the likelihood that the highest modeled visibility impacts might be
caused by unusual meteorology or conservative assumptions in the model.
The EPA has previously recognized this approach of using CALPUFF as
an acceptable approach in the past when analyzing BART alternatives
that only include emission reductions at a single or small group of
BART sources. Specifically, we approved this approach for the State of
Arizona which established a BART alternative for Steam Units 2 and 3 at
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative's Apache Generating Station.\72\ See
also 70 FR 60616 (recognizing CALPUFF as particularly appropriate for
single-source applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See Arizona's September 19, 2014 proposed approval (79 FR
56322) which was finalized on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter states that the FIP considered each pollutant
separately, whereas the alternative attempts to analyze and take credit
for combined emission reductions from three pollutants, which allegedly
fails to assess the effect of the alternative on visibility as compared
to BART. The commenter is incorrect in their premise. The CALPUFF
modeling in the FIP evaluated each unit separately, but modeled the
visibility impacts from all pollutants from that unit. For example, in
evaluating the visibility benefit from NOX controls on Power
Boiler No. 1, the NOX emissions varied between each control
scenario modeled, while the SO2 and PM emissions were
included but held constant in these NOX control scenarios.
In evaluating the BART alternative, the State provided EPA with two
separate methods of using the CALPUFF modeling to evaluate visibility
impacts of the BART alternative as compared to BART, including Method 2
(described above) that modeled all pollutants from both BART units to
assess the total visibility impact from these two units.
For these reasons, we disagree that the modeling data was of
insufficient quality and failed to meet the requirements of the
regulations.
Comment A.6: EPA lacks authority to give one Class I area more
weight than others. EPA suggests that it is reasonable to give one of
the Class I areas ``greater weight'' when considering visibility
benefits and cherry-picks the Class I area with the greatest visibility
improvement, which is closest to Domtar. Focusing on that Class I area
serves to support a source's preferred control outcome. Showing that
one Class I area will have greater visibility benefits does nothing to
tip the weight of evidence scale in favor of the BART alternative. It
merely shows one area will see more benefits. In addition, EPA fails to
provide a basis for applying the 0.5 deciview threshold used by the
State to determine if a source contributes to visibility impairment at
a Class I area with the BART alternative analysis.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA
``cherry picks'' the Class I areas with the greatest visibility
improvement. We considered many metrics in analyzing the weight of
evidence approach by the State, including the overall visibility
improvement on average across the four impacted Class I areas. As a
whole, these factors supported a conclusion that the BART alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress than BART at the subject facility.
One metric that we analyzed was the breakdown of pollutant speciation
impacts across each Class I area due to modeled emissions from each
power boiler. We highlighted impacts at Caney Creek specifically in
this analysis because Domtar's Ashdown facility impacts this Class I
area the greatest, and this is due to NOX emissions from
Power Boiler No. 2. We also found that NOX emissions
contributed more to visibility impairment across all four Class I areas
for Power Boiler No. 1. The greater impact due to NOX
emissions is relevant because it demonstrates that the higher
SO2 emissions allowed under the BART alternative is offset
by the larger reduction in NOX emissions. This is just one
factor among many that we considered in analyzing the State's weight of
evidence approach as explained in the proposed approval and in
preceding responses in this final approval. We took into account the
visibility impacts at all impacted Class I areas (individually and on
average) and did not solely focus on the benefits at the most impacted
area.
We disagree with the assertion that we are supporting the source's
preferred control outcome instead of addressing emissions cumulatively
across all Class I areas. The commenter points out that the court in
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA held that EPA's analysis in
reviewing SIP submittals must take into account the visibility impacts
at all impacted Class I areas rather than focusing solely on the
benefits at the most impacted areas, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d Cir. 2015).
However, the facts of Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, are not
analogous to the facts surrounding our proposed approval. In Nat'l
Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, the court was reviewing EPA's approval
of the state's assessment of the visibility-improvement factor within
the five-factor BART analysis. The state calculated visibility
improvement that could be achieved at Class I areas by implementing
additional controls at BART-eligible sources.\73\ The state's
calculations for each source, however, took into account only the
potential impact such controls would have on the visibility in the
Class I area most severely impacted by the source. The state did not
consider ``cumulative visibility impact,'' which the EPA itself had
conceded was improper under the
[[Page 15116]]
visibility BART factor.\74\ The court in NPCA rejected that this flaw
in the State's analysis could be dismissed as harmless error.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id. at 164.
\74\ Id. at 165.
\75\ Id. at 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, by contrast, both the State and EPA have evaluated
the cumulative visibility impacts across all of the affected Class I
areas. The State considered this with both of its methods of analysis,
and EPA coupled those results with our own analysis of cumulative
visibility improvement. DEQ first included an analysis utilizing method
1 that shows that the BART alternative controls achieve greater overall
cumulative reductions in visibility impairment from the baseline
cumulatively across the four Class I areas when compared to BART (0.549
[Delta]dv for the alternative versus 0.473 [Delta]dv for BART). DEQ
also determined using method 2 that the BART alternative controls
reduce the overall cumulative visibility impairment from the baseline
by 0.520 [Delta]dv, which is greater than the overall visibility
improvement modeled under BART, which is 0.516 [Delta]dv. We
complemented the State's analysis by comparing the average visibility
impact across the top ten highest impacted days at each Class I area
(average 8th to 17th highest). This analysis provided a broader look at
those days with the highest impacts at each Class I area. The results
were consistent with the State's analysis based on the 98th percentile
day, which was selected as representative of the highest impact (i.e.,
the 8th highest day). The BART alternative controls achieve greater
overall visibility improvement from the baseline compared to BART for
the ten highest impacted days (0.439 [Delta]dv for the alternative
versus 0.423 [Delta]dv for BART). Thus, visibility benefits at each
Class I area were considered and analyzed by multiple metrics that
confirmed our proposed approval of the alternative.
The commenter argues that EPA ``fails to provide a basis for
applying the 0.5 deciview threshold used by the State to determine if a
source contributes to visibility impairment at a Class I area with the
BART alternative analysis,'' noting that numerous BART determinations
relied on lower deciview thresholds that resulted in significant
emission reducing outcomes. The meaning of this comment is not clear.
EPA did not apply a 0.5 deciview threshold to cut off its evaluation of
other Class I areas. However, it is reasonable to provide additional
analysis when one Class I area is much more heavily impacted by a
source than others. In the case of Domtar, the baseline visibility
impacts at Caney Creek are much larger than impacts at the other Class
I areas, so it is reasonable to give greater weight to visibility
benefits at Caney Creek resulting from the alternative as compared to
BART. The level of visibility benefit from controls at the other three
Class I areas are smaller than those at Caney Creek, and the baseline
visibility impacts of the source at these areas was well below the 0.5
dv threshold used by the State to determine if a source contributes to
visibility impairment at a Class I area. In making this observation, we
do not categorically dismiss or ignore impacts to other Class I areas
below 0.5 or any other threshold. We simply note that the changes in
visibility at these other Class I areas were individually very small
and collectively smaller than the comparative gain in visibility
achieved by the BART alternative at Caney Creek.
The commenter mentioned that Congress provided no authority for EPA
to treat one Class I area differently from others. As mentioned
previously, we treated all Class I areas the same and measured the
cumulative visibility impacts across all of them using multiple
metrics. We specifically analyzed the effects at Caney Creek, since it
is the Class I area impacted the most. But that analysis does not show
favoritism and merely provides one metric for interpreting how impacts
are correlated to overall emissions from the source at each Class I
area.
B. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Comment B.1: EPA lacks authority to approve the State's SIP
submission with respect to provisions pertaining to alternative test
methods. EPA proposes to allow the State to authorize alternative
sampling or monitoring methods (equivalent to methods in the permit)
that EPA would concur on, outside the SIP process. Specifically, EPA
proposes approving permit conditions 35 and 42 as a part of the SIP.
Neither the State's SIP nor EPA's proposal explains what criteria and
process EPA would use to approve an alternative method. Arkansas'
alteration or elimination of SIP requirements can have no effect for
purposes of federal law unless and until EPA ratifies that action with
a SIP revision that is subject to the SIP requirements, including
provisions for public notice and comment. Moreover, the monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions in the State's SIP are not
approvable and therefore, those methods cannot be used a basis for
assessing whether an alternative method is approvable. Based on
Arkansas' SIP provisions, there is no way for the public to assess
whether an alternative method will comply with the Act. Therefore, EPA
should not approve these provisions because they are inconsistent with
the requirements of CAA section 110(i), 110(l) and 110(k)(3).
Response: We recognize that the commenter raises a concern that the
State's ability to authorize (with EPA concurrence) alternative test
methods in conditions 35 and 42 may be inconsistent with the Act
insofar as ``[n]either the State's SIP nor EPA's proposed approval
explains what criteria and process EPA would use to approve an
alternative method.'' In general, EPA agrees that SIP provisions cannot
authorize a State to make changes in the EPA-approved and federally
enforceable SIP requirements applicable to sources without going
through the statutorily required SIP-revision process. EPA refers to
SIP provisions that purport to authorize States to make unilateral
changes to existing SIP requirements as impermissible ``director's
discretion'' provisions. However, EPA interprets the CAA to allow two
types of such provisions: (i) Where the provision provides director's
discretion for the State to make changes, but specifies that such
changes have no effect for purposes of federal law or alter SIP
requirements unless and until the EPA approves the changes through a
SIP revision pursuant to CAA requirements; or (ii) where the provision
provides director's discretion that is adequately bounded, such that at
the time EPA approves the SIP provision the agency can evaluate it for
compliance with applicable CAA requirements and evaluate the potential
impacts of the State's exercise of that discretion. EPA interprets CAA
section 110(i) to allow SIP provisions with director's discretion of
either type. In the case of an adequately bounded provision, EPA
considers such provisions consistent with section 110(i) because, at
the time of initial approval into the SIP, the agency will already have
evaluated the provision for compliance with applicable requirements and
evaluated the potential impacts from exercise of the discretion. By
their terms, conditions 35 and 42 do not specify that DEQ must seek a
SIP revision to change the required monitoring at the source. Thus, to
be approvable, EPA would have to determine that the State's discretion
in these provisions is adequately bounded and assess the potential
impacts from the exercise of that authority.
[[Page 15117]]
In response to the commenter's concerns, EPA has further evaluated
conditions 35 and 42 to determine whether they provide adequate
bounding, allowing EPA to assess the provisions for compliance with
applicable requirements and the potential impacts that could result
from DEQ's potential exercise of the discretion to authorize
alternative monitoring. In support of EPA's proposed approval of
plantwide conditions 35 and 42 into the Arkansas SIP, DEQ provided
additional information in a letter (dated December 3, 2020) to EPA to
clarify the process and standards that the State shall follow and apply
to approve the use of any alternative method under plantwide conditions
35 and 42 of the Domtar permit.\76\ DEQ notes in the letter that DEQ
has received a disconnection notice \77\ for Power Boiler No. 1 and
that it is now permanently retired. In accordance with plantwide
condition 34, Power Boiler No. 1 is in compliance with the BART
alternative limits by virtue of being permanently retired and,
therefore, not emitting any of the relevant visibility pollutants. The
numerical emission limits will still apply, even though the unit has
been taken out of service. As a result, the process to be used by DEQ
in its approval of any request for an alternative sampling or
monitoring method is only applicable to Power Boiler No. 2 under
plantwide condition 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See December 3, 2020 clarification letter to EPA from DEQ
posted in the docket of this action.
\77\ See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice from Domtar for
Power Boiler No. 1 (SN-03) in the docket of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Power Boiler No. 2, which currently relies on a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to monitor SO2 and
NOX emissions, DEQ explained in its letter that it will use
the criteria for alternate monitoring systems contained in 40 CFR part
75, subpart E in its evaluation of the approvability of any request for
an alternative sampling or monitoring method for SO2 and
NOX emissions. More specifically, the State explained that
any request for approval of an alternative sampling or monitoring
method under plantwide condition 42 shall meet the general
demonstration requirements for alternative monitoring systems under 40
CFR 75.40 and require Domtar (or the current owner of the Ashdown Mill)
to demonstrate adequately that the average hourly emission data for
SO2, NOX, and/or volumetric flow in the proposed
alternative sampling or monitoring has the same or better precision,
reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as that provided by the
currently applicable continuous emission monitoring system (see
criteria in 40 CFR 75.41-75.46). Furthermore, DEQ will require all
information in 40 CFR 75.48 of Domtar (or the current owner of Ashdown
Mill) in the application for certification or recertification of the
alternative monitoring system. DEQ notes that the requirements of 40
CFR part 75, subpart E shall be met by the alternative monitoring
system when compared to a contemporaneously operating, fully certified
continuous emission monitoring system or a contemporaneously operating
reference method, where the appropriate reference methods are listed in
40 CFR 75.22.
With respect to any request for alternative sampling or monitoring
methods for PM10 under plantwide condition 42, we note that
Power Boiler No. 2 is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD and
reference is made to those requirements for PM10 compliance
demonstrations in plantwide condition 41. Condition 41 clearly explains
that the applicable PM10 compliance demonstration
requirements from 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD shall be utilized by
Domtar (or the current owner of Ashdown Mill). These requirements,
which are at 40 CFR 63.7505--63.7541, do not cease and are ongoing. In
response to comment B.8 in section III of this final action, we address
the alternative option provided in the permit for monitoring emissions
from Power Boiler #2 when that unit is combusting natural gas.
DEQ explained in its letter that it expects that Domtar will work
with both DEQ and EPA in the development of equivalent testing
protocols before seeking approval from DEQ (with EPA concurrence) and
before performing the equivalency testing. The alternate sampling or
monitoring protocol submittal to DEQ must contain EPA's official letter
of documented recommendations and concurrence, as required for DEQ
approval. Although not the same as EPA approval of an alternative
sampling or monitoring requirement through a SIP revision, in the case
of a valid director's discretion provision that is already adequately
bounded, EPA considers the inclusion of consultation with EPA an extra
measure of assurance that any such alternative will be appropriate.
Given the process that DEQ will follow and standards that DEQ will
apply in evaluating any potential alternative (and EPA's consultation
in the process) EPA anticipates that DEQ's exercise of its well bounded
discretion to authorize alternative sampling or monitoring will not
result in adverse impacts, e.g., adverse impacts on regional haze
requirements that are relevant to this SIP submission.
Based on the information contained in DEQ's December 3, 2020,
letter which forms a critical part of the record basis for EPA's
approval of this submittal, EPA has determined that conditions 35 and
42 as supplemented by the letter are adequately bounded director's
discretion provisions. In particular, EPA agrees with DEQ that the
criteria in 40 CFR part 75, subpart E for SO2 and
NOX emissions and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD for
PM10 emissions are appropriate to evaluate the approvability
of any alternative sampling or monitoring methods and establish the
proper bounds for DEQ's exercise of discretion and EPA approval for any
future requests from the source to use alternative sampling and
monitoring methods. Further, in determining whether it is appropriate
for EPA to provide its concurrence to any future request for a change
in sampling and monitoring methods under these conditions, EPA reserves
the right to withhold its concurrence if EPA determines that the
request falls outside the process and bounds specified in DEQ's letter.
In such circumstances, the CAA would require that the State seek to
make the change through the normal SIP revision process.
For these reasons, these permit provisions are consistent with the
requirements of CAA sections 110(i), 110(l) and 110(k)(3).
Comment B.2: The Arkansas Regional Haze SIP for Domtar does not
satisfy the requirement to provide for periodic testing of stationary
sources and to use enforceable test methods for each emission limit
specified in the plan, and should therefore be disapproved. For
example, the SIP lacks specificity regarding test methods in permit
conditions 38 and 40. Permit condition 38 refers to 40 CFR part 60,
without identifying the specific rule provisions that apply. Similarly,
permit condition 40 fails to identify the specific AP-42 emission
factor.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the SIP lacks
specificity regarding test methods in permit conditions 38 and 40 for
the boilers. The commenter states that permit condition 38 refers to 40
CFR part 60 regarding utilizing CEMS without identifying the specific
rule provisions that apply. In permit condition 38, the State provided
that ``the permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the 30-boiler
operating
[[Page 15118]]
day rolling average SO2 and NOX limits utilizing
a continuous emissions monitor (CEMS) subject to 40 CFR part 60.''
Permit condition 38 identifies the source category type as being a
boiler and the pollutants to be monitored by CEMS as SO2 and
NOX. It is clear from the pollutant, fuel type, and the
nature of the emission unit which of the tests would apply under 40 CFR
60 for demonstrating compliance. That is sufficient information to
locate the performance specifications and quality assurance procedures
for Power Boiler No. 2 to determine how to utilize CEMS to determine
compliance with the SO2 and NOX limits of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision. The State is being all-
inclusive when referring to Part 60 to include all of the general
provisions in Subpart A related to CEMS, such as 40 CFR 60.8 for
performance tests, 40 CFR 60.13 pertaining to monitoring requirements,
and Appendix B to Part 60, which includes performance specifications
for CEMS. In addition, these permit conditions also implement APCEC
Rule 19.703--Continuous Emission Monitoring,\78\ which is already part
of the approved SIP, and applies to this source.\79\ Specific condition
54 of the permit provides additional information regarding CEMS
requirements for Power Boiler No 2. Specifically, it says, ``The
permittee shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate continuous
emissions monitoring systems for measuring SO2 emissions,
NOX emissions, and either oxygen or carbon dioxide. The CEMS
shall have readouts which demonstrate compliance with any of the
applicable limits for the pollutant in question. The permittee shall
comply with the DEQ CEMS conditions found in Appendix B. [Reg. 19.703,
40 CFR 52, Subpart E, and Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 8-4-203 as referenced by
Ark. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 8-4-304 and 8-4-311].'' Appendix B sections
II through IV of the permit lay out specific guidelines for CEMS
operating conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Under APCEC Rule 19.703--Continuous Emission Monitoring,
any stationary source subject to this regulation shall, as required
by federal law and upon request of the Department: (A) Install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain equipment to continuously monitor
or determine federally regulated air pollutant emissions in
accordance with applicable performance specifications in 40 CFR part
60 Appendix B as of the effective date of the federal final rule
published by EPA in the Federal Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR
11271), and quality assurance procedures in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix
F as of the effective date of the federal final rule published by
EPA in the Federal Register on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11274), and
other methods and conditions that the Department, with the
concurrence of the EPA, shall prescribe. Any source listed in a
category in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix P as of the effective date of
the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on
November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), or in 40 CFR part 60 as of August
30, 1992, shall adhere to all continuous emissions monitoring or
alternative continuous emission monitoring requirements stated
therein, if applicable. (B) Report the data collected by the
monitoring equipment to the Department at such intervals and on such
forms as the Department shall prescribe, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix P, Section 4.0 (Minimum Data Requirements) as of
the effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the
Federal Register on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), and any other
applicable reporting requirements promulgated by the EPA.
\79\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also states that permit condition 40 fails to
identify the specific AP-42 emission factors. Condition 40 refers to
``the applicable natural gas AP-42 emission factors'' and provides an
appropriate description because the applicable emission factors are
based on the nature of the emissions unit, fuel, and pollutants in
question. As explained in the proposed approval,\80\ if Power Boiler
No. 2 switches to natural gas combustion, the applicable natural gas
AP-42 emission factors of 0.6 lb SO2/MMscf, 280 lb
NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb PM10/MMscf in conjunction
with natural gas fuel usage records shall be used to demonstrate
compliance with the BART emission limits.\81\ Therefore, the boiler
will operate under CEMs, and these AP-42 emissions factors would only
be used for estimation of emissions if Power Boiler No. 2 burns natural
gas. We note, just as we did in the FIP, for which these provisions are
replacing,82 83 that burning only natural gas would very
likely be sufficient in itself to demonstrate that the boiler is
complying with the SO2 emission limit. SO2
emissions from combustion of natural gas are inherently very low and
are virtually eliminated during the combustion process. Any
SO2 emissions will be in trace amounts well below the BART
alternative emission limit so there should be no concern that the
alternative limit for SO2 will be met. NOX and
PM10 emissions are also expected to be lower than the BART
alternative emission limit for natural gas combustion.84 85
Using the most conservative NOX, SO2, and
PM10 AP-42 factors (highest factor) for boiler combustion
indicates that the BART alternative emission limits will be met even
when firing natural gas at full capacity. Based on this information,
any ambiguity in the use of AP-42 factors for compliance using only
natural gas is not of concern because of the characteristically lower
emissions during natural gas combustion. When natural gas is used, the
limits in the BART alternative demonstration will be met. DEQ has the
State authority to enforce these emission factors to document
compliance and EPA will have federal authority once this approval takes
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See 85 FR 14847, 14862.
\81\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
section 1.4, Tables 1.4-1 and 2 pertaining to natural gas
combustion.
\82\ See 40 CFR 52.173(c)(8)(iv) and (v). However, the FIP
regulations required burning only pipeline quality natural gas, and
no such requirement to burn only pipeline quality natural gas can be
located in the permit or the SIP for this unit. Nonetheless, there
is no indication (nor has the commenter supplied any such
information) that burning other types of natural gas would result in
SO2 emissions that would even approach the BART
alternative emission limit.
\83\ Table 1.4-2 from Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
section 1.4 indicates that the AP-42 factor contemplates varying
amounts of sulfur and the potential need to adjust the emission
factor. The AP-42 factor for sulfur from natural gas (0.6 lb/10\6\
scf) is based on 100% conversion of fuel sulfur to SO2.
It assumes a sulfur content for natural gas of 2,000 grains/10\6\
scf. The SO2 emission factor in this table can be
converted to other natural gas sulfur contents by multiplying the
SO2 emission factor by the ratio of the site-specific
sulfur content (grains/10\6\ scf) to 2,000 grains/10\6\ scf. To
convert the emission factors in the AP-42 tables on a volume basis
(lb/10\6\ scf) to an energy basis (lb/MMBtu) divide by a heating
value of 1,020 MMBtu/10\6\ scf. Then, multiply the result by the
heat input capacity of the boiler (MMBtu/hr) to get a mass flow rate
(lb/hr). Accordingly, an AP factor of 0.6 lb SO2/MMscf
multiplied by Power Boiler No. 2 maximum heat input of 820 MMBtu/hr
would result in 0.5 lb/hr SO2, showing that the sulfur
emissions would be very low and almost negligible. It is also more
conservative than the FIP (``pipeline quality natural gas'' would
result in 1.2 lb/hr SO2 assuming pipeline natural gas
contains 0.5 grains or less of total sulfur per 100 standard cubic
feet). These results are well below the BART alternative limit for
SO2 of 435 lb/hr.
\84\ From Table 1.4-1 of Fifth Edition Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, section 1.4 we can also appropriately select the most
conservative NOX emission factor based on the design heat
input capacity for Power Boiler No. 2 of 820 MMBtu/hr. From this, we
can choose emission factors from the combustor type. The applicable
AP-42 emission factor (280 lb NOX/MMscf) is consistent
with what was used in the FIP for a large wall-fired boiler > 100
MMBtu/hr. This is the highest emission factor in the table for
NOX and results in 225 lb/hr NOX (985 tpy
NOX) which can be calculated from the heat input capacity
of the boiler (820 MMBtu/hr) similarly as explained in previous
footnote. The result is less than both the FIP NOX limit
of 345 lb/hr (1,511 tpy) and the BART alternative NOX
rate of 293 lb/hr (1,283 tpy).
\85\ From Table 1.4-2 of Fifth Edition Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, section 1.4 an AP factor of 7.6 lb PM10/MMscf
represents total PM and equates to 6.1 lb/hr PM applying a heat
input capacity of 820 MMBtu/hr. This is less than the BART
alternative rate of 81.6 lb/hr PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State made clear in its SIP submittal that the BART alternative
SIP requirements for this source would be implemented in conjunction
with preexisting SIP requirements for monitoring, reporting, and
[[Page 15119]]
recordkeeping, thus ensuring that the emissions limitations applicable
to this source under the BART alternative are practically enforceable.
See Aug. 2019 SIP Submittal at 2. These provisions of Arkansas's air
regulations have been approved by EPA into Arkansas' federally
enforceable SIP.\86\ In particular, APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7--Sampling,
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, sets forth the powers of DEQ in
requiring sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements at
stationary sources. Specifically, any stationary source is subject to
air emission sampling (APCEC Rule 19.702); \87\ continuous emission
monitoring (APCEC Rule 19.703); recordkeeping and reporting
requirements (APCEC Rule 19.705); \88\ and Public Availability of
Emissions Data (APCEC Rule 19.706).\89\ All of these requirements will
become federally enforceable against Domtar with EPA's final approval
of this SIP submittal. For these reasons, conditions 38 and 40 contain
sufficient specificity regarding testing for compliance for Power
Boiler No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 40 CFR 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations
in the Arkansas SIP.
\87\ Under APCEC Rule 19.702--Air Emissions Sampling, any
stationary source subject to this regulation shall be subject to the
following requirements: (A) Sampling Ports To provide any sampling
ports, at the request of the Department, required for federally
regulated air pollutant emissions sampling, including safe and easy
access to such ports. (B) Sampling To conduct federally regulated
air pollutant emissions sampling, at the request of the Department,
to determine the rate, opacity, composition, and/or contaminant
concentration of the emissions. All compliance testing shall be done
at the expense of the permittee by an independent firm, unless
otherwise approved by the Department. Sampling shall not be required
for those pollutants with continuous emissions monitors. (C)
Averaging Times All compliance testing averaging times shall be
consistent with the averaging times of the applicable federally
regulated air pollutant emissions limitations stated in the
applicable permit, which in no case shall be greater than the
minimum averaging times of the applicable NAAQS. (D) Process Rates
Unless otherwise approved by the Department, all federally regulated
air pollutant emissions sampling shall be performed with the
equipment being tested operating at least at ninety percent of its
permitted capacity. Emissions results shall be extrapolated to
correlate with 100 percent of permitted capacity to determine
compliance.
\88\ Under APCEC Rule 19.705--Record Keeping and Reporting
Requirements, any stationary source subject to this regulation
shall, upon request by the Department: (A) Maintain records on the
nature and amounts of federally regulated air pollutants emitted to
the air by the equipment in question. All records, including
compliance status reports and excess emissions measurements shall be
retained for at least five (5) years, and shall be made available to
any agent of the Department or EPA during regular business hours.
(B) Supply the following information, correlated in units of the
applicable emissions limitations, to the Department: (1) General
process information related to the emissions of federally regulated
air pollutants into the air. (2) Emissions data obtained through
sampling or continuous emissions monitoring. (C) Information and
data shall be submitted to the Department by a responsible official
on such forms and at such time intervals as prescribed by applicable
federal regulations or the Department. Reporting periods shall be a
twelve-month period. (D) Each emission inventory is to be
accompanied by a certifying statement, signed by the owner(s) or
operator(s) and attesting that the information contained in the
inventory is true and accurate to the best knowledge of the
certifying official. The certification shall include the full name,
title, signature, date of signature, and telephone number of the
certifying official.
\89\ Emissions data obtained by the Department shall be
correlated in units of applicable emissions limitations and be made
available to the public at the Department's central offices during
normal business hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment B.3: The provisions for recordkeeping are inadequate for
permit conditions 36 and 43. In addition to failing to require that
``owners and operators'' are subject to these provisions, these
provisions fail to specify necessary specifics to determine compliance.
For example, these provisions lack requirements that records shall be
maintained for CEMS data; quality assurance and quality control
activities for emissions measuring systems; major maintenance
activities conducted on emission units, control equipment, and CEMS;
and any other records required by the underlying requirements.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
provisions for recordkeeping are inadequate for conditions 36 and 43.
The commenter cites CAA section 110(a)(2)(F), 40 CFR 51 Subpart K,\90\
and the BART guidelines \91\ in identifying the applicable
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.\92\ However, these
requirements do not mandate the level of specificity the commenter
would like to see regarding recordkeeping, and the commenter cites no
authority for the notion that that level of specificity is required.
Nor did the commenter cite any examples from other BART alternative
actions that would demonstrate that the level of specificity of the
recordkeeping requirements here is inconsistent with what has been
approved in other SIPs. Commenter's suggestions do not reflect how the
regulations are worded regarding recordkeeping and reporting,
therefore, we conclude that the commenter has failed to establish how
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51 Subpart K,
and the BART guidelines are not met by conditions 36 and 43.\93\ Permit
conditions 36 and 43 clearly require maintaining ``all records''
necessary to determine compliance ``for at least 5 years.'' This is
sufficient under the regional haze regulations. Further, such broad
terms encompass many if not all of the specific enumerated types of
records the commenter claims should be retained. The recordkeeping
provisions in conditions 36 and 43 are, therefore, not lacking and are
sufficient enough on their own merit to meet 40 CFR 51 Subpart K and
the BART-alternative requirements of subpart P. As mentioned in the
previous response, Appendix B sections II through IV of the permit lay
out specific guidelines for CEMS operating conditions. These CEMS
conditions are reflected in and administered by the State under APCEC
Rule 19.703--Continuous Emission Monitoring. The State applies APCEC
Rule 19.705 \94\--Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements to air
pollution sources subject to the regulation.\95\ The State made clear
in its August 2019 SIP Submittal, at page 2, that these provisions
apply to the Domtar Ashdown Mill for purposes of implementing the BART
alternative emission limitations at Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2.
These requirements will become federally enforceable
[[Page 15120]]
against Domtar with final approval of this SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 40 CFR 51.210-214.
\91\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule, Appendix Y.
\92\ See Laumann Legal comments on behalf of the National Parks
Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, and Earthjustice (pages
11-13).
\93\ We note that section 110(a)(2)(F) of the statute only
establishes such requirements ``as may be prescribed by the
Administrator.'' Therefore, the language of 110(a)(2)(F) does not
apply directly to our evaluation of a SIP revision. Rather, the
specific monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that
apply to our evaluation of the SIP revision are those that have been
``prescribed,'' i.e., promulgated, in the governing regulations at
subparts K and P of Part 51.
\94\ Under APCEC Rule 19.705--Record Keeping and Reporting
Requirements, the State, ``maintains records on the nature and
amounts of federally regulated air pollutants emitted to the air by
the equipment in question. All records, including compliance status
reports and excess emissions measurements shall be retained for at
least five years, and shall be made available to any agent of the
Department or EPA during regular business hours. Stationary sources
are subject to supply the following information, correlated in units
of the applicable emissions limitations, to the DEQ: (1) General
process information related to the emissions of federally regulated
air pollutants into the air. (2) Emissions data obtained through
sampling or continuous emissions monitoring. Information and data
shall be submitted to the Department by a responsible official on
such forms and at such time intervals as prescribed by applicable
federal regulations or the Department. Reporting periods shall be a
twelve-month period. Each emission inventory is to be accompanied by
a certifying statement, signed by the owner(s) or operator(s) and
attesting that the information contained in the inventory is true
and accurate to the best knowledge of the certifying official. The
certification shall include the full name, title, signature, date of
signature, and telephone number of the certifying official.''
\95\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter lastly mentioned that these conditions fail to
require that ``owners and operators'' are subject to the provisions in
them. We address this in response to comment B.5 in section III.B of
this final action. As mentioned in that response, we recognize Domtar
as both the permittee and the owner subject to the permit conditions.
Further, because the permit conditions are being incorporated into the
state's SIP, they are state- and federally-enforceable on any owner or
operator of this facility regardless of any changes that may occur in
ownership of the facility or in the permit itself. Therefore, Domtar
and any future owner or operator is subject to the provisions being
approved in this action, including conditions 36 and 43, and DEQ will
continue to enforce these measures with EPA oversight.
Comment B.4: EPA's proposal suggests there are reporting
requirements for Power Boiler No. 1 in conditions 33 to 36 and in
conditions 38 to 43 for Power Boiler No. 2 but these provisions do not
contain requirements for reporting. The SIP lacks any requirements for
reporting and EPA must disapprove the SIP.
Response: The commenter asserts that conditions 33 to 36 for Power
Boiler No. 1 and conditions 38 to 43 for Power Boiler No. 2 fail to
contain reporting requirements as EPA suggests. However, permit
conditions 36 and 43 state that all records ``shall be made available
to any agent of DEQ or EPA upon request.'' Accordingly, the records
will be provided upon request by DEQ or EPA. This is sufficient to
satisfy periodic reporting of records in 40 CFR 51.211. The general
BART alternative implementation requirements of 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
which do not include a requirement of reporting on any specific time
period, are also met. The commenter also suggests that the State is
required to provide periodic reporting requirements as stated in 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(F)(ii) and the BART guidelines. However, section
110(a)(2)(F) requires EPA to ``prescribe'' its requirements, and thus
this provision is implemented through the applicable regulations. The
BART guidelines call for adequate reporting and recordkeeping so that
air quality agency personnel can determine the compliance status of the
source. Permit conditions 36 and 43 clearly require maintaining ``all
records'' necessary to determine compliance ``for at least 5 years''
and permit conditions 36 and 43 state that all records ``shall be made
available to any agent of DEQ or EPA upon request'' so determination of
compliance can be made.
Further, other SIP-approved provisions of Arkansas' regulations
also apply, ensuring the reporting obligations of 51.211 and the BART-
alternative implementation measures of 51.308(e)(2)(iii) are satisfied.
The commenter mentions that the SIP lacks any requirements for
reporting, but that is not the case. APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7--Sampling,
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, sets forth the powers of DEQ in
requiring sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements at
stationary sources.\96\ As mentioned previously, the State made clear
in its SIP submittal that the BART alternative SIP requirements for
this source would be implemented in conjunction with preexisting SIP
requirements for sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements under
APCEC Rule 19 Chapter 7, thus ensuring that the emissions limitations
applicable to this source under the BART alternative are practically
enforceable.\97\ Per APCEC Rule 19.705(C), Domtar must submit annual
reports demonstrating compliance with applicable emission limitations.
In addition, they must keep all records demonstrating compliance for at
least five years (APCEC Rule 19.705(A)). Inspectors audit these records
during site inspections. Therefore, Domtar does have a pre-existing
annual reporting requirement, and, with the approval of the BART-
alternative emission limits into the State's regional haze SIP, their
compliance with these emission limits will also be a part of that
annual report going forward. For these reasons, the SIP is not lacking
reporting requirements, including any periodic reporting requirement as
required under part 51, subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
\97\ See Aug. 2019 SIP Submittal at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also worth noting that as a source subject to Title V
requirements, it is subject to annual deviation reports under APCEC
Rule 26.703(E)(3)(c). In addition, as a major source it is required to
provide an annual emissions inventory. EPA finds that the reporting
requirements applicable to Domtar under this SIP submittal are
sufficient to meet the requirements of the BART alternative regulations
and subpart K.
Comment B.5: The SIP fails to require that the source surveillance
provisions apply to owners and operators. The source surveillance
provisions must apply to owners and operators of the source instead of
the Title V permittee in permit condition 32. This provision does not
meet the requirements of subpart K. If the Title V permit were to
expire, there would be no permittee to hold accountable. EPA must
therefore disapprove this provision of the SIP because it fails to
identify the appropriate liable entity. Similarly, permit condition 33
fails to specify the entity responsible for making the demonstration,
and therefore, EPA must also disapprove this provision.
Response: The commenter stated that the SIP fails to require that
the source surveillance provisions apply to owners and operators. EPA
disagrees with this comment because the terms of the permit are
incorporated into the SIP and are therefore applicable to both the
permittee and any other owner or operator of this facility. Currently,
those entities are one and the same: Domtar. Because conditions 32 and
33 in the permit both say ``permittee'' instead of ``owner and
operator,'' the commenter asserts that nobody will be subject to the
provisions in these conditions if the Title V permit were to expire.
This is incorrect, and nothing in the State's SIP submittal or any
other information before the EPA suggests that this is how these terms
are to be interpreted. The terms ``permittee'' and ``owner'' are both
used in the permit. Domtar is recognized as both the owner of the
Ashdown mill who operates the boilers and the permittee of the Title V
permit containing the revised conditions implementing the BART
alternative. ``The BART Alternative specific conditions'' portion of
the plantwide conditions section of the permit clarifies that the
permittee is the one who is subject to these conditions.
In addition, these requirements would not cease to apply if Domtar
were for any reason to cease to be the permittee. Although
``permittee'' is being used in the wording of the permit conditions,
these conditions are being approved into the State's SIP and are state-
and federally-enforceable by virtue of being in the SIP. As the State's
SIP submittal explains,\98\ ``For compliance with the CAA Regional Haze
Program's requirements for the first planning period, the No. 1 and 2
Power Boilers are subject-to-BART alternative measures consistent with
40 CFR 51.308. The terms and conditions of the BART alternative
measures are to be submitted to EPA for approval as part of the
Arkansas SIP. Upon initial EPA approval of the permit into the SIP, the
permittee shall continue to be subject to the conditions as approved
into the SIP
[[Page 15121]]
even if the conditions are revised as part of a permit amendment until
such time as the EPA approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The
permittee shall remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved
conditions and the revised conditions, until EPA approves the revised
conditions'' (emphasis added). Because of this, should the Title V
permit expire, be modified, or transferred, any person who owns or
operates this facility, including the current permittee, will still be
subject to these conditions as a result of their being incorporated
into the federally enforceable SIP. We note in addition that permits
are transferable due to changes in ownership of a source, given proper
notification to the director including required disclosures.\99\ In
terms of expiration, the Arkansas program is based on a one permit
system meaning that a source contains a single document that contains
both the Title I New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permit conditions/
requirements. The conditions of the NSR permit do not ever expire.
Title V permits do have a permit expiration date, but the expiration of
the Title V permit does not impact the ``status'' of NSR permit
requirements.\100\ These requirements live on unless modified/removed
via an NSR permit action. Because NSR permit changes are automatically
updated in the Title V permit there isn't any impact on operational
status if the NSR permit was modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See DEQ Air permit #0287-AOP-R22 (page 203), the ``Regional
Haze Program (BART Alternative) Specific Conditions'' portion of the
Plantwide Conditions section of the permit, Section VI, Plantwide
Conditions #32 to #43.
\99\ See the criteria for change of ownership addressed in APCEC
Reg.19.407(B).
\100\ To avoid expiration, sources apply for a renewal of the
Title V permit at least six months prior to expiration in order to
operate under a permit shield (in cases where a renewed permit is
not issued prior to expiration). If a case exists where a source
does not meet this six-month timeline, the Title V permit would
expire according to the expiration date and the source could no
longer operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the provisions in conditions 32 and 33 and in other
provisions addressing ownership will continue to be enforceable
requirements, regardless of who owns or operates this facility, and DEQ
and EPA will continue to be able to enforce these measures. We,
therefore, disagree that these conditions need to place requirements on
the ``owners and operators'' rather than the ``permittee'' to be
permanently enforceable.
Comment B.6: The SIP lacks enforceable provisions regarding
permanent retirement. The SIP provides an option for permanent
retirement of Power Boiler No. 1, but permit condition 34 lacks
enforceable language. This permit condition and EPA's proposal lack the
details necessary for enforcement. For example, it fails to explain
what a ``disconnection notice'' is and what information is contained in
the notice. Therefore, the public is unable to assess whether a
``disconnection notice'' is a permanent action that satisfies the BART
requirements. EPA is prohibited from approving this additional BART
alternative since the condition contains vague and unenforceable
language.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the SIP lacks
enforceable provisions in condition 34 regarding permanent retirement.
The term ``disconnection notice'' is self-defining in that it simply
describes DEQ receiving communication in the form of a notice after
Power Boiler No. 1 has already been taken out of service and is
permanently retired. ``Permanently retired'' self-evidently means that
once the power boiler is taken out of service it will never operate
again. Indeed, this has already occurred. As indicated in a November
18, 2020, letter \101\ to DEQ from Domtar, the No. 1 Power Boiler was
placed in standby mode and stopped operating in April 2016. That letter
also documented that the unit was disconnected and permanently retired
on August 6, 2018, with the removal of a section of boiler feedwater
piping that prevents the boiler from producing steam. In addition,
finalization of the permit amendment 0287-AOP-R23 removed authority for
Domtar to operate No. 1 Power Boiler. As stated in an April 15, 2020,
permit revision,\102\ ``By request of the facility, this source has
been retired and removed from the permit as a source in permit revision
#23. The specific conditions have been marked, by request of the
facility, as reserved in order to not change the numbering of the
subsequent conditions. SN-03 is subject to the Regional Haze Program,
specifically the BART Alternative. These conditions can be found
starting with Plantwide Condition 32.'' Because Domtar has requested
that Power Boiler No. 1 be retired and removed as a source from the
permit, the source specific permit provisions have been removed from
the permit for Power Boiler No. 1 and they are not authorized to
operate the unit. Power Boiler No. 1 is in compliance with the BART
alternative limits by virtue of being permanently retired and therefore
not emitting any of the relevant visibility pollutants. The numerical
emission limits will apply, even though the unit has been taken out of
service. DEQ has State authority established in its SIP, including
APCEC Rule Chapter 7, for any other reporting requirements including
documenting source retirement of this unit.\103\ For this reason, this
condition does not lack enforceable provisions for retirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See November 18, 2020 Disconnection Notice from Domtar for
Power Boiler No. 1 (SN-03) in the docket of this action.
\102\ See DEQ Air Permit No. 0287-AOP-R23 included in the docket
of this action.
\103\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment B.7: The SIP neither specifies a compliance date nor
requires compliance at all times. BART must reflect the best system of
continuous emission reduction and the BART limits must apply at all
times. EPA must clarify that the permit conditions proposed for
approval in the SIP apply at all times. Furthermore, permit conditions
38 and 41 cross reference test methods found in other regulations that
are inconsistent with the BART requirements since they do not require
compliance at all times and exempt emissions during certain activities.
These regulations and associated test methods are inconsistent with
BART in that they do not require compliance at all times and exempt
emissions during certain activities.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the permit conditions
do not apply at all times. There is no language in the proposed limits
to suggest that they do not apply at all times. Conditions 32 and 37,
which describe the emission rates for the power boilers, both say,
``The permittee shall not exceed the emission rates set forth in the
following table. The limits are based on a 30-day boiler operating day
rolling average. 30 boiler operating day rolling average is defined as
the arithmetic average of 30 consecutive daily values in which there is
any hour of operation, and where each daily value is generated by
summing the pounds of pollutant for that day and dividing the total by
the sum of the hours the boiler was operating that day. A day is from 6
a.m. one calendar day to 6 a.m. the following calendar day.
[Reg.19.304, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), and 40 CFR 52.173].'' The language
for permit conditions 38 and 41 describes ongoing compliance action
into the future and does not indicate that the emission limits would
cease or not apply continuously. Therefore, the BART alternative limits
that we proposed to approve do indeed apply at all times.
The commenter argues that certain permit conditions cross-reference
test methods in other regulations (i.e., the NESHAP, MACT and NSPS),
which they allege are inconsistent with BART requirements since they do
not require compliance at all times and exempt emissions during certain
activities. The
[[Page 15122]]
commenter specifically identifies this flaw in condition 38 pertaining
to 40 CFR 60 and condition 41 pertaining to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD.
Programs like the NESHAP, MACT, and NSPS have different requirements,
such as performance testing that is carried out over certain time
frames that demonstrates compliance for particular pollutants. While
those types of emission tests may have been designed to serve a
different regulatory purpose, they are not in conflict with the BART
requirements; nor do they override the BART alternative emission limits
express set forth in the permit. There is no legal or regulatory
barrier to incorporating performance testing requirements found in
other regulatory programs as a means of implementing and ensuring
compliance with a BART alternative. The commenter fails to demonstrate
with reasonable specificity how the use of testing requirements that
are intended to meet other criteria are in conflict or fail to meet the
BART alternative requirements.
Further, the State made clear which test methods from those
regulations are required for demonstrating compliance with these
conditions. With respect to condition 38's reference to 40 CFR 60, the
requirement to use CEMS to demonstrate compliance for SO2
and NOX is clear, unambiguous, and continuous. The State is
being all-inclusive when referring to Part 60 to include all of the
general provisions in Subpart A related to CEMS such as 40 CFR 60.8 for
performance tests, 40 CFR 60.13 pertaining to monitoring requirements,
and Appendix B to Part 60 that includes performance specifications. In
addition, these permit conditions also implement APCEC Rule 19.703--
Continuous Emission Monitoring, which is already part of the approved
SIP, and applies to this source. Appendix B sections II through IV of
the permit lay out specific guidelines for CEMS operating conditions.
With respect to condition 41's reference to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD,
condition 41 clearly explains that the applicable PM10
compliance demonstration requirements from 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD
shall be utilized. These requirements, which are at 40 CFR 63.7505-
63.7541, do not cease and are ongoing. In response to comment B.8 in
section III of this final action, we address the alternative option
provided in the permit for monitoring emissions from Power Boiler #2
when that unit is combusting natural gas. Either method, however,
provides for demonstration of continuous compliance with the BART
alternative emission limits for PM10. For these reasons, the
test methods in conditions 38 and 41 are sufficient to provide
continuous compliance and are not in conflict with the BART
requirements.
The commenter particularly notes that because the permit conditions
do not reference specific sections in these regulations, it is unclear
whether the startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions are included
or exempt from monitoring. The commenter does not establish with
reasonable specificity which of the performance testing or monitoring
requirements from part 60 or part 63 would be affected here by
provisions in those parts relating to ``startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.'' Also, Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part 63 shows that
SSM plan requirements and actions taken to minimize emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not required for subpart DDDDD.
The commenter lastly mentions that the State's SIP fails to include
the schedule and timetable for compliance. We address comments
regarding the schedule and timetable for compliance in response to
comment C.1 in section III.C of this final action. These new BART
alternative limits became enforceable by the State immediately upon
issuance of a minor modification letter sent by the State to Domtar on
February 28, 2019. The two Domtar power boilers have already been
operating at emission levels below the proposed BART alternative
emission limits since December 2016, three years before the limits
became enforceable, continuing to do so through February 2019 and up to
the present. The BART alternative limits and all associated permit
conditions will become federally enforceable upon the effective date of
this final action approving the SIP.
Comment B.8: The PM10 test method for Power Boiler No. 2
permit is inappropriately conditioned on applicability under another
regulation. The BART emission limits must have test methods that apply
at all times. Permit condition 41 lacks enforceability in this regard.
This permit condition is conditioned on when a National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule applies to this
boiler. In other words, ``while'' the boiler ``is subject to'' the
NESHAP, the requirements of the NESHAP rule are used to demonstrate
compliance. In the event this boiler is no longer subject to the
NESHAP, there would no longer be compliance demonstration requirements
for the BART emission limits. This provision lacks specificity
regarding the specific test methods in 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD
that apply and fails to identify what entity is required to meet these
requirements.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the PM10
test method for Power Boiler No. 2 permit is inappropriately
conditioned on applicability under another regulation. The commenter
suggests that the word ``while'' in condition 41 is being used to allow
avoidance of the BART alternative emission limit for PM10.
As we explained in our proposed action,\104\ ``Since Power Boiler No. 2
is subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart [DDDDD], the applicable
PM10 compliance demonstration requirements under the Boiler
MACT shall be utilized to demonstrate compliance for PM10
emissions (condition 41). If Power Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas
combustion, the applicable natural gas AP-42 emission factors of 0.6 lb
SO2/MMscf, 280 lb NOX/MMscf, and 7.6 lb
PM10/MMscf in conjunction with natural gas fuel usage
records (condition 40) shall be used to demonstrate compliance with the
BART emission limits.'' \105\ Therefore, ``while'' is used to draw a
contrasting relationship between MACT, subpart DDDDD, and switching to
natural gas combustion. If Power Boiler No. 2 switches to natural gas,
fuel usage records will then apply for compliance demonstration. If the
boiler does not burn natural gas only, then Power Boiler No. 2 is
subject to 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD as an ongoing requirement for
PM10, and that requirement would not cease at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See 85 FR 14847, 14862.
\105\ See AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
section 1.4, Tables 1.4-1 and 2 pertaining to natural gas
combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also claims that permit condition 41 fails to
identify which specific test methods found in 40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD
would apply. We disagree with this statement. Although the revised
permit condition 41 does not spell out specific test methods, that does
not mean it is not clear which test methods apply. In regard to 40 CFR
63 DDDDD, boiler MACT test methods are quite detailed and specific and
are based on the source-specific unit type and pollutant emissions to
be tested. It is clear from the pollutant, fuel type, and the nature of
the emission unit here which of the tests would apply under DDDDD.
Therefore, there is sufficient information to determine compliance.
Table 10 to subpart DDDDD of Part 63 shows the applicable general
provisions and includes performance testing requirements in 40 CFR
63.7.
[[Page 15123]]
Continuous compliance is demonstrated for PM10 under MACT,
subpart DDDDD by maintaining the appropriate operating limit, depending
on the control technology used (see Table 4 of subpart DDDDD). In this
case, Power Boiler No. 2 uses venturi scrubbers so a site-specific
minimum scrubber pressure drop and minimum flow rate operating limit
according to 40 CFR 63.7530 would be used as the operating parameters.
If no control device is used to demonstrate compliance with the
PM10 limit, the facility must monitor operating load (see
item 8 of Table 4 and item 10 of Table 8) based on the operating limit
set during the most recent PM10 performance test (item 8 of
Table 4 of subpart DDDDD), or by maintaining fuel records (40 CFR
63.7555(d)(1)) which is what will occur if Power Boiler No. 2 burns
natural gas, as previously stated. Using the most conservative
PM10 AP-42 factor (highest factor) for boiler combustion
indicates that the BART alternative emission limits will be met even
when firing natural gas at full capacity.
Finally, the commenter mentions that this provision fails to
identify what entity is required to meet these requirements (i.e., the
owner or operator). The has been addressed previously in our response
to comment B.5.
Comment B.9: The permit conditions appear to preclude the use of
any credible evidence. EPA's proposal fails to explain whether the test
procedures in the permit conditions are the ``only'' evidence that may
be used to demonstrate compliance. EPA must disapprove the State's SIP
submittal if approving these permit conditions were to preclude the use
of any credible evidence.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the permit conditions
in any way preclude or appear to preclude the use of any credible
evidence. The commenter does not identify anything in the permit or the
Arkansas SIP that would preclude the use of other credible evidence.
Both the SIP and the permit make clear that credible evidence can be
used to determine compliance.
First, the SIP includes APCEC Regulation 19.701--Purpose, which
states, ``The purpose of this chapter is to generally define the powers
of the Department in requiring sampling, monitoring, and reporting
requirements at stationary sources. The Department shall enforce all
properly incorporated and delegated federal testing requirements at a
minimum. Any credible evidence based on sampling, monitoring, and
reporting may be used to determine violations of applicable emission
limitations'' Similarly, general provision #27 of the Domtar permit
provides that, ``Any credible evidence based on sampling, monitoring,
and reporting may be used to determine violations of applicable
emission limitations. [Reg.18.1001, Reg.19.701, Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 8-
4-203 as referenced by Ark. Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 8-4-304 and 8-4-311,
and 40 CFR 52 Subpart E]'' Lastly, the Credible Evidence Revisions rule
revised 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, and 61 to permit the use of any
credible evidence (i.e., both reference test data and comparable non-
reference test data) to prove or disprove CAA violations in enforcement
actions. In this regard, the preamble to the rule states: ``These
revisions make clear that enforcement authorities can prosecute actions
based exclusively on any credible evidence, without the need to rely on
any data from a particular reference test.'' \106\ Therefore, although
the permit does not specifically identify all types of evidence that
may be used to determine compliance or non-compliance, neither the
permit conditions nor the SIP preclude the use of any credible
evidence. Furthermore, any attempt to specifically enumerate the types
of evidence that may be used to determine compliance would undermine
the purpose of the Credible Evidence Revisions rule. Thus, the
requirement in subpart K, 40 CFR 51.212(c), is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Credible Evidence Revisions, 62 FR 8314, 8316 (February
24, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment B.10: The proposal lacks an analysis and determination as
to whether the monitoring requirements are met. Section 110(a)(2)(F)(i)
covers monitoring emissions by owners and operators from stationary
sources, and 40 CFR 51.214 contains explicit monitoring requirements.
EPA's proposal fails to explain whether the permit conditions proposed
for approving into the SIP meet these requirements.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
proposal lacks an analysis and determination as to whether the permit
conditions meet the monitoring requirements in CAA section
110(a)(2)(F)(i) and 40 CFR 51.214. The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision meets the applicable monitoring requirements under 40 CFR
51.214. In addition, it meets the applicable requirements found in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), which discusses rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement of BART
alternatives. This is established through our analysis of the
monitoring regime discussed above in response to comments 2.B.3, 2.B.4,
and 2.B.7. Commenter does not provide any further information with
reasonable specificity as to how the applicable monitoring requirements
in subparts K or P fail to be met. As discussed previously, the
Arkansas SIP includes procedures in APCEC Regulation 19.703,\107\
including detailed information regarding CEMS, which DEQ has authority
to administer. These procedures are already part of the State's plan
requiring monitoring of this source's emissions. Because these
monitoring provisions have already been adopted into the Arkansas SIP,
the permit conditions pertaining to the BART alternative conditions
will be administered under these existing approved provisions for
monitoring. This is sufficient to meet the monitoring requirements in
40 CFR 51.214 and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). Therefore, the applicable
monitoring requirements for this SIP revision are being met.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ APCEC Rule 19.703 includes detailed information regarding
Continuous Emissions Monitoring. Any stationary source subject to
this regulation shall, as required by federal law and upon request
of the Department: (A) Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain
equipment to continuously monitor or determine federally regulated
air pollutant emissions in accordance with applicable performance
specifications in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B as of the effective date
of the federal final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register
on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11271), and quality assurance procedures
in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F as of the effective date of the federal
final rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on February 27,
2014 (79 FR 11274), and other methods and conditions that the
Department, with the concurrence of the EPA, shall prescribe. Any
source listed in a category in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix P as of the
effective date of the federal final rule published by EPA in the
Federal Register on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40675), or in 40 CFR
part 60 as of August 30, 1992, shall adhere to all continuous
emissions monitoring or alternative continuous emission monitoring
requirements stated therein, if applicable. (B) Report the data
collected by the monitoring equipment to the Department at such
intervals and on such forms as the Department shall prescribe, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 4.0 (Minimum
Data Requirements) as of the effective date of the federal final
rule published by EPA in the Federal Register on November 7, 1986
(51 FR 40675), and any other applicable reporting requirements
promulgated by the EPA.
\108\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Requirements for Emissions Reductions To Occur During the First
Implementation Period and a Compliance Schedule
Comment C.1: The SIP fails to demonstrate that emission reductions
occurred during the first planning period by December 31, 2018 pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). EPA's proposal describes the emission
reductions, but fails to explain whether the SIP contains the
provisions necessary to satisfy regulatory
[[Page 15124]]
requirements. For example, there are no compliance dates in the SIP
that shows the emission limitations were enforceable in the first
planning period. Furthermore, there is nothing in the SIP that
demonstrates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applied during the first planning period. Therefore, EPA lacks a basis
to approve the SIP as meeting the element of the rule that the emission
reductions occurred within the first planning period. Related to this
issue, EPA's proposal suggests that the SIP included compliance
schedules for Domtar, but the SIP fails to include any compliance
schedules.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the SIP fails to
demonstrate that the required emission reductions occurred during the
first planning period or that the SIP otherwise fails to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). In our proposed approval, we
explained that even though the BART alternative emission limits became
enforceable by the State upon issuance of a minor modification letter
sent by the State to Domtar on February 28, 2019,\109\ Domtar provided
documentation demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have been
operating at emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits
since December 2016. This shows that although the limits became
enforceable shortly after the 2008 to 2018 planning period ended,
Domtar had been in compliance with those limits for three years prior
to the first planning period ending. Domtar's emission levels remained
below the BART alternative levels up to the point at which the State's
BART alternative emission limits and associated requirements became
enforceable in February 2019. This is sufficient for the SIP submittal
to meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See Minor Modification Letter entitled, ``Application for
Minor Modification Determination of Qualifying Minor Modification,''
included with the SIP revision and in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that there is nothing in the SIP that
demonstrates the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applied to the source during the first planning period. First, 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii) does not impose this requirement and neither does any
other provision of the BART alternative regulations. Rather, in order
to demonstrate that BART alternative emission limits are being achieved
by the end of the first planning period, ``the State must provide a
detailed description of the emissions trading program or other
alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the
emission reductions required by the program, all necessary
administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program,
rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for
enforcement.'' \110\ EPA does not interpret this language as requiring
that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with a BART alternative must be in place and be state- or
federally-enforceable before the end of the first planning period. The
SIP must include such requirements, but with respect to demonstrating
when they are applied to the source, it is reasonable that such
requirements accompany the BART alternative. As discussed in the
paragraph above, the reductions secured under the BART alternative have
been documented to occur before the end of the first planning period,
and the documentation further demonstrates that the requisite emission
levels were maintained up until the point that the State imposed the
enforceable BART-alternative emission limits and associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on the source. This is
sufficient to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the compliance documentation included a letter dated
December 20, 2018, submitted to DEQ by Domtar,\111\ providing emissions
data for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 from December 2016 to November 2018.
The letter noted that because Power Boiler No. 1 has been in standby
mode, it has emitted zero emissions since early 2016. The letter also
provided CEMS daily average and thirty-day rolling average emissions
data for SO2 and NOX for Power Boiler No. 2 from
December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2018. Based on that CEMS data,
the highest thirty-day rolling averages for Power Boiler No. 2 were
found to be 294 pph SO2 and 179 pph NOX, which
are below the BART alternative emission limits of 435 pph
SO2 and 293 pph NOX. The December 20, 2018 letter
explained that compliance with the PM10 BART alternative
limit for Power Boiler No. 2 is demonstrated via compliance with the
Boiler MACT. Based on previous compliance stack testing results
conducted by Domtar in January 2016, PM10 emissions for
Power Boiler No. 2 are equal to 34 pph PM10, which is below
the BART alternative PM10 emission limit of 81.6 pph
PM10.\112\ This demonstrates that Power Boilers No. 1 and
No. 2 at the Ashdown Mill satisfy the timing requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii) and shows that the necessary emission reductions
associated with the BART alternative occurred during the first long-
term strategy period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See letter from Domtar to DEQ entitled, ``Demonstration of
Compliance with Proposed BART Alternative,'' included with the SIP
revision documenting compliance with the Phase III SIP emission
limits.
\112\ See information provided in letters dated December 20,
2018, and January 19, 2017, submitted by Domtar to DEQ. These
letters can be found in the ``Documentation of Compliance with Phase
III SIP Emission Limits'' section of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to being in compliance before the first implementation
period ended, Domtar submitted additional letters to DEQ showing
continued compliance for both power boilers. The letters contained CEMS
emission data from January 2018 to April 2019.\113\ This CEMS data
demonstrated continued compliance for Power Boiler No. 2 by showing
emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits beyond 2018.
Domtar noted that Power Boiler No. 1 continued to be in standby mode
and that its emissions have been zero since early 2016.The Domtar
letters also noted that the CEMS daily average and thirty-day rolling
average emissions for SO2 and NOX were below the
BART alternative limits for each month from January 2018 to April 2019.
Additionally, based on the previous January 2016 Boiler MACT stack
testing results, actual PM10 emissions from Power Boiler No.
2 were conservatively estimated to be 48 pph PM10, which is
below the BART alternative emission limit of 81.6 pph PM10
for Power Boiler No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See letters from Domtar to DEQ dated February 21, 2019;
March 15, 2019; April 16, 2019; and May 16, 2019. These letters can
be found in the ``Documentation of Compliance with Phase III SIP
Emission Limits'' section of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that there are no compliance dates in the SIP
that show that the emission limitations were enforceable in the first
planning period. This is not required by EPA's regulations, as
explained above. In addition, there is no schedule for future
compliance because the source is already complying with the emission
limits which are already in place and enforceable through the State
permit. Upon the effective date of this final action the emission
limits (and associated requirements) will be federally enforceable.
These provisions have never been administratively or judicially stayed,
are currently in effect, and will remain in effect; the source has been
compliant with those requirements. We note with respect to the
SO2 and NOX BART limits
[[Page 15125]]
promulgated by the FIP, which is now being withdrawn in this action,
the compliance schedule did not require that these limits be in effect
until October 27, 2021. Domtar has been in compliance with those
schedules for both boilers for the past three years.
For these reasons, the State's BART alternative SIP revision for
Domtar Ashdown Mill meets the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii):
It documents that the required reductions took place during the period
of the first long-term strategy (i.e. before the end of 2018) and those
reductions continued up until the point the enforceable BART
alternative emission limits took effect at the state level. The BART
alternative limits are now in effect, satisfying the implementation-
schedule requirement of (e)(2)(iii), and the SIP establishes relevant
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as set forth in
plantwide permit conditions 32 to 43 and the associated provisions of
the State's SIP-approved monitoring and compliance regulations found at
APCEC Rule 19, Chapter 7.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See 52.170(c) (table) for EPA-approved regulations in the
Arkansas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The CAA 110(l) Anti-Backsliding Provision
Comment D.1: The proposed rule violates the Clean Air Act's ``anti-
backsliding'' requirement at 42 U.S.C. 7410(l) because compared to the
existing federal plan, the State's plan would result in greater air
pollution. EPA's proposal explains that ``[b]ased on an assessment of
current air quality in the areas most affected by this SIP revision, we
are concluding that the less stringent SO2 emission limits
in the Phase III SIP will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.''
EPA's proposal fails to explain and provide information regarding what
areas it assessed and the basis for its assessment. Moreover, EPA's
analysis only considers regional haze and the NAAQS, and not other CAA
requirements such as PSD increments. Moreover, the increase in
SO2 emissions under the SIP relative to the FIP violates the
Clean Air Act's section 110(l) anti-backsliding provision, which
provides that ``[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a
plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' Section 110(l)
prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with any applicable
requirement, including a BART determination. When determining whether a
plan revision interferes with NAAQS attainment, EPA has interpreted
section 110(l) as preventing plan revisions that would increase overall
air pollution or worsen air quality. In Kentucky Resources Council,
Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006), EPA interpreted section
110(l) as allowing the agency to approve a plan revision that weakened
some existing control measures while strengthening others, but only
``[a]s long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.'' The
Eleventh Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have upheld EPA's section
110(l) interpretation as prohibiting plan revisions that would increase
emissions or worsen air quality.\115\ In a discussion regarding a
challenge to the Nevada regional haze plan, the Ninth Circuit also
suggested that a haze plan that ``weakens or removes any pollution
controls'' would violate section 110(l).\116\ Emissions under the
Domtar BART alternative would increase, which is plainly at odds with
CAA anti-backsliding requirements and the interpretation of these
provisions in various circuit courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Indiana v. EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015); Alabama
Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2013).
\116\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We disagree with the commenter that ``the proposed rule
violates the CAA's anti-backsliding requirement due to an increase in
SO2 emissions under the SIP relative to the FIP.'' For the
reasons explained below, EPA concludes that CAA section 110(l) does not
prohibit approval of this SIP.
Under CAA Section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of this chapter.'' \117\ Section 110(l) applies
to all requirements of the CAA, and it applies to all areas of the
country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or
maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. The EPA
interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those for which SIP submissions have not been made. A section
110(l) demonstration should address all pollutants whose emissions and/
or ambient concentrations may change as a result of a plan revision,
even if the SIP provision was originally adopted only to address one
particular NAAQS. In general, the level of rigor needed for any CAA
section 110(l) demonstration will vary depending on the nature of the
revision. Where available attainment demonstration or maintenance plans
indicate that any change in emissions will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement, EPA may rely on such
plans to demonstrate that section 110(l) does not prohibit approval of
the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the NAAQS set for criteria pollutants under
section 109. This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in
section 301(a)) is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as
that term is used in the regional haze program. Instead, section
110(l) provides that the EPA cannot approve plan revisions that
interfere with regional haze requirements (including reasonable
progress requirements) insofar as they are ``other applicable
requirements'' of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state, instead of submitting an air quality analysis showing that
the revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement, may
substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change
to a plan to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and
thus preserve status quo air quality. Equivalent emissions reductions
are reductions that are equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure approved into the plan. To show that
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
should represent actual emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing control
measure in order to preserve the status quo air quality. In addition to
being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions should also
be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus. A showing that
the substitute measures preserve status quo air quality is generally
sufficient to demonstrate noninterference through this alternative
approach.
As an initial matter, the commenter misstates the EPA's
interpretation of CAA section 110(l). Neither EPA nor any court has
concluded, as the commenter asserts, that plan revisions are
permissible only if emissions to the air are not increased. The case
cited by the commenter, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467
F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006), involved a situation in which the state had
opted to substitute equivalent emission reductions to compensate for
emission changes associated with the plan revision, and the EPA
concluded that the offsetting emission reductions were adequate to
[[Page 15126]]
maintain the status quo air quality.\118\ Because no attainment
demonstrations were available to guide an analysis of whether the
revision would interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, the EPA had
relied on its conclusion that status quo air quality would be
maintained instead of conducting an air quality analysis evaluating the
impact on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The court upheld, as
a reasonable reading of the statute entitled to deference, the EPA's
conclusion that approval of the SIP revision was permissible in those
circumstances.\119\ The court held that the use of substitute measures
was permissible, not that such measures were required in every
circumstance.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 996 (evaluating the
EPA's conclusion that the reductions were adequate to maintain
status quo air quality).
\119\ See id. at 995.
\120\ In that same case, the court emphasized that ``it seems
fairly clear that Congress did not intend that the EPA reject each
and every SIP revision that presents some remote possibility for
interference. Thus, where the EPA does not find that a SIP revision
would interfere with attainment, approval of the revision does no
violence to the statute.'' Kentucky Resources, 467 F.3d at 994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit decision mentioned by commenter--Indiana v.
EPA, 796 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015)--does not support commenter's
argument. This case emphasizes that the EPA is required to determine
whether the revision would, going forward, interfere with attainment.
In Indiana, the court rejected arguments that the revised program could
not be approved because it had led to a past O3 NAAQS
exceedance.\121\ The court also agreed that it was permissible for EPA
to rely on the fact that the state demonstrated that substitute
measures more than offset any increase associated with the plan
revision. In the context of reviewing whether the substitute measures
were sufficient, the court explained that ``EPA can approve a SIP
revision unless the agency finds it will make the air quality worse.''
\122\ In doing so, however, the court did not hold that substitute
measures are always required to demonstrate noninterference under CAA
section 110(l) or that section 110(l) prohibits approval of any SIP
revision which leads to an increase in emissions.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Id.
\122\ Id.
\123\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit decision commenters cite--WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014)--also does not establish that EPA is
prohibited from approving this SIP. In WildEarth Guardians, the Ninth
Circuit rejected a challenge to an EPA action approving a haze plan and
concluded that WildEarth had identified ``nothing in the SIP that
weakens or removes any pollution controls. And even if the SIP merely
maintained the status quo, that would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' For that reason, the court concluded
that WildEarth had failed to show that EPA's approval of the SIP
contravened CAA section 110(l).\124\ In brief, the court explained that
a plan approval that does not weaken or remove pollution controls would
not violate section 110(l). The court did not, however, suggest that
any plan that weakens or removes pollution controls would necessarily
violate CAA section 110(l). Several courts have deferred to EPA's
interpretation of the phrase ``would interfere'' in CAA Section
110(l).\125\ In addition, determinations that are scientific in nature
are entitled to the most deference on review.\126\ The county that
Domtar is located in (Little River County) was previously designated as
``Attainment/Unclassifiable.'' for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\127\
In addition, EPA has evaluated the air quality impact of the repeal of
the FIP requiring BART controls and the approval of the BART
alternative limits. As mentioned in the proposed approval, the BART
alternative limits do not reduce SO2 emissions as much as
the BART controls in the FIP; however, all areas in Arkansas have been
and are currently attaining all of the NAAQS, even though the
SO2 BART controls for Domtar have not been implemented.
Those controls were not obligated to be in place until October 27,
2021, when the BART emission limits would have taken effect under the
FIP. Therefore, even though the BART alternative will not achieve the
same level of emission reductions for SO2 as the BART FIP
would have (in 2021), there is no reason to expect that this will
negatively impact current air quality, which is already sufficient to
attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas and (as discussed further
below) any other areas that could be impacted by SO2
emissions from this source. Further, the State of Missouri did not rely
on reductions from Domtar for its regional haze plans, and the EPA is
not aware of (nor has commenter identified) any other air quality
analyses that rely on implementation of the BART requirements for
Domtar in the FIP. The proposed withdrawal of the BART provisions in
the FIP and replacement with the BART alternative requirements in the
SIP will not cause air quality to become worse than current air quality
or interfere with existing plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Id. at 1074.
\125\ See, e.g., Alabama Envtl. Council v. EPA, 711 F.3d 1277,
1292-93 (11th Cir. 2013); Galveston-Houston Ass'n for Smog
Prevention v. EPA, 289 Fed. Appx. 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2008); Kentucky
Resources Council, 467 F.3d at 995.
\126\ See Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423 F.3d 989, 997
(9th Cir. 2005).
\127\ 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more stringent SO2 emission limits for Domtar in the
BART FIP did not go into effect before the SIP BART alternative
replaced them. Given that current air quality is already sufficient to
attain the SO2 NAAQS in Arkansas and any other areas that
could be impacted by SO2 emissions from this source, there
is no evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 limits in the FIP
for Domtar and the approval of the SO2 emission limits in
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision will interfere with
attainment of the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS or the 2006 24-
hour or the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS (of which SO2
is a precursor). In addition, Domtar provided documentation
demonstrating that Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 have actually been
operating at emission levels below the BART alternative emission limits
since December 2016. At this time, all areas that would be potentially
impacted by the increase in SO2 emissions allowed under the
SIP revision as compared to the FIP are attaining the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS without the FIP-required controls
being in operation. Based on this assessment of current air quality in
the areas most affected by this SIP revision, we conclude that the less
stringent SO2 emission limits in the Phase III SIP will not
interfere with attainment of these NAAQS.
The commenter states that EPA's proposal fails to explain and
provide information regarding what areas it assessed and the basis for
its assessment. With respect to regional haze requirements, we disagree
with the commenter. We explained in the proposal that we considered all
Class I areas in Arkansas and also considered those in Missouri, which
is the only State that was determined to potentially be impacted by
sources from within Arkansas for the first implementation period.
Missouri is currently not relying on emission reductions from Domtar in
its regional haze plan.
Further, there are no PM2.5 or SO2
nonattainment areas in any other state that could be impacted by the
emissions from Domtar. Regarding PM nonattainment areas in other
states, EPA
[[Page 15127]]
previously approved Arkansas' interstate transport SIP submittals under
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which established that emissions from Arkansas
do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour or 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other state.\128\ Concerning SO2 nonattainment areas
in other states,\129\ the nearest SO2 nonattainment area to
Domtar is within Titus County, Texas, approximately 100 km away. EPA
designated part of Titus County, around the Monticello Power Plant, as
nonattainment in Round 2 of the SO2 designations
process.\130\ Domtar is also not near any large SO2 sources
in other states. Large SO2 sources greater than 100 tpy
SO2 in Oklahoma [IP Vaillant Paper Mill (100 km away) and
Hugo Station (119 km away)] and Texas [Welsh Power Plant (95 km away)]
are all approximately 100 km away from Domtar, which is too far for
Domtar to contribute to air quality in those areas. 50 km is the useful
distance to which AERMOD is considered accurate. Therefore, under the
Data Requirements Rule (DRR), sources beyond 50 km were determined to
not cause concentration gradient impacts within the area of analysis.
The distance between Domtar and any of the large SO2 sources
in neighboring states makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions
from Arkansas interact with emissions from another state in such a way
as to contribute to existing nonattainment of the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The DRR SO2 monitor \131\ for the
Welsh Power Plant (the closest large source to Domtar), showed
attainment and characterized the air quality design value for 2017 to
2019 as 28 parts per billion (ppb) SO2 which is below the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb SO2. For these
reasons, we conclude that emissions from Domtar will not adversely
impact air quality in PM2.5 or SO2 nonattainment
areas in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See 78 FR 53269 (August 30, 2013) regarding the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 83 FR 47569 (November 7, 2018)
regarding the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
\129\ See TSD associated with the Arkansas SO2
transport final action (84 FR 55864) in Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0438 titled, ``Technical Support Document Arkansas SIP
Addressing the Interstate Transport of Air Pollution Requirements of
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard March 2019.'' (pages 24-25)
\130\ See 81 FR 89870.
\131\ Texas installed and began operation of a new, approved
monitor in Titus County on December 7, 2016 to characterize air
quality around the Welsh Power Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter argues that DEQ addressed the reasonable progress
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) based on faulty analysis that
the BART alternative for Domtar is approvable. We addressed objections
to the BART alternative under 40 CFR 51.308(e) in section III.A of this
final action and explained why the BART alternative provides greater
reasonable progress for regional haze. We also explained how the
reasonable progress requirements for regional haze under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1) are being met, and found that reasonable progress was not
impacted by the transition from the BART FIP requirements to the BART
alternative at Domtar. Therefore, the BART alternative does not
interfere with ``reasonable progress'' under the Regional Haze Rule as
an ``other CAA requirement'' that could be affected under CAA 110(l).
The commenter mentioned that EPA's analysis only considers regional
haze and the NAAQS, and not the other CAA requirements, for example,
PSD increments. The commenter asserts that, for this reason also, EPA
fails to demonstrate that withdrawing the FIP and approving the State's
SIP complies with Section 110(l) of the Act. EPA did not evaluate PSD
increments in the proposal for two reasons: (1) Both power boilers were
in operation before the major source baseline trigger dates for all
three pollutants with increments (SO2, NOX, and
PM/PM10/PM2.5); and (2) both the FIP limits and
alternative BART limits are less than past actual emissions (both on an
annual tons per year basis and a short-term emission rate basis), so
increment around the Domtar facility was being expanded, not consumed.
We noted in our proposed approval that the BART alternative emission
rates were 44 percent lower for SO2 and 51 percent lower for
NO2 compared to previously permitted emission rates.\132\
Based on this and the knowledge that the power boilers historically
have operated greater than 56 percent of their permitted rates on a
short term and annual basis, it can be concluded that increment was
being expanded by the BART alternative. The major source baseline
trigger date for PM/PM10/PM2.5 and SO2
increment was August 7, 1977. The major source baseline trigger date
for NOX was February 8, 1988. Both Power Boiler No. 1 and
Power Boiler No. 2 are baseline increment sources since they received
permits and/or were in operation before the major source baseline date
for NOX, SO2 and PM/PM10/
PM2.5 increments. PM/PM10/PM2.5,
SO2, and NOX all have annual increment standards;
SO2 has a three-hour and a 24-hour increment standard, and
PM/PM10/PM2.5 all have 24-hour Class II increment
standards. The Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) that Domtar facility
is located in is AQCR 22, and the minor source baseline date for AQCR
22 was triggered for PM/PM10/PM2.5 and
SO2 by a PSD permit modification (Domtar permit 287-AR-3) on
May 31, 1983.133 134 The NOX minor source
baseline date was triggered for NOX in AQCR 22 by a PSD
permit modification (Domtar permit 946-A) on August 31, 1989.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See proposed approval notice (85 FR 14854).
\133\ Arkansas AQCR Map (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/aqcr.pdf).
\134\ Arkansas Minor Source Baseline Dates (https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/permits/pdfs/minor_source_baseline_dates.pdf).
\135\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conversion of Power Boiler No. 1 to burn only natural gas was
an increment expanding change. For the purpose of overall increment
analysis, we evaluated the emissions of Power Boiler No. 1 prior to the
conversion of only burning natural gas as these emissions were part of
the pre-BART baseline. As can be seen in Table 1, the annual emission
limits (tpy) for the Arkansas BART alternative are less than the
Arkansas baseline actual emissions for SO2, NOX,
and PM/PM10/PM2.5. Therefore, the Arkansas BART
alternative results in annual increment expansion for all three
pollutants.
Table 1--Annual Emissions Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission rates (tpy)
Condition -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Baseline (Actual Emissions)............................ 3,544 3,216 491
Arkansas BART FIP............................................... 493 2,420 537
Arkansas BART Alternative....................................... 1,907 2,120 380
BART Alternative Reduction from Baseline (Baseline Minus 1,637 1,096 111
Alternative)...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15128]]
As can be seen in Table 2, the short-term emission limits (pph) for
the Arkansas BART alternative are less than the previously permitted
limits, the Arkansas baseline (2001-2003 actual emissions), and the
BART FIP baseline emissions (mixture of 2001-2003 and 2009-2011 actual
emissions) for SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10/
PM2.5. Therefore, the Arkansas BART alternative results in
short-term increment expansion for SO2 and PM/
PM10/PM2.5 pollutants (there is no short term
increment for NOX). Therefore, removal of the FIP and
approval of the Arkansas BART alternative would not interfere with PSD
increments.
Table 2--Short Term Emissions Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Rate (pph) (30 boiler-operating day
rolling average)
Condition -----------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Boiler No. 1 (580 MMBTU/hr)
Previously Permitted (Prior to natural gas conversion) *.... 1,285 247.5 343
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)...................... 442.5 179.5 169.5
BART FIP Baseline........................................... 21.0 207.4 30.4
Arkansas BART Alternative **................................ 0.5 191.1 5.2
Power Boiler No. 2 (820 MMBTU/hr)
Previously Permitted........................................ 984 574 82
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)...................... 788.2 526.8 81.6
BART FIP Baseline........................................... 788.2 526.8 81.6
Arkansas BART Alternative **................................ 435 293 81.6
Power Boiler No. 1 & Power Boiler No. 2
Previously Permitted (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural 2,269 821.5 425
gas conversion) *..........................................
Arkansas SIP BART Baseline (2001-2003)...................... 1,230.7 706.3 251.1
BART FIP Baseline........................................... 809.2 734.2 112
Arkansas BART Alternative **................................ 435.5 484.1 86.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not 30 boiler-operating day rolling average (Prior to Power Boiler No. 1 natural gas conversion). See Permit
No. 287-AOP-R2 (8/16/2001). DEQ permits for Domtar are available at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql/p_facil_info.aspx?AFINDash=41-00002&AFIN=4100002.
** See Plantwide Condition #32 of DEQ Air Permit No. 0287-AOP-R22 limits in Table 1 of the proposed approval (85
FR 14854).
As discussed above, EPA's technical documentation shows that
approval of the Arkansas SIP submittal is not prohibited under CAA
section 110(l). As also explained above, CAA section 110(l) does not
prohibit states from submitting a SIP less stringent than a FIP or
replacing a SIP with a less stringent SIP. Even though the requirements
adopted in the SIP revision here do not match the emissions limitations
in the FIP, there is no expectation that approval of the SIP will
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
requirements under the Act.
E. Interstate Visibility Transport and Regional Haze Reasonable
Progress Requirements
Comment E.1: A state can satisfy prong 4 interstate transport
requirements with a fully approved regional haze SIP. EPA's proposal
contains numerous fatal flaws and EPA cannot approve the State's SIP
submittal for Domtar Ashdown Mill. Therefore, EPA similarly cannot
approve prong 4 since the State does not have a fully approvable
regional haze SIP. Similarly, EPA cannot determine the State's SIP
meets the reasonable progress requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
since the State's BART alternative fails to comply with the Act and
regulations.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that EPA is
prohibited from approving the Arkansas SIP submission regarding
interstate visibility transport requirements and regional haze
reasonable progress requirements. As explained in our proposed
rule,\136\ a state can demonstrate compliance with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 by either having a fully-approved regional
haze SIP or by demonstrating that emissions within its jurisdiction do
not interfere with another air agency's plans to protect
visibility.\137\ The State addressed interstate visibility transport
requirements in its 2018 Phase II SIP revision, as supplemented by the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision
(submitted October 4, 2019), for the following NAAQS: the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour
NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
State's analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP supersedes the interstate visibility transport portion of
the 2017 infrastructure SIP.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ See 85 FR 14847.
\137\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' by
Stephen D. Page (Sept. 13, 2013), (pages 32-35).
\138\ See 83 FR 6470. The State submitted a SIP revision that
addressed all four infrastructure prongs from section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 O3 NAAQS, the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We deferred
taking action on the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 portion of that
infrastructure SIP for a future rulemaking with the exception of the
2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the first basis for approval, the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision \139\ (Phase I), the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision \140\ (Phase II), and this action
(the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision) together fully
address the State's outstanding regional haze requirements for the
first planning period and address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP that were identified in EPA's March 12, 2012, action.
Thus, Arkansas now has a fully-approved regional haze SIP for the first
planning period. This is sufficient under EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP
guidance to determine that Arkansas has also adequately addressed
interstate visibility transport under ``prong 4'' for the above-listed
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 83 FR 5927.
\140\ 84 FR 51033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative basis for approval of Arkansas' CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 SIP submittals, EPA finds that DEQ provided
an adequate demonstration that it is not interfering with other states'
visibility programs in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP submittal, which addressed the prong 4 requirements for
[[Page 15129]]
the six NAAQS previously mentioned. Arkansas documented its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations needed at the affected
Class I areas in other states and provided a demonstration that the SIP
includes approved federally enforceable measures that contribute to
achieving the 2018 RPGs set for those areas.\141\ The demonstration
showed that emissions within Arkansas' jurisdiction do not interfere
with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility, as expressed via
the 2018 reasonable progress goals for Class I areas in other states.
In particular, Arkansas' SIP submittals demonstrated that the RPGs for
the only two Class I areas outside Arkansas potentially impacted by
Arkansas emissions, Hercules-Glades Wilderness and Mingo National
Wildlife Refuge, in Missouri, were achieving the visibility goals that
were determined through interstate consultation. Further, the emissions
from certain EGU sources in Arkansas are demonstrated to be below the
levels Arkansas had agreed to in the interstate consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ See 85 FR 14847, 14865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, Arkansas has fulfilled its prong 4 visibility
transport requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-hour
O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and the
2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS in accordance with EPA's 2013
infrastructure SIP guidance. This alternative basis for approving these
SIP submittals is not dependent on Arkansas having a fully approved
Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period, and it is not
dependent on the emission reductions achieved by the BART alternative
for the two BART sources at Domtar Ashdown Mill. Thus, this basis for
these prong 4 approvals is independent and severable from any other
aspect of this action. Such approvals, on this basis, would not be
affected by any administrative or judicial action altering, modifying,
vacating, remanding, staying, or enjoining any other aspect of this
action.
The commenter's objections to EPA approving reasonable progress
requirements have been addressed in previous responses in this
document.
F. Comments From Domtar
Comment F.1: Overall the commenter agrees with EPA's summary of
ADEQ's BART Alternative for the Ashdown Mill, and further agrees that
the BART Alternative, by the clear weight of evidence, achieves greater
reasonable progress than the FIP. Commenter supports EPA's
determination that the BART Alternative meets the applicable Regional
Haze requirements and supports approving DEQ's Regional Haze Phase III
SIP submittal. Commenter also agrees and supports EPA's determination
that with this submittal ADEQ has satisfied all of the regional haze
first planning period SIP requirements for Domtar.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposed
approval.
Comment F.2: The commenter believes a sufficient demonstration was
made to grant an exemption under 40 CFR 51.303. However, for purposes
of these comments, the commenter supports EPA's proposal with the
reservation that it reserves the right to raise challenges to EPA's
modeling approach in any effort to impose further reductions on the
Ashdown Mill emissions in any subsequent Regional Haze SIP proceedings
that may involve the Ashdown Mill.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposed
approval. An exemption under 40 CFR 51.303 is outside the scope of this
action.
Comment F.3: Two nonsubstantive corrections were suggested for
consideration to make the proposed action record factually correct, but
do not affect the BART alternative limits or conditions: \142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ See March 16, 2020 proposed approval (85 FR 14847).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 14851, middle column about two-thirds of the way down,
referring to Power Boiler 1: `It is equipped with a wet electrostatic
precipitator. . . .' It should be stated `It was. . . .' The wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer needed after the boiler was
converted to burn natural gas.
At 14855, middle column just above Table 2, referring to
the FIP's nitrogen oxide (NOX) BART determination for Power
Boiler 2: `. . . achieved by the installation and operation of low
NOX burners.' The reference to low NOX burners
needs to be removed.''
Response: The EPA agrees with commenter's non substantive textual
edits and the proposed SIP approval should read as follows:
At 14851, ``It is equipped with a wet electrostatic precipitator''
should be changed to read:
``It was equipped with a wet electrostatic precipitator.'' With the
conversion and permit modification to burn only natural gas, the wet
electrostatic precipitator is no longer needed to control PM emissions
from Power Boiler 1.
At 14855, ``The NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) determination for Power Boiler No. 2 is an emission limit of 345
pph on a thirty boiler-operating-day rolling average, achieved by the
installation and operation of low NOX burners'' should be
changed to read: ``The NOX BART determination for Power
Boiler No. 2 is an emission limit of 345 pph on a thirty boiler-
operating-day rolling average consistent with the installation and
operation of low NOX burners.'' (see 81 FR 66332, 66348). A
BART determination is an emission limit based on the determination of a
particular control strategy considering the BART factors, rather than a
requirement to undertake the selected control.
These non-substantive textual edits do not impact our analysis and
our final decision regarding approval of the BART alternative for Power
Boilers No. 1 and 2.
IV. Final Action
A. Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Submittal
We finalize approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision (submitted August 13, 2019) as meeting the applicable regional
haze BART alternative provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for
the Domtar Ashdown Mill. Specifically, we finalize approval of the
regional haze program-specific plantwide conditions 32 to 43 from
section VI of permit revision #0287-AOP-R22 (effective August 1, 2019)
into the SIP for implementing the Domtar BART alternative. These
plantwide conditions of permit #0287-AOP-R22 \143\ include
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits and
associated conditions for implementing these BART alternative limits
for Power Boiler No. 1 and Power Boiler No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ The permittee will continue to be subject to the
conditions as approved into the SIP even if the conditions are
revised as part of a permit amendment by DEQ until such time as EPA
approves any revised conditions into the SIP. The permittee shall
remain subject to both the initial SIP-approved conditions and the
revised SIP conditions, unless and until EPA approves the revised
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We finalize approval of the reasonable progress components under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1), to the extent they relate to Domtar Power Boilers No.
1 and 2. With the approved Phase I and II SIP revision requirements and
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III BART alternative requirements
being approved in this final action, Arkansas has addressed all
reasonable progress requirements under 40 CFR51.308(d)(1) with a fully-
approved regional haze SIP. We,
[[Page 15130]]
therefore, finalize approval of the emission limits and schedules of
compliance long-term strategy element under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill in the August 13, 2019,
submittal. With the final approval of the BART alternative requirements
for the Domtar Ashdown Mill being addressed in this action, DEQ has
satisfied all long-term strategy requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), as pertains to the first planning period for regional
haze. We agree with DEQ's determination that the revised 2018 RPGs in
the Phase II action do not need to be revised further. We finalize
approval of the State's withdrawal of the current PM10 BART
determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, and approve its replacement with the
PM10 BART alternative limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. We finalize approval of Arkansas' consultation
with FLMs and Missouri and finalize our determination that the SIP
submittal satisfies the consultation requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i).
B. Arkansas Visibility Transport
We finalize approval of the portion of the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision (submitted
October 4, 2019) addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4
visibility transport for the following six NAAQS: 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2008 and 2015 eight-hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour
NO2 NAAQS; and the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS. We
also finalize approval of the visibility transport portion of the 2018
Phase II SIP revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision. The State's
analysis in the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport
SIP supersedes the visibility transport portion of the 2017
infrastructure SIP. We finalize approval of the prong 4 portions of
these SIP submittals on the basis that Arkansas has a fully-approved
regional haze SIP with our final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase III SIP submittal. The Arkansas Regional Haze NOX SIP
revision,\144\ the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
revision,\145\ and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision
together fully address the deficiencies of the 2008 Arkansas Regional
Haze SIP that were identified in the March 12, 2012 partial approval/
partial disapproval action. Arkansas has a fully-approved regional haze
SIP comprised of the portion of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
approved in our 2012 final action, the Arkansas Regional Haze
NOX SIP revision, the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision, and the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
revision. A fully-approved regional haze plan ensures that emissions
from Arkansas sources do not interfere with measures required to be
included in another air agencies' plans to protect visibility. As an
alternative basis for approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
4 for these NAAQS, we finalize a determination that Arkansas has
provided an adequate demonstration in the October 4, 2019 submittal
showing that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with
other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Final action approved on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 5927).
\145\ See 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018) for proposed approval
and 84 FR 51033 (September 27, 2019) for final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. CAA Section 110(l)
We finalize our determination that approval of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal of the
corresponding parts of the FIP meet the provisions of CAA section
110(l).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions
to the Arkansas source specific requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov a
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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, 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 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides
[[Page 15131]]
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Interstate transport of pollution, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility.
Dated: March 10, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E--Arkansas
0
2. In Sec. 52.170:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d), entitled ``EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-
Specific Requirements'' is amended by adding an entry for ``Domtar
Ashdown Mill'' at the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e), the third table titled ``EPA-Approved Non-
Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry for ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase
III SIP Revision'' at the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
approval/
Name of source Permit or order No. effective EPA approval date Comments
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Domtar Ashdown Mill.............. Permit.............. 8/1/2019 3/22/2021 [Insert Approval of
#0287-AOP-R22....... Federal Register plantwide
citation]. conditions 32 to 43
of section VI from
the permit,
addressing emission
limits for SO2,
NOX, and PM10 and
conditions for
implementing the
BART alternative
for Power Boilers
No. 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Applicable submittal/
Name of SIP provision geographic or effective EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III Statewide........... 8/13/2019 3/22/2021 [Insert Approval of regional
SIP Revision. Federal Register haze SIP revision
citation]. pertaining to the
Domtar Ashdown mill
that addresses SO2,
NOX, and PM10 BART
alternative
requirements under
40 CFR
51.308(e)(2);
reasonable progress
components under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1);
and long-term
strategy components
under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3) for
this facility.
[[Page 15132]]
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Statewide........... 10/4/2019 3/22/2021 [Insert Approval of
Transport SIP Revision. Federal Register visibility
citation]. transport portion
of this interstate
transport SIP
revision that
addresses CAA
section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
for the following
NAAQS: 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS; the
2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2008 and
2015 eight-hour O3
NAAQS; the 2010 one-
hour NO2 NAAQS; and
the 2010 one-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM Statewide........... 8/8/2018 3/22/2021 [Insert Approval of
SIP Revision. Federal Register visibility
citation]. transport portion
of this regional
haze SIP revision,
as supplemented by
the Arkansas 2015
O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP
Revision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.173, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.173 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(h) Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP Revision. The Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase III SIP Revision submitted on August 13, 2019, is
approved as follows:
(1) The clear weight of evidence determination that the BART
alternative for Power Boilers No. 1 and 2 satisfies all of the
applicable regional haze provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)
to (iv) for the Domtar Ashdown Mill with respect to SO2,
NOX, and PM10.
(2) The regional haze program-specific plantwide conditions 32 to
43 from section VI of Permit #0287-AOP-R22 are approved for Power
Boilers No. 1 and 2 for the Domtar Ashdown Mill, which contain
SO2, NOX, and PM10 emission limits and
conditions for implementing the BART alternative.
(3) The approval of the withdrawal of the current PM10
BART determination of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Power Boiler No. 1 in the 2008
Arkansas Regional Haze SIP and replacement with the PM10
BART alternative limit in the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase III SIP
Revision.
(4) The reasonable progress components under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
pertaining to the Domtar Ashdown Mill are approved.
(5) The long-term strategy component pertaining to the Domtar
Ashdown Mill that includes the emission limits and schedules of
compliance component under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(3) is approved.
(6) Consultation and coordination in the development of the SIP
revision with the FLMs and with other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arkansas sources, as required under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), is approved.
(i) Portions of the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP Revision and Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP Revision addressing Visibility Transport. The portion of the
Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP revision
addressing the visibility transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Arkansas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS; the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; the 2008 and 2015 eight-
hour O3 NAAQS; the 2010 one-hour NO2 NAAQS; and
the 2010 one-hour SO2 NAAQS are approved. The visibility
transport portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision, as supplemented by the Arkansas 2015 O3 NAAQS
Interstate Transport SIP revision, is also approved.
[FR Doc. 2021-05362 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P