Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules and Eco Services, LLC. We proposed approval of the August 11, 2016 SIP
revision for the BART determinations at B. Previous Actions on Louisiana these non-EGU facilities on October 27, Regional Haze 2016.18 Based on the BART analysis and LDEQ submitted its initial regional modeling provided by Sid Richardson, haze SIP on June 13, 2008, to address LDEQ concluded that the facility was the requirements of the first regional not subject-to-BART because its haze implementation period. EPA acted modeled visibility impacts were less on the 2008 regional haze SIP submittal than 0.5 deciviews dv.19 We proposed in two separate actions. The first EPA
to approve this determination for Sid action on the 2008 regional haze SIP
Richardson. We also proposed approval was a limited disapproval 13 based on of LDEQs determination that the the June 7, 2012, revision to the current controls and operating Regional Haze Rule and deficiencies conditions for the subject-to-BART units arising from a remand of the Clean Air at the Phillips 66 Company-Alliance Interstate Rule CAIR by the U.S. Court Refinery constituted SO2, NOX, and PM
of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
BART.20 We further proposed approval The remand affected LDEQs source of LDEQs determination that current specific EGU BART requirements for controls and operating conditions at the SO2 and NOX because the 2008
Mosaic facility constituted SO2, NOX, Louisiana Regional Haze SIP relied on and PM BART.21 Finally, we proposed participation in CAIR as an alternative approval of LDEQs determination that to meet the EGU SO2 and NOX BART
the current controls and operating requirements.14 It was determined in the conditions at the Eco Services, LLC
June 7, 2012, rule revision that CSAPR
facility constituted SO2 BART.22
would provide for greater reasonable On February 10, 2017, LDEQ
progress than BART, so that allowed submitted a SIP revision that addressed CSAPR participation to be used as a the deficiencies related to SO2 and PM
BART alternative to source-specific SO2 BART for the EGU facilities. The SIP
and NOX BART for EGUs, on a submittal also relied on CSAPR for O3
pollutant-specific basis.15 LDEQ
season NOX to satisfy NOX BART for established reliance upon CSAPR for 18 81 FR 74750 October 27, 2016. Proposed ozone O3 season NOX as an alternative to meet the NOX BART requirements for approval for the BART determinations for non-EGU
facilities.
their EGU sources and the State 19 A deciview is a haze index derived from addressed SO2 and PM BART
calculated light extinction, such that uniform requirements for EGUs in separate changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire submittals, as described in subsequent range of conditions, from pristine to highly paragraphs.
impaired. The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule On July 3, 2012, EPA issued a second provides additional details about the deciview 64
action on the 2008 Louisiana Regional FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999.
20 On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the Haze SIP which was a partial approval/
disapproval 16 because the SIP submittal United States of America and the State of Louisiana, entered into a consent decree as part of the National met some but not all of the applicable Refinery Initiative for Alliance. See U.S. et al. v requirements of sections 169A and 169B ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action No. H05
0258 S.D. Tx. EPA approved Louisianas BART
of CAA and regional haze provisions in determination that the controls and conditions 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.308. In that required by the consent decree satisfy SO2, NOX, action, we disapproved LDEQs longand PM BART. In order to make the limits term strategy because it relied on enforceable for Regional Haze SIP purposes, Phillips 66 and LDEQ entered into to an AOC to deficient BART analyses for four nonmirror the limitations imposed by the consent EGU sources and did not reflect appropriate BART emissions reductions decree.
21 On December 23, 2009, Mosaic entered into a from those facilities.17
consent decree with the EPA, LDEQ and other On August 11, 2016, LDEQ submitted parties. See U.S. et al. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Civil Action No. 096662 E.D. La. EPA approved a SIP revision which addressed the LDEQs BART determination that the controls and deficiencies related to SO2, NOX, and conditions required by the consent decree satisfy PM BART for the four non-EGU
SO2, NOX, and PM BART. In order to make the facilities: Sid Richardson, Phillips 66
limits enforceable for regional haze SIP purposes, Mosaic and LDEQ entered into to an AOC to mirror Company-Alliance Refinery, Mosaic, jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

than BART. Namely, the alternative must be better than BART. 12

12 The
required content of BART alternative measures is codified at 40 CFR 51.308e2.
13 77 FR 33642 June 7, 2012.
14 40 CFR 51.308e4 2006.
15 77 FR 33642, 33656 June 7, 2012.
16 77 FR 39425 July 3, 2012, available at https
www.regulations.gov in docket EPAR06OAR
20080510.
17 77 FR 39426 July 3, 2012.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:23 Jul 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

the limitations imposed by the consent decree.
22 On July 23, 2007, Eco Services entered into a consent decree with the EPA, LDEQ and other parties. See U.S. et al. v. Rhodia Inc., Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL H.D. In. EPA approved LDEQs BART determination that the controls and conditions required by the consent decree satisfy SO2 BART. In order to make the limits enforceable for regional haze SIP purposes, Eco Services and LDEQ entered into an AOC to mirror the limitations imposed by the consent decree.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

38435

EGU sources. Seventeen EGU facilities were identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ identified seven of those EGU
facilities as being subject-to-BART and required to install, operate, and maintain BART controls: Cleco Brame Energy Center and six different Entergy facilities Little Gypsy, Ninemile Point, Waterford, Willow Glen, Michoud, and Nelson. On May 19, 2017, we proposed approval of the February 10, 2017, submittal for the BART determinations for these EGU facilities with the exception of the portion related to Entergys Nelson facility.23 We also approved controls and conditions for two coal-fired units required by a consent decree 24 for Big Cajun II, a BART eligible EGU facility that screened out from being subject-toBART because its modeled visibility impacts were less than 0.5 dv. Louisiana Generating, who operates Big Cajun II, entered into an agreed order on consent AOC with LDEQ to make the existing control requirements and maximum daily emission limits for SO2, NOX, PM2.5 and PM10 from the consent decree permanent and federally enforceable for the two coal-fired units. For the facilities subject-to-BART, we proposed to approve LDEQs SO2 and PM BART
determinations for units at Clecos Brame Energy Center and at four Entergy facilities which included Willow Glen, Little Gypsy, Ninemile Point, and Waterford plants. We also proposed to approve the States AOCs for each of these five facilities. LDEQ
provided additional information from Entergy indicating that the Entergy Michoud units would be decommissioned, as reflected in an email dated October 9, 2017, submitted by LDEQ to supplement its February 2017 SIP revision. As a result, we proposed to approve the SIPs finding that SO2, NOX, and PM BART were satisfied for the Michoud units since they were no longer in operation. Lastly, we proposed to find that the EGU NOX
BART requirements would be satisfied by our determination that LDEQs participation in CSAPRs O3 season NOX
program was a permissible alternative to source-specific NOX BART.25
23 82 FR 22936 May 19, 2017. Proposed approval for the BART determinations for EGU
facilities.
24 On March 6, 2013, Louisiana Generating entered a consent decree establishing emission limits for SO2, NOX, and PM BART for several CAA
violations at Big Cajun II. See U.S. et al. v.
Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil Action No. 09
100JJBRLB M.D. La..
25 We could not finalize that portion of the proposed SIP approval until we finalized the proposed finding that CSAPR continued to be better than BART 81 FR 78954 because finalization of
E:FRFM21JYP1.SGM

Continued
21JYP1