[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51033-51054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189; FRL-9998-66-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Approval of Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for
Electric Generating Units in Arkansas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an approval of a
portion of a revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Arkansas through the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that addresses certain requirements of the
CAA and the EPA's regional haze rules for the protection of visibility
in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas) for the first
implementation period. The EPA is taking final action to approve, among
other things, the state's sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate matter (PM) best available retrofit technology (BART)
determinations for electric generating units (EGUs) in Arkansas and the
determination that no additional SO2 and PM controls at any
Arkansas sources are necessary under reasonable progress. In
conjunction with this final approval of a portion of the SIP revision,
we are finalizing in a separate rulemaking, published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, our withdrawal of the corresponding
Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions established in a prior
action to address regional haze requirements for Arkansas.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. All documents in the dockets are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75270-2102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayana Medina, 214-665-7241,
[email protected], EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, Texas 75270-2102.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
B. Our Previous Actions
II. Summary of Final Action
III. Response to Comments
A. White Bluff SO2 BART for White Bluff
B. Reasonable Progress
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
D. Modeling
E. Legal
F. General
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The Regional Haze Program
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in
the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that can be seen. PM2.5
can also cause serious adverse health effects and mortality in humans;
it also contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE),
shows that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs
virtually all of the time at most national parks and wilderness areas.
In 1999, the average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States was
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist under
[[Page 51034]]
estimated natural conditions.\2\ In most of the eastern Class I areas
of the United States, the average visual range was less than 30
kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist
under estimated natural conditions. CAA programs have reduced emissions
of some haze-causing pollution, lessening some visibility impairment
and resulting in partially improved average visual ranges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\2\ 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
\3\ An interactive ``story map'' depicting efforts and recent
progress by EPA and states to improve visibility at national parks
and wilderness areas may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness
areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas.\4\ Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and
the EPA promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999. The
Regional Haze Rule \5\ revised the existing visibility regulations to
add provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309.
The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. States were required
to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of National Parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\5\ Here and elsewhere in this document, the term ``Regional
Haze Rule,'' refers to the 1999 final rule (64 FR 35714), as amended
in 2005 (70 FR 39156, July 6, 2005), 2006 (71 FR 60631, October 13,
2006), 2012 (77 FR 33656, June 7, 2012), and January 10, 2017 (82 FR
3078).
\6\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). EPA's regional haze regulations
require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR
51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install and operate
BART controls. Larger ``fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants'' are
one of these source categories. Under the Regional Haze Rule, states
are directed to conduct BART determinations for ``BART-eligible''
sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area. The evaluation of BART for
electric generating units (EGUs) that are located at fossil-fuel fired
power plants having a generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts
must follow the ``Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional
Haze Rule'' at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as
the ``BART Guidelines''). Rather than requiring source-specific BART
controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative
provides for greater progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of ``major
stationary sources'' potentially subject-to-BART).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Our Previous Actions
Arkansas submitted a SIP revision on September 9, 2008, to address
the requirements of the first regional haze implementation period. On
August 3, 2010, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision with mostly non-
substantive revisions to Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology
Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, Chapter 15.\8\ On September 27, 2011,
the State submitted supplemental information to address the regional
haze requirements. We are hereafter referring to these regional haze
submittals collectively as the ``2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.'' On
March 12, 2012, we partially approved and partially disapproved the
2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.\9\ On September 27, 2016, we
promulgated a FIP (the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP) addressing the
disapproved portions of the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.\10\ Among
other things, the FIP established SO2, NOX, and
PM emission limits under the BART requirements for nine units at six
facilities: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) Bailey
Plant Unit 1; AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1; the American Electric Power/
Southwestern Electric Power Company (AEP/SWEPCO) Flint Creek Plant
Boiler No. 1; Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy) Lake Catherine Plant
Unit 4; Entergy White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; Entergy White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; and the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and
2. The FIP also established SO2 and NOX emission
limits under the reasonable progress requirements for Entergy
Independence Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The September 9, 2008 SIP submittal included APCEC
Regulation 19, Chapter 15, which is the state regulation that
identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas
and established BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources.
The August 3, 2010 SIP revision did not revise Arkansas' list of
BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources or revise any of the BART
requirements for affected sources. Instead, it included mostly non-
substantive revisions to the state regulation.
\9\ 77 FR 14604.
\10\ 81 FR 66332; see also 81 FR 68319 (October 4, 2016)
(correction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the issuance of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP, the State
of Arkansas and several industry parties filed petitions for
reconsideration and an administrative stay of the final rule.\11\ On
April 14, 2017, we announced our decision to reconsider several
elements of the FIP, as follows: Appropriate compliance dates for the
NOX emission limits for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, White
Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2; the low-load
NOX emission limits applicable to White Bluff Units 1 and 2
and Independence Units 1 and 2 during periods of operation at less than
50 percent of the units' maximum heat input rating; the SO2
emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2; and the compliance dates
for the SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1 and
2.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See the docket associated with this rulemaking for a copy
of the petitions for reconsideration and administrative stay
submitted by the State of Arkansas; Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy
Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively ``Entergy'');
AECC; and the Energy and Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA).
\12\ Letter from E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, EPA, to
Nicholas Jacob Bronni and Jamie Leigh Ewing, Arkansas Attorney
General's Office (April 14, 2017). A copy of this letter is included
in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189-0240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also published a document in the Federal Register on April 25,
2017, administratively staying the effectiveness of the NOX
compliance dates in the FIP for the Flint Creek,
[[Page 51035]]
White Bluff, and Independence units, as well as the compliance dates
for the SO2 emission limits for the White Bluff and
Independence units for a period of 90 days.\13\ On July 13, 2017, the
EPA published a proposed rule to extend the NOX compliance
dates for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and
Independence Units 1 and 2, by 21 months to January 27, 2020.\14\
However, EPA did not take final action on the July 13, 2017 proposed
rule because on July 12, 2017, Arkansas submitted a proposed SIP
revision with a request for parallel processing, addressing the
NOX BART requirements for Bailey Unit 1, McClellan Unit 1,
Flint Creek Boiler No. 1, Lake Catherine Unit 4, White Bluff Units 1
and 2, and White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler, as well as the reasonable
progress requirements with respect to NOX (Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision or Arkansas Phase I SIP revision). We
proposed to approve the State's proposed SIP revision in parallel with
the state's SIP process. Our proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision and withdrawal of the corresponding
parts of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP was published in the Federal
Register on September 11, 2017.\15\ On October 31, 2017, we received
ADEQ's final Regional Haze NOX SIP revision addressing
NOX BART for EGUs and the reasonable progress requirements
with respect to NOX for the first implementation period. On
February 12, 2018, we finalized our approval of the Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision and our withdrawal of the
corresponding parts of the FIP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 82 FR 18994.
\14\ 82 FR 32284.
\15\ 82 FR 42627.
\16\ 83 FR 5927 and 83 FR 5915 (February 12, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2018, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision (Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision or Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase II SIP revision) addressing all remaining disapproved parts
of the 2008 Regional Haze SIP, with the exception of the BART and
associated long-term strategy requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill
Power Boilers No. 1 and 2. The Phase II SIP revision also included a
discussion on Arkansas' interstate visibility transport requirements.
In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on November 30,
2018, we proposed approval of a portion of the SIP revision and we also
proposed to withdraw the parts of the FIP corresponding to our proposed
approvals.\17\ We stated in our proposed rule that we intend to propose
action on the portion of the SIP revision discussing the interstate
visibility transport requirements in a future proposed rulemaking.
Since we proposed to withdraw certain portions of the FIP, we also
proposed to redesignate the FIP by revising the numbering of certain
paragraphs under 40 CFR 52.173 to reflect the removal of language
applicable to EGUs and the retention of language applicable to the
Domtar Ashdown Mill, the only remaining facility subject to the
provisions of the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Final Action
This action finalizes our proposed approval of a portion of the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. We are
finalizing our approval of ADEQ's revised identification of the 6A
Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill as BART-eligible and the
determination based on the additional information and technical
analysis presented in the SIP revision that the Georgia-Pacific
Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to BART. We are
finalizing our approval of the state's BART determinations as follows:
SO2 and PM BART for the AECC Bailey Plant Unit 1;
SO2 and PM BART for the AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1;
SO2 BART for the AEP/SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1;
SO2 BART for Entergy White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART for the Entergy White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; and the prohibition on burning of fuel oil at Entergy
Lake Catherine Unit 4 until SO2 and PM BART determinations
for the fuel oil firing scenario are approved into the SIP by EPA.
These BART requirements have been made enforceable by the state through
Administrative Orders and submitted as part of the SIP revision. We are
finalizing our approval of these BART Administrative Orders as part of
the SIP.
We are finalizing our withdrawal of our prior approval of Arkansas'
reliance on participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
for ozone season NOX to satisfy the NOX BART
requirement for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler. The Arkansas Regional
Haze NOX SIP revision erroneously stated that the Auxiliary
Boiler participates in CSAPR for ozone season NOX and that
the state was electing to rely on participation in that trading program
to satisfy the Auxiliary Boiler's NOX BART requirements, and
we erroneously approved this determination in a final action published
in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018.\18\ We are finalizing our
withdrawal of our approval of that determination for the Auxiliary
Boiler and are replacing it with our final approval of a source-
specific NOX BART emission limit contained in the Arkansas
Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP Revision before us. The
NOX BART requirement has been made enforceable by the state
through an Administrative Order and submitted as part of the SIP
revision. We are finalizing our approval of the Administrative Order
that contains the NOX BART requirement as part of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 83 FR 5927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also finalizing our approval of Arkansas' reasonable
progress determinations for Independence Units 1 and 2 and
determination that no additional controls are necessary for
SO2 or PM under the reasonable progress requirements for the
first implementation period and are also agreeing with the state's
calculation of revised RPGs for its Class I areas. We are finalizing
our determination that, based on the state's currently approved SIP and
the analyses and determinations we are approving in this final action,
the state's reasonable progress obligations for the first
implementation period have been satisfied. At this time, the majority
of the BART requirements for the Domtar Ashdown Mill are satisfied by a
FIP.\19\ The SIP revision explains that, based upon the BART
determinations and analysis in that FIP, nothing further is currently
needed for reasonable progress at the Domtar Ashdown Mill. EPA agrees
with this determination. We do note that ADEQ recently submitted a SIP
revision to address the BART requirements for Domtar Power Boilers No.
1 and No. 2 that are currently satisfied by the FIP, and we intend to
take action on that SIP revision addressing Domtar in a future
rulemaking. At that time, we will evaluate any conclusions ADEQ draws
in that SIP submittal about the adequacy of such SIP-based measures for
reasonable progress. We will also evaluate any changes in the measures
for the Domtar Ashdown Mill in that SIP revision relative to those
currently in the FIP to determine whether the calculation of the
reasonable progress goals for the first implementation period continues
to be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We note that the only exception to this is the PM
determination for Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler No. 1 contained
in the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP. That BART determination was
approved in our 2012 rulemaking. 77 FR 14604, March 12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are finalizing our approval of the components of the long-term
strategy addressed by the Arkansas Regional
[[Page 51036]]
Haze Phase II SIP revision and are finding that Arkansas' long-term
strategy for reasonable progress with respect to all sources other than
Domtar is approved. We are finalizing our approval of the 0.60 lb/MMBtu
SO2 emission limitations for Independence Units 1 and 2, and
these measures are now integrated into the State's long-term strategy.
The long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a
state relies on to make reasonable progress towards the goal of natural
visibility conditions, including emission limitations corresponding to
BART determinations. Because the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP
revision does not address the BART requirements for Domtar, those
components of the long-term strategy will remain satisfied by the FIP
unless and until EPA has received and approved a SIP revision
containing the required analyses and determinations for this
facility.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As noted above, ADEQ recently submitted a SIP revision to
address the BART requirements for Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and No.
2 that are currently satisfied by the FIP. We intend to evaluate
that SIP revision and to take action on it in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also finalizing our determination that Arkansas has
satisfied the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(i) to consult and
coordinate with the federal land managers (FLMs).\21\ Additionally, we
are finalizing our determination that Arkansas has satisfied the
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) to coordinate and consult with
Missouri, which has Class I areas affected by Arkansas sources.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 83 FR 62234.
\22\ 83 FR 62234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we discussed in our proposal, the SIP revision also includes a
discussion on interstate visibility transport. We are aware that
Arkansas is working on a SIP revision to address the interstate
visibility transport requirements for several national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), and we therefore deferred evaluating and
proposing action on the interstate visibility transport portion of the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision until a future proposed
rulemaking.
We are finalizing our approval of a portion of the Arkansas
Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision as we have found it to meet the
applicable provisions of the Act and EPA regulations and is consistent
with EPA guidance. We received comments from several commenters on our
proposed approval. Our responses to the substantive comments we
received are summarized in Section III. We have fully considered all
significant comments on our proposed action on the SIP revision
submittal and have concluded that no changes to our final
determinations are warranted.
We are approving a portion of the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II
SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on August 8, 2018, as we have determined
that it meets the regional haze SIP requirements, including the BART
requirements in Sec. 51.308(e); the reasonable progress requirements
in Sec. 51.308(d); and the long-term strategy requirements in Sec.
51.308(d)(3). In conjunction with this final approval, we are
finalizing in a separate rulemaking, published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register, our withdrawal of FIP provisions corresponding
to the portions of the SIP revision we are taking final action to
approve in this rulemaking.
III. Response to Comments
The public comments received on our proposed rule are included in
the publicly posted docket associated with this action at
www.regulations.gov.\23\ We reviewed all public comments that we
received on the proposed action. Below, we provide a summary of
substantive comments and our responses. Summaries of all comments and
our full responses thereto are contained in a separate document titled
the Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision Response to Comments,
which can be found in the docket associated with this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. White Bluff SO2 BART Requirements
Comment: EPA proposed to approve ADEQ's determination that low
sulfur coal with an emission rate of 0.60 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average is SO2 BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2. However,
the cost-effectiveness figures for dry scrubbers at White Bluff Units 1
and 2 are well within the range of what has been found to be cost
effective in other regional haze actions. EPA should reverse its
position, disapprove ADEQ's White Bluff SO2 BART
determination, and finalize its previous rule that SO2
emission limits corresponding to dry scrubbers constitute
SO2 BART at White Bluff.
Response: We remind the commenter that each BART determination is
dependent on the specific situation of the source and involves the
consideration of a number of factors that usually vary on a case by
case basis. This includes consideration of the five statutory factors
required under the Regional Haze Rule at Sec. 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and
CAA section 169A(g)(2). BART determinations are source specific--what
is a reasonable determination for one source may not be appropriate
given the facts and circumstances applicable to another source. The
states also have wide discretion in the evaluation of the five
statutory factors and in formulating SIPs, so long as they satisfy the
applicable requirements and provide a reasoned and rational basis for
their decisions.
While it is true that some SO2 BART controls required
under other regional haze actions have similar cost-effectiveness
figures as those for dry scrubbers for White Bluff, we find that ADEQ
satisfied the requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule by
fully considering the five statutory factors in the SO2 BART
analysis for White Bluff Units 1 and 2. Taking into account the
remaining useful life of White Bluff Units 1 and 2 (based on Entergy's
enforceable Administrative Order to cease coal combustion by December
31, 2028), and the resulting cost-effectiveness of controls, as well as
the anticipated visibility improvement of the SO2 control
options and the other BART factors, ADEQ determined that SO2
BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is an emission limit of 0.60 lb/
MMBtu based on the use of low sulfur coal beginning no later than three
years from the effective date of the Administrative Order (August 7,
2021) through the end of 2028.
As we explained in our proposal, ADEQ's cost analysis was based on
a dry scrubber system assuming an inlet coal sulfur content of 1.2 lb/
MMBtu, which is based on Entergy's current coal contract sulfur
limit.\24\ However, the White Bluff units have historically burned coal
with a lower sulfur content. Therefore, we relied on our FIP's cost
analysis for dry scrubbers for White Bluff, which was based on a
scrubber system designed to burn coal having a sulfur content
consistent with what the units have historically burned, and we
adjusted for a 7-year as opposed to a 30-year capital cost recovery
period to reflect that the units will cease coal combustion by the end
of 2028.\25\ Based on our revised cost estimates, dry scrubbers are
estimated to cost approximately $4,376/ton for Unit 1 and $4,129/ton
for Unit 2. The visibility benefit of dry scrubbers at White Bluff
Units 1 and 2 is anticipated to be 0.603 dv at Caney Creek and 0.642 dv
at Upper Buffalo for Unit 1 and 0.574 dv at Caney Creek and 0.632 dv at
Upper Buffalo for Unit 2; Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are the two
Class I areas
[[Page 51037]]
where White Bluff Units 1 and 2 have the greatest modeled baseline
visibility impacts.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 83 FR 62222.
\25\ 83 FR 62222.
\26\ See 83 FR 62221-62222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, we believe Arkansas is within its discretion to
evaluate the BART factors as it has done, and we find that the state
has presented a reasoned basis for its BART determination and has met
all CAA and Regional Haze Rule requirements in making the BART
determination for White Bluff. Considering all the above, we are
finalizing our approval of ADEQ's determination that SO2
BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is an emission limit of 0.60 lb/
MMBtu based on the use of low sulfur coal, with an enforceable
Administrative Order requiring Entergy to cease coal combustion at
White Bluff Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2028.
Comment: EPA's proposed approval of ADEQ's determination that low
sulfur coal with an emission rate of 0.60 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average is SO2 BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 and
rejection of dry scrubbers is arbitrary when compared to the Flint
Creek SO2 BART determination. The SO2 BART
determination for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 was based on very similar
cost-effectiveness figures for dry scrubbers, but in that case, EPA
required a scrubber as BART. EPA should reverse its position and
disapprove ADEQ's SO2 BART determination for White Bluff
Units 1 and 2.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that our proposed approval
of ADEQ's SO2 BART determination for White Bluff Units 1 and
2 is arbitrary when compared to our proposed approval of the Flint
Creek SO2 BART determination. In particular, the commenter
contends that it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to find that White
Bluff SO2 BART is an emission limit based on low-sulfur
coal, while also finding that SO2 BART for Flint Creek is an
emission limits based on a dry scrubber. EPA did not make these
findings in the context of a FIP, but rather proposed to approve ADEQ's
determinations based on our finding that the State reasonably
determined that SO2 BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is an
emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu based on the use of low sulfur coal and
that SO2 BART for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 is an emission
limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on the use of a dry scrubber. The states
have wide discretion in the evaluation of the five statutory factors
and in formulating SIPs, so long as they satisfy the applicable
requirements and provide a reasoned and rational basis for their
decisions. Furthermore, BART determinations are source specific--what
is a reasonable determination for one source may not be appropriate
given the facts and circumstances applicable to another source. In this
instance, we believe Arkansas is within its discretion to evaluate the
BART factors as it has done, and we find that the state has presented a
reasoned basis for its BART determinations and has met all CAA and
Regional Haze Rule requirements in making the SO2 BART
determinations for White Bluff and Flint Creek.
We note that the cost-effectiveness figures for dry scrubbers for
White Bluff are in fact higher than that for a Novel Integrated
Deacidification (NID) system, a type of dry scrubbing technology, for
Flint Creek. In our proposed rule, we estimated the cost effectiveness
of dry scrubbers for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 to be $4,376/ton for
Unit 1 and $4,129/ton for Unit 2. The visibility benefit of dry
scrubbers at White Bluff is anticipated to be 0.603 dv at Caney Creek
and 0.642 dv at Upper Buffalo for Unit 1 and 0.574 dv at Caney Creek
and 0.632 dv at Upper Buffalo for Unit 2; Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
are the two Class I areas where White Bluff Units 1 and 2 have the
greatest modeled baseline visibility impacts.\27\ The cost-
effectiveness of a NID system for Flint Creek is $3,845/ton. We
consider the cost of a dry scrubber at Flint Creek to be generally cost
effective when also taking into account the level of visibility benefit
of the control and the other BART factors. The visibility benefit of a
NID system at Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 is anticipated to be 0.615 dv at
Caney Creek and 0.464 dv at Upper Buffalo, the two Class I areas where
Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 has the greatest modeled baseline visibility
impacts.\28\ The anticipated level of visibility benefit at Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo due to dry scrubbers at White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is
comparable to the anticipated visibility benefit due to NID at Flint
Creek Boiler No. 1, but the cost-effectiveness figures for dry
scrubbers at White Bluff are higher than that for Flint Creek, and
start to go into the higher end of what has been found to be cost
effective in other regional haze actions when also taking into account
the level of visibility benefit of the controls and other factors.\29\
Additionally, the NID system was already installed and operating at
Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 at the time that ADEQ finalized and submitted
the Reginal Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision. Thus, we believe
it would have been unreasonable for ADEQ to find that SO2
BART for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 is not a NID system when those
controls are already installed and operational at the facility. In
contrast, there is no planned installation of this control equipment at
White Bluff Units 1 and 2, which have a shortened remaining useful life
based on an enforceable Administrative Order that is part of this SIP
revision. Furthermore, since Flint Creek Boiler No. 1 is currently
assumed to continue operating for at least another 30 years while White
Bluff Units 1 and 2 are required to cease coal combustion by the end of
December 2028 based on the enforceable Administrative Order that is
part of this SIP revision, we find that it is reasonable for ADEQ to
have determined that SO2 BART for Flint Creek Boiler No. 1
is an emission limit based on the use of dry scrubbers while
SO2 BART for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 is an emission limit
based on the use of low sulfur coal. We are taking final action to
approve the state's SO2 BART determinations for these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 83 FR 62221-62222.
\28\ See 83 FR 62218.
\29\ 83 FR 62222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Although EPA's estimated dry scrubber costs demonstrate
that this control technology is not cost-effective for White Bluff
Units 1 and 2, the costs of dry scrubbers are actually underestimated
by EPA. EPA's cost assessment assumes that White Bluff will combust
coal with a sulfur content of 0.68 lb/MMBtu, which was the maximum
monthly emission rate from 2009-2013, and its calculation of the
equipment costs reflects scrubbers sized to accommodate this sulfur
content. However, EPA is incorrect to assume that the sulfur content of
coal that will be combusted at the plant in the future will not exceed
the maximum monthly average sulfur content from 2009-2013. EPA ignores
the fact that the plant can receive coal with a sulfur content up to
1.2 lb/MMBtu pursuant to its coal contracts, and that White Bluff in
fact had a maximum 3-hour average emission rate of 1.1 lb/MMBtu from
2014-2016. A dry scrubber must be designed to handle the highest sulfur
content that may be combusted at the unit, as an inappropriately
designed scrubber would be incapable of addressing SO2
emissions exceeding the design limit. If the scrubber system at White
Bluff were designed to treat flue gas with a SO2 emission
rate of 0.68 lb/MMBtu, the system would be inadequately sized to add
sufficient reagent when sulfur levels increase beyond that level, which
would result in emissions above the proposed emission rate for that
period of operation. The cost analysis in the SIP
[[Page 51038]]
revision appropriately reflected the installation of scrubbers designed
to handle the maximum coal sulfur content at the plant. If EPA retains
its cost estimate based on the installation of scrubbers that can
accommodate only lower sulfur coal, then EPA must account for the fact
that Entergy would need to ensure that only lower sulfur coal is
purchased in the future. The resulting increase in fuel costs must be
accounted for in the scrubber cost analysis. Failure to do so renders
EPA's estimates inaccurate and does not allow for a proper evaluation
of the costs of dry scrubbers at White Bluff.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's approach for estimating
the cost-effectiveness of dry scrubbers for White Bluff Units 1 and 2.
The commenter argues that a mismatch between the cost of the scrubber
systems and the SO2 emission baseline against which the
cost-effectiveness will be measured can be legitimately introduced.
Specifically, the commenter argues that the units could in the future
burn coal containing a higher sulfur content than what has been burned
in the past, emphasizing that the plant can receive coal with a sulfur
content up to 1.2 lb/MMBtu pursuant to its coal contracts. Therefore,
the commenter insists on costing the dry scrubbers for White Bluff
Units 1 and 2 assuming the units will burn coal with a sulfur content
of 1.2 lb/MMBtu, while at the same time basing the calculation of the
SO2 tons reduced in the cost-effectiveness calculations on a
lower emissions level of 0.68 lb/MMBtu based on the same 2009-2013
SO2 baseline period that the commenter objects to for
purposes of costing the scrubbers.\30\ This cherry-picking of emission
rates has ramifications for the scrubber cost effectiveness
calculation, in which the annualized cost of the controls are compared
to the SO2 tons reduced from the SO2 baseline. A
scrubber capable of treating a higher sulfur coal is more expensive.
While Entergy is free to design a scrubber capable of burning a coal
with a higher sulfur content (assuming all regulatory requirements are
otherwise met), this expense must be balanced against the greater
SO2 removal capabilities of such a scrubber. Otherwise, the
cost effectiveness calculation is unreasonably skewed. In other words,
if the Entergy cost analysis on which the SIP revision relies had also
based the calculation of the SO2 tons reduced on an assumed
baseline emission rate of 1.2 lb/MMBtu, this would have reflected
greater tons of SO2 removed, which would in turn result in
cost estimates more cost-effective than reflected in Entergy's
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision, p. 4-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of relying on the SIP's cost estimates, which are based on
Entergy's estimates for a dry scrubber designed to treat coal with a
sulfur content of 1.2 lb/MMBtu, we presented revised cost estimates for
dry scrubbers for White Bluff in our proposal. After considering our
lower revised cost numbers, we still agree with ADEQ's SO2
BART determination for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 in the SIP revision.
Our revised cost estimates rely on our FIP's cost analysis, which was
based on a scrubber system designed to burn coal having a sulfur
content of 0.68 lb/MMBtu, which is the units' maximum monthly emission
rate from 2009-2013.\31\ Assuming a coal sulfur content that reflects
the sulfur levels of the coal historically burned at the units is the
appropriate basis for our cost estimate, consistent with the BART
Guidelines: \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 83 FR 62222.
\32\ 70 FR 39167.
The baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic
depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. In
general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate
the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual emissions from a
baseline period. When you project that future operating parameters
(e.g., limited hours of operation or capacity utilization, type of
fuel, raw materials or product mix or type) will differ from past
practice, and if this projection has a deciding effect in the BART
determination, then you must make these parameters or assumptions
into enforceable limitations. In the absence of enforceable
limitations, you calculate baseline emissions based upon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
continuation of past practice.
Based on the BART Guidelines, the presumption is that the baseline
emissions should be based on historical emissions. If future operations
are expected to differ from past practices, and this impacts the BART
analysis, an enforceable mechanism must be in place. The example in the
above reference to the BART Guidelines anticipates that future
operations will cause the baseline to be lower, resulting in a
correspondingly lower denominator in the $/ton cost effectiveness
calculation, thus resulting in the cost effectiveness seeming less
attractive (higher) and triggering the need for an enforceable
mechanism to ensure the integrity of the cost-effectiveness calculation
into the future. The same principle applies to Entergy's situation, in
that using a higher scrubber cost for scrubbing a higher sulfur coal,
in conjunction with using an unrepresentative (lower) baseline, both
act to make the $/ton cost effectiveness of the scrubber seem less
attractive (higher). In this instance, we would not require an
enforceable mechanism to ensure Entergy burns a higher sulfur coal, but
the need to ensure the future integrity of the cost-effectiveness
calculation nevertheless remains.
There are two obvious ways to ensure the cost effectiveness
calculation accurately reflects the costs and emission reductions of
scrubbers for White Bluff: Either (1) the higher cost of a scrubber
designed to handle a higher sulfur coal must be balanced against its
greater SO2 reduction potential, or (2) the scrubber
system's capability and cost must match the facility's historical
emissions. We took the latter approach in estimating the cost of dry
scrubbers in our proposal. However, the commenter disagrees with either
approach, arguing instead that the higher scrubber cost for scrubbing a
higher sulfur coal (which it claims could be representative of future
emission rates) should be paired with a historical (lower) baseline.
We also note that the commenter does not appear to argue that
basing the cost analysis on a scrubber system designed to burn coal
having a sulfur content of 0.68 lb/MMBtu is inconsistent with its
historical maximum monthly emission rate, but only suggests that in the
future the White Bluff units may be burning coal containing a higher
sulfur content. The commenter also points to the units' maximum 3-hour
average emission rate of 1.1 lb/MMBtu from 2014-2016 in arguing that
the cost analysis must reflect a dry scrubber that is designed to
handle the highest sulfur content that may be combusted at the unit.
However, we note that this is a maximum 3-hour average, while our cost
estimates were based on a scrubber system designed to burn coal having
a sulfur content of 0.68 lb/MMBtu, which is the units' maximum monthly
emission rate from 2009-2013. This is significant because variations in
emissions due to changes in coal quality, reagent quality, or scrubber
performance are normally accommodated in permitting by specifying a
sufficiently long averaging time, such as a 30-day averaging period,
which is specifically designed to average out short term fluctuations.
In general, averaging smooths out fluctuations in data.\33\
Furthermore, the emission limit evaluated by ADEQ and Entergy in the
BART analysis for scrubbers, if selected as BART, would have been on a
rolling 30 boiler-
[[Page 51039]]
operating-day averaging period; therefore, the cost analysis should
reflect the design of a scrubber that would meet the same averaging
period. In this context, the maximum 3-hour emission rate does not hold
much significance. Therefore, we do not agree with the commenter's
argument that since White Bluff had a maximum 3-hour average emission
rate of 1.1 lb/MMBtu, it is necessary to install a scrubber designed to
treat flue gas with a SO2 emission rate of 1.2 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Thad Godish, Air Quality, Lewis Publishers, 2nd Ed., 1991,
p. 216, Figure 7.1; Richard W. Boubel, Donald L. Fox, Bruce Turner,
and Arthur C. Stern, Fundamentals of Air Pollution, Academic Press,
3rd Ed., 1994, pp. 41--43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the above, we disagree with the commenter that we
underestimated the cost of dry scrubbers for White Bluff by basing our
cost assessment on the assumption that White Bluff will combust coal
with a sulfur content of 0.68 lb/MMBtu. Nevertheless, our disagreement
with the commenter on the above issues does not ultimately impact our
final action given that even after considering our lower cost
estimates, we find that ADEQ reasonably exercised its discretion in
concluding that the costs of dry scrubbers are not warranted after also
taking into account the level of anticipated visibility benefit at the
affected Class I areas due to these controls and the other BART
factors, including consideration that an Administrative Order that is
part of the SIP revision requires the White Bluff units to cease coal
combustion by December 31, 2028. We are finalizing our proposed
approval of ADEQ's determination that SO2 BART for White
Bluff Units 1 and 2 is an emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu based on the
use of low sulfur coal.
Comment: The commenter supports EPA's proposed approval of rolling
30-day average BART SO2 emission limits of 0.60 lb/MMBtu for
White Bluff Units 1 and 2 based on combustion of low sulfur coal. While
EPA underestimates the costs of dry scrubbers at White Bluff, even its
undervalued costs support a determination that add-on SO2
control technology is not BART for White Bluff. EPA's cost estimates
fail to include certain cost items that EPA claims are disallowed
pursuant to the Control Cost Manual. These ``disallowed'' costs should
be included in the cost analyses, as they reflect the actual costs of
planning, installing, and operating controls. Accounting for the
disallowed costs makes the control technologies even less cost-
effective. However, even EPA's flawed cost estimates demonstrate that
dry sorbent injection (DSI), enhanced DSI and dry scrubbers are not
cost-effective for White Bluff.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposed
approval of ADEQ's determination that SO2 BART for White
Bluff Units 1 and 2 are emission limits of 0.60 lb/MMBtu based on
combustion of low sulfur coal. However, we disagree with the commenter
that we have underestimated the costs of dry scrubbers at White Bluff.
In particular, the commenter states that EPA's cost estimates fail to
include certain cost items that EPA claims are disallowed pursuant to
the Control Cost Manual and that Entergy continues to believe that
these ``disallowed'' costs should be included in the cost analyses. The
commenter claims these disallowed costs reflect the actual costs of
planning, installing, and operating controls. We disagree with the
commenter that the disallowed line items should be included in the cost
analyses. As we discussed in our proposal, ADEQ's evaluation of
controls in the SIP revision is based on Entergy's set of cost numbers
that excludes the line items disallowed under the EPA Control Cost
Manual,\34\ which the BART Guidelines specify should be the basis of
cost estimates, where possible.\35\ We stated in our proposal that we
agree that Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) and
certain other cost items are not allowed to be considered in estimating
the cost-effectiveness of controls for regional haze purposes under the
EPA Control Cost Manual.\36\ We explained in our proposal that we,
therefore, agree with ADEQ's decision to base its evaluation of
controls on Entergy's set of cost numbers that did not include the
disallowed line items instead of relying on the set of cost numbers
that did include the disallowed line items.\37\ However, as we
discussed in a previous response, we ultimately presented revised cost
estimates for dry scrubbers for White Bluff in our proposal instead of
relying on ADEQ's cost estimates from the SIP revision because ADEQ's
cost estimates were based on Entergy's estimates for a dry scrubber
that was inappropriately designed to treat coal with a sulfur content
of 1.2 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 83 FR 62220.
\35\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.a.
\36\ 83 FR 62222.
\37\ 83 FR 62222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have noted in a number of other regional haze actions,
certain line items such as AFUDC, owner's costs, and escalation during
construction are not valid costs under our Control Cost Manual
methodology. We incorporate our responses to similar comments we have
received in those actions here.\38\ The exclusion of these disallowed
line items in estimating the cost-effectiveness of controls for BART
purposes is consistent with the ``overnight'' methodology outlined in
our Control Cost Manual. We note that the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have
upheld our use of the overnight cost methodology and our long-standing
position in the regional haze program that certain line items such as
AFUDC are not allowed under the Control Cost Manual approach of cost
estimating.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See for instance, our ``Response to Technical Comments for
Sections E through H of the Federal Register Notice for the Oklahoma
Regional Haze and Visibility Transport Federal Implementation
Plan,'' Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0190, 12/13/2011. See pages 7-
10, 12-21, 33-34, 46-47, 63-64, 68, 70-71, 80, 85-86, and 88. This
document can also be found in the docket for our final action on the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision (Docket No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2015-0189).
\39\ See Ariz. ex rel. Darwin v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519 (9th Cir.
2016), page 39: ``This argument restates Petitioners' objections to
EPA's reliance on the overnight costing methodology when it
partially disapproved Arizona's SIP. See supra note 14. EPA's use of
such a methodology in its own FIP's cost analysis is, without doubt,
reasonable.'' See also Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 (July 19,
2013), cert. denied (U.S. May 27, 2014) where EPA disapproved
certain BART determinations that did not rely on the overnight cost
methodology as well as relied on certain cost items such AFUDC which
are not allowed per the EPA Control Cost Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite our disagreement with the commenter on the above issues, we
note that our position on these issues does not ultimately impact our
final action given that even after considering the set of cost-
effectiveness figures that exclude the disallowed line items, we find
that ADEQ reasonably determined that the costs of DSI, enhanced DSI,
and dry scrubbers are not warranted after also taking into account the
level of anticipated visibility benefit at the affected Class I areas
due to these controls and the other BART factors, including
consideration that an Administrative Order that is part of the SIP
revision requires the White Bluff units to cease coal combustion by
December 31, 2028. We are therefore finalizing our proposed approval of
ADEQ's determination that SO2 BART for White Bluff Units 1
and 2 is an emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu based on the use of low
sulfur coal.
Comment: ADEQ's SO2 BART determination for White Bluff
Units 1 and 2 is based on a voluntary decision made by Entergy to cease
coal combustion at the units by December 31, 2028. White Bluff Units 1
and 2 are co-owned by Entergy, AECC, and several Arkansas
municipalities. Entergy and AECC are public utilities subject to the
jurisdiction of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC). Since
the Administrative Order requires Entergy to comply with applicable
law, EPA should acknowledge that Entergy is required to
[[Page 51040]]
seek APSC approval for the cessation of coal combustion at White Bluff
prior to the end of its effective useful life.
Response: The relevant consideration for BART determinations is
whether any commitment to change future operations, when such changes
impact the outcome of the BART analysis, is enforceable for purposes of
the SIP.\40\ Under a BART analysis, the remaining useful life of a
scrubber is assumed to be 30 years unless a facility has an enforceable
agreement in place to shut down or cease coal combustion earlier in
order for EPA or the state to rely on it in calculating the remaining
useful life as part of the BART determination analysis. Here, Entergy
entered into an Administrative Order with ADEQ, which is an enforceable
document that ADEQ has incorporated into its SIP revision, to cease
coal combustion at Units 1 and 2 at White Bluff by December 31, 2028.
It was therefore appropriate for ADEQ to rely on this cease to combust
coal date for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 in the calculation of the
units' remaining useful life, which is used to determine the cost
effectiveness of controls in the BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.d, k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent the commenter is contending that the Administrative
Order itself requires Entergy to obtain APSC approval in order to be
able to make the changes in operations necessary to comply with the
requirements of that Administrative Order (AO), we note that Provision
No. 12 provides that ``Nothing contained in this AO shall relieve
Entergy Arkansas of any obligations imposed by any other applicable
local, state, or federal laws, nor, except as specifically provided
herein, shall this AO be deemed in any way to relieve Entergy Arkansas
of responsibilities contained in the permit.'' \41\ EPA cannot comment
on what other local or state laws are applicable including whether
Entergy and some of the White Bluff co-owners are public utilities
subject to the jurisdiction of the APSC. With regard to the commenter's
statement that Entergy will be required to obtain approval from the
APSC with respect to the provisions in the Administrative Order, we
note that such matter falls under the jurisdiction of Arkansas state
law and is outside of the scope of our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The Administrative Order for Entergy can be found in the
Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM BART SIP Revision. See
Paragraph 12 of the Order and Agreement Section. https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/regional-haze/entergy-ao-executed-8-7-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that EPA should
acknowledge that approval will be required from the APSC because the
lack of such approval would prevent Entergy from complying with the
voluntary cessation of coal combustion, we note that Entergy has
entered into an enforceable Administrative Order, which requires the
cessation of coal combustion at White Bluff Units 1 and 2 by December
31, 2028. In this final action, we are approving the Administrative
Order as part of the SIP, and it is now therefore federally enforceable
as a source-specific requirement. If Entergy does not comply with the
terms of the Administrative Order, such as not ceasing coal combustion
by December 31, 2028, Entergy will be in violation of the SIP, which is
a federal requirement. Under Section 113 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7413),
which addresses, among other things, federal enforcement of SIPs, EPA
has the authority to enforce the terms of the Entergy Administrative
Order, such as ceasing coal combustion by December 31, 2028, that are
being incorporated into Arkansas' SIP here. In addition, under Section
304 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7604), citizens and/or citizens groups have
the authority to enforce emission limitations in orders, such as the
provisions within the Entergy Administrative Order, or require EPA to
do so, through the notice of the CAA citizens' suit process.
Comment: Entergy's five factor analysis for White Bluff does not
take into account any electric reliability or energy supply impacts
arising from Entergy's voluntary decision to prematurely close White
Bluff, which ultimately will require the replacement of White Bluff's
firm electric generating capacity, not only for Entergy but also for
the other White Bluff co-owners. This factor should have been
considered in the five-factor analysis for White Bluff.
Response: The commenter is correct that Entergy's BART analysis for
White Bluff, which is part of the SIP revision, and on which ADEQ based
its BART determination for White Bluff, did not identify any electric
reliability or energy supply impacts arising from Entergy's voluntary
decision to cease coal combustion at White Bluff. We note that the
energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance is one of
the factors that the CAA and the Regional Haze rule require to be
considered in the BART analysis.\42\ However, neither Entergy in its
BART analysis nor ADEQ in the SIP revision identify any adverse energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts associated with Entergy's
enforceable measure to cease coal combustion at White Bluff prior to
the end of the effective useful life of the facility, or with any other
BART control option evaluated. EPA is also not aware of any such
adverse impacts, and we therefore defer to ADEQ's determination that
there are no significant energy impacts to consider in the five-factor
BART analysis for White Bluff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Sec. 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and CAA section 169A(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reasonable Progress
Comment: EPA's proposed approval of ADEQ's reasonable progress
analysis and conclusions for the Independence facility are arbitrary,
capricious, and contrary to law. Dry scrubbers at Independence are
highly cost-effective when considering other regional haze actions in
Arkansas and elsewhere, and thus EPA's and ADEQ's consideration of cost
is arbitrary and unlawful. EPA should revise its proposed rule to find
that dry scrubbers at Independence are cost-effective and should be
required under reasonable progress.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that our proposed approval
of ADEQ's reasonable progress analysis and conclusions for the
Independence facility for the first implementation period are
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We do not contest that the
cost effectiveness of dry scrubbers at Independence on a dollar per ton
reduced ($/ton) basis is within the range of what other states and EPA
have found reasonable for reasonable progress controls. However, in
this action we evaluated ADEQ's reasonable progress analysis and
conclusions and determined that it was not unreasonable for the State
to conclude that dry scrubbers for Independence are not necessary to
make reasonable progress.
We noted in our proposal that Arkansas considered the capital costs
of dry scrubbers and wet scrubbers to be high even though the costs in
terms of $/ton of SO2 emissions reduced for both dry and wet
scrubbers at the Independence facility (assuming a 30-year remaining
useful life) are within a range that has been found to be cost-
effective in other regional haze actions.\43\ However, Arkansas'
reasonable progress determination was not just based on the
consideration of the cost-effectiveness of controls. Arkansas'
reasonable progress determination with respect to the Independence
facility was appropriately based on its consideration and weighing of
the costs of compliance along with the other reasonable progress
factors, as
[[Page 51041]]
well as visibility, which the state deemed to be a relevant factor for
consideration in its analysis. Arkansas discussed its concerns
regarding the cost of scrubber controls,\44\ noted that the evaluation
of the $/dv metric demonstrated a greater difference in cost between
dry FGD and low sulfur coal compared to the $/ton metric, and
ultimately concluded that all the controls it evaluated would cost
millions of dollars for what it considers to be little visibility
benefit. We explained in our proposal that we believe that Arkansas'
weighing of the four statutory factors and other factors it deemed
relevant in its reasonable progress analysis for the Independence
facility was reasonable and within the state's discretion.\45\
Furthermore, we note that our 2007 Reasonable Progress Guidance allows
for the deferral of emission reductions to later planning periods,
which ADEQ cites in its SIP,\46\ in deciding what amount of emissions
reduction is appropriate in setting the RPGs considering that the long-
term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses several planning
periods.\47\ We are finding here that considering all the above,
including the state's concerns about the cost of controls \48\ and
given that the state is requiring Independence Units 1 and 2 to switch
to low sulfur coal within 3 years under the long-term strategy, which
is expected to reduce SO2 emissions and result in visibility
improvements at Arkansas' Class I areas, it is not unreasonable for
Arkansas to weigh the factors in the way that it did and conclude that
no SO2 controls under the reasonable progress requirements
are necessary for the Independence facility in the first implementation
period. We are finalizing our approval of Arkansas' reasonable progress
determination with respect to the Independence facility and all other
Arkansas sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 83 FR 62230.
\44\ As discussed in our proposal, in light of Entergy's
anticipated cessation of coal combustion at the Independence
facility, although it is not state- or federally-enforceable,
Arkansas considered it important to take into account the capital
cost of controls along with the cost-effectiveness in terms of
dollars per ton of emissions reduced. In its consideration of the
cost of compliance, Arkansas also took into account that these costs
would be passed on to Arkansas ratepayers. See 83 FR 62230.
\45\ 83 FR 62233.
\46\ See pages 28-53 of Arkansas Final Regional Haze Phase II
SIP. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
\47\ See Section 1.2 of EPA's ``Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program'' (June 1, 2007).
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
\48\ EPA is revising its assessment of ADEQ's consideration of
capital costs in the state's reasonable progress determination for
Independence. We are clarifying that our evaluation and conclusion
in this final action that Arkansas' reasonable progress
determination is reasonable does not rely on Arkansas' consideration
of capital costs because Arkansas' decision to consider the capital
costs of scrubber controls in its analysis was based on Entergy's
anticipated early cessation of coal combustion at the Independence
facility, which is not state- or federally-enforceable. However, EPA
continues to find that ADEQ's determination is reasonable based on
the totality of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The proposed reasonable progress determination with
respect to the Independence facility is arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law because EPA's and ADEQ's reliance on the visibility
``glidepath'' is an excuse for avoiding pollution reductions and is
unlawful. ADEQ unlawfully concluded that no additional controls are
required at Independence largely because the state is on the
``glidepath'' toward natural visibility in distant decades. However,
the glidepath is not an independently enforceable requirement and being
``on the glidepath'' does not relieve the state of conducting a
reasoned analysis. EPA should revise its proposed rule to make clear
that ADEQ's reliance on the ``glidepath'' as an excuse to allow
unabated air pollution from the Independence facility is unlawful and
unreasonable.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that ADEQ concluded that
no additional controls are required at Independence because the state's
Class I areas are on the glidepath. Instead, ADEQ's determination on
reasonable progress with respect to the Independence facility was based
on its consideration and weighing of the four reasonable progress
factors, as well as consideration of potential visibility benefit of
controls, which the state deemed to be a relevant factor for
consideration in its analysis. We noted in our proposal that the
statutory factor that appears to have been the most significant in
Arkansas' reasonable progress determination with respect to the
Independence facility is the cost of compliance, along with
consideration of visibility benefits.\49\ As such, we disagree that
ADEQ's determination was based solely or primarily on the fact that the
state's Class I areas are on the glidepath toward natural visibility.
Regardless of any consideration Arkansas might have placed on the fact
that the state's Class I areas are on the glidepath in making its
reasonable progress determination, our proposed and final approval is
not based on the Class I areas' position with respect to the glidepath.
We explained in our proposal that considering the state's concerns
about the cost of the evaluated controls \50\ and given that the state
is requiring Independence Units 1 and 2 to switch to low sulfur coal
within 3 years under the long-term strategy, which is expected to
reduce SO2 emissions and result in visibility improvements
at Arkansas' Class I areas, we found that it is not unreasonable for
Arkansas to conclude that SO2 controls under the reasonable
progress requirements are not necessary for the Independence facility
in the first implementation period.\51\ Our proposal further stated
that one of the components forming the basis of our proposed approval
is ``the state's evaluation and reasonable weighing of the four
statutory factors along with consideration of the visibility benefits
of controls for the Independence facility.'' \52\ As is evident from
our discussion of ``degree of improvement in visibility'' in the
proposal, ADEQ considered the potential visibility benefits of controls
in its analysis of controls for Independence, as opposed to visibility
conditions in relation to the glidepath.\53\ We did not point to the
glidepath as a basis for our approval of the state's reasonable
progress analysis and determination. Therefore, the commenter is
incorrect in contending that EPA is relying on the visibility glidepath
as a reason for not requiring pollution reductions at the Independence
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 83 FR 62232.
\50\ As explained elsewhere in this section of the notice, EPA
is revising its assessment of ADEQ's consideration of capital costs
in the state's reasonable progress determination for Independence.
However, EPA continues to find that ADEQ's determination is
reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.
\51\ 83 FR 62233.
\52\ 83 FR 62233.
\53\ 83 FR 62229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: ADEQ cites the high capital costs of new scrubbers as a
basis for declining to require them for the Independence facility. This
is inappropriate because the capital costs are already assessed in the
calculation of cost-effectiveness and the rejection of a control on the
basis of capital costs neglects consideration of the benefits of that
control, which could justify that cost.
Response: While the commenter is correct that Arkansas considered
capital costs in its four-factor analysis and that its reasonable
progress determination was based in part on the capital cost of
controls, this was not the only factor Arkansas considered and based
its decision on. Arkansas considered the cost of controls in the form
of cost-effectiveness ($/ton) and capital costs, in addition to also
considering the remaining reasonable progress factors
[[Page 51042]]
and the anticipated visibility improvement of controls, as it deemed
consideration of visibility to be a relevant factor in its reasonable
progress analysis. Arkansas noted that the evaluation of the $/dv
metric demonstrated a greater difference in cost between dry FGD and
low sulfur coal compared to the $/ton metric, and ultimately concluded
that the controls it evaluated would cost millions of dollars for what
it considers to be little visibility benefit. Thus, Arkansas'
reasonable progress determination with respect to the Independence
facility was based on its consideration and weighing of the costs of
compliance and the other reasonable progress factors, as well as
visibility.
We do note that based on comments we received and having given the
matter further consideration, we realize that Arkansas' consideration
of capital costs in the four-factor analysis for the Independence
facility is not appropriate because the state's decision to consider
capital costs was rooted in Entergy's anticipated early cessation of
coal combustion at the Independence facility, which is not state- or
federally-enforceable. Considering the capital costs of controls in
this context would be equivalent to inappropriately assuming a shorter
remaining useful life for Independence in the cost-effectiveness
calculation based on an unenforceable measure to change future
operations. Therefore, we are clarifying that our evaluation and
conclusion in this final action that Arkansas' reasonable progress
determination is reasonable does not rely on Arkansas' consideration of
capital costs. EPA's long-standing position in other regional haze
actions is that consideration of certain cost metrics such as capital
costs and $/dv are not appropriate bases for rejecting controls that
would have otherwise been determined to be reasonable. However, given
the totality of the circumstances in this case, including the SIP's
requirement for Independence Units 1 and 2 to switch to low sulfur coal
within 3-years under the long-term strategy, the anticipated emissions
reductions due to the implementation of BART controls required by the
SIP revision,\54\ and the anticipated cessation of coal combustion at
Independence by the end of 2030, we continue to find that Arkansas
reasonably exercised its discretion in determining that no
SO2 controls are necessary under reasonable progress for the
Independence facility in the first implementation period. We do note
that we are merely clarifying the basis for our approval of Arkansas'
reasonable progress determination, but the outcome of our evaluation
and our decision to approve the state's reasonable progress
determination remain unchanged from proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision,'' section V.E, page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA should disapprove Arkansas' method of identifying
sources for further analysis under reasonable progress because Arkansas
failed to appropriately evaluate area sources, in particular
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO's). This is despite clear
evidence in the record that area sources, such as CAFO's, are a
significant part of the haze problem in Arkansas. CAFO's, which are a
source of ammonia emissions, are likely a significant contributor to
haze in Arkansas and ADEQ should have evaluated the cost-effectiveness
of controlling emissions from these sources.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that Arkansas' reasonable
progress analysis was inappropriate with respect to its treatment of
area sources, which includes CAFO's. EPA's Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program (EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance) provides that the reasonable progress
analysis involves identification of key pollutants and source
categories that contribute to visibility impairment at the Class I
area.\55\ The guidance provides that once the key pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area have been
identified, the sources or source categories responsible for emitting
these pollutants or pollutant precursors can also be determined.\56\
The reasonable progress factors are then to be applied to the key
pollutants and sources or source categories contributing to visibility
impairment at each affected Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See EPA's ``Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
under the Regional Haze Program'' (June 1, 2007), page 3-1. The
guidance document can be found at the following link: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
\56\ See EPA's ``Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
under the Regional Haze Program'' (June 1, 2007), page 3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach taken by Arkansas in its reasonable progress analysis
involved an assessment of both region-wide Particulate Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) data and PSAT data for Arkansas
sources.\57\ Based on this assessment, Arkansas identified sulfate
(SO4) as the key species contributing to light extinction at
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo. Arkansas further determined that the
primary driver of SO4 formation is emissions of
SO2 from point sources both region-wide and in Arkansas. As
such, Arkansas decided to focus on point sources emitting at least 250
tpy of SO2 to determine whether their emissions and
proximity to Arkansas Class I areas warranted further analysis using
the four statutory factors. Arkansas did assert that when all source
categories within Arkansas are considered, light extinction due to
Arkansas area sources is greater compared to the light extinction due
to Arkansas point sources at both Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo on the
20% worst days in 2002. However, Arkansas explained that the cost of
controlling many individual small area sources may be difficult to
quantify. CAFO's fall under the category of small area sources and it
is therefore likely that Arkansas would find it difficult to quantify
the cost of controlling emissions from CAFO's. While we acknowledge the
commenter's concerns regarding the visibility impact of ammonia
emissions from CAFO's, we note the BART Guidelines provide that states
should use their best judgment in deciding whether ammonia emissions
from a source are likely to have an impact on visibility in an area, as
controlling ammonia emissions in some areas may not have a significant
impact on visibility.\58\ The BART Guidelines further provide that
given that air quality modeling may not be feasible for individual
sources of ammonia, states should also exercise their judgement in
assessing the degree of visibility impacts due to emissions of ammonia
or ammonia compounds.\59\ Since our 2007 Reasonable Progress Guidance
does not itself provide recommendations on how sources of ammonia
should be addressed in the reasonable progress analysis, we believe it
would be reasonable for states to rely on the BART Guidelines in this
instance for addressing ammonia emissions under the reasonable progress
analysis. Therefore, we find that Arkansas' decision not to evaluate
sources of ammonia emissions in its reasonable progress analysis to be
reasonable. We find that Arkansas has provided a reasoned basis for the
approach it took
[[Page 51043]]
to identify sources for further consideration in the reasonable
progress analysis and we find that it is reasonable for Arkansas to
arrive at the decision not to further examine area sources in its
reasonable progress analysis for the first implementation period. We
also note that states may prioritize their planning in the manner that
best suits their circumstances, so long as they demonstrate that their
prioritization is reasonable given the statutory requirement to make
reasonable progress. Our 2007 Reasonable Progress Guidance provides
that states may wish to defer emission reductions to later planning
periods, which ADEQ cites in its SIP,\60\ since the long-term goal of
no manmade impairment encompasses several planning periods.\61\ We find
that ADEQ has appropriately decided to focus on the point source
category for evaluation of SO2 emissions reductions in the
reasonable progress analysis for the first planning period. In future
planning periods, it may be appropriate for Arkansas to reevaluate the
benefit of addressing emissions from area sources, which will likely
become more important as emissions from other source categories are
reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ As part of its reasonable progress analysis, ADEQ provided
a discussion of the results of air quality modeling performed by the
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) in support of SIP
development in the central states region. The CENRAP modeling
included Particulate Source Apportionment Technology Tool (PSAT)
with CAMx version 4.4, which was used to provide source
apportionment by geographic regions and major source categories for
pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment at each of the
Class I areas in the central states region.
\58\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, II(A)(3).
\59\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, II(A)(3).
\60\ See pages 28-53 of Arkansas Final Regional Haze Phase II
SIP. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
\61\ See Section 1.2 of EPA's ``Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program'' (June 1, 2007).
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Although the commenter supports EPA's proposal to approve
ADEQ's reasonable progress determination, which requires no additional
controls on sources in Arkansas for the first planning period, the
commenter believes that a four-factor analysis was not required because
controls are not necessary to ensure reasonable progress for the first
planning period. The threshold issue when addressing reasonable
progress is whether further actions are necessary to ensure that
visibility improvement is continuing toward background levels (i.e., on
or below the uniform rate of progress (URP)). Since Arkansas' Class I
areas are below the URP and are already meeting the RPGs Arkansas
established in the SIP revision, a reasonable progress analysis was not
required.
Response: While we appreciate the commenter's support of our
proposed approval of Arkansas' reasonable progress determination, we
disagree with the commenter that it was not necessary for Arkansas to
conduct a reasonable progress analysis for the first implementation
period. The Clean Air Act requires that states' SIPs contain a long-
term strategy for making reasonable progress, and that in determining
reasonable progress states must consider the very four-factor analysis
which the commenter purports is not needed. The Regional Haze Rule
implements the statutory requirements and provides that states must
determine whether controls are necessary to ensure reasonable progress
based on four statutory factors. The preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze
Rule states that ``. . . EPA is not specifying in this final rule what
specific control measures a State must implement in its initial SIP for
regional haze. That determination can only be made by a State once it
has conducted the necessary technical analyses of emissions, air
quality, and the other factors that go into determining reasonable
progress.'' \62\ The Regional Haze Rule clearly states that the
technical analysis of the four factors that determines what is
necessary for reasonable progress occurs prior to a reasonable progress
determination, including in cases where the reasonable progress
determination is that no further controls are required under reasonable
progress.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 64 FR 35721.
\63\ See 64 FR 35714 at 35721 and 35731-35735 and 35734 (July 1,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 169A(g)(1) provides that reasonable progress is
determined by consideration of (1) the costs of compliance, (2) the
time necessary for compliance, (3) the energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and (4) the remaining useful life
of any existing source subject to such requirements. The Regional Haze
regulations under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) also require consideration
of these four statutory factors when establishing the RPGs for a Class
I area, along with a demonstration showing how these factors were taken
into consideration in selecting the goal.
The statute and regulations are both clear that the states have the
authority and obligation to evaluate the four reasonable progress
factors and that the decision regarding the controls required to make
reasonable progress and the subsequent establishment of the RPGs must
be based on these factors identified in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and the
Regional Haze regulations under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). The URP
framework is not based on the four statutory factors, but is instead an
analytical tool created by extrapolating emission reductions from the
mid-1990s through approximately 2005 into the future.\64\ While Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) of the Regional Haze regulations requires that a
state also consider the URP glidepath in establishing the RPGs, this
does not mean that no further analysis or controls are required as long
as a state's Class I areas are below the URP, as the commenter
contends. In fact, the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule
reinforces that the amount of progress that is reasonable is defined
based on the statutory factors, notwithstanding the URP.\65\ Clearly, a
state's obligation to evaluate the four statutory factors and set RPGs
based on CAA section 169A(g)(1) and Sec. 51.308(d)(1) applies in all
cases, without regard to the Class I area's position relative to the
URP. There is nothing in the CAA or Regional Haze regulations that
suggests that a state's obligation to ensure reasonable progress can be
met by just meeting the URP.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 64 FR 35731-35733.
\65\ 64 FR 35732.
\66\ See 77 FR 14604, at 14629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that our conclusion here is consistent with our final
action on the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP, where we disapproved
Arkansas' RPGs and found that Arkansas had not met its reasonable
progress obligations precisely because the state established its RPGs
without conducting an evaluation of the four statutory factors and did
so based on the fact that its Class I areas were below the URP
glidepath. In the preamble to our final action on the 2008 Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP, we were clear that an evaluation of the four
statutory factors is required regardless of the Class I area's position
relative to the URP glidepath:
[B]eing on the ``glidepath'' does not mean a state is allowed to
forego an evaluation of the four statutory factors when establishing
its RPGs. Based on an evaluation of the four statutory factors,
states may determine that RPGs that provide for a greater rate of
visibility improvement than would be achieved with the URP for the
first implementation period are reasonable.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 77 FR 14629.
Our final action on the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP was published in
the Federal Register on March 12, 2012, and became effective on April
11, 2012. Our final action disapproving Arkansas' reasonable progress
determination and RPGs and our position with regard to the URP was not
challenged. We reiterate in this final action that the CAA and Regional
Haze regulations require an analysis of the four reasonable progress
factors regardless of a Class I area's position relative to the URP and
that being below the glide path
[[Page 51044]]
does not automatically mean that no controls are necessary under
reasonable progress.
With regard to the commenter's argument that it was not necessary
for Arkansas to conduct a four-factor analysis given that Arkansas
Class I areas are already meeting the RPGs established in the SIP
revision, we note first that this is a circular argument. The numeric
RPGs are calculated by taking into account the visibility improvement
anticipated from enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures (including BART, reasonable progress, and other ``on the
books'' controls). Thus, the RPGs for the first planning period
represent the best estimate of the degree of visibility improvement
that will result in 2018 from changes in emissions inventories, changes
driven by the particular set of control measures the state has adopted
in its regional haze SIP to address visibility, as well as all other
enforceable measures expected to reduce emissions over the period of
the SIP from 2002 to 2018.\68\ To argue that a four-factor analysis is
not needed because the RPGs, which are based in part on the outcome of
that very four-factor analysis, are at a certain level is circular.
Furthermore, the Regional Haze Rule provides that the emission
limitations and control measures established under BART and under the
reasonable progress determinations are what is enforceable, not the
RPGs themselves.\69\ EPA cannot enforce an RPG in the sense of seeking
to apply penalties on a state for failing to meet the RPG or obtaining
injunctive relief to require a state to achieve its RPG. However, the
long-term strategy can and must contain emission limits and other
control measures that apply to specific sources, and that are
themselves enforceable. Meeting or being projected to meet the RPG does
not automatically demonstrate that a state has satisfied its
requirements under BART and reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 64 FR 35733.
\69\ 64 FR 35733.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter supports EPA's proposal to approve ADEQ's
reasonable progress determination, which requires no additional
controls on sources in Arkansas for the first planning period. However,
Arkansas' reasonable progress analysis ``broadly applicable'' to
Arkansas sources was sufficient to satisfy the reasonable progress
requirements and Arkansas surpassed the CAA requirements when it
nonetheless undertook an analysis that applied the four reasonable
progress factors to the Independence facility. EPA inappropriately
proposed to conclude that the broad analysis was merely ``informative''
and ``not a determinative component of the state's reasonable progress
analysis.'' Even if a four-factor analysis were necessary in this case,
ADEQ's broad analysis was sufficient to satisfy its reasonable progress
obligations, making a site-specific four-factor analysis for
Independence unnecessary. ADEQ's broad approach was appropriate, as
there is no requirement that a reasonable progress analysis be
performed on a source-specific basis. EPA should conclude that this
broad analysis was sufficient and rendered further analysis, including
any source-specific four-factor analysis, unnecessary.
Response: While we appreciate the commenter's support of our
proposed approval of ADEQ's reasonable progress determination, we
disagree with the commenter that the broad analysis included in ADEQ's
SIP revision satisfies this reasonable progress obligation and note
that it is not a basis for our approval of ADEQ's reasonable progress
analysis. While it may not be necessary to conduct a source-specific
analysis of the four factors in all instances to satisfy the reasonable
progress obligations,\70\ we do not agree that the broad analysis
provided in ADEQ's SIP revision complies with the applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements. As discussed further below, the broad
analysis of a group of sources provided by ADEQ in the SIP revision
does not clearly identify any sources or controls that were evaluated
in the state's weighing of the costs and other statutory factors nor
did it estimate in specific numeric form the cost of controls, making
it clear that the dispositive consideration in the broad analysis was
visibility conditions with respect to the URP.\71\ Therefore, we find
that the broad analysis presented in the SIP revision does not satisfy
Arkansas' reasonable progress obligations. ADEQ's broad analysis does
not discuss pollutants or identify possible specific controls for these
pollutants or for source categories for these pollutants. Instead, in
evaluating the costs of compliance, the broad analysis discusses in a
very generic manner the anticipated impact of additional costs of
compliance on the health and vitality of industries within the state
and on Arkansas ratepayers, without ever even identifying the potential
controls or discussing actual cost estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ On the contrary, we discussed in our proposal that we agree
that an approach that involves a broad analysis of groups of sources
or source categories may be appropriate in certain cases, as
provided by EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance. 83 FR 62232.
\71\ 83 FR 62232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, ADEQ itself deemed the application of the four factors to
the Independence facility necessary, stating in the SIP revision that
``due to the circumstances of the 2016 AR RH FIP, which applied the
factors to a single facility, Independence, ADEQ has determined that
application of the four factors to the specific source analyzed by EPA
is also ``relevant.'' \72\ The SIP revision further explains that for
this reason, ``ADEQ has performed both a broader analysis using the
four factors as well as a more narrow analysis specific to Independence
before determining whether any controls are necessary.'' \73\ ADEQ did
not reach a final determination regarding reasonable progress until
after evaluating large point sources individually to identify sources
for potential further evaluation under the four reasonable progress
factors and conducting a more narrow and focused analysis on those
sources. In this case, one source was identified for further evaluation
under the four reasonable progress factors, specifically, the
Independence facility. Therefore, we are concluding that the state's
broad analysis of a group of sources was not a determinative component
of the state's reasonable progress analysis. We appreciate the
thoroughness of the state's reasonable progress analysis but reiterate
and clarify, as necessary, here that the broad analysis is not a
component of our finding that the state has satisfied the reasonable
progress requirements.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision,'' section V, page 30.
\73\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision,'' section V, page 30.
\74\ See 83 FR 62233 (laying out the four components of ADEQ's
reasonable progress analysis on which EPA based its proposed
approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we disagree with the commenter that the broad analysis
included in ADEQ's SIP revision satisfies Arkansas' reasonable progress
obligations, we are finalizing our proposed approval of ADEQ's
reasonable progress determination based on the following: (1) The
state's discussion of the key pollutants and source categories that
contribute to visibility impairment in Arkansas' Class I areas per the
CENRAP's source apportionment modeling; (2) the state's identification
of a group of large SO2 point sources in Arkansas for
potential evaluation of controls under reasonable progress; (3) the
state's rationale for narrowing down its list of potential sources to
evaluate under the reasonable progress requirements; and (4) the
state's evaluation and reasonable
[[Page 51045]]
weighing of the four statutory factors along with consideration of the
visibility benefits of controls for the Independence facility.
Comment: No additional controls can be considered for reasonable
progress at sources in Arkansas since no controls could be implemented
before the end of the first planning period in 2018. EPA's regulations
require SIPs to consider ``the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve [reasonable progress goals] for the period covered by the
implementation plan.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). In staying the
effectiveness of EPA's Regional Haze FIP for the state of Texas, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that ``[t]he
emissions controls included in a state implementation plan . . . must
be those designed to achieve the reasonable progress goal for the
period covered by the plan,'' and that the parties challenging the FIP
``persuasively argue that [EPA's requirement that power plants meet
Reasonable Progress goals by installing scrubbers in 2019 and 2021]
exceeds the power granted by the Regional Haze Rule.'' Texas v. EPA,
829 F.3d 405, 429 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). It is
therefore inappropriate to require reasonable progress controls in a
SIP for the first planning period when the controls cannot be installed
or result in visibility benefits in that planning period.
Response: The Fifth Circuit stay decision cited by the commenter
suggested that it was likely that the EPA had exceeded its statutory
authority by imposing emission controls that go into effect after the
end of the implementation period in the Texas Regional Haze FIP. This
assessment is incorrect. First, we note that the decision, by a Fifth
Circuit motions panel, did not cite to a provision of the CAA to
support the proposition that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority,
as the CAA contains no such constraint. Subsequent to the Fifth Circuit
decision to grant a stay of the EPA's Texas FIP, EPA finalized its
revisions to the Regional Haze Rule, and, in the process, clarified its
long-standing interpretation of the relationship between long-term
strategies and RPGs. As stated in the final rule, ``portions of the
stay decision indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of aspects of the
visibility program and the EPA's action on the Oklahoma and Texas
regional haze SIPs.'' 82 FR 3078, 3087 (January 10, 2017). CAA section
169A(b)(2)(B) requires that SIPs include ``a long-term (ten to fifteen
years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal.'' In our rulemaking, we noted that ``ten to fifteen
years'' was ambiguous and could either mean that the long-term strategy
must be updated every ten to fifteen years or that it must be fully
implemented within ten to fifteen years. To impose the latter
interpretation would restrict states' or the EPA's ability to require
controls that could not be fully implemented before the end of the
implementation period and would incentivize states to delay the
submission of a regional haze SIP since they could essentially ``run
out the clock.'' Further, EPA's 2007 reasonable progress guidance
specifically recognized that the time needed for full implementation of
a control measure might extend beyond the end of the implementation
period.\75\ Additionally, EPA does not lose its authority to regulate
after a deadline, even a mandatory deadline, has passed; rather, the
appropriate remedy is a court order compelling the agency to fulfill
the regulatory obligation. For a more in-depth discussion on this
issue, please see our final rule at 82 FR 3078, 3087-3089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under
the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Although EPA should finalize its approval of ADEQ's
reasonable progress determination, EPA's analysis of the application of
DSI and enhanced DSI at the Independence facility should not be part of
EPA's final action. ADEQ did not assess these two control technologies
in its four-factor analysis for Independence, nor was it required to.
Therefore, EPA's DSI and enhanced DSI analyses are inappropriate and
extraneous and should not be included in the final action, as EPA has
no authority under the CAA to substitute its judgment for that of the
state's. Nevertheless, the commenter does agree that DSI and enhanced
DSI are not required under reasonable progress.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposal to
approve ADEQ's reasonable progress determination. While ADEQ's decision
to not evaluate DSI or enhanced DSI at the Independence facility does
not change the result of the state's determination and we are therefore
approving that determination here, we disagree that our analysis of DSI
and enhanced DSI at Independence should not be part of our final
action. As we explained in our proposal, since the White Bluff and
Independence facilities are sister facilities with nearly identical
units and comparable levels of annual SO2 emissions, and
since both DSI and enhanced DSI were evaluated in the BART analysis for
White Bluff Units 1 and 2, we find it appropriate to consider these
controls in the four-factor analysis for the Independence facility as
well.\76\ However, neither the SIP revision nor Entergy's four factor
analysis for controls on the Independence facility considered DSI or
enhanced DSI as control options. Therefore, we provided this
information in our proposal to demonstrate that even if ADEQ had
considered DSI and enhanced DSI in its reasonable progress analysis for
the Independence facility, it likely would not have changed the state's
final determination on reasonable progress.\77\ We note that we
estimated the cost-effectiveness of DSI and enhanced DSI at the
Independence facility by relying on Entergy's estimates of the capital
costs and annual operation and maintenance costs of these controls for
White Bluff. Thus, based on the results of our analysis of DSI and
enhanced DSI, we do not consider the omission of consideration of DSI
and enhanced DSI as control options for SO2 at the
Independence facility to be an impediment to approving ADEQ's
reasonable progress analysis. Without the results of our analysis of
DSI and enhanced DSI for the Independence facility, we would not be
able to arrive at the conclusion that ADEQ's omission did not impact
our ultimate conclusion regarding the state's reasonable progress
analysis. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that our analysis
of DSI and enhanced DSI for the Independence facility is unnecessary in
our review and approval of ADEQ's reasonable progress analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 83 FR 62232.
\77\ 83 FR 62232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter agrees that Independence is not subject to
BART, that no additional controls beyond use of low-sulfur coal at
Independence are necessary to achieve reasonable progress and agrees
with the adoption of low-sulfur coal as the long-term strategy for
Independence.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our proposal
with respect to the Independence facility and the long-term strategy.
C. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Comment: EPA's proposed rule as a whole violates the Clean Air
Act's ``anti-backsliding'' requirement, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). Compared to
the existing FIP, the State's plan would result in greater air
pollution and greater visibility impairment at affected Class I areas.
In the 2016 Arkansas FIP, EPA required Independence Units 1 and 2 to
meet SO2 emission limits based on the use of new
[[Page 51046]]
scrubbers under the reasonable progress provisions. Now, EPA has
proposed to approve a SIP revision that would replace those
SO2 emission limits with much higher limits based on the use
of low-sulfur coal. In addition, whereas the existing FIP requires
White Bluff Units 1 and 2 to meet SO2 emission limits based
on the use of new scrubbers, the proposed SIP revision would replace
that requirement with a much higher emission limit based on the use of
low sulfur coal. The SIP revision includes no reductions beyond those
in the FIP that would compensate for allowing higher SO2
emissions from both Independence and White Bluff. As a result, EPA's
proposed rule would authorize significantly more SO2
emissions and produce worse air quality than the existing FIP. Section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act prohibits a plan revision that would weaken
the existing FIP requirements in this manner. This increase in
SO2 emissions under the SIP relative to the FIP violates the
Clean Air Act's anti-backsliding provision, which prohibits plan
revisions that would interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or other
``applicable requirements'' of the Act and prohibits plan revisions
that would interfere with an existing requirement to make reasonable
further progress.
Response: We disagree that our rulemaking violates the CAA's
requirements under section 110(l). The commenter mischaracterizes CAA
section 110(l)'s requirements. Section 110(l) states that, ``[t]he
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with an applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' First, the SIP revision will not interfere with the
``applicable requirements'' of the regional haze program. The CAA
requires that the SIP ``contain such emission limits, schedules of
compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal.'' The corresponding federal
regulations found at 40 CFR 51.308 and appendix Y to part 51 detail the
required process for determining the appropriate emission limits for
the regional haze program. The State followed the prescribed process
for determining the levels of control that are required for BART and
reasonable progress. Our approval of the SIP revision is supported by
our evaluation of the state's conclusions and our determination that
the BART and reasonable progress requirements under the CAA are met.
The rationale supporting that determination was presented in the notice
of proposed rulemaking for this action.\78\ For these reasons, our
final approval of the SIP revision and concurrent withdrawal of the
corresponding parts of the FIP will not interfere with the CAA
requirements for BART or reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 83 FR 62204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. EPA
interprets CAA section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA
has not yet made designations. EPA has concluded that 110(l) can be
satisfied by demonstrating that substitute measures ensure that status
quo air quality is preserved. However, 110(l) can also be satisfied by
an air quality analysis demonstrating that any change in emissions will
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
Noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS may be demonstrated by an
air quality analysis showing that any emission changes associated with
the revision will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. This
option requires a showing that the area (as well as interstate and
intrastate areas downwind) can attain the NAAQS even with the plan in
its revised form. See, e.g. Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA,
467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006).
Though the commenter is correct in noting that the higher
SO2 emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 contained
in the SIP are replacing the more stringent SO2 emission
limits contained in the FIP, the commenter fails to consider that the
SIP revision contains an Administrative Order making enforceable
Entergy's voluntary plans to cease coal combustion at White Bluff Units
1 and 2 by December 31, 2028. Because the cessation of coal combustion
will lead to emission reductions greater than the SO2
emission reductions required for White Bluff under the FIP, the SIP
revision with respect to the SO2 limits for White Bluff will
clearly not interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress
in the long term (i.e., after December 31, 2028).
While it is true that the FIP included more stringent
SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1 and 2 than the
SIP revision,\79\ there is no evidence that withdrawal of the
SO2 limits in the FIP for White Bluff and Independence and
the approval of the SO2 emission limits in the SIP revision
will interfere with attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. At this
time, and notwithstanding the fact that the FIP provisions have not
gone into effect, the areas that would be potentially impacted by the
increase in SO2 emissions allowed under the SIP revision as
compared to the FIP are attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Based on an assessment of current air quality in the areas most
affected by this SIP revision, which we discuss in the paragraphs that
follow, we are concluding that the near term less stringent
SO2 emissions limits in the SIP will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS. Jefferson County, where the White Bluff
facility is located, was designated by EPA as ``attainment/
unclassifiable,'' for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a
rulemaking signed on June 30, 2016.\80\ This area was able to attain
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS without the emissions limits that
were promulgated in the FIP being implemented. In the same June 30,
2016 rulemaking, EPA designated Independence County, where the
Independence facility is located, as ``unclassifiable'' for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\81\ In a subsequent rulemaking signed on
March 7, 2019, EPA approved the State of Arkansas' request to
redesignate Independence County from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable based on a new modeling analysis provided by the
State.\82\ In a rulemaking signed on December 21,
[[Page 51047]]
2017, EPA designated all remaining areas in Arkansas as attainment/
unclassifiable.\83\ On March 18, 2019, EPA finalized a rule which
retained the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. At the time that
Independence County, Jefferson County, and all other areas in Arkansas
were designated or redesignated as attainment/unclassifiable under the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in June 2016, December 2017, and March
2019, Independence Units 1 and 2 and White Bluff Units 1 and 2 were
emitting SO2 at levels not restricted by SIP or FIP limits.
So the establishment of the SIP limits based on low sulfur coal will
not interfere with attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the near
term. In the long term, the cessation of coal combustion at White Bluff
will result in more reductions in SO2 emissions than the FIP
and will result in further improvement in air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Entergy plans to cease coal combustion at Independence
Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2030, which we expect would result in
comparable or greater SO2 emissions reductions than
required for the Independence facility under the FIP. However, this
planned cessation of coal combustion at the Independence units by
the end of 2030 is not required under the SIP revision.
\80\ The EPA's attainment/unclassifiable designation for
Jefferson County was based on, among other things, our evaluation of
the State's modeling that showed attainment, and which we concluded
generally followed EPA guidance. See 81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016).
\81\ The EPA's unclassifiable designation for Independence
County was based on, among other things, our evaluation of the
State's air dispersion modeling analysis, as well as the additional
modeling analysis submitted by environmental groups for the area
surrounding the Independence Steam Electric Station. Based on our
evaluation of these analyses and our consideration of all available
data and information, the EPA determined that the area cannot be
classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS based on information
available at the time. See 81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016).
\82\ EPA determined that the modeling analysis submitted by the
State appropriately characterized the air quality in Independence
County, Arkansas, and predicted that ambient SO2
concentrations are below the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 84 FR
8986 (March 13, 2019).
\83\ The EPA's designations for remaining areas in the state
were based on an assessment and characterization of air quality
through ambient air quality data, air dispersion modeling, other
evidence and supporting information, or a combination of the above.
See 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since sulfate is a precursor to particulate matter, there is also a
need to address whether withdrawal of the FIP and approval of the SIP
revision will interfere with attainment of the PM NAAQS. There is no
evidence that withdrawal of the SO2 limits in the FIP and
the approval of the SO2 emission limits in the SIP revision
will interfere with attainment of the PM NAAQS. At this time, and
notwithstanding the fact that the FIP provisions have not gone into
effect, the areas that would be potentially impacted by the increase in
SO2 emissions are attaining the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. In a Federal Register document signed on January 15, 2015, EPA
designated all areas in Arkansas as unclassifiable/attainment under the
2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\84\ All areas in Arkansas were able
to attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS before the
SO2 and PM emissions limits from the FIP were promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 80 FR 2206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FIP provisions might have produced better air quality
than the provisions we are approving into the SIP, CAA section 110(l)
does not require that each SIP revision include greater emissions
reductions than the plan being revised or replaced. Instead, section
110(l) requires a showing that approval of the SIP revision will not
interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable CAA provision. In this case, the relevant areas are
attaining the SO2 and PM NAAQS even though the units at
White Bluff and Independence are emitting SO2 at levels not
restricted by SIP or FIP limits. Thus, by approving the State's 0.60
lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2
and Independence Units 1 and 2, the EPA is approving limits that will
further reduce emissions from the levels that were already sufficient
to designate the potentially impacted areas as attainment/
unclassifiable for both the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest
that areas will not continue to attain the NAAQS following our approval
of the SIP and concurrent withdrawal of the FIP.\85\ Therefore, we find
that EPA approval of the 0.60 lb/MMBtu SO2 BART emission
limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 and the 0.60 lb/MMBtu
SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1 and 2 under the
long-term strategy will not interfere with attainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS or the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
under CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ We also note that for any area where modeling of actual
SO2 emissions served as the basis for designating such
area as attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the
SO2 Data Requirements Rule under 40 CFR 51.1205 requires
the submission of an annual report that documents the annual
SO2 emissions of each applicable source in each such area
and provides an assessment of the cause of any emissions increase
from the previous year. That report must also include a
recommendation regarding whether additional modeling is needed to
characterize air quality in any area to determine whether the area
continues to meet the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Since
modeling of actual SO2 emissions served as the basis for
EPA's designation of Jefferson County, where the White Bluff
facility is located, and redesignation of Independence County, where
the Independence facility is located, this annual reporting
requirement applies to ADEQ. The data and other information provided
by ADEQ in this annual report will help EPA assess whether actual
annual SO2 emissions from White Bluff, Independence, and
other sources in Arkansas have increased to such an extent that
there is uncertainty as to whether the areas where these sources are
located continue to meet the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. At
this time, no reports have been submitted by ADEQ that indicate that
revised modeling of SO2 emissions from sources in
Jefferson and Independence Counties is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, since there are no areas in Arkansas designated
nonattainment under the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the increase in SO2 emissions
would not impact any such nonattainment areas in the state. We are also
not aware of any nonattainment areas in downwind states that are likely
to be impacted by these emissions.
While the comment appears to focus on SO2 controls for
the White Bluff and Independence facilities, to the extent that the
commenter is contending that the SO2 emission limits we are
taking final action to approve for other facilities would also violate
the CAA's requirements under section 110(l), we note that this claim is
incorrect. As explained above, one way of demonstrating noninterference
is by showing that the status quo air quality will be preserved. In
this case, the SO2 controls for all other sources in the
Phase II SIP revision (i.e., AECC Bailey Unit 1, AECC McClellan Unit 1,
AEP/SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1, Entergy Lake Catherine Unit
4, and the Entergy White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler), which we are taking
final action to approve, are identical to those contained in the
Arkansas FIP. All the PM BART controls in the Phase II SIP revision,
which we are taking final action to approve, are also identical to
those contained in the Arkansas FIP.
Comment: EPA's approval of ADEQ's SIP revisions is appropriate even
though the SIP revision is not based on installation of the same
control technology that was used to set the limits for White Bluff and
Independence in the currently stayed FIP. While EPA has interpreted the
CAA's anti-backsliding provision as allowing the Agency ``to approve a
SIP revision unless the agency finds it will make the air quality
worse,'' that standard is inapplicable here where the existing
requirements have not yet gone into effect and are the subject of
administrative and judicial challenges. Specifically, the
SO2 requirements for White Bluff and Independence were
judicially stayed and cannot be deemed to represent the existing
limitations applicable to the units. Thus, nothing in the SIP revision
``weakens or removes any pollution controls.'' To the contrary, the SIP
revision would impose emission limitations that are better than the
status quo.
Response: We agree with the commenter's assertion that, in this
particular case, our approval of the SIP is appropriate even though the
SIP revision is not based on installation of the same control
technology that was used to set the limits for White Bluff and
Independence in the FIP. However, we disagree with the commenter's
characterization of the requirements of CAA 110(l) and the commenter's
characterization of EPA's interpretation of those requirements. Under
section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a plan revision if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS, or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 110(l) applies to
all requirements of the CAA and to all areas of the country regardless
of their attainment status. To evaluate whether a plan revision would
interfere with any requirements, air pollutants
[[Page 51048]]
whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of
the revision must be identified. Noninterference with attainment of the
NAAQS may be demonstrated by an air quality analysis showing that any
emission changes associated with the revision will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS. This option requires a showing that the area
(as well as interstate and intrastate areas downwind) can attain the
NAAQS even with the plan in its revised form. Noninterference may also
be demonstrated by showing that the status quo air quality is preserved
by the use of substitute measures to compensate for any emissions
increases associated with the revision. See Kentucky Resources Council
v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006). A revision that maintains the
status quo would not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. See
Wildearth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). In general,
the level of rigor needed for any 110(l) demonstration will vary
depending on the nature of the revision, its potential impact on air
quality and the air quality in the affected area.
D. Modeling
Comment: We received comments arguing that the CALPUFF model is
unreliable and should not be used in making BART determinations. A
commenter stated that although CALPUFF may have had some limited
utility in the BART screening process, it should not be used in making
an SO2 BART determination for White Bluff due to its
purported limitations in accuracy and precision given the distances to
Class I areas and the atmospheric conditions involved, as well as
limited chemistry mechanism and blanket background ammonia values. One
commenter presumed that CAMx modeling for White Bluff would likely show
negligible visibility improvements from each of the SO2
controls evaluated and contended that SO2 BART is therefore
the use of low sulfur coal even without Entergy's voluntary decision to
cease coal combustion at White Bluff. Commenters also argued that
CALPUFF is no longer an EPA preferred model, and that EPA should
instead rely on the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx), which the commenter claims is more reliable in characterizing
visibility impairment.
Response: As we discuss in the Response to Comments (RTC) Document
associated wih this rulemaking \86\ and the RTC Document associated
with the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP,\87\ the use of CALPUFF in the
context of the Regional Haze rule provides results that can be used to
evaluate the level of visibility benefits anticipated for each level of
control and is one of several factors considered in the overall BART
determination. In the rulemaking for the BART Guidelines, we responded
to comments concerning the limitations and appropriateness of using
CALPUFF, and we further addressed similar comments in the RTC document
associated with the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP. We stated in the BART
Guidelines that the visibility results from CALPUFF could be used as
one of the five factors in a BART evaluation and the impacts could be
utilized because CALPUFF was the best modeling method available to
calculate potential impacts for a BART evaluation.\88\ The regulatory
status of CALPUFF was changed in the recent revisions to the Guideline
on Air Quality Models (GAQM) \89\ as far as the classification of
CALPUFF as a preferred model for transport of pollutants for primary
impacts, not impacts based on chemistry. The GAQM changes indicated
that the change in model preferred status had no impact on the use of
CALPUFF to determine the applicability of BART or the BART
determination itself.\90\ CALPUFF is an appropriate tool for BART
evaluations and remains the recommended model for BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision Response
to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated with this
final rulemaking.
\87\ See ``Response to Comments for the Federal Register Notice
for the State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility
Transport Federal Implementation Plan,'' dated 8/31/2016. See Docket
ID. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, Document ID. AR020.0187.
\88\ 70 FR 39123, 39124. ``We understand the concerns of
commenters that the chemistry modules of the CALPUFF model are less
advanced than some of the more recent atmospheric chemistry
simulations. To date, no other modeling applications with updated
chemistry have been approved by EPA to estimate single source
pollutant concentrations from long range transport.'' and in
discussion of using other models with more advanced chemistry it
continues, ``A discussion of the use of alternative models is given
in the Guideline on Air Quality in appendix W, section 3.2.''
\89\ 82 FR 5182, 5196 (Jan. 17, 2017).
\90\ 82 FR 5182, 5196 (Jan. 17, 2017). ``As detailed in the
preamble of the proposed rule, it is important to note that the
EPA's final action to remove CALPUFF as a preferred appendix A model
in this Guideline does not affect its use under the FLM's guidance
regarding AQRV assessments (FLAG 2010) nor any previous use of this
model as part of regulatory modeling applications required under the
CAA. Similarly, this final action does not affect the EPA's
recommendation [See 70 FR 39104, 39122-23 (July 6, 2005)] that
states use CALPUFF to determine the applicability and level of best
available retrofit technology in regional haze implementation
plans.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter contends that CALPUFF may have had some limited
utility in the BART screening process (i.e., making ``subject-to-BART''
determinations), but that its use for making a BART determination for
White Bluff is not appropriate. We disagree with this contention. The
BART Guidelines provide that states should establish a threshold that
should be no higher than 0.5 deciviews for determining whether sources
contribute to visibility and are therefore subject to BART \91\ and
recommend the use of CALPUFF \92\ to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source at a Class I area to compare against this
threshold as well as to help inform the BART determination.\93\ The
CALPUFF modeling ADEQ relied on in its SO2 BART
determination for White Bluff is consistent with the BART Guidelines
and Appendix W. Nearly every BART determination made since the
promulgation of the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines has
utilized the CALPUFF modeling method in analyzing impacts. Absent any
additional information that would justify not using the CALPUFF model
in this particular case, it is appropriate for the state to rely on
CALPUFF modeling as it has done to support the White Bluff BART
determination, consistent with the modeling for nearly every other BART
determination EPA has reviewed and acted upon. EPA also concluded from
the evaluation of the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling
(IWAQM) Phase 2 Report case studies that the CALPUFF dispersion model
performs in a reasonable manner and has no apparent bias toward over or
under prediction, so long as the transport distance is limited to less
than 300 km.94 95 We note that since the BART Guidelines
were finalized in 2005
[[Page 51049]]
there has been more modeling with CALPUFF for BART and PSD primary
impact purposes and the general community has utilized CALPUFF in the
300-450 km range many times. EPA has indicated historically that use of
CALPUFF was generally acceptable at 300 km and for larger emissions
sources with elevated stacks EPA and FLM representatives have also
allowed or supported the use of CALPUFF results beyond 400 km in some
cases.\96\ EPA and FLM representatives have weighed the additional
potential uncertainties with the magnitude of the modeled impacts in
comparison to screening/impact thresholds on a case-by-case basis in
approving the use of CALPUFF results at these extended ranges.
Furthermore, we note that White Bluff is located within 200 km of Caney
Creek and Upper Buffalo. Therefore, we find that ADEQ appropriately
considered CALPUFF modeling for White Bluff in the SIP revision. We
invite the reader to examine our detailed responses to comments arguing
against the use of CALPUFF modeling in making BART determinations in
the RTC Document associated wih this rulemaking \97\ as well as the RTC
Document associated with the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP.\98\ We find
that Arkansas' reliance on CALPUFF modeling in the SIP revision is
reasonable and appropriate since it meets the requirements of the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule and is consistent with the BART Guidelines
and Appendix W. Therefore, we find no reason to disapprove the SIP's
reliance on CALPUFF modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, III(A)(1): ``As a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source
``contributes'' to visibility impairment should not be higher than
0.5 deciviews.''
\92\ 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, III(A)(3): ``CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a
single source's contribution to visibility impairment''.
\93\ 70 FR 39123: ``. . . we also recommend that the States use
CALPUFF as a screening application in estimating the degree of
visibility improvement that may reasonably be expected from
controlling a single source in order to inform the BART
determination.''
\94\ Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase
2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range
Transport Impacts. Publication No. EPA-454/R-98-019. Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1998.
\95\ See also 68 FR 18458, 2003 Revisions to Appendix W,
Guideline on Air Quality Models.
\96\ For example, South Dakota used CALPUFF for Big Stone's BART
determination, including its impact on multiple Class I areas
further than 400 km away, including Isle Royale, which is more than
600 km away. See 76 FR 76656. Nebraska relied on CALPUFF modeling to
evaluate whether numerous power plants were subject to BART where
the ``Class I areas [were] located at distances of 300 to 600
kilometers or more from'' the sources. See Best Available Retrofit
Technology Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Selected Nebraska
Utilities, p. 3. EPA Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158-0008. Texas
relied on CALPUFF to screen BART-eligible non-EGU sources at
distances of 400 to 614 km for some sources. See 79 FR 74818 (Dec.
16, 2014), 81 FR 296 (Jan. 5, 2016).
\97\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision Response
to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated with this
final rulemaking.
\98\ See ``Response to Comments for the Federal Register Notice
for the State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility
Transport Federal Implementation Plan,'' dated 8/31/2016. See Docket
ID. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189, Document ID. AR020.0187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the comment that CAMx modeling would show that
visibility improvements from each of the SO2 controls
evaluated are negligible and that SO2 BART should therefore
be the use of low sulfur coal even without Entergy's voluntary decision
to cease coal combustion at White Bluff, we emphasize that the issue of
what would constitute BART in the absence of Entergy's enforceable
measure to cease burning coal in 2028 is not before the agency in this
action. We also note that the CALPUFF results are not an apples to
apples comparison to the CAMx model results referred to by the
commenter due to differences in metrics, models and model inputs.\99\
We discuss this issue and our assessment of CAMx modeling in detail in
the RTC Document associated with this rulemaking.\100\ In sum, the
visibility modeling provided in the SIP revision demonstrates that
scrubber controls are anticipated to result in significant visibility
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Some of the major differences are: (1) CALPUFF modeling
used maximum 24-hour emission rates, while the CAMx modeling used
annual average emission rates; (2) CALPUFF focuses on the day with
the 98th percentile highest visibility impact from the source being
evaluated, whereas the CAMx modeling analysis was focused on the
average visibility impacts across the 20% worst days regardless of
whether the impacts from a specific facility are large or small; and
(3) CAMx models all sources of emissions in the modeling domain,
which includes all of the continental U.S., whereas CALPUFF only
models the impact of emissions from one facility without explicit
chemical interaction with other sources' emissions.
\100\ See ``Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision
Response to Comments,'' which can be found in the docket associated
with this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Legal
Comment: EPA cannot approve Arkansas's SIP submission because ADEQ
failed to comply with Arkansas's statutory legislative review process
for rulemaking by not submitting the Regional Haze SIP for legislative
review; the SIP is therefore invalid and unenforceable until ADEQ
complies with the law.
Response: It is EPA's position that Arkansas' SIP revision has met
applicable requirements for an enforceable SIP, including enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques
as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as required under
section 110(a)(2)(A). The SIP also includes a program to provide for
enforcement of the measures described above, as required by section
110(a)(2)(C). Furthermore, the ADEQ has shown the SIP meets Section
110(a)(2)(F)(i) through (iii) (monitoring and recordkeeping for
sources) and section 110(a)(2)(K) (modeling). Section 169A(b)(2)
requires a regional haze SIP to contain such emission limits, schedules
of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress, including a long-term strategy and certain defined major
stationary sources to meet BART. ADEQ's SIP revision included
Administrative Orders entered between ADEQ and the companies that own
the facilities that are required to comply with emission limits and
schedules in compliance with the BART and long-term strategy
requirements. Based upon all of the above, it is appropriate for EPA to
approve Arkansas SIP revision in accordance with section 110(k)(3).
As part of the state's notice and comment period for the SIP, ADEQ
received a comment that ADEQ lacked the authority to implement the SIP
revision under state law since the SIP (including the Administrative
Orders) did not undergo legislative review. The comment further alleged
that EPA cannot approve the SIP until the Arkansas legislature has
reviewed the SIP revision. ADEQ responded that the SIP did not need to
undergo legislative review per Arkansas state law because, among other
things, it does not fit within the state's statutory definition of a
``rule'', rather state law defines SIPs as a plan, the statutory
construction of provisions pertaining to plans, and in particular SIPs,
exhibits an intent on the part of the Arkansas legislature to create a
separate and distinct set of requirements for SIPs, and the SIP is
issued by the Director and such action is subject to an appeals process
differently from that of a rule. Furthermore, ADEQ has the authority
under state law to enter into Administrative Orders to include as part
of its SIP revision. These all establish that legislative review is not
required for this SIP revision, thereby the state's SIP process met the
state's statutory requirements and when the Director issued the SIP, it
became an enforceable document under state law. See Response 33 of
Arkansas' ``Responsive Summary for State Implementation Plan Revision:
Revisions to Arkansas SIP: Regional Haze SIP Revision for 2008-2018
Planning Period.'' \101\ This is a matter of Arkansas interpreting its
state law. EPA finds it is a reasonable interpretation and defers to
ADEQ's interpretation regarding the resulting requirements for the
process for state rulemaking for enforceable SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/pdfs/regional-haze/public-notice-and-comments-aggregated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on ADEQ's response to comments explaining the state authority
to issue an enforceable SIP revision without the need to undergo state
legislative review, we find it reasonable
[[Page 51050]]
for the state to conclude that ADEQ followed state law in developing
and finalizing its SIP revision. Thus, the state's SIP revision is
enforceable as a matter of state law and ADEQ has met the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(E) since its SIP
includes ``necessary assurances'' that the state agency responsible for
implementing the SIP has adequate ``authority'' under state law ``to
carry out such implementation plan'' and ``responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation'' of the plan. It also includes ``enforceable
limitations and other control measures'' as necessary to meet ``the
applicable requirements of the CAA and includes ``a program for
enforcement'' of the required emission limitations and control
measures. Thus, it is appropriate for EPA to finalize approval of
ADEQ's plan since it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act. We believe it is reasonable to rely on ADEQ's explanation and
interpretation. Moreover, an Administrative Law Judge and the APCEC
have also upheld the state's interpretation of the state law with
regards to the issuance of SIPs not being a ``rule'' including SIPs
containing administrative orders and there being no statutory
requirement for them to undergo state legislative review. However, we
also acknowledge that an appeal process of the state rulemaking
procedures for the SIP revision is still ongoing. When a rulemaking is
being challenged, the EPA relies on the current legal interpretation of
state law. If circumstances change where Arkansas is no longer found to
have followed the state process for issuing the SIP and the
Administrative Orders and needs to undergo another round of state
rulemaking because the SIP revision is unenforceable, section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA allows for EPA to call for plan revisions and sets out
timetables for a SIP or FIP revision. This is commonly known as a ``SIP
call.''
Comment: In its attempt to avoid Arkansas' statutory legislative-
review requirement, ADEQ has repeatedly represented to an Arkansas
tribunal that the SIP itself is not actually enforceable. Thus,
according to ADEQ, the SIP itself is not enforceable under state law,
but only enforceable through separate Administrative Orders. Because
ADEQ admits that the SIP revision is not, by itself, enforceable, the
SIP is not approvable under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A).
EPA cannot approve the SIP revision unless ADEQ corrects the state law
deficiencies or provides the necessary assurances that the state plan
is, in fact, an enforceable implementation plan.
Response: While we agree with the commenter's statement that a
state must demonstrate that it has the necessary legal authority under
state law to adopt and implement an enforceable SIP, we disagree with
the commenter's assertion that Arkansas has failed to demonstrate that
it has such authority. According to appendix V to 40 CFR part 51,
states are required to submit evidence that they have this authority at
the time they submit a SIP revision. Arkansas submitted such evidence.
See AR020.0267-003 State Legal Authority to Adopt and Implement SIP.
The requirements that need to be met in order for a state to adopt and
implement provisions intended to meet CAA requirements vary from state
to state and are governed by state law. The requirements that govern
SIP submissions for Arkansas are found in Ark. Code Ann. 8-4-317, and,
as explained by the State, there is no legislative review required for
a SIP. See pg. 5 of Ex. A. This position does not make the SIP
unenforceable. The Director issues the decision and an appeal is
processed as a permit appeal. ADEQ is not arguing that the SIP is not
an enforceable decision; rather, it is arguing issuance of the SIP does
not fall within the state statutory definition of a ``rule'' requiring
legislative review. As explained above, the State has already provided
evidence that EPA deemed adequate to meet the requirements in Appendix
V. We are aware that the commenter requested an adjudicatory hearing at
the state level, as is appropriate, and the administrative law judge
ruled in the State's favor. If it is eventually found by a judge or
hearing officer during the appropriate state judicial or administrative
process that the Commenter is correct in their assertion that the State
did not submit an enforceable SIP to EPA, EPA can issue a SIP call
under CAA 110(k)(5) to require the State to correct this deficiency.
In addition, the commenter states that ADEQ's position is that the
SIP revision as a package is not enforceable, only the individual,
component Administrative Orders. According to the commenter, since the
SIP package as a whole is not enforceable, it does not meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). We reject that the ADEQ's
position is that the SIP package as a whole is not enforceable, as
discussed previously. As explained above, an Administrative Law Judge
and the Commission have determined that the issuance of the SIP
revision by the Director did not need legislative review in order for
the SIP to be adopted and implemented as a matter of state law, thereby
making it enforceable.
F. General
Comment: Although public utility plant owners and operators will be
responsible initially for installing the pollution controls or taking
other actions required under the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP Revision, under Arkansas law, such owners and operators are
permitted to directly pass through and recover the costs and expenses
of installing, operating, and maintaining pollution controls from
electric utility customers and ratepayers through electricity rates and
tariffs filed with the APSC. In addition, utility plant owners and
operators are permitted to recover from electric utility customers and
ratepayers the cost of replacement power or capacity needed to replace
the premature retirement of electric generating units, or the costs of
switching fuel at such facilities. These ratepayers, some of which are
providers of goods and services, would be harmed financially if any of
these plants were to curtail or modify operations or prematurely close
pursuant to the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP
Revision.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns. We note that the
SIP revision submitted by ADEQ did not contain an analysis of the
impact the requirement of these controls would have on electricity
ratepayers. Neither has the commenter provided such an analysis. There
are many factors that could serve to increase or decrease electric
rates and absent such an analysis, it is not possible to say what
overall effect the SIP's requirements will have on electric rates.
ADEQ, in its drafting of the SIP revision, ensured that the
requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule were met, including
cost considerations for BART determinations for each of the affected
facilities. While we assure the commenter that we are very sensitive to
the ramifications of our actions in the regional haze program, we note
that we are approving a majority of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP Revision as it meets the requirements of the
CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Our proposal and our final action
associated with this document explain the rationale for our approval.
We cannot disapprove a SIP revision and/or substitute our judgment for
that of the state when we find that the SIP revision meets all
requirements of the CAA and applicable federal regulations.
[[Page 51051]]
Comment: Various commenters expressed support for one or more
portions of our proposal, including our proposed approval of ADEQ's
SO2 BART determination for White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2 BART determination for Flint Creek No. 1 Boiler;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART determinations for the
White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; and ADEQ's reasonable progress
determination.
Response: We appreciate support of our proposed approval of ADEQ's
SIP revision. After careful consideration of all the comments we
received, we are finalizing our approval of the majority of the SIP
revision without changes from proposal. We identify the portions of the
SIP revision we are approving elsewhere in this final action.
IV. Final Action
We are approving a portion of the Arkansas SIP revision submitted
on August 8, 2018, as meeting the regional haze requirements for the
first implementation period. This action includes the finding that the
submittal meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth
in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308. The EPA is
approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the following regional
haze requirements for the first implementation period: The core
requirements for regional haze SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.308(d),
including the reasonable progress requirements as well as the long-term
strategy requirements with respect to all sources other than the Domtar
Ashdown Mill; the SO2, PM, and particular NOX
BART requirements for regional haze visibility impairment with respect
to emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from EGUs in 40 CFR
51.308(e); the requirement for coordination with state and FLMs in 40
CFR 51.308(i); and the requirement for coordination and consultation
with states with Class I areas affected by Arkansas sources in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i).
Specifically, the EPA is finalizing approval of the following
revisions to the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP submitted to EPA on August
8, 2018: The SO2 and PM BART requirements for the AECC
Bailey Plant Unit 1; the SO2 and PM BART requirements for
the AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1; the SO2 BART requirements
for Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1; the SO2 BART
requirements for the White Bluff Plant Units 1 and 2; the
SO2, NOX, and PM BART requirements for the White
Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; and the prohibition on burning of fuel oil at
Lake Catherine Unit 4 until SO2 and PM BART determinations
for the fuel oil firing scenario are approved into the SIP by EPA. We
are also finalizing our approval of the compliance dates and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements associated with these BART
determinations. These BART requirements have been made enforceable by
the state through Administrative Orders that have been adopted and
incorporated in the SIP revision. We are finalizing our approval of
these BART Administrative Orders as part of the SIP. The BART
requirements and associated Administrative Orders are listed under
Table 1 below. We are finalizing our withdrawal of our February 12,
2018,\102\ approval of Arkansas' reliance on participation in the CSAPR
ozone season NOX trading program to satisfy the
NOX BART requirement for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler
given that Arkansas erroneously identified the Auxiliary Boiler as
participating in CSAPR for ozone season NOX. We are taking
final action to replace our prior approval of Arkansas' determination
for the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler with our final approval of the
source-specific NOX BART emission limit contained in the
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision. The NOX BART
requirement has been made enforceable by the state through an
Administrative Order that has been adopted and incorporated in the SIP
revision. We are finalizing our approval of the Administrative Order
that contains the NOX BART requirement as part of the SIP.
The NOX BART requirement and associated Administrative Order
is listed under Table 1 below. We are finalizing our approval of ADEQ's
revised identification of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett
Mill as BART-eligible and the determination based on additional
information and technical analysis presented in the SIP revision that
the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 83 FR 5927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also finalizing our determination that the reasonable
progress requirements under Sec. 51.308(d)(1) have been fully
addressed for the first implementation period. The Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase I SIP revision, which we approved on February 12, 2018,\103\
addressed the reasonable progress requirements with respect to
NOX emissions and the SIP revision before us addresses the
reasonable progress requirements with respect to SO2 and PM
emissions. Specifically, we are finalizing our approval of the state's
focused reasonable progress analysis and the reasonable progress
determination that no additional SO2 controls at
Independence Units 1 and 2 or any other Arkansas sources are necessary
under reasonable progress for the first implementation period. We are
also in agreement with the state's calculation of revised RPGs for
Arkansas' Class I areas. We are basing our final approval of the
reasonable progress provisions and agreement with the state's
calculation of the revised RPGs on the following: The state's
discussion of the key pollutants and source categories that contribute
to visibility impairment in Arkansas' Class I areas per the CENRAP's
source apportionment modeling; the state's identification of a group of
large SO2 point sources in Arkansas for potential evaluation
of controls under reasonable progress; the state's rationale for
narrowing down its list of potential sources to evaluate under the
reasonable progress requirements; and the state's evaluation and
reasonable weighing of the four statutory factors along with
consideration of the visibility benefits of controls for the
Independence facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 83 FR 5927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP revision does not address
BART and associated long-term strategy requirements for the Domtar
Ashdown Mill Power Boilers No. 1 and 2, and the FIP's BART emission
limits for the facility continue to remain in place at this time.
However, ADEQ recently submitted a SIP revision to address the regional
haze requirements for Domtar Power Boilers No. 1 and No. 2, and we will
evaluate any conclusions ADEQ has drawn in that submission with respect
to the need to conduct a reasonable progress analysis for Domtar. As
long as the BART requirements for Domtar continue to be addressed by
the measures in the FIP, however, we propose to agree with ADEQ's
conclusion that nothing further is needed to satisfy the reasonable
progress requirements for the first implementation period. With respect
to the RPGs for Arkansas' Class I areas, we will assess the SIP
revision ADEQ recently submitted addressing Domtar to determine if
changes are needed based on any differences between the SIP-based
measures and the measures currently contained in the FIP. We intend to
take action on the SIP revision addressing Domtar in a future
rulemaking.
We are finalizing our approval of the components of the long-term
strategy under Sec. 51.308(d)(3) addressed by the Arkansas Regional
Haze Phase II SIP revision, including the BART measures contained in
the SIP revision and the SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu
under the long-term strategy provisions
[[Page 51052]]
for Independence Units 1 and 2 based on the use of low sulfur coal. We
are also finalizing our approval of the compliance date and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements associated with the SO2
emission limit for the Independence facility under the long term
strategy provisions. These requirements for Independence Units 1 and 2
have been made enforceable by the state through an Administrative Order
that has been adopted and incorporated in the SIP revision. We are
finalizing our approval of this BART Administrative Order as part of
the SIP. The SO2 emission limit and associated
Administrative Order for the Independence facility are listed under
Table 2 below. We are making a final determination that Arkansas' long-
term strategy is approved with respect to sources other than the Domtar
Ashdown Mill. We are also finalizing our determination that Arkansas
has appropriately provided an opportunity for consultation to the FLMs
and to Missouri on the SIP revision, as required under Sec.
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (i)(2).
The BART emission limits we are approving as source-specific
requirements that are part of the SIP are presented in Table 1; the
SO2 emission limits under the long-term strategy and
associated Administrative Order we are approving for the Independence
facility are presented in Table 2; and Arkansas' revised 2018 RPGs are
presented in Table 3.
Table 1--SIP Revision BART Emission Limits and Administrative Orders EPA Is Approving in This Final Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP revision PM BART SIP revision NOX
Subject-to-BART source SIP revision SO2 BART emission limits emission limits BART emission limits Administrative order
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AECC Bailey Unit 1............... 0.5% limit on sulfur content of fuel combusted *... 0.5% limit on sulfur Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
content of fuel LIS No. 18-071.
combusted *.
AECC McClellan Unit 1............ 0.5% limit on sulfur content of fuel combusted *... 0.5% limit on sulfur Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
content of fuel LIS No. 18-071.
combusted *.
AEP Flint Creek Boiler No. 1..... 0.06 lb/MMBtu *.................................... Already SIP-approved Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
LIS No. 18-072.
Entergy Lake Catherine Unit 4 Unit is allowed to burn only natural gas *......... Unit is allowed to Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
(fuel oil firing scenario)....... burn only natural LIS No. 18-073.
gas *.
Entergy White Bluff Unit 1....... 0.60 lb/MMBtu (Interim emission limit with a 3-year Already SIP-approved Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
compliance date and cessation of coal combustion LIS No. 18-073.
by end of 2028).
Entergy White Bluff Unit 2....... 0.60 lb/MMBtu (Interim emission limit with a 3-year Already SIP-approved Already SIP-approved Administrative Order
compliance date and cessation of coal combustion LIS No. 18-073.
by end of 2028).
Entergy White Bluff Auxiliary 105.2 lb/hr *...................................... 4.5 lb/hr *......... 32.2 lb/hr *........ Administrative Order
Boiler. LIS No. 18-073.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This BART emission limit required by the SIP revision is the same as what was required under the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP.
Table 2--SIP Revision Emission Limits Under Reasonable Progress and
Administrative Orders Proposed for Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP revision
SO2 emission
Source limits (lb/ Administrative order
MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Independence Unit 1.... 0.60 Administrative Order
LIS No. 18-073.
Entergy Independence Unit 2.... 0.60 Administrative Order
LIS No. 18-073.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Arkansas' Revised 2018 RPGs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 RPG 20%
Class I area worst days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek.......................................... 22.47
Upper Buffalo........................................ 22.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent with our final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase II SIP revision, we are finalizing in a separate rulemaking our
final action to withdraw those portions of the Arkansas Regional Haze
FIP at 40 CFR 52.173 that impose SO2 and PM BART emission
limits for Bailey Unit 1; SO2 and PM BART emission limits
for McClellan Unit 1; the SO2 BART emission limit for Flint
Creek Boiler No. 1; the SO2 BART emission limits for White
Bluff Units 1 and 2; the SO2 and PM BART emission limits for
the White Bluff Auxiliary Boiler; the prohibition on burning fuel oil
at Lake Catherine Unit 4; and the SO2 emission limits for
Independence Units 1 and 2 under the reasonable progress
provisions.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Our final action withdrawing part of the Arkansas Regional
Haze FIP is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51053]]
We find that an approval of the SIP revision meets the Clean Air
Act's 110(1) provisions. Approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze
SO2 and PM SIP revision will not interfere with continued
attainment of all the NAAQS within the state of Arkansas, nor will it
interfere with any other applicable requirements of the CAA.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this final action, we are including regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference revisions
to the Arkansas source-specific requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated in the next update to the SIP
compilation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best available
retrofit technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Dioxide, Visibility.
Dated: August 28, 2019.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart E--Arkansas
0
2. In Sec. 52.170:
0
a. The table in paragraph (d), entitled ``EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-
Specific Requirements'' is revised; and
0
b. The third table in paragraph (e), entitled ``EPA-Approved Non-
Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP,'' is amended by adding and entry for ``Arkansas Regional Haze
Phase II SIP Revision'' at the end of the table.
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 52.170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 51054]]
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Arkansas Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Permit or Order approval/
Name of source No. effective EPA approval date Comments
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Administrative 8/7/2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Unit 1.
Corporation Carl E. Bailey Order LIS No. 18- Federal Register
Generating Station. 071. citation of the final
rule].
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Administrative 8/7/2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Unit 1.
Corporation John L. McClellan Order LIS No. 18- Federal Register
Generating Station. 071. citation of the final
rule].
Southwestern Electric Power Administrative 8/7/2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Unit 1.
Company Flint Creek Power Order LIS No.. Federal Register
Plant. 18-072............ citation of the final
rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Lake Administrative 8/7/2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Unit 4.
Catherine Plant. Order LIS No. 18- Federal Register
073. citation of the final
rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. White Administrative 8/7/2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Units 1, 2, and
Bluff Plant. Order LIS No. 18- Federal Register Auxiliary Boiler.
073. citation of the final
rule].
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Administrative 8/7/2018 [[Insert Date of Units 1 and 2.
Independence Plant. Order LIS No. 18- publication of the
073. final rule in the
Federal Register]
[[Insert Federal
Register citation of
the final rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
* * * * *
EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic State submittal/
Name of SIP provision or nonattainment area effective date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arkansas Regional Haze Phase II SIP Statewide............. August 8, 2018 9/27/2019 [[Insert Federal Regional Haze SIP revision addressing
Revision. Register citation of the SO2 and PM BART requirements for
final rule]. Arkansas EGUs, NOX BART requirement
for the White Bluff Auxiliary
Boiler, reasonable progress
requirements for SO2 and PM for the
first implementation period, and the
long-term strategy requirements. We
are approving a portion of this SIP
revision. There are two aspects of
this SIP revision we are not taking
action on at this time: (1) The
interstate visibility transport
requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II); and (2) the
long-term strategy is approved with
respect to sources other than the
Domtar Ashdown Mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.173, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.173 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(g) Regional Haze Phase II SIP Revision. A portion of the Regional
Haze Phase II SIP Revision submitted on August 8, 2018, is approved as
follows:
(1) Identification of the 6A Boiler at the Georgia-Pacific Crossett
Mill as BART-eligible and the determination based on the additional
information and technical analysis presented in the SIP revision that
the Georgia-Pacific Crossett Mill 6A and 9A Boilers are not subject to
BART. (2) SO2 and PM BART for the AECC Bailey Plant Unit 1;
SO2 and PM BART for the AECC McClellan Plant Unit 1;
SO2 BART for the AEP/SWEPCO Flint Creek Plant Boiler No. 1;
SO2 BART for Entergy White Bluff Units 1 and 2;
SO2, NOX, and PM BART for the Entergy White Bluff
Auxiliary Boiler; and the prohibition on burning of fuel oil at Entergy
Lake Catherine Unit 4 until SO2 and PM BART determinations
for the fuel oil firing scenario are approved into the SIP by EPA.
(3) The focused reasonable progress analysis and the reasonable
progress determination that no additional SO2 and PM
controls are necessary under the reasonable progress requirements for
the first implementation period.
(4) The long-term strategy is approved with respect to sources
other than the Domtar Ashdown Mill. This includes the BART emission
limits contained in the SIP revision and the SO2 emission
limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu under the long-term strategy provisions for
Independence Units 1 and 2 based on the use of low sulfur coal.
(5) Consultation and coordination in the development of the SIP
revision with the FLMs and with other states with Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arkansas sources.
[FR Doc. 2019-19497 Filed 9-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P