Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 53 / Monday, March 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations In response to the commenters 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 DEQs potential exercise of the discretion to authorize alternative monitoring. In support of EPAs 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 SN03 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 75.4175.46.
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 63.750563.7541, 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.
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 EPAs 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 directors 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 EPAs consultation in the process EPA
anticipates that DEQs 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 DEQs December 3, 2020, letter which forms a critical part of the record basis for EPAs approval of this submittal, EPA has determined that conditions 35
and 42 as supplemented by the letter are adequately bounded directors 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 DEQs 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 DEQs 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 110i, 110l and 110k3.
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 AP42
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:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1