Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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, EPAs 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 51.308e2iii. 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. Domtars emission levels remained below the BART alternative levels up to the point at which the States 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
51.308e2iii.
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 51.308e2iii 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 stateor 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
51.308e2iii.
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 51.308e2iii.
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
51.308e2iii 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 EPAs 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:FRFM22MRR1.SGM

22MRR1