Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules a revised BART determination must be promulgated for SO2 and PM10 for the fuel oil firing scenario through a Federal Implementation Plan FIP or a SIP
revision approved by the EPA that is federally enforceable. For the Unit 6
boiler, the facility accepted SO2 and PM10 limits consistent with the utilization of coal with a lower sulfur content.46 These limits are in addition to existing controls for PM10 and NOX:
ESP with flue gas conditioning for PM10
control, and Separated Overfire Air Technology SOFA with Low NOX
Concentric Firing System LNCFS for NOX control. The AOC unnumbered compliance deadline for the Unit 4
boiler was on October 26, 2017, and for the Unit 6 boiler was on January 21, 2021. The EPA final approval date was December 21, 2017 82 FR 60520.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

3. CAIR and CSAPR
In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,47
which participating states could rely on in lieu of BART for EGUs.48 CAIR was designed to address power plant pollution transported from one state to another via a cap-and-trade system to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions as the target pollutants. LDEQs 2008 regional haze SIP revision relied on participation in CAIR as an alternative to meeting the source specific EGU BART requirements for SO2 and NOX.49 In December 2008, shortly after LDEQ submitted its SIP to EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to the EPA, leaving existing CAIR
programs in place while directing the EPA to replace them with a new rule.50
So although CAIR was remanded, CAIR
remained in effect and sources in Louisiana continued to comply with the state and federal requirements associated with CAIR. In 2011, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR.51
In 2012, EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to allow CSAPR participation as an alternative to source-specific SO2
and NOX BART for EGUs on a pollutantspecific basis.52 CSAPR requires 28
eastern states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to O3 and PM2.5 pollution in other states. The rule requires reductions in O3 season NOX
emissions that cross state lines for 46 See Table 7: Nelson Summary of AOC Limits page 23 of the States progress report.
47 See 70 FR 25161 May 12, 2005.
48 See 70 FR 39104, 39139 July 6, 2005.
49 See 40 CFR 51.308e4 2006.
50 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 D.C.
Cir. 2008, modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 D.C. Cir.
2008.
51 76 FR 48207 August 8, 2011.
52 While that rulemaking also promulgated FIPs for several states to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART, it did not include a FIP for Louisiana. see 77 FR 33642, 33654.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Jul 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

certain states, including Louisiana, under the O3 requirements, and reductions in annual SO2 and NOX
emissions for certain states, not including Louisiana, under the PM2.5
requirements. LDEQ established reliance upon CSAPR for O3 season NOX
as an alternative to meet the NOX BART
requirements for their EGU sources. The EPA set emission budgets for each state covered by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to affected sources based on these state emission budgets.53 Since promulgating the use of CSAPR as an alternative to source-specific BART for EGUs, the EPA has promulgated an update to the CSAPR program with more stringent budgets.54 The CSAPR
update revised the O3 season NOX
budget for Louisianas EGUs to 18,639
tons NOX in 2017 and beyond.55
Participation in CSAPR for O3 season NOX is federally enforceable under 40
CFR 52.38.
4. Smoke Management Plan SMP
The progress report states that the State is also relying on a Smoke Management Program SMP that it adopted effective July 1, 2012. LDEQ
implements controlled and openburning practices within the state. The Louisiana SMP was designed to assure that prescribed fires are planned and executed in a manner designed to minimize the impacts from smoke produced by prescribed fires. The programs in this measure are generally designed to limit increases in emissions rather than to reduce existing emissions.
5. Additional Federal Measures The State of Louisiana also considered in its progress report the following ongoing pollution control programs for continuing emission reductions as supplements to the regional haze plan:
53 The rule provides flexibility to affected sources, allowing sources in each state to determine their own compliance path. This includes adding or operating control technologies, upgrading or improving controls, switching fuels, and using allowances. Sources can buy and sell allowances and bank save allowances for future use as long as each source holds enough allowances to account for its emissions by the end of the compliance period.
54 See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we finalized an update to CSAPR that addresses the 1997 O3 NAAQS portion of the remand as well as the CAA requirements addressing interstate transport for the 2008 O3 NAAQS.
55 CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision generally upholding CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for a number of states. Louisianas O3
season NOX budgets were not included in the remand. EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118, 138 D.C. Cir. 2015.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38439

Permitting to ensure compliance wth New Source Performance standards NSPS and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NESHAP.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSD requirements.
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative.
Mobile Emissions Regulations.
National Petroleum Refinery Initiative.
6. EPAs Conclusion on the Status of Implementation of Measures The EPA proposes to find that the State has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308g regarding reporting the status of implementation of measures in its implementation plan. The States progress report documented the status of all measures included in its regional haze SIP and it also described additional measures that came into effect since the States regional haze SIP
was completed, including various federal measures. All major control measures were identified in each SIP
revision and the strategy behind each control was explained. The State included a summary of the implementation status associated with each measure and adequately outlined the compliance timeframe for all controls.
C. Emissions Reductions From Implementation of Measures The State presented emission data in its progress report that provided a summary of the emission trends and reductions achieved through the implementation of the BART controls that were required to be installed, operated, and maintained in the regional haze SIP to control the visibility impairing pollutants contributing to haze. The State provided combined annual emission trends of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and PM10 for all eleven subject-to-BART EGU and non-EGU
facilities included in section II.B of this action from 2000 to 2019.56 The State also provided figures depicting the annual emission trends applicable to each subject-to-BART facility.57 The overall combined annual emissions for each pollutant trended downward from the baseline since 2008. The State quantified the emission reductions achieved by comparing the five-year average from the baseline 20042008
to the five-year average at the end of the 56 See Figure 12: Combined Annual Emissions from Major Stationary BART Sources page 26 of the progress report.
57 See Figures 1 to 11 of the progress report pages 10 to 23.

E:FRFM21JYP1.SGM

21JYP1