Quiero saber acerca de...

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 38s 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 19.703Continuous 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 41s 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 63.750563.7541, 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 States 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 AP42 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 1.41
and 2 pertaining to natural gas combustion.
105 See
E:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1