Proposed Rule2022-28666
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 10, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska or the State) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area (Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area). Alaska made these submissions on December 13, 2019, and December 15, 2020.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1454-1495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28666]
[[Page 1453]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 6
January 10, 2023
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks North
Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1454]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2022-0115; FRL-9755-01-R10]
Air Plan Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval; AK, Fairbanks
North Star Borough; 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part and disapprove in part the state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of Alaska (Alaska or the State)
to address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area (Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area).
Alaska made these submissions on December 13, 2019, and December 15,
2020.
DATES:
Comments. Written comments must be received on or before March 13,
2023.
Public Hearing. EPA plans to hold one public hearing concerning the
proposed rule in Fairbanks, Alaska. The date, time and location will be
announced separately.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2022-0115, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0340,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b212e253f2c2e2565262a3f3f232e3c0b2e3b2a652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660c030812010308480b0712120e03112603160748010910">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Environmental Justice Considerations
II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area
Plans and for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
A. Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Area Plans
B. Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Areas That Fail To
Attain
C. Combined Requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious Areas and
Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
A. Emission Inventories
B. Pollutants Addressed
C. Control Strategy
D. Attainment Demonstration and Modeling
E. Reasonable Further Progress
F. Quantitative Milestones
G. Contingency Measures
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity
I. Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements Under CAA
section 189(e)
IV. Consequences of a Disapproval
A. The Act's Provisions for Sanctions
B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions That Apply If a State
Fails To Submit an Approvable Plan
C. Ramifications Regarding Transportation Conformity
V. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval
B. Proposed Disapproval
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population
I. Background
In 2009, EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough as ``nonattainment'' for the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS, which is set at the level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) (Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area) (74 FR
58688, November 13, 2009).\1\ Effective July 2, 2014, EPA classified
the area as ``Moderate'' (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently,
Alaska submitted, and EPA approved, a plan to meet Moderate
nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017)
(``Fairbanks Moderate Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 81.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2017, EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS in the area by the outermost statutory Moderate area attainment
date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). As a result, the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area was reclassified as a ``Serious''
nonattainment area by operation of law.
Upon reclassification as a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment
area, the State was required to submit a Serious area attainment plan
satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 172, 189(b), and 189(c) and
40 CFR 51.1003(b). In accordance with CAA section 188(c)(2), the
outermost attainment date for a Serious area is no later than the end
of the tenth calendar year following designation (i.e., December 31,
2019).
Alaska submitted a plan to address the Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area requirements on December 13, 2019 (Fairbanks Serious
Plan).\2\ Along with the required planning elements, the Fairbanks
Serious Plan includes more stringent performance and operating
requirements for residential and commercial heating devices, new
regulations for wood sellers, and some requirements for stationary
sources in the nonattainment area. The Fairbanks Serious Plan is
comprised of revisions to Title 18, Chapter 50, of the Alaska
Administrative Code (18 AAC 50) and the State Air Quality Control Plan,
adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC
50.030(a).\3\ On January 9, 2020, in accordance with CAA section
110(k)(1)(B), EPA determined that the Fairbanks Serious
[[Page 1455]]
Plan was administratively and technically complete (85 FR 7760,
February 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alaska SIP revision submitted October 25, 2018, to address
the nonattainment NSR element for the Fairbanks Serious area, among
other things. EPA approved as meeting the nonattainment NSR element
for the Serious Plan on August 29, 2019 (84 FR 45419).
\3\ We note that 18 AAC 50.030(a) is not submitted, rather
Alaska submits the adopted provisions separately for EPA approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Fairbanks Serious Plan, the State sought an extension of
the otherwise applicable attainment date through CAA section 188(e). On
September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the
Serious area attainment date and denied the State's Serious area
attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). As a result, Alaska
was required to submit a revised SIP submission to meet both the
Serious area attainment plan requirements and the additional CAA
requirements set forth in CAA section 189(d) by December 31, 2020.\4\
Alaska submitted the revised plan on December 15, 2020 (Fairbanks
189(d) Plan). The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan updated a number of chapters of
the State Air Quality Control Plan (i.e., narrative portions of the
SIP), adopted and incorporated by reference into State law at 18 AAC
50.030(a). Prior to EPA taking action to approve or disapprove the
Fairbanks Serious Plan, Alaska withdrew and replaced several chapters
of the Fairbanks Serious Plan with the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
submission.\5\ In this proposed action, EPA is not proposing to act on
the withdrawn elements of the prior Fairbanks Serious Plan, only those
elements that remain as revised by Alaska in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
\5\ See SIP submission cover letter, submitted by Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Commissioner Jason
Brune to EPA Regional Administrator, Chris Hladick, on December 15,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 24, 2021, EPA approved as meeting the Serious area
planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory and the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstration elements of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan (86 FR 52997). In the same action, EPA approved other plan
components as SIP strengthening, including (1) the updated Fairbanks
Emergency Episode Plan \6\ that the State adopted on November 18, 2020
and submitted on December 15, 2020; and (2) emission control measures
included in the SIP submissions on October 25, 2018 and November 28,
2018 (in addition to the December 13, 2019 submission).\7\ EPA did not
determine as part of the September 24, 2021, approval whether these SIP
strengthening components met specific nonattainment plan requirements,
including control strategy requirements in CAA section 189 and 40 CFR
51.1010 or the contingency measure requirements in CAA section
172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. EPA's proposed determination on whether
these components meet the nonattainment plan requirements is contained
in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.12 (i.e.,
Alaska's planning chapter related to air quality forecasting and
curtailment levels).
\7\ For a description of the specific control measures addressed
across the State's SIP submissions, see 86 FR 52997, September 24,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's air quality monitoring network for the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area has included four regulatory
monitor site locations. Table 1 in this document includes the site
names, identification number, monitor data, and design values for the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitor site locations in Fairbanks. With EPA
approval, the State discontinued the monitor location at the State
Office Building and established the A Street monitor as a monitor
location in 2019. Alaska established the A Street monitor location as a
State or Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) PM<INF>2.5</INF>
monitoring station to characterize PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in
the City of Fairbanks. The Hurst Road monitor measures expected maximum
concentrations for the nonattainment area.\8\ We note Alaska flagged
monitor data in 2019 influenced by wildfire smoke. We discuss in
section III.3 of this document how Alaska's demonstration was
considered for attainment modeling, but this wildfire-influenced data
in 2019 was not regulatory significant under 40 CFR 50.14(a), so the
monitor data has not been excluded from the official design value in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For further details of the air quality monitoring network in
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area, EPA's approval
letters of Alaska's Annual Monitoring Network Plans for each year
between 2019 to 2022 are included in the docket for this action.
\9\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 14,
2021). Exceptional Events Waiver Request, For Exceptional PM2.5
Events Between May 26, and July 26, 2019, in the Fairbanks North
Star Borough, Alaska. Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Air Quality Division
Table 1--Fairbanks PM2.5 Monitoring Locations and Recent Site-Level Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th percentile ([micro]g/m\3\) 2019-2021 24-
Local site name Site location AQS ID --------------------------------------- hour design
2019 ** 2020 2021 value **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hurst Road *.................................. 3288 Hurst Road, North Pole...... 02-090-0035 78.3 71.4 65.5 72
A Street...................................... 397 Hamilton Ave., Fairbanks..... 02-090-0040 *** 34.1 36.1 *** 29.6 *** 33
NCore......................................... 809 Pioneer Road, Fairbanks...... 02-090-0034 60.0 26.6 27.5 38
State Office Building......................... 675 7th Avenue, Fairbanks........ 02-090-0010 *** 34.7 n/a n/a *** 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monitor location previously referred to as North Pole Fire Station.
** Data in this table includes state-flagged monitor days in 2019 that were influenced by wildfires.
*** Incomplete monitor data and/or invalid 3-year design value. In July 2019, Alaska shut down the regulatory PM2.5 monitor at the State Office Building
and established a new maximum impact PM2.5 monitoring site at the A Street location. Due to data issues in 2021, an official 98th percentile
measurement for A Street could not be calculated.
Source: EPA 2021 AQS Design Value Report.
A. Environmental Justice Considerations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021) directs Federal government agencies to assess
whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and
other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619,
February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities.
To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in
[[Page 1456]]
underserved communities in the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area and to
better understand the context of our proposed action on the Fairbanks
Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on these communities, we
conducted a screening-level analysis using EPA's environmental justice
(EJ) screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 12 environmental justice indices available on
EJSCREEN,\11\ each index combines demographic factors with a single
environmental factor. Although the EJSCREEN indices for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and Ozone are not available for Fairbanks, Alaska, we
note that the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area has some of the highest
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the country and has been designated
a PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area since 2009. Residents in
Fairbanks and North Pole have been subject to a high pollution burden
for many years. Other health and socioeconomic indices, identified in
EJSCREEN, that are impacted by elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations
include: low life expectancy (95-100 percentile) and asthma (90-95
percentile) in an area south of downtown Fairbanks and population under
age 5 (95-100 percentile) in various areas in Fairbanks and North Pole.
Most of Alaska, including the Fairbanks area, is considered ``medically
underserved.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Environmental indices include: particulate matter
PM<INF>2.5</INF>; Ozone; Diesel particulate matter; Air Toxics
cancer risk; Air toxics respiratory hazard index; Traffic proximity
and volume; Lead paint; Superfund proximity; Risk management plan
(RMP) facility proximity; Hazardous waste proximity; Underground
storage tanks (UST) and leaking UST (LUST); and Wastewater
discharge.
\12\ Medically Underserved Areas are defined by the Health
Resources and Services Administration as geographic areas with a
lack of access to primary care services. For more information see:
<a href="https://bhw.hrsa.gov/workforce-shortage-areas/shortage-designation#mups">https://bhw.hrsa.gov/workforce-shortage-areas/shortage-designation#mups</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of other environmental justice indices in EJSCREEN for the
cities of Fairbanks, AK and North Pole, AK are below the 80th
percentile, with some areas around downtown Fairbanks in the 80-90th
percentile for the following indices: Superfund proximity, Hazardous
waste proximity, Underground storage tanks. No indices are above the
90th percentile for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. EJSCREEN reports
for Fairbanks and North Pole are included in the docket for this
action.
As discussed in EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color and
low-income populations often experience greater exposure and disease
burdens than the general population, which can increase their
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental
stressors.\13\ Underserved communities may have a compromised ability
to cope with or recover from such exposures due to a range of physical,
chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (June 2016).
Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis. Section 4.
\14\ Id. at section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If EPA were to finalize the proposed disapprovals described in
section III of this proposed rulemaking, Alaska would be required to
submit a plan revision for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area to address
the identified deficiencies. In addition, as summarized in section IV
of this proposed rulemaking, such final action would trigger clocks for
the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for offset sanctions 18 months after
the final rule effective date, highway funding sanctions six months
after the offset sanctions, and the obligation for EPA to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the final rule
effective date. Alaska's expeditious submission of plan revisions that
correct the deficiencies identified in this document will ensure the
plan meets CAA requirements, and the measures in the plan when
implemented achieves attainment as expeditiously as practicable. And in
doing so, the plan revisions address harmful and disproportionate
health and environmental effects on underserved and overburdened
populations, consistent with the principles of environmental justice.
II. Clean Air Act Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans and for
PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
A. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Area Plans
On August 24, 2016, EPA promulgated the final rule entitled, ``Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule).\15\ The PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule is codified at 40
CFR part 51, subpart Z. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule
establishes regulatory requirements and provides interpretive guidance
on the statutory SIP requirements that apply to states with areas
designated nonattainment for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards. Because
this action addresses planning requirements for Serious nonattainment
areas and the planning requirements under CAA section 189(d) for
Serious nonattainment areas that failed to attain by the attainment
date, both planning requirements will be discussed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. Prior to promulgating the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, EPA provided its
interpretations of the CAA's requirements for particulate matter
plans under part D, title I of the Act in the following guidance
documents: (1) ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990'' (``General Preamble''); (2) ``State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (``General Preamble
Supplement''); and (3) ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-
10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990'' (``General Preamble Addendum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reclassification of a Moderate nonattainment area as a Serious
nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA, the
Act requires the State to submit a Serious area nonattainment plan that
addresses specific requirements.\16\ In accordance with subpart 4 of
part D, title I of the CAA and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule at 40 CFR 51.1003(b), Serious area nonattainment plans must
address the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ CAA section 189(b), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b); see also 81 FR
58010, at pp. 58074-58075, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3) \17\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) \18\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \19\ and 40 CFR 51.1010,
including provisions to assure that the best available control measures
(BACM) and best available control technologies (BACT), for the control
of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are
implemented no later than four years after the area is reclassified
(CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \20\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) \21\ and 40 CFR 51.1011;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) \22\ and 40 CFR 51.1012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(c) \23\ and 40 CFR 51.1013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1457]]
7. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for regulation, and implementation of
controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate
demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate
a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to
attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do
not make a significant contribution to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that
exceed the standard; \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ CAA section 189(e), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) and 40 CFR 51.1006,
51.1010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) \25\ and 40 CFR 51.1014; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) and 40 CFR 51.165.
In the Serious area nonattainment plan, a state must also satisfy
the requirements for the Moderate area plan in CAA section 189(a), to
the extent the state has not already met those requirements in the
Moderate area plan submitted for the area (see CAA section 189(b)(1),
40 CFR 51.1003(b), and 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at page 58075). In
addition, the Serious area nonattainment plan must meet the general
requirements applicable to all SIP submissions under CAA section 110,
including the requirement to provide necessary assurances that the
implementing agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E), and the requirements concerning
enforcement provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
B. Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas That Fail To Attain
In the event that a Serious area fails to attain the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CAA section
189(d) \26\ requires that ``the State in which such area is located
shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, submit within
12 months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which
provide for attainment of the . . . standard . . .'' The attainment
plan required under CAA section 189(d) must, among other things,
demonstrate expeditious attainment of the NAAQS within the time period
provided under CAA section 179(d)(3) \27\ and provide for annual
reductions in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor pollutant within the area of not less
than five percent per year from the most recent emissions inventory for
the area until attainment.\28\ In addition to the requirement to submit
control measures providing for a five percent reduction in emissions of
certain pollutants on an annual basis, EPA interprets CAA section
189(d) as requiring a state to submit an attainment plan that includes
the same basic statutory plan elements that are required for other
attainment plans. Specifically, a state must submit to EPA its plan to
meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d) in the form of a complete
attainment plan submission that includes the following elements: \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d).
\27\ 42 U.S.C. 7509(d)(3).
\28\ 81 FR 58010, at page 58098.
\29\ 40 CFR 51.1003(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Base year emissions inventory meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3) \30\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Attainment projected emissions inventory meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) \31\ and 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Unless previously met, a Serious area nonattainment plan control
strategy that ensures that best available control measures (BACM),
including best available control technologies (BACT), for the control
of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are
implemented in the area (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) \32\ and 40 CFR
51.1010(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Additional measures (beyond those already adopted in previous
nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) \33\ (if applicable)) that
provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable
and, from the date of such submission until attainment, demonstrate
that the plan will at a minimum achieve an annual five percent
reduction in emission of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> or any
PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursor from the most recent emissions
inventory for the area. The state must reconsider and reassess any
measures previously rejected by the state during the development of any
Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the
area. 40 CFR 51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska's request
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. Therefore, MSM is not
applicable to the Fairbanks Serious Plan or Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Attainment demonstration and modeling meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 188(c)(2) and 189(b)(1)(A) \34\ and 40 CFR 51.1011;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 42 U.S.C. 7513(c)(2) and 7513a(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) \35\ and 40 CFR 51.1012;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Quantitative milestones meeting the requirements of CAA section
189(c) \36\ and 40 CFR 51.1013;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. An evaluation by the state of sources of all four
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for regulation, and implementation of
controls on all such precursors, unless the state provides an adequate
demonstration establishing that it is either not necessary to regulate
a particular precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in order to
attain by the attainment date, or that emissions of the precursor do
not make a significant contribution to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that
exceed the standard; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 40 CFR 51.1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) \38\ and 40 CFR 51.1014; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Nonattainment new source review provisions meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(b)(3) \39\ and 40 CFR 51.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 42 U.S.C. 7513a(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Combined Requirements for PM2.5 Serious Areas and Serious Areas That
Fail To Attain
On September 2, 2020, EPA determined that the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the Serious area attainment date and denied
the State's Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR
54509). This action triggered the obligation for the State to make a
new SIP submission to meet the requirements laid out in Section II.B of
this document, including submission of a new plan containing all the
elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(c). EPA's determination that Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area failed to attain the NAAQS did not,
however, nullify the State's obligation to meet the still outstanding
requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> Serious areas laid out in Section
II.A, including the requirement to adopt and submit a plan containing
all the elements in 40 CFR 51.1003(b). Moreover, a result of the
determination of failure to attain was to require the State to make a
SIP submission meeting the requirements of CAA section 189(d) and
providing for attainment by a later attainment date. Because CAA
section 189(d) does not itself supply a specific date, EPA interprets
the CAA to impose the attainment date requirements of CAA section 172
and 179, and as
[[Page 1458]]
interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), rather than the date imposed in
CAA section 182(c)(2) and as interpreted in 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2).
Consistent with the deadlines laid out in the CAA, Serious area
plans are intended to be submitted and approved or disapproved well
before the Serious area attainment date.\40\ The Serious plan must be
designed to achieve attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the outermost statutory attainment date, which is the end of
the tenth calendar year following the area's designation to
nonattainment.\41\ If implementation of the Serious Plan fails to
achieve attainment by the Serious area attainment date, the state must
submit a new plan meeting the requirements for Serious areas that fail
to attain in CAA section 189(d).\42\ The state must design this new CAA
section 189(d)plan to achieve attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the deadlines in CAA sections 172 and
179.\43\ Thus, the CAA requires states to adopt and implement a plan
meeting the requirement of CAA section 189(d) only after adopting and
implementing a fully-approved Serious area plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ CAA section 189(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1003.
\41\ CAA section 189(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(2).
\42\ CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR 51.1003(c).
\43\ CAA sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the CAA does not contain provisions that address
precisely how a state should meet all of the planning requirements for
a Serious nonattainment area, after such area has already failed to
attain the NAAQS, but before the state has met all of the planning
requirements for Serious nonattainment areas. By extension, the CAA
does not account for potential conflicts between the required plan
provisions for Serious area plans and Section 189(d) plans,
particularly with respect to the attainment projected inventory,
attainment demonstration, RFP, and quantitative milestone (QM) plan
provisions. These elements are required for all PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment plans and are dependent on a single projected attainment
date that complies with the statutory requirements governing the area.
Thus, in the event that a state is obligated to submit both a Serious
area plan and a Section 189(d) plan, a conflict arises between the
applicable attainment date by which states should structure these plan
provisions and against which EPA should evaluate them. Such conflict
exists here.
EPA acknowledges that the complicated series of events and
chronology in this situation make it more difficult to evaluate the
State's remaining Serious area plan obligations and new section 189(d)
plan obligations. Alaska submitted the Serious Area Plan on December
13, 2019, 18 days before the then-applicable attainment date of
December 31, 2019. This plan included a request to extend the
attainment date from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2024, pursuant
to CAA section 188(e), which EPA denied.\44\ EPA also has not fully
approved this Plan. Notably, EPA has not approved the attainment
projected inventory, attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM plan
provisions of the Serious Area Plan submitted on December 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 85 FR 54509
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in this section, on September 2, 2020, EPA determined
that the area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
by December 31, 2019. As a result, the attainment projected inventory,
attainment demonstration, RFP, and QM provisions of the December 13,
2019, Serious Area Plan submission did not meet CAA requirements for
Serious areas. Moreover, no revisions to these plan provisions could
satisfy the Serious area planning requirements because the Serious area
attainment date has already passed. Alaska subsequently withdrew these
plan provisions and replaced them with the submission of the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan and structured the new plan provisions around the
applicable attainment date for Serious areas that fail to attain.
EPA now needs to take action on the nonattainment plan SIP
submissions for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area that are currently
before the agency in a way that is logical and most consistent with the
statutory and regulatory requirements. Given the impossibility of the
State now submitting a Serious area plan designed to achieve an
attainment date that has already passed and that the applicable
attainment date for the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area is now governed by
CAA sections 172 and 179 and 40 CFR 51.1004(a)(3), EPA proposes that it
should evaluate any previously unmet Serious area planning obligations
based on the current, applicable attainment date under CAA section
189(d), and not the original Serious area attainment date.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 86 FR 53150, September 24, 2021, at p. 53155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the combined planning requirements EPA is evaluating as part
of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submissions are
included in Table 2:
Table 2--Combined Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
Requirements
[CAA planning requirements for PM2.5 serious areas and areas that fail
to attain]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal/ regulatory
Description requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base year emissions inventory for Serious areas CAA section 172(c)(3);
subject to CAA section 189(b) *. 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
Base year emissions inventory for areas subject CAA section 172(c)(3);
to CAA section 189(d). 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
Attainment projected emissions inventory........ CAA section 172(c)(1);
40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2).
Serious area nonattainment plan control strategy CAA section
that ensures that best available control 189(b)(1)(B); 40 CFR
measures (BACM), including best available 51.1010(a).
control technologies (BACT), for the control of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are
implemented in the area.
Additional measures (beyond those already CAA section 189(d);40
adopted in previous nonattainment plan SIP CFR 51.1010(c).
submissions for the area as RACM/RACT, BACM/
BACT, and Most Stringent Measures (MSM) \46\
(if applicable)) that provide for attainment of
the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and,
from the date of such submission until
attainment, demonstrate that the plan will at a
minimum achieve an annual five percent
reduction in emission of direct PM2.5 or any
PM2.5 plan precursor. The state must reconsider
and reassess any measures previously rejected
by the state during the development of any
Moderate area or Serious area attainment plan
control strategy for the area.
[[Page 1459]]
Attainment demonstration and modeling........... CAA sections 188(c)(2)
and 189(b)(1)(A); 40
CFR 51.1003(c) and
51.1011.
Reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions.... CAA section 172(c)(2);
40 CFR 51.1012.
Quantitative milestones......................... CAA section 189(c); 40
CFR 51.1013.
An adequate evaluation by the state of sources CAA section 189(e);40
of all four PM2.5 precursors for regulation, CFR 51.1006.
and implementation of controls on all such
precursors, unless the state provides a
demonstration establishing that it is either
not necessary to regulate a particular
precursor in the nonattainment area at issue in
order to attain by the attainment date, or that
emissions of the precursor do not make a
significant contribution to PM2.5 levels that
exceed the standard.**
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas CAA section 172(c)(9);
subject to CAA section 189(b). 40 CFR 51.1014.
Contingency measures applicable to Serious areas CAA section 172(c)(9);
subject to CAA section 189(d). 40 CFR 51.1014.
Nonattainment new source review provisions...... CAA section 189(b)(3);
40 CFR 51.165.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA finalized approval of this requirement on September 24, 2021 (86
FR 52997).
** EPA finalized approval of this requirement applicable to Serious
areas subject to CAA section 189(b) on September 24, 2021 (86 FR
52997).
As noted in section I of this document, EPA approved parts of the
Fairbanks Serious Plan as meeting the base year emission inventory
requirements, PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstration requirements,
and the nonattainment new source review provisions (86 FR 52997,
September 24, 2021; see also 84 FR 45419, August 29, 2019). Therefore,
the ensuing evaluation focuses on the remaining statutory and
regulatory requirements applicable to Serious nonattainment plan
provisions. Additionally, we are also evaluating whether the December
15, 2020, submission meets the additional planning requirements of a
revised Serious area attainment plan under CAA section 189(d) and 40
CFR 51.1003(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ MSM is applicable if EPA has previously granted an
extension of the attainment date under CAA section 188(e) for the
nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue. EPA denied Alaska's request
to extend the Serious area attainment date for the Fairbanks Serious
Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Review of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan
A. Emission Inventories
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that states submit a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of
the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area as part
of a nonattainment plan for such area. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1008
contains the requirements for emission inventories.\47\ EPA has also
issued additional guidance concerning emissions inventories for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas.\48\ In accordance with 40 CFR
51.1008, the attainment plan must include a base year emissions
inventory and attainment projected emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58078-58079.
\48\ ``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone
and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,'' EPA, May 2017 (``Emissions
Inventory Guidance''), available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-emissions-inventory-guidance-implementation-ozone-and-particulate</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base year emissions inventory for a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area must be one of the three years for which EPA used
monitored data to reclassify the area to Serious, or another
technically appropriate year justified by the state in its Serious area
nonattainment plan SIP submission.\49\ Similarly, the base year
emission inventory for a nonattainment area subject to CAA section
189(d) must be one of the three years for which monitored data were
used by EPA to determine the area failed to attain by the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date,
or another technically appropriate year justified by the state in its
Serious area nonattainment plan SIP submission.\50\ The base year
emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of actual
emissions from all sources, i.e., all emissions that contribute to the
formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The emissions must be either annual
total emissions, average-season day emissions, or both, as appropriate
for the relevant annual versus 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The
state must include a rationale for providing annual or seasonal
emission inventories, and justification for the period used for any
seasonal emissions calculations.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 40 CFR 51.1008(b)(1).
\50\ 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(1).
\51\ 40 CFR 51.1008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 40 CFR 51.1008, the Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan must
include an attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area.
The year of the projected inventory shall be the most expeditious year
for which projected emissions show modeled PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. The emissions values shall
be projected emissions of the same sources included in the base year
inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., those only within the
nonattainment area) and any new sources. The state shall include in
this inventory projected emissions growth and contraction from both
controls and other causes during the relevant period. The temporal
period of emissions shall be the same temporal period (annual, average-
season-day, or both) as the base year inventory for the nonattainment
area. The same sources reported as point sources in the base year
inventory for the nonattainment area shall be included as point sources
in the attainment projected inventory for the nonattainment area.
Stationary nonpoint and mobile source projected emissions shall be
provided using the same detail
[[Page 1460]]
(e.g., state, county, and process codes) as the base year inventory for
the nonattainment area. The same detail of the emissions included shall
be consistent with the level of detail and data elements as in the base
year inventory for the nonattainment area (i.e., as required by 40 CFR
part 51, subpart A). Consistent with the base year inventory for the
nonattainment area, the inventory shall include direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
emissions, separately reported PM<INF>2.5</INF> filterable and
condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors, including precursors that are not significant
PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors pursuant to a precursor demonstration
under 40 CFR 51.1006.
A state's SIP submission must include documentation explaining how
it calculated emissions data for the inventory and be consistent with
the data elements required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In estimating
mobile source emissions, a state must use the latest emissions models
and planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is
developed.\52\ States are also required to use EPA's ``Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors'' (``AP-42'') road dust method for
calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved
roads.<SUP>53 54</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See CAA section 172(c)(3).
\53\ EPA released an update to AP-42 in January 2011 that
revised the equation for estimating paved road dust emissions based
on an updated data regression that included new emission tests
results. 76 FR 6328 (February 4, 2011).
\54\ AP-42 has been published since 1972 as the primary source
of EPA's emission factor information. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsfactors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors</a>. It contains emission factors and process information for
more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is
a specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The
emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test
data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
The base year planning emissions inventory for direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors (nitrogen oxides
(NO<INF>X</INF>), sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>)) and the documentation
for the inventory for the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area
are located in State Air Quality Control Plan, Chapter III.D.7.6
(``Emissions Inventory Data'') and Appendix III.D.7.6 of the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Adopted November 18, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State developed the inventory using data sources and emission
calculation methodologies from the approved Fairbanks Serious Plan,
2013 base year emissions inventory, as its starting point and then
updated the emissions totals based on additional source and activity
data collected since preparation of that inventory. The State based the
2019 base year inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan on
historical source activity data in calendar year 2019 for all source
sectors. EPA's MOVES2014b model was used for on-road vehicles
(including effects of the on-going Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program and Tier 3 fuel standards, coupled with Alaska Ultra Low Sulfur
Diesel standards) and non-road vehicles and equipment (including the
effect of Federal fuel and Alaska ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD)
programs for non-road fuel).
Table 3--2019 Baseline Episode Average Daily Emissions (Tons per Day) by Source Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019 Base year emissions inventory (tons/day)
Source sector -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources................... 0.57 10.31 5.68 0.03 0.073
Area, Space Heating............. 1.91 2.43 3.88 8.60 0.132
Area, Space Heat, Wood...... 1.77 0.39 0.16 8.38 0.086
Area, Space Heat, Oil....... 0.06 1.82 3.62 0.10 0.004
Area, Space Heat, Coal...... 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.014
Area, Space Heat, Other..... 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.029
Area, Other..................... 0.22 0.36 0.03 2.10 0.046
On-Road Mobile.................. 0.22 1.70 0.01 3.83 0.040
Non-Road Mobile................. 0.26 0.94 5.41 4.16 0.002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 3.17 15.73 15.01 18.72 0.293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Table 7.6-7
The State focused on what it identified as the three most important
source types in the airshed: stationary point sources; space heating
area (nonpoint) sources; and on-road mobile sources. At the time the
State developed the emissions inventory, these three source types were
the major contributors to both direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as
well as emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor pollutants gases
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, and NH<INF>3</INF> within the
nonattainment area.
The emission sources with the highest relative direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> contributions were:
<bullet> 55.8% for wood-fired space heating;
<bullet> 17.9% stationary sources;
<bullet> 8.1% non-road mobile; and
<bullet> 6.8% on-road mobile.
The emission sources with the highest relative SO<INF>2</INF>
contributions were:
<bullet> 37.9% stationary sources;
<bullet> 36% non-road mobile; and
<bullet> 24.1% oil-fired space heating.
The emission sources with the highest relative NO<INF>X</INF>
contributions were:
<bullet> 65.5% stationary sources;
<bullet> 11.6% oil-fired space heating;
<bullet> 10.8% on-road mobile; and
<bullet> 6% non-road mobile.
The emission sources with the highest relative VOC contributions
were:
<bullet> 44.8% for wood-fired space heating;
<bullet> 22.2% non-road mobile; and
<bullet> 20.5% on-road mobile.
The emission sources with the highest relative NH<INF>3</INF>
contributions were:
<bullet> 29.3% for wood-fired space heating;
<bullet> 25% stationary sources;
<bullet> 15.8% other area sources; and
<bullet> 13.5% on-road mobile.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, III.D.7.6, Figures
7.6-8--7.6-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's technical evaluation of Alaska's Emissions Inventory planning
sections is included in the docket for this action.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory
Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied
Sciences Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1461]]
a. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory
The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan includes an attainment projected
inventory for 2024.\58\ Previously Alaska stated that attainment by
2024 was not practicable and estimated that 2029 was the most
expeditious attainment date.\59\ EPA did not take action on the
attainment projected emissions inventory submitted as part of the
Fairbanks Serious Plan (see 86 FR 52997, September 24, 2021). Alaska
has subsequently withdrawn and replaced the applicable planning chapter
from that SIP submission with a revised attainment projected emission
inventory included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Consistent with these
statements, EPA is proposing to evaluate any previously unmet Serious
area planning obligations based on the current, applicable attainment
date appropriate under CAA section 189(d) and not the original Serious
area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.9.
\59\ The State included an attainment projected emissions
inventory in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted on December 13,
2019, which also projected attainment in 2024. However, the
Attainment Demonstration chapter in the Fairbanks Serious Plan
stated that attainment by 2024 was not practicable. Instead, the
State estimated the most expeditious attainment date is 2029.
However, Alaska did not identify a 2029 inventory in the Emissions
Inventory chapter nor adequately demonstrate that 2029 was the most
expeditious attainment date. The State did, however, produce a 2029
inventory for the Reasonable Further Progress plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA views the 2024 attainment projected inventory included in
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as the applicable projected inventory, which
is based on the 2019 base year inventory of actual emissions. The 2024
emissions projection follows two steps. First, the State projected the
2019 base year emissions to 2024 based on forecasted source activity
changes coupled with changes in emission factors due to already adopted
Federal, state, and local control measures that existed prior to the
development of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. Second, the State modified
these initial 2024 emissions projections based on the suite of
additional emission reductions from measures the State will be
implementing under the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
The State forecasted emissions reductions from the ongoing Wood
Stove Change Out Program \60\ and the Oil-To-Gas Conversion Program
\61\ in Fairbanks beyond 2019 based on an analysis of the historical
change out program activity and existing funding available for future
changeouts, as well as certifying that no new staffing will be required
to handle projected changeouts through 2024. Alaska projected the
additional emissions reductions in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
from these measures to be 0.6941 tons per day and 0.0083 tons per day,
respectively, in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The Woodstove Changeout Program, administered by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Program, is primarily
funded through EPA's Targeted Airshed Grant, along with local and
state funding. The program has received $32 million in total funding
since 2010. The program upgrades or removes solid fuel-fired and
oil-fired heating devices. Since 2010, the change out program has
evolved to ensure the best emission outcomes by narrowing
eligibility, and what types of devices may be installed.
\61\ Funded and managed by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Air
Quality Program, residential oil heating appliances are changed out
for natural gas-fired heating devices to support natural gas
expansion through conversion of to gas heating appliances. The
program has received $2 million in total funding since 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State based emissions reductions for the Solid-Fuel Burning
Appliance Curtailment Program \62\ in Fairbanks on Alaska's revisions
in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan that increases the stringency of the
existing curtailment program. Under the latest regulations, the State
lowered the curtailment program's two air quality alert stages to 20
[mu]g/m\3\ and 30 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, for Stage 1 and Stage 2
alerts (down from 25 [mu]g/m\3\ and 35 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively). In
addition, Alaska plans to utilize 2019-2020 Targeted Airshed Grant
(TAG) funding to install several dynamic highway message signs,
purchase an infrared camera, and expand staffing to increase
compliance. As a result, Alaska estimated that the curtailment program
compliance rate will increase from 30% in 2019 to 45% by 2024. Alaska
projected the additional emissions reductions in PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> from these measures to be 0.351 tons per day and -0.058
tons per day, respectively, in 2024 (an increase in SO<INF>2</INF>
results from the projected increase in conversions to liquid-fueled
heating devices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a); 18 AAC
50.075(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also incorporated point source SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
reductions under the Fairbanks Serious Plan into the 2024 attainment
projected inventory. For a detailed summary of the attainment projected
inventory, see EPA's Fairbanks Emissions Inventory Technical Support
Document in the docket for this action.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Kotchenruther, B. (August 24, 2022). Technical support
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
amendments to: State Air Quality Control Plan, Emission Inventory
Data (version adopted November 18, 2020). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied
Sciences Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. 2019 Base Year Emissions Inventory
EPA proposes to find that the 2019 base year emissions inventory
meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.
Calendar year 2019 is an appropriate base year for the Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan because it is one of the three years for which EPA used monitored
data to determine that the area failed to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS by the applicable Serious area attainment date.\64\ The base year
emissions inventory is a seasonal inventory, based on two historical
meteorological episodes considered by EPA to be representative of the
range of meteorological conditions that lead to exceedances of the 24-
hour NAAQS. This is an appropriate temporal scope for a base year
emissions inventory where anthropogenic exceedances of the 24-hour
NAAQS occur exclusively in winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 85 FR 54509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions inventory is of actual emissions in 2019, as required
in the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule and guidance.\65\ The
emissions inventory also includes separate reporting for filterable and
condensible PM<INF>2.5</INF> for the relevant emissions sectors and SCC
codes. The base year 2019 emissions inventory, reported as average
season day emissions, is based on methodologies used by the State and
vetted by EPA in the Fairbanks Moderate and Serious Plans and applied
to the new base year of 2019. Therefore, the inventory reports
emissions consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and
contains the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part 51,
subpart A. For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2019 base
year emissions inventory in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1)(ii).
\66\ We note that EPA approved as meeting the Serious area
planning requirements the 2013 base year emissions inventory on
September 24, 2021 (86 FR 52997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 2024 Attainment Projected Inventory
EPA proposes to find that the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan does not
satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.1008(c)(2) to include an
attainment projected emission inventory for the most expeditious
attainment date. The Fairbanks 189(d) Plan contains an attainment
projected emissions inventory, and Alaska projects attainment by
December 31, 2024. The updated State Air Quality Control Plan
[[Page 1462]]
contains the revisions and methodology for the 2024 projected
inventory.\67\ These chapters supersede the chapters that contain the
prior attainment projected inventory. As discussed further in section
III.D of this document, regarding the Attainment Demonstration,
Alaska's proposed attainment date of 2024 is predicated on a modeling
platform that is outdated and lacks the quantitative performance
evaluation and speciated information at the air quality monitor (Hurst
Road in North Pole) with highest PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations.
Alaska is currently in the process of updating the modeling using the
latest model. Therefore, December 31, 2024, may not be the most
expeditious year for which projected emissions show modeled
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS. Moreover, as discussed
further in section III.C in this document, the control strategy does
not contain all required control measures. Therefore, the attainment
projected emissions inventory does not necessarily take into
consideration all required emissions reductions, so we propose to
disapprove the projected emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter
III.D.7.6.7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Pollutants Addressed
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA and the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, each state containing a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment area must evaluate all PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors for regulation unless, for any given PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursor, the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction
that such precursor does not contribute significantly to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the NAAQS in the nonattainment
area.\68\ The provisions of subpart 4 do not define the term
``precursor'' for purposes of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, nor do they explicitly
require the control of any specifically identified PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursor. The statutory definition of ``air pollutant,'' however,
provides that the term ``includes any precursors to the formation of
any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such
precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term
`air pollutant' is used.'' \69\ EPA has identified SO<INF>2</INF>,
NO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> as precursors to the formation
of PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\70\ Accordingly, the attainment plan requirements
of part D, title I of the CAA and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule apply to emissions of all four precursors and direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> from all types of stationary, area, and mobile
sources, except as otherwise provided in CAA section 189(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 40 CFR 51.1006, 51.1010; See 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016,
at pp. 58017-58020.
\69\ CAA section 302(g).
\70\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at p. 58015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A large number of chemical reactions, often non-linear in nature,
can convert gaseous SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, making them precursors to
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.\71\ Formation of secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> also
depends on atmospheric conditions, including solar radiation,
temperature, and relative humidity, and the interactions of precursors
with particles and with cloud or fog droplets.\72\ According to the
State, in the Fairbanks Serious Plan, total wintertime PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area are
a function of both primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and secondary
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formed from precursors (see State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8, section 7.8.1 of the Fairbanks Serious
Plan in the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter'' (EPA/600/P-
99/002aF), EPA, October 2004, Ch. 3.
\72\ ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter''
(EPA/452/R-12-005), EPA, December 2012), 2-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 189(e) requires that the control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM<INF>10</INF> \73\ and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
\74\ also apply to major stationary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM<INF>10</INF> or
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the standard in the area. CAA
section 189(e) contains the only express exception to the control
requirements under subpart 4 (e.g., requirements for reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT), BACM and BACT, Most Stringent Measures (MSM), and
New Source Review (NSR) for sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions). Although section 189(e)
explicitly addresses only major stationary sources, EPA interprets this
provision as authorizing it also to determine, under appropriate
circumstances, that regulation of specific PM<INF>10</INF> or
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors from other source categories in a given
nonattainment area is not necessary.\75\ For example, under EPA's
longstanding interpretation of the control requirements that apply to
stationary, area, and mobile sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors in
the nonattainment area under CAA section 172(c)(1) and subpart 4,\76\ a
state may demonstrate in a SIP submission that control of a certain
precursor pollutant is not necessary in light of its insignificant
contribution to ambient PM<INF>10</INF> or PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels in
the nonattainment area.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The requirements for attainment plans for the 2006 24-hour
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS include the general nonattainment area
planning requirements in CAA section 172 of title I, part D, subpart
1 and the additional planning requirements specific to particulate
matter in CAA sections 188 and 189 of title I, part D, subpart 4. 81
FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58012-58014.
\74\ The general attainment plan requirements of subpart 1, part
D, of Title I of the CAA in addition to the specific requirements in
subpart 4, part D, of Title I of the CAA apply to both
PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>. See 81 FR 58010, August 24,
2016, at pp. 58013.
\75\ 81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016, at pp. 58018-58019.
\76\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, at pp.
13539-42.
\77\ 40 CFR 51.1006. See also 81 FR 58010, 58033. Courts have
upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for
PM<INF>10</INF>. See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, et
al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements Rule, a state may elect
to submit to EPA a ``comprehensive precursor demonstration'' for a
specific nonattainment area to show that emissions of a particular
precursor from all existing sources located in the nonattainment area
do not contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed
the NAAQS at issue in the nonattainment in the area.\78\ If EPA
determines that the contribution of the precursor to PM<INF>2.5</INF>
levels in the area is not significant and approves the demonstration,
then the state is not required to control emissions of the relevant
precursor from existing sources in the attainment plan.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
\79\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in May 2019, EPA issued the ``PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Precursor Demonstration Guidance'' (``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursor
Guidance''), which provides recommendations to states for analyzing
nonattainment area PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and developing such
optional precursor demonstrations, consistent with the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
SIP Requirements Rule.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ``PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursor Demonstration Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-19-004, May 2019, including Memo dated May 30, 2019, from
Scott Mathias, Acting Director, Air Quality Policy Division and
Richard Wayland, Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), EPA to Regional Air
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is evaluating both the remaining elements of the Fairbanks
Serious Plan before the agency and the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan in
accordance with the presumption embodied within subpart 4 that the
State must address all PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in the evaluation
and implementation of potential control measures, unless the State
adequately demonstrates that emissions of a particular precursor or
precursors do not contribute significantly to ambient
[[Page 1463]]
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the
nonattainment area. In reviewing any determination by the state to
exclude a PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor from the required evaluation of
potential control measures, we considered both the magnitude of the
precursor's contribution to ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in
the nonattainment area and the sensitivity of ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations in the area to reductions in emissions of that
precursor.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of State's Submission
On September 24, 2021, EPA approved Alaska's PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursor demonstration submitted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan
for purposes of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions as it relates to
control measure requirements (86 FR 52997). Alaska included its updated
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor analysis in the SIP submission to meet CAA
189(d) requirements.\82\ This submission included a new NO<INF>X</INF>
model run that replaced a quantitative analysis conducted as part of
the Fairbanks Serious Plan submission. Because there were no
significant changes to the modeling platform during the short time
period between the Fairbanks Serious Plan and 189(d) Plan submissions,
the State reasoned that the other model runs and precursor analysis
from the Fairbanks Serious Plan are still applicable as part of the
updated precursor demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.8,
section 7.8.14.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's precursor demonstration provided both concentration-based
and sensitivity-based analyses of precursor contributions to ambient
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area. For VOC emissions, Alaska's demonstration was based
on a comprehensive precursor analysis where a baseline model run was
compared to a control model run with a 100% reduction of VOC emissions
from anthropogenic sources. These results are well below the 1.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ significance threshold. For NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, Alaska
included a baseline model run in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan evaluating a
50% reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> as part of the 189(d) Plan. According
to the State, this provides further evidence that NO<INF>X</INF> does
not contribute significantly to PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area. The sensitivity precursor analysis showed
that the maximum 24-hour average PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations due to
anthropogenic NO<INF>X</INF> emissions were less than or equal to 1.22
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2019 for all model grid cells containing regulatory
monitors, and therefore were below the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold.
These analyses led the State to conclude that SO<INF>2</INF> and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions contribute significantly to ambient
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area, while NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC do not
contribute significantly to such exceedances. Consistent with this
conclusion, the State focused the control strategy and attainment
demonstration on sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions. A technical summary of Alaska's updated
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor demonstration is included in the docket for
this action.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor Demonstrations for Volatile
Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, Alaska's precursor analysis in the 189(d) Plan did not
address nonattainment NSR requirements. The State previously made the
determination to regulate all four EPA-identified legal precursors to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the nonattainment NSR regulations applicable to the
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. EPA approved Alaska's
October 25, 2018, SIP revision as meeting the nonattainment NSR
requirements triggered upon reclassification of the area to Serious (84
FR 45419, August 29, 2019).
3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstration included in
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan consistent with the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
Requirements Rule and the recommendations in the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Precursor Guidance. Noting that Alaska did not submit a precursor
determination for SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions,\84\ EPA
agrees that SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emission sources,
therefore, remain subject to control requirements under subparts 1 and
4 of part D, title I of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ According to Alaska, there is a negligible amount of
NH<INF>3</INF> associated with coal-fired boilers, fuel oil-fired
turbines or diesel engine emissions and this amount is not in the
emissions inventory. See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II,
Chapter III.D.7.7.8.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to approve the State's demonstration that
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to
ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels that exceed the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
NAAQS in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area for purposes
other than NSR program requirements. If EPA finalizes this proposed
approval, Alaska would not be required to identify and impose control
measures for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emission sources in Fairbanks other
than for NSR purposes or to impose motor vehicle emission budgets for
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions. Our proposed approval of Alaska's
precursor demonstration does not extend to nonattainment NSR
requirements for the area. Alaska previously determined that it was
appropriate to regulate NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> as precursors to PM<INF>2.5</INF> with respect to
nonattainment NSR and submitted rule changes to that effect on October
25, 2018. EPA approved the submitted revised program as meeting
nonattainment NSR requirements triggered upon reclassification of the
Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area to Serious (84 FR 45419,
August 29, 2019).
Regarding the State's analytical approach, EPA proposes to find
that the State used appropriate methods and data to evaluate
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area from precursor emissions. Alaska began with
concentration-based analyses for the precursors and proceeded with
sensitivity-based analyses if necessary, which is an acceptable
progression of analyses under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule. The State utilized the appropriate threshold recommended in EPA's
guidance (1.5 [mu]g/m\3\) in evaluating the significance of precursor
emissions to the formation of 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> and utilized
data from all four monitors in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area (see Table 1 of this document).
Regarding the results of the State's analysis, the concentration-
based modeling analysis of VOC emissions demonstrates that
anthropogenic VOCs have impacts on PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area that are well below
the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ significance threshold. Therefore, we propose to
concur with the State's conclusion that VOCs are not significant for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area.
Further, we propose to find that the weight of evidence presented
in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan suggests that
NO<INF>X</INF> emitted from all sources is an insignificant contributor
to local PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. Additional details of EPA's
evaluation of Alaska's precursor PM<INF>2.5</INF> analyses are included
in EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor Technical Support Document in the
docket for this action.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Briggs and Kotchenruther. (August 24, 2022). Review of
Fairbanks Nonattainment Area Precursor Demonstrations for Volatile
Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides in the 2020 State
Implementation Plan Submission. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1464]]
C. Control Strategy
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a) contain the control
measure requirements for Serious areas. CAA section 189(d) and 40 CFR
51.1010(c) contain the control measure requirements for Serious areas
that fail to attain. EPA summarizes these statutory and regulatory
provisions in this section.
Pursuant to CAA section 189(b) and 40 CFR 51.1010(a), the state
must identify, adopt, and implement best available control measures,
including best available control technologies, on sources of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and sources of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>
plan precursors located in any Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment
area or portion thereof located within the state. This level of control
stringency is commonly called ``BACM'' and ``BACT.'' The regulation at
40 CFR 51.1010(a) specifies the requirements states must meet to
identify potential control measures and in determining the measures
states must include in the control strategy as BACM or BACT for the
nonattainment area:
The state must identify all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
emissions and sources of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in
the nonattainment area, in accordance with the emissions inventory
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
The state must identify all potential control measures to reduce
emissions from all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and
sources of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors in the
nonattainment area. The state must survey other NAAQS nonattainment
areas in the U.S. and identify any measures for direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors not previously identified by the
state during the development of the Moderate area attainment plan for
the area.
The state must identify, adopt, and implement the best available
control measures for each emission source. However, the state may
demonstrate that any measure identified under 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(2) is
not technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or
in part by the end of the tenth calendar year following the effective
date of designation of the area and may eliminate such whole or partial
measure from further consideration. Overall, economic feasibility is a
less significant factor in the BACM and BACT determination process.\86\
There are considerations for technological feasibility of a potential
control measure, where a state may consider factors including but not
limited to a source's processes and operating procedures, raw
materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts
such as increased water pollution, waste disposal, and energy
requirements.\87\ There are also considerations for economic
feasibility of a potential control measure where a state may consider
capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness
of the measure.\88\ In assessing whether a control measure or
technology is BACM or BACT, the state must consider emission reduction
measures with higher costs per ton compared to the economic feasibility
criteria applied in their RACM or RACT analysis.\89\ With respect to
determining BACT pursuant to CAA section 189(b), EPA expects that
states use the top-down BACT analysis process used in the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id.
\87\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(i); 81 FR 58010, 58084.
\88\ 40 CFR 51.1010(a)(3)(ii); 81 FR 58010, 58085.
\89\ 81 FR 58010, 58085.
\90\ Id. 58010, 58080 (``Consistent with past policy, BACT
determinations for PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS implementation are to
follow the same process and criteria that are applied to the BACT
determination process for the PSD program.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to CAA section 189(b), a state with a Serious
nonattainment area must include provisions to assure that the
implementation of BACM and BACT level controls on sources of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors no later than 4
years after the date the area is classified (or reclassified) as a
Serious area.
In the preamble to the final PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP Requirements
Rule, EPA recommended the following 5-Step BACM/BACT selection process
states should follow to satisfy the analytical and substantive
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1010(a) and CAA section 189(b): \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 81 FR 58010, 58084-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Develop a comprehensive inventory of sources and source
categories of directly emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors.
Step 2: Identify potential control measures for all such sources.
Step 3: Determine whether an available control measure or
technology is technologically feasible.
Step 4: Determine whether an available control measure or
technology is economically feasible.
Step 5: Determine the earliest date by which a control measure or
technology can be implemented in whole or in part in the area.
EPA's interprets CAA section 189(b) to require the state to
determine what is BACM or BACT for a particular source or source
category.\92\ EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA is that BACM
and BACT determinations are to be generally independent of attainment
for purposes of implementing the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.\93\ EPA
interprets the CAA requirement to impose BACM/BACT level control as
requiring more emphasis on what controls are the best for the relevant
source and whether those controls are feasible rather than on the
attainment needs of the area.\94\ States also may not decline to
evaluate, or to control as necessary, sources or source categories on
the basis that they are de minimis.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 81 FR 58010, 58081.
\93\ Addendum to the General Preamble, 59 FR 41998, 42011
(August 16, 1994); 81 FR 58010, 58081.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Id. 58010, 58082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, for a state with a Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment area that has failed to attain by the applicable
attainment date, the state must submit a revised attainment plan with a
control strategy that demonstrates that each year the area will achieve
at least a 5 percent reduction in emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
or a 5 percent reduction in emissions of a PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan
precursor based on the most recent emissions inventory for the area;
and that the area will attain the standard as expeditiously as
practicable consistent with the attainment date requirements under 40
CFR 51.1004(a)(3).\96\ The regulation at 40 CFR 51.1010(c) specifies
the following process the state must follow in determining which
measures must be included in the control strategy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ CAA section 189(d), 42 U.S.C. 7513a(d), and 40 CFR
51.1010(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state shall identify all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
emissions and sources of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors in
the nonattainment area in accordance with the emissions inventory
requirements in 40 CFR 51.1008(b).
The state shall identify all potential control measures to reduce
emissions from all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and
sources of emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors in the
nonattainment area. For the sources and source categories represented
in the emission inventory for the nonattainment area, the state shall
identify the most stringent measures for reducing direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors adopted into any
SIP or used in practice to control emissions in any state, as
applicable.
The state shall also reconsider and reassess any measures
previously
[[Page 1465]]
rejected by the state during the development of any Moderate area or
Serious area attainment plan control strategy for the area.
Similar to the requirements for Serious area plans, the state may
make a demonstration for a 189(d) plan that a measure is not
technologically or economically feasible to implement in whole or in
part within 5 years or such longer period as EPA may determine is
appropriate after EPA's determination that the area failed to attain by
the Serious area attainment date and may eliminate such whole or
partial measure from further consideration. There are considerations
for technological feasibility of a potential control measure, as
described under 40 CFR 51.1010(c)(3)(i), where a state may consider
factors including but not limited to a source's processes and operating
procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential
environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste
disposal, and energy requirements. There are also considerations for
economic feasibility of a potential control measure, under 40 CFR
51.1010(c)(3)(ii), where a state may consider capital costs, operating
and maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness of the measure.
Unless the state has demonstrated that the measure is not
technologically or economically feasible, the state shall adopt and
implement all potential control measures identified.
Finally, control measures adopted as part of the state's control
strategy must be permanent, enforceable as a practical matter, and
quantifiable.\97\ In order to be enforceable as a practical matter, the
state must adopt into the SIP not only the control measure or emission
limit itself but also appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the control
measure.\98\ Without appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, violations of the control measure could go
undetected.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Control measures must be incorporated by reference into the
regulatory portion of the SIP (52.70(c) and (d)) with appropriate
monitoring and reporting requirements. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(A);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(A); 81 FR 58010, at pp. 58046-47; 57 FR 13498,
at pp.13567-68.
\98\ 81 FR at 58046-47; 57 FR 13498, at p. 13567-68; 67 FR
22168, at p. 22170; 80 FR 33840 at pp. 33843, 33865; Montana Sulphur
& Chemical Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th Cir.
2012).
\99\ 67 FR 22168, at p. 22170; Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v.
EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, at pp. 1189-1190 (9th Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we will evaluate whether Alaska met the applicable
planning requirements as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan and
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.
2. Summary of State's Submission
a. Identification and Adoption of BACM
We note that Alaska included its initial BACM analysis in the
Fairbanks Serious Plan, submitted in 2019. EPA approved a number of
specific control measures as SIP strengthening but did not approve them
as meeting the BACM/BACT requirement at that time.\100\ Subsequently,
Alaska updated its BACM analysis and resubmitted the updated analysis
in 2020 as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, to meet Serious area and
189(d) requirements. Even though the State made a SIP submission
intended to meet the requirements of CAA section 189(d), it remains
obligated to meet the BACM/BACT level controls required as part of a
Serious area nonattainment plan for the area. The State did not
withdraw some parts of the Serious area plan with respect to the BACM/
BACT requirements for certain sources. Accordingly, we are evaluating
the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission where the State has updated parts
of the BACM analysis, and otherwise evaluating the information the
State initially included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 86 FR 52997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska followed EPA's recommended 5-step process to evaluate BACM-
level controls for sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors. Alaska also analyzed controls for stationary sources of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors to satisfy BACT
requirements. Alaska's process for analyzing BACT-level controls is
discussed separately in this section following the BACM discussion.
For Step 1, Alaska developed a comprehensive inventory of sources
and source categories of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
precursors.\101\ Alaska identified the following source categories in
the Fairbanks nonattainment area: solid fuel burning (outdoor hydronic
heaters, solid fuel-fired heaters, fireplaces, burn barrels and open
burning, and agricultural and forest burns); residential and commercial
fuel oil combustion; transportation (automobiles and heavy-duty
vehicles); and small area/commercial sources (coffee roasters,
charbroilers, incinerators, and used oil burners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
III.D.7.6.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Step 2, Alaska identified potential control measures for the
source categories identified in Step 1. First, Alaska reviewed the
control measures that were implemented under the Fairbanks Moderate
Plan and discussed their implementation status.\102\ Alaska then
reconsidered and reassessed the measures that the State rejected as
potential RACM/RACT for the Fairbanks Moderate Plan. As a means of
identifying additional potential BACM/BACT measures for the Fairbanks
area, Alaska surveyed rules and regulations in other states and local
governments and identified measures for reducing direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> plan precursors adopted into any
nonattainment plan or used in practice to control emissions. Alaska
also created a stakeholder group to identify, evaluate, and recommend
community-based solutions to bring the area into compliance with
Federal air quality standards for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, see State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-3 and Table
7.7-4. Overall, Alaska identified 84 control measures for analysis
which are included in State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7. EPA's review of each of the 84 control measures is included
as a Technical Support Document in the docket for this action.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-1
\103\ Jentgen, M. (September 27, 2022). Technical support
document for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
(ADEC) control measure analysis, under 40 CFR 1010(a) and (c). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation
Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to controls for NH<INF>3</INF> emissions, Alaska
stated that processes that emit NH<INF>3</INF> (biomass burning,
mobile, home heating) differ in Fairbanks from those in the rest of the
country, where NH<INF>3</INF> from agricultural activities, vehicles,
and other industrial activities form ammonium nitrate. Alaska conducted
a literature review to identify potential controls for the sources of
NH<INF>3</INF> in the emissions inventory. Alaska was unable to
identify any potential controls to control NH<INF>3</INF> emissions
specifically.\104\ As discussed further in this section, Alaska
included in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan an analysis that demonstrates
that certain measures and technologies designed to reduce emissions of
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> have the co-benefit of reducing emissions of
NH<INF>3</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7 at 5354. Alaska also notes that in the Fairbanks
Nonattainment Area, there is only a limited amount of particulate
matter-nitrate measured at the monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Step 3, Alaska evaluated technical feasibility for the
potential control measures and identified and rejected certain control
measures that the State determined to be technically infeasible.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-5355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1466]]
For Step 4, Alaska evaluated the economic feasibility of the
control measures that it determined to be technically feasible. Alaska
included these economic evaluations of potential emission control
technologies in the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-5440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Step 5, Alaska determined whether it could implement a control
measure or technology in whole or in part no later than four years
after reclassification of the area to Serious nonattainment, which
would be June 2021.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-5442; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a summary of the regulations adopted by Alaska, organized
by source category, resulting from the BACM analyses included in the
Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, included in State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7 and State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7.
i. Solid-Fuel Burning
The solid-fuel burning source category includes a number of
measures that the State adopted as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan.
These measures address direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> SO<INF>2</INF>, and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions. As discussed in Step 2, Alaska researched
potential controls measures for NH<INF>3</INF> for this source category
and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls.\108\ However,
according to Alaska, some measures identified and adopted by the State
to control emissions of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> have the co-benefit of
reducing emissions of NH<INF>3</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7-5353-5354; State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II,
Chapter III.D.7.10-5--10-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> The owner, vendor, or dealer of a wood-fired heating
device must register the device with Alaska upon the occurrence of
events such as new device sale, home sale, or participating in a
curtailment waiver program. 18 AAC 50.077(h).
<bullet> Commercial wood sellers must register with Alaska and
ensure that wood being sold must have a moisture content less than 20
percent. Non-commercial wood sellers are not permitted to sell wet
wood. 18 AAC 50.076(d), (e), (g), (j), (k), and (l). According to the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as well as SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF>
emissions.
<bullet> Wood-fired heating devices are prohibited in the
nonattainment area unless specific device performance criteria are met,
and outdoor hydronic heaters are not permitted except for pellet-fueled
hydronic heaters that also meet specific performance criteria. New
woodstoves and pellet-fueled woodstoves must be EPA-certified and meet
specific performance criteria. A person may not install a new pellet-
fueled hydronic heaters within 300 feet from the closest property line
or within 660 feet from a school, clinic, hospital, or senior housing
unit. 18 AAC 50.077(a), (b), (c), (d), and (j). According to the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions as well as accounting for
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting
increase in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions since measures designed to reduce
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> through removal, curtailment, or replacement of
solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil,
which has greater SO<INF>2</INF> emissions compared to wood fuels.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
III.D.7.10.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Regulations that give Alaska the authority to review
manufacturer test results and place a model on the department's list of
devices, which identifies what devices that are approved for operation
in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area. 18 AAC 50.077(e).
According to the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as well as SO<INF>2</INF> and
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions.
<bullet> Alaska revised the woodstove curtailment program rules to
lower curtailment thresholds and further restrict curtailment waivers.
Specifically, Alaska revised the requirements for the exemption process
to ensure a waiver is temporary and objective criteria are used to
determine economic hardship. Alaska continues to implement this
program. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12; 18 AAC 50.030(a) and 18 AAC
50.075(e).
<bullet> When Alaska issues a curtailment alert, fuel to non-exempt
devices must be withheld, and combustion in these devices--as evidenced
by visible smoke from a chimney--must cease within three hours after
the effective time of a curtailment of operation under an emergency
episode. Solid fuel fired heating device shall be operated so that
visible emissions do not cross property lines.18 AAC 50.075(e)(3) and
(f)(2). Alaska has revised the requirements for curtailment program
advisories and alerts. Now, an advisory is called when PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations are expected to reach 15 [mu]g/m\3\. A stage 1 alert is
called when PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are expected to reach 20
[mu]g/m\3\ (this alert stage allows for specific exemptions). A stage 2
alert is called when PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations are expected to
reach 30 [mu]g/m\3\. Fairbanks Emergency Episode Plan, State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter III.D.7.12. According to the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, this measure reduces both direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions as well as accounting for
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Alaska acknowledges that there is a resulting
increase in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions since measures designed to reduce
direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> through removal, curtailment, or replacement of
solid-fuel devices trigger a shift in heating energy to heating oil,
which has greater SO<INF>2</INF> emissions compared to wood fuels.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter
III.D.7.10.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Wood-fired heating devices and wood fired retrofit control
devices must be professionally sized and professionally installed with
confirmation of proper installation and location. 18 AAC 50.077(i).
<bullet> New woodstoves cannot serve as the primary or only source
of heat, unless the device is installed in a ``dry cabin'' or existing
rental units that have qualified for No Other Adequate Source of Heat
(NOASH) waivers. 18 AAC 50.077(j). According to the Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as
well as SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions.
<bullet> Wood-fired device vendors in the nonattainment area are
required to provide curtailment information to the buyer at time of
sale and review proper operating instructions. Wood-fired device
vendors may not advertise devices prohibited for sale within the
nonattainment area. 18 AAC 50.077(l).
<bullet> All EPA uncertified devices, non-pellet fueled hydronic
heaters, and coal-fired heating devices must be removed or replaced by
December 31, 2024, or upon sale, lease, or conveyance of an existing
building, whichever is earlier; and these devices that may not be
reinstalled within the area shall be rendered inoperable. 18 AAC
50.077(l) and (m); 18 AAC 50.079(f). According to the Fairbanks 189(d)
Plan, this measure reduces both direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions as
well as SO<INF>2</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions.
ii. Residential and Commercial Fuel Oil Combustion
The State developed and adopted these measures to address fuel oil
combustion to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The State researched
potential controls measures for NH<INF>3</INF> for this source category
and did not identify any ammonia-specific controls. Starting September
1, 2022, an individual or
[[Page 1467]]
business may only sell or purchase fuel oil containing no more than
1,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur may be sold for use in fuel oil-
fired equipment, including space heating devices.\111\ As part of its
BACM analysis included in the Fairbanks Serious Plan and updated in the
Fairbanks 189(d) Plan, Alaska evaluated requirements to use ULSD
heating oil in homes.\112\ Alaska determined that the switch to ULSD is
technologically feasible, while the economic analysis showed this
change would result in a cost of $1,819 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF>
removed. As described in detail in the ``Pollutants Addressed'' section
III.B of this document, SO<INF>2</INF> is a significant precursor of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment Area. After completing the BACM analysis, Alaska stated
that, while the ULSD measure appears to be technically and economically
feasible, Alaska declined to adopt and implement the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 18 AAC 50.078(b).
\112\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7;
State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix III.D.7.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than mandate an area-wide fuel switch from Diesel #2 (2,566
ppm) to ULSD (15 ppm), Alaska elected to mandate a fuel switch to
Diesel #1 (1,000 ppm) by September 1, 2022. The State determined that
this initial step down, meant to be more economically feasible for
local residents, reduced the environmental risks associated with the
transport of an increased volume of fuel into the community and still
provides a large sulfur reduction. As support for its rejection of
mandating ULSD as BACM, Alaska cited a University of Alaska Fairbanks/
Alaska cost analysis. This analysis estimated an increase in annual
household heating expenditures of $68.31 (a 3 percent increase) under
the selected measure, while the same cost analysis estimated an
increase between $311.96 and $374.86 (a 13.5 to 16.5 percent increase)
in annual household heating expenditures if Alaska mandated a switch to
ULSD.\113\ Alaska also cited concerns from local residents that the
increased cost in fuel oil could drive more residents to burning less
expensive and higher PM emitting solid fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (February
2019). Residential Fuel Expenditure Assessment of a Transition to
Ultra-Low Sulfur and High Sulfur No. 1 Heating Oil for the Fairbanks
PM-2.5 Serious Nonattainment Area. State Air Quality Control Plan,
Vol II, Appendix III.D.7.7, at p. III.D.7.7-226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska determined that the earliest date to implement the fuel
switch to #1 Diesel was September 1, 2022. Alaska selected this date,
in part, due to comments received during the public comment period.
Also, Alaska stated that there is an inadequate supply of locally
produced Diesel #1 and additional time was required to allow for the
local refinery to modify its processes. Alaska also noted that the
additional time allows residents to budget and prepare for the
increased cost. Alaska received requests through the comment process to
delay the conversion until 2024, but Alaska felt that was too long a
delay and that the approximate two years provided should be sufficient
to allow the local refinery and residents to plan and prepare for the
change in fuel oil.
Alaska did not reevaluate its rejection of mandating switching to
use of ULSD as part of the Fairbanks 189(d) Plan submission. Alaska
reasoned that circumstances did not change sufficiently between
submission of the Fairbanks Serious Plan to warrant revisiting its
decision. Alaska noted that after implementation of the fuel switch to
Diesel #1 in 2022, Alaska will evaluate whether the fuel switch results
in significant sulfur reduction and whether the additional expense to
homeowners of requiring the use of ULSD heating oil is needed to
further address the air pollution problem.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II, Chapter
III.D.7.7, at pp. III.D.7.7-129--III.D.7.7-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Small Commercial Area Sources
The State evaluated potential measures from these sources to
address direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF>
emissions. After a literature review, Alaska did not identify any
NH<INF>3</INF>-specific controls for this source category.\115\ Thus,
Alaska identified and evaluated potential measures from these sources
to address direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. For small area
sources, Alaska identified coffee roasters, charbroilers, incinerators,
and waste oil burners. Initially, as part of the Fairbanks Serious
Plan, Alaska adopted regulations 18 AAC 50.078(c) and (d) that required
information from charbroilers, incinerators, and waste oil burners.
Coffee roasters, per 18 AAC 50.078(d), are required to install a
pollution control device on any unit that emits 24 pounds or more of
particulate matter in a 12-month period and either install controls or
demonstrate technological or economic infeasibility, not later than one
year from effective date of regulation. As an update in the Fairbanks
189(d) Plan, Alaska conducted an economic evaluation of charbroilers
(catalyst oxidizers) and found the cost to be $47,786 per ton of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> removed, concluding that installing catalyst oxidizers
on charbroiling facilities is not cost effective. Regarding
incinerators, Alaska states that, in fact, there are no incinerators
within the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area so no
additional controls are required. For used oil burners, Alaska
presented a technological infeasibility determination in the 189(d)
Plan. According to the State, the only acceptable disposal method
available in the nonattainment area is through burning. Shipping the
used oil to the continental United States, another potential disposal
method, would require risky overland transport and cost $2.51 per
gallon to pick up, ship, and dispose. Another factor the State
considered is that restricting burning of used oil would likely lead to
dumping the used oil on land or water. Therefore, the State determined
that this measure is technologically infeasible in the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.7.7-5353-5354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Mobile Emissions
The State evaluated measures from mobile sources to address direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions. After a
literature review, Alaska did not identify any NH<INF>3</INF>-specific
controls for this source category.\116\ Thus, Alaska identified and
evaluated potential measures from these sources to address direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>. Alaska considered mobile sources and
transportation measures as part of the BACM analysis, including high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, traffic flow improvement, vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, low-emission vehicle (LEV)
program, retrofit diesel program, and van pools.\117\ Alaska noted that
Fairbanks has expanded the availability of plug-ins and required
electrification of certain parking lots. Fairbanks has also expanded
transit service and a commuter van pool program. Alaska also has an
anti-idle program. Alaska concluded that, due to relatively light
traffic congestion in Fairbanks, low population and employment density,
any additional transportation control measures would provide limited
emission reduction benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.7.7-5353-5354.
\117\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix
III.D.7.7, Measures 57, 59, and R20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Summary of Control Measures Selected by Alaska To Meet BACM
Requirements
Based on the BACM analysis, Alaska identified and implemented
emissions controls, as described in Table 4.
[[Page 1468]]
Alaska's identification and adoption of BACT is discussed in the next
section.
Table 4--Alaska's List of Emission Control Measures With Quantifiable Emission Benefits and Projected Emissions
Reductions in 2024
[First year all control measures are implemented]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 emission Implementation date
Control measure State rule reductions -------------------------------------------
(tons per day) PM2.5 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove changeout program.. Targeted Airshed 0.68 0.01 Ongoing, through 2025.
Grant terms and
conditions 18 AAC
50.077(a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (j), (m).
Solid fuel burning Fairbanks Emergency 0.68 SO2: -0.23 Ongoing.
curtailment program (Stage 1 Episode Plan, State
and Stage 2 Alerts). Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II,
Chapter III.D.7.12;
18 AAC 50.030(a); 18
AAC 50.075(e).
Shift from #2 to #1 oil for 18 AAC 50.078(b)..... 0.01 1.95 2023.
residential/commercial space
heating.
Dry wood requirements for 18 AAC 50.076(d), 0.10 <0.01 2022.
commercial wood sales. (e), (g), (j), (k),
and (l).
Removal of all uncertified 18 AAC 50.077(l) and 0.16 <0.01 2024.
device and cordwood outdoor (m).
hydronic heaters.
New wood-fired device 18 AAC 50.077(c)..... 0.39 0.01 2020.
requirements (i.e., 2.0 g/
hr).
Removal of coal heaters...... 18 AAC 50.079(f)..... 0.02 0.02 2024.
Wood-fired devices may not be 18 AAC 50.077(j)..... 0.35 -0.01 2020.
primary or only heating
source.
NOASH/exemption requirements. Fairbanks Emergency <0.01 <0.01 2020.
Episode Plan, State
Air Quality Control
Plan, Vol. II,
Chapter III.D.7.12;
18 AAC 50.077(g).
Combined BACM emissions ..................... 2.39 1.74 ..........................
reductions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Tables 7.7-28 and 7.7-29.
c. Alaska's Identification and Adoption of BACT
Alaska noted that large stationary sources are a subgroup of
emissions sources that have specific requirements in the BACM analysis.
Alaska evaluated all stationary sources with potential to emit (PTE)
greater than 70 tons per year (tpy) of PM<INF>2.5</INF> or
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors for potential BACT-level controls.
According to Alaska, sources with emissions below the 70 tpy threshold
only require evaluation for BACM. Alaska states that this emissions
threshold is in place to distinguish between the planning requirements
for certain sources emitting above and below this threshold and is
consistent with an emissions threshold in the 2016 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Implementation Rule.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ We note that Alaska applied this threshold to emissions
sources at the GVEA Zehnder facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that EPA disagrees with this assessment. All emissions
sources identified in the emissions inventory are subject to BACM
requirements, and the BACT evaluation process is merely a sub-set of
BACM that includes a process to evaluate emissions control technologies
that are the best available control measures for the emission source
category. Accordingly, all sources of direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are subject to BACM and BACT requirements
regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold below which BACT
requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE threshold cited by
Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a new stationary
source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment area meets the
definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the nonattainment
new source review provisions.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska identified five stationary sources that it evaluated for
potential BACT controls, see State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II,
Chapter III.D.7, section 7.7.8. Table 5 includes the annual emissions
(tons/year) for each of the facilities:
Table 5--Annual Emissions (Tons/Year), by Facility, in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC NH3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chena Power Plant........................................ 55.63 507.39 623.70 1.96 0.06
Fort Wainwright.......................................... 66.58 481.13 485.30 4.91 0.06
UAF Campus Power Plant................................... 9.08 154.52 246.51 1.56 .........
GVEA Zehnder............................................. 1.04 27.98 76.32 0.04 0.50
GVEA North Pole.......................................... 26.45 247.31 1,046.50 0.90 14.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol III, Appendix III.D.7.7-6-9-10-2020 fairbanks-5-percent-plan-sip-
sector-emission-summary-calculation-spreadsheet.
Below is a summary of Alaska's BACT analysis for each source. Each
source is comprised of multiple emission units, and the State performed
the BACT analysis for each emission unit. After a literature review,
Alaska did not identify any NH<INF>3</INF>-specific controls for this
source category.\120\ Thus, Alaska identified and evaluated potential
measures from these sources to address direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Alaska's BACT determinations are evaluated by
EPA on an independent basis. Details of EPA's analysis of Alaska's BACT
evaluation and determination are included as BACT
[[Page 1469]]
Technical Support Documents in the docket for this action.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III, Appendix
III.7.7-5353-5354.
\121\ See Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of
Best Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora
Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division;
Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available Control
Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army Garrison
Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division;
Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available
Control Technology analyses submitted for the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment
SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory
Services and Applied Science Division; Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24,
2022). Review of Best Available Control Technology analyses
submitted for the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) Zehnder
and North Pole Power Plants as part of the Fairbanks
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Chena Power Plant
Chena Power Plant is an existing stationary source owned and
operated by Aurora Energy, LLC, which consists of four existing coal-
fired boilers: three 76 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu)/hour
overfeed traveling grate stoker type boilers and one 269 MMBtu/hr
spreader-stoker type boiler that burn coal to produce steam for heating
and power (497 MMBtu/hr combined).
The State's BACT Determination for the Chena Power Plant evaluated
potential controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from its four coal-fired boilers.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA is
proposing to approve in this proposed action that NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions are not significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the
Fairbanks nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require
implementation of BACT for NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, EPA is not
discussing ADEC's BACT analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> here.
Table 6--Chena Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chena Power Plant, Aurora Energy, LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's BACT determination, by source
Pollutant category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boilers (EUs 4-7)--3 boilers rated 76 MMBtu per hour and 1
boiler rated 269 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5........................ N/A (Alaska claims installed single full
steam baghouse is highest rated control
available, but no PM2.5 BACT analysis or
emission limitation was submitted).
SO2*......................... By June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall
limit the sulfur content of coal to
0.25% sulfur by weight and limit SO2
emissions from the coal-fired boilers to
no more than 0.301 lb/MMBtu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska found it economically infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement
retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the Chena Power Plant.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
7.7-10 and Section 7.7.8.2.5.
Regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> controls, Alaska claimed that, because
the Chena Power Plant has direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions less than
70 tons per year, a PM<INF>2.5</INF> BACT analysis was not prepared or
submitted by the State. EPA notes our disagreement with this
interpretation. Nevertheless, Alaska states that the Chena Power Plant
is already equipped with a single full stream baghouse for controlling
particulate emissions from the four coal-fired boilers. Baghouses/
fabric filters are the highest rated control available (99.9% control
efficiency) for PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from coal-fired boilers. As
noted in the paragraph above, while this would appear to be an
efficient control measure for PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions, Alaska did
not submit any further information regarding the PM<INF>2.5</INF> BACT
requirement for the Chena Power Plant or any further documentation to
ensure use of the existing single full stream baghouse is adopted as a
permanent and enforceable requirement of the EPA-approved SIP.
Alaska identified SO<INF>2</INF> as a significant precursor to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, the state
evaluated potential SO<INF>2</INF> controls for the Chena Power Plant.
Alaska identified five technologies as technologically feasible for
reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the industrial coal-fired
boilers: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) spray dry absorber (SDA); (3) dry
sorbent injection (DSI); (4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion
practices. Neither Alaska nor Aurora evaluated the circulating dry
scrubber (CDS) technology, as EPA suggested in comments.\123\ For a
detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's
Technical Support Document.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ See EPA comments regarding site-specific quotes for high
performing SO<INF>2</INF> control technologies, such as a wet
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Proposed Regulations and SIP Amendments'' Letter
from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation
Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air Quality,
October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on 2019 DEC Proposed Regulations
and SIP--Fairbanks North Star Borough Fine Particulate Matter''
Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA Region 10 Air and
Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director, ADEC Division of Air
Quality, July 19, 2019.
\124\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the Aurora
Energy, LLC Chena Power Plant as part of the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2018, Aurora proposed a BACT alternative to the
State, contending that DSI, the least expensive SO<INF>2</INF> control
option, should not be required as BACT because Aurora cannot afford
this control technology despite the fact it has been demonstrated to be
economically feasible.] Aurora included information regarding the
economic impact of requiring DSI based on the following financial
indicators, consistent with the PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule
and longstanding EPA policy:\125\ (1) fixed and variable production
costs; (2) product supply and demand elasticity; (3) product prices
(cost absorption vs. cost pass-through); (4) expected costs incurred by
competitors; (5) company profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other
costs (e.g., for BACM implemented by public sector entities).\126\
Aurora concluded that even installing the least expensive
SO<INF>2</INF> control, DSI, is economically infeasible and would do
very little to solve the air quality problem in the nonattainment
area.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
\126\ Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19,
2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7-4851 (PDF
page 995).
\127\ Proposed BACT Alternative, Aurora Energy, November 19,
2018, State Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix III.D.7.7-4869 (PDF
page 1014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, Alaska determined that it would be economically
infeasible for Aurora Energy to implement retrofit SO<INF>2</INF>
controls on its emission units at the Chena Power Plant. Alaska instead
identified BACT for this source as the existing requirements to operate
good combustion practices and to use a low sulfur coal as a fuel
source. Alaska also
[[Page 1470]]
required as BACT that, by June 9, 2021, Aurora Energy shall limit the
sulfur content of coal to 0.25% sulfur by weight and limit
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the coal-fired boilers to no more than
0.301 lb/MMBtu.
ii. Fort Wainwright
Fort Wainwright is an existing U.S. Army installation. Emission
units located within the military installation include units such as
boilers and generators that are owned and operated by the U.S. Army
Garrison Alaska (referred to as FWA). The Central Heating and Power
Plant (CHPP), also located within the installation footprint, is owned
and operated by Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU), the regional Alaska Native
corporation for Interior Alaska. The two entities, DU and FWA, comprise
a single stationary source operating under two permits.
In addition to the CHPP, the source contains additional emission
units comprised of small and large emergency engines, fire pumps, and
generators, diesel-fired boilers, and material handling equipment.
Alaska included a BACT analysis for the CHPP and all other emission
units at the Fort Wainwright source as part of the Fairbanks Serious
Plan under State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7
and Appendix III.D.7.7, Part 2. The CHPP is comprised of six spreader-
stoker type coal-fired boilers each rated at 230 MMBtu/hr, that burn
coal to produce steam for stationary source-wide heating and power.
Alaska's BACT analysis for Fort Wainwright source evaluated potential
controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from each of these emissions units at the stationary
source.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed
to approve in this action that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of
BACT for NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT
analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> here.
Table 7--Fort Wainwright BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Wainwright, Doyon Utilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's BACT determination, by source
Pollutant category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-fired boilers (EUs 1-6)--each unit rated 230 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Operate and maintain a full stream
baghouse at all times the units are in
operation;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 1
through 6 shall not exceed 0.045 lb/MMBtu
over a 3-hour averaging period; and
<bullet> Conduct an initial performance test
to obtain an emission rate.
SO2...................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall
limit the gross as received sulfur content
of coal to no greater than 0.25% sulfur by
weight.
<bullet> On or before June 9, 2021, DU shall
submit a Title I permit application to DEC
that requires the permittee to install and
operate a DSI pollution control system on
the coal-fired boilers at CHPP effective no
later than October 1, 2023.
<bullet> DEC intends to issue the minor
permit and incorporate the Title I
requirements into the operating permit
within one year of receiving a complete
application.
<bullet> On or before October 1, 2023, DU
shall install and operate a DSI pollution
control system on the coal-fired boilers at
CHPP.
<bullet> The SO2 BACT limit for EUs 1 through
6 shall not exceed 0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged
over a 3-hour period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-fired oil boilers (27 emissions units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from the diesel-
fired boilers shall not exceed 0.012 lb/
MMBtu averaged over a 3-hour period, with
the exception of the waste fuel boilers
which must comply with the State particulate
matter emissions standard of 0.05 grains per
dry standard cubic foot under 18 AAC
50.055(b)(1);
<bullet> Limit combined operation of FWA EUs
8, 9, and 10 to 600 hours per year; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's maintenance
procedures at all times of operation.
SO2...................... <bullet> SO2 emissions from the diesel-fired
boilers shall be controlled by only
combusting ULSD, with the exception of the
waste fuel boilers;
<bullet> Combined operating limit of 600
hours per year for FWA EUs 8, 9, and 10; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large diesel-fired engines, fire pumps, and generators (8 emissions
units; greater than 500 horsepower)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Limit combined operation of FWA EUs
11, 12, and 13 to 600 hours per year;
<bullet> Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500
hours per year;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 8, FWA
EUs 50, 51, and 53 shall not exceed 0.15 g/
hp-hr;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from FWA EUs 11
through 13 and 54 shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-
hr;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of FWA
EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100
hours each per year;
<bullet> Combust only ULSD; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2...................... <bullet> SO2 emissions from DU EU 8, and FWA
EUs 11, 12, 13, 50, 51, 53, and 54 shall be
controlled by only combusting ULSD;
<bullet> Limit operation of DU EU 8 to 500
hours per year;
<bullet> Combined operating limit of 600
hours per year for FWA EUs 11, 12, and 13;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of FWA
EUs 50, 51, 53, and 54 to no more than 100
hours each per year; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1471]]
Small emergency engines, fire pumps, and generators (41 emissions units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Combust only ULSD;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of DU
EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55
through 65 to no more than 100 hours each
per year;
<bullet> For engines manufactured after the
applicability dates of 40 CFR part 60
subpart IIII, comply with the applicable
particulate matter emission standards in 40
CFR part 60 subpart IIII;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
procedures at all times of operation; and
<bullet> Demonstrate compliance with the
numerical BACT emission limits (emission
limit of 0.015-1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average)
varies by emission unit, listed in the State
Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-13) by maintaining
records of maintenance procedures conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR subparts 60 and
63, and the EU operating manuals.
SO2...................... <bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of DU
EUs 9, 12, 14, 22, 23, 29a, 30, 31a, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, FWA EUs 26 through 39, and 55
through 65 to no more than 100 hours each
per year;
<bullet> Combust only ULSD; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material handling sources (6 emissions units; coal prep and ash
handling)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from the material
handling equipment EUs 7a-7c, 51a, and 51b
shall be controlled by operating and
maintaining fabric filters at all times the
units are in operation;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 7a shall
not exceed 0.0025 gr/dscf;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EUs 7b, 7c,
51a, and 51 b shall not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from DU EU 52 shall
not exceed 1.42 tpy. Continuous compliance
with the PM2.5 emissions limit shall be
demonstrated by complying with the fugitive
dust control plan identified in the
applicable operating permit issued to the
source in accordance with 18 AAC 50 and AS
46.14; and
<bullet> Compliance with the PM2.5 emission
rates for the material handling units shall
be demonstrated by following the fugitive
dust control plan and the manufacturer's
operating and maintenance procedures at all
times of operation.
SO2...................... n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
7.7-11 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.3.4.
For the coal-fired boilers, Alaska stated that three SO<INF>2</INF>
emission controls were evaluated: wet scrubbers, spray dry absorber
(SDA), and DSI. Alaska estimated the economic cost of installing wet
scrubbers to be $16,356 per SO<INF>2</INF> ton removed. Alaska
estimated the economic cost of installing SDA to be $16,748 per
SO<INF>2</INF> ton removed. Lastly, Alaska estimated the economic cost
of installing DSI to be $11,383 per SO<INF>2</INF> ton removed. Based
on this evaluation, Alaska selected DSI as BACT and required DSI to be
installed at Fort Wainwright by October 1, 2023. Alaska also included
in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission controls, and
operational limitations the State determined constituted BACT for the
emission units in Fort Wainwright. However, Alaska did not submit as
part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting (MRR) requirements for determining compliance with these
BACT limits or requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such
detailed requirements are already embodied in state-issued construction
or operating permits or would be embodied in a state-issued Title I
permit separate from the SIP. For a detailed summary and evaluation of
Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's Technical Support Document.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available
Control Technology analyses submitted for Fort Wainwright-US Army
Garrison Alaska (FWA) and Doyon Utilities, LLC (DU) as part of the
Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
The Fairbanks Campus Power Plant is an existing stationary source
owned and operated by University of Alaska Fairbanks, which consists of
two coal-fired boilers installed in 1962 that were later replaced by a
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) dual fuel-fired boiler (coal and
biomass) rated at 295.6 MMBtu/hr. Other emission units at the source
include a 13,266 hp backup diesel generator, 13 diesel-fired boilers,
one classroom engine, one diesel engine permitted but not yet
installed, and a coal handling system for the new dual-fuel fired
boiler.
The State's BACT determination for the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant
evaluated potential controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from each of the
emissions units at the source.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed
to approve in this action that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of
BACT for NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT
analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> here.
[[Page 1472]]
Table 8--University of Alaska Fairbanks Campus Power Plant--BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Alaska Fairbanks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's BACT determination, by source
Pollutant category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dual fuel-fired boiler (EU 113)--unit rated at 295 MMBtu per hour; coal
and woody biomass fuel; constructed in 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Operate and maintain fabric filters
at all times the unit is in operation;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 113 shall
not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
averaging period; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures.
<bullet> Conduct an initial performance test
to obtain an emission rate.
SO2*..................... <bullet> Maintaining good combustion
practices by following the manufacturer's
operating and maintenance procedures,
combustion of low sulfur coal as a fuel
source, and the existing SO2 emission limit
of 0.20 lb/MMBtu determined on a 30-day
rolling average.
<bullet> By June 9, 2021, UAF shall limit the
gross as received sulfur content of coal
delivered to the stationary source to 0.25%
sulfur by weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4)--each unit rated 180 MMBtu
per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4
shall not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu averaged
over a 3-hour period while firing diesel
fuel;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 4 shall not
exceed 0.0075 lb/MMBtu averaged over a 3-
hour period while firing natural gas;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures; and
<bullet> Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8
to no more than 40 tons per year combined.
SO2...................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
also submit a Title I permit application to
Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
greater than 1,000 parts per million weight
(ppmw) (S1000) from October 1 through March
31 with an effective date of no later than
October 1, 2020.
<bullet> On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall
also submit a Title I permit application to
DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1
through March 31 with an effective date of
no later than October 1, 2023;
<bullet> SO2 emissions from EU 4 will be
limited by complying with the combined
annual SO2 emission limit of 40 tons per 12
month rolling period for EUs 4 and 8;
<bullet> SO2 emissions from EU 4 while firing
natural gas shall not exceed 0.60 lb/MMscf;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's maintenance
procedures at all times of operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed SO2
emission limit will be demonstrated through
fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19-21)--each unit rated 6 MMBtu
per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Combined boilers operating limit of
no more than 19,650 hours per year;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 19-21 shall
not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2...................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
also submit a Title I permit application to
DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
greater than 1,000 ppmw (S1000) from October
1 through March 31 with an effective date of
no later than October 1, 2020.
<bullet> On or before June 9, 2021, UAF shall
also submit a Title I permit application to
DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
limit the sulfur content of fuel oil
combusted in its diesel-fired boilers to no
greater than 15 ppmw (ULSD) from October 1
through March 31 with an effective date of
no later than October 1, 2023;
<bullet> Combined boilers operating limit of
no more than 19,650 hours per year;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's maintenance
procedures at all times of operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed SO2
emission limit will be demonstrated through
fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8)--unit rated 13,266 horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall be
controlled by operating positive crankcase
ventilation and combusting only low ash
diesel at all times of operation;
<bullet> Limit NOX emissions from EUs 4 and 8
to no more than 40 tons per year combined;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of EU
8 to no more than 100 hours per year; and
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 8 shall not
exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr averaged over a 3-hour
period.
SO2...................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
submit a Title I permit application to
Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired
engines no later than June 9, 2021;
<bullet> Limit SO2 emissions from EUs 4 and 8
to no more than 40 tons per year combined;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of EU
8 to no more than 100 hours per year;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's maintenance
procedures at all times of operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed SO2
emission limit will be demonstrated through
fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel testing
for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23-24, 26-29)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Limit the operation of EU 27 to no
more than 4,380 hours per year;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of EUs
24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per
year each;
<bullet> EU 27 shall comply with the Federal
emission standards of NSPS Subpart IIII,
Tier 3;
[[Page 1473]]
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures; and Demonstrate compliance with
the numerical BACT emission limits (emission
limit of 0.015-1 g/hp-hr (3-hour average)
varies by emission unit, listed in State Air
Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter
III.D.7.7, Table 7.7-18) by maintaining
records of maintenance procedures conducted
in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Subparts 60 and
63, and the EU operating manuals.
SO2...................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, UAF shall
submit a Title I permit application to
Alaska that includes a BACT requirement to
combust only ULSD in its diesel-fired
engines no later than June 9, 2021.
<bullet> Limit the operation of EU 27 to no
more than 4,380 hours per year;
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of EUs
24, 28, and 29 to no more than 100 hours per
year each;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures;
<bullet> Compliance will be demonstrated with
fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel tests for
sulfur content; and
<bullet> Compliance with the operating hours
limit will be demonstrated by monitoring and
recording the number of hours operated on a
monthly basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathogenic waste incinerator (EU 9a)--unit rated 533 lb per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall be
controlled with a multiple chamber design;
<bullet> Limit the operation of EU 9A to no
more than 109 tons of waste combusted per
year;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 9A shall not
exceed 4.67 lb/ton;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed
operational limit will be demonstrated by
recording pounds of waste combusted for the
pathogenic waste incinerator.
SO2...................... <bullet> Limit the operation of EU 9A to no
more than 109 tons of waste combusted per
year;
<bullet> SO2 emissions from the operation of
EU 9A shall be controlled by combusting ULSD
at all times of operation;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operational
procedures at all times of operation; and
<bullet> Compliance shall be demonstrated by
obtaining fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel
tests for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material handling sources (EUs 105, 107, 109-111, 114, 128-130); coal
prep and ash handling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 105, 107,
109 through 111, 114, and 128 through 130
will be controlled by enclosing each EU;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from the operation
of the material handling units, except EU
111, will be controlled by installing,
operating, and maintaining fabric filters
and vents;
<bullet> Initial compliance with the emission
rates for the material handling units,
except EU 111, will be demonstrated with a
performance test to obtain an emission rate;
and
<bullet> Comply with the numerical emission
limits (emission limit of 0.003-0.050 gr/
dscf and .00005 lb/ton (EU 111) varies by
emission unit listed in State Air Quality
Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7,
Table 7.7-18--note double citation)
SO2...................... n/a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska finds it economically infeasible for the University of Alaska
Fairbanks to implement retrofit SO2 controls on emission units at the
Campus Power Plant.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
7.7-16 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.6.
Alaska included in the SIP submission most of the emission limits,
emission controls, and operational limitations the State determined
constituted BACT for the emission units at the UAF Campus Power Plant.
However, Alaska did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan
the emission limits corresponding to Alaska's SO<INF>2</INF> BACT
findings for several emission units \131\ nor all the MRR requirements
for determining compliance with BACT limits or requirements. Rather,
Alaska indicated that such requirements are already embodied in state-
issued construction or operating permits or would be embodied in a
state-issued Title I permit separate from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Mid-sized diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3 and 4); Small-sized
diesel-fired boilers (EUs 19-21); Large diesel-fired engine (EU 8);
Small diesel-fired engines (EUs 23-24, 26-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska identified SO<INF>2</INF> as a significant precursor to
PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in Fairbanks. Accordingly, Alaska identified
six potential control measures as technologically feasible for
reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the industrial dual-fired
boiler (EU-113) at this source: (1) wet scrubbers; (2) SDA; (3) DSI;
(4) low sulfur coal; and (5) good combustion practices. Notably,
neither Alaska nor UAF evaluated the circulating dry scrubber (CDS)
technology that EPA has commented is a proven technology for coal
boilers that the State should analyze for BACT.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See EPA Comments regarding site-specific quotes for high
performing SO<INF>2</INF> control technologies, such as a wet
scrubber (WFGD), spray dry absorber (SDA), and circulating dry
scrubber (CDS); ``EPA Comments on 2020 DEC Proposed Regulations and
SIP Amendments'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director, EPA
Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director,
ADEC Division of Air Quality, October 29, 2020; ``EPA Comments on
2019 DEC Proposed Regulations and SIP- Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fine Particulate Matter'' Letter from Krishna Viswanathan, Director,
EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation Division to Alice Edwards, Director,
ADEC Division of Air Quality, July 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2019, UAF submitted an economic infeasibility
assessment to the State, contending that UAF could not afford to
install DSI, the technology Alaska identified as BACT. UAF's assessment
is based on the following financial indicators, consistent with the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule and longstanding EPA policy:\133\
(1) fixed and variable production costs; (2) product supply and demand
elasticity; (3) product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through);
(4) expected costs incurred by competitors; (5) company
[[Page 1474]]
profits; (6) employment costs; (7) and other costs (e.g., for BACM
implemented by public sector entities).\134\ UAF contended that the
Alaska proposed BACT is not financially feasible, given the proposed
budget cuts in state funding impacting the university and that the duel
fuel-fired boiler (EU-113) is an efficient and clean approach to
generating electric power and heat from a single fuel source.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992.
\134\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April
23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination--Economic
Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) Emission Controls,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, State Air Quality Control Plan,
Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7-1479 (PDF page 497).
\135\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (April
23, 2019). Fairbanks Serious PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment Area
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Determination--Economic
Infeasibility of Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) Emission Controls,
University of Alaska Fairbanks. State Air Quality Control Plan,
Appendix, Part 3, III.D.7.7-1481 (PDF page 499).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska ultimately found that it is economically infeasible for UAF
to implement retrofit SO<INF>2</INF> controls on the dual fuel-fired
boiler at the Fairbanks Campus Power Plant. Regarding the other
emission sources at the UAF Campus Power Plant, we note that ULSD was
identified as BACT for the diesel-fired boilers (EUs 3, 4, and 19-21),
but Alaska delayed implementation of the requirement until 2023 and
imposed an interim requirement (1000 ppmw sulfur content).
Additionally, certain diesel-fired engines do not have hourly operation
limits (EUs 23 and 26). For a detailed summary and evaluation of
Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA's Technical Support Document.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Hedgpeth and Sorrels. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best
Available Control Technology analyses submitted for the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks as part of the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF>
Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Laboratory Services and Applied Science Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Zehnder Facility
The Zehnder Facility (Zehnder) is an electric generating facility
that combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power
to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant
contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines and
two diesel-fired generators (electro-motive diesels) used for emergency
power and to serve as black start engines for the GVEA generation
system. The primary fuel is stored in two 50,000 gallon above ground
storage tanks. Turbine startup fuel and electro-motive diesels primary
fuel is stored in a 12,000 gallon above ground storage tank.
Alaska's BACT analysis for the Zehnder evaluated potential controls
to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, large diesel-fired
engines, and diesel-fired boilers.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed
to approve in this action that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of
BACT for NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT
analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> here.
Table 9--Zehnder Facility BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zehnder facility, Golden Valley Electric Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's BACT determination, by source
Pollutant category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
268 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Combust only low ash fuel;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall
not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
averaging period;
<bullet> Initial compliance with the proposed
PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
conducting a performance test to obtain an
emission rate; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2*..................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
shall submit a Title I permit application to
DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
per year.
[cir] According to Alaska, the facility
will then be subject to the following
requirement: After September 1, 2022,
only fuel oil, containing no more than
1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
fired equipment, in accordance with 18
AAC 50.078(b).
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed fuel
sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel-fired emergency generators (EUs 3 and 4)--each unit rated 28
MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of the
large diesel-fired engines to no more than
100 hours per year each;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 3 and 4
shall not exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour
averaging period;
<bullet> Demonstrate compliance with the
numerical BACT emission limit by complying
with 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2*..................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
shall submit a Title I permit application to
DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
per year.
[cir] According to Alaska, the facility
will then be subject to the following
requirement: After September 1, 2022,
only fuel oil, containing no more than
1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
fired equipment, in accordance with 18
AAC 50.078(b).
<bullet> Limit non-emergency operation of the
large diesel-fired engines to no more than
100 hours per year each;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
maintenance procedures at all times of
operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed fuel
sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1475]]
Diesel-fired boilers (EUs 10 and 11)--each unit rated 1.7 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions shall not exceed
0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour averaging
period;
<bullet> Demonstrate compliance with the
numerical BACT emission limit by complying
with 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2*..................... <bullet> On or before June 9, 2020, GVEA
shall submit a Title I permit application to
DEC limiting the PTE for SO2 emissions from
the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons
per year.
[cir] According to Alaska, the facility
will then be subject to the following
requirement: After September 1, 2022,
only fuel oil, containing no more than
1,000 parts per million sulfur, may be
sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-
fired equipment, in accordance with 18
AAC 50.078(b).
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed fuel
sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Alaska's initial BACT finding: SO2 emissions from EUs 1 and 2 shall be
controlled by limiting the sulfur content of fuel combusted in the
turbines to no more than 0.0015 percent by weight; requirements for
the other emission units were to combust only ULSD.
Source: State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol II, Chapter III.D.7.7, Table
7.7-14 and Chapter III.D.7.7.8.4.
Alaska included in the SIP submission the emission limits, emission
controls, and operational limitations the State determined constituted
BACT for the emission units at the Zehnder facility. However, Alaska
did not submit as part of the Fairbanks Serious Plan all the associated
MRR requirements for determining compliance with these BACT limits or
requirements. Rather, Alaska indicated that such requirements are
already embodied in state-issued construction or operating permits.
Regarding SO<INF>2</INF> controls for each of the emission sources at
this facility, Alaska evaluated four technologically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> controls: ultra-low sulfur diesel (99.7 percent control
of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions); low-sulfur diesel (93 percent control of
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions); good combustion practices (less than 40
percent control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions); limited operation (0
percent control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions). Alaska reviewed the cost
information provided by GVEA to evaluate appropriately the total
capital investment of installing two new 1.5 million gallon ULSD
storage tanks at GVEA's North Pole Facility.\138\ Alaska concluded that
the level of SO<INF>2</INF> reduction justifies the required use of
ULSD as BACT for the fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbines at an
economic cost of $8,753 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November
19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant
and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan,
Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7-1657 through 3855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, GVEA provided updated and supplemental information in an
alternative BACT proposal submitted to Alaska on November 28,
2018.\139\ GVEA proposed to limit emissions from the Zehnder Facility
to less than 70 tons per year in place of BACT for SO<INF>2</INF>, and,
according to Alaska, eliminating the Zehnder Facility as a major source
of SO<INF>2</INF>. EPA notes here our disagreement with this approach.
BACT is a subset of BACM requirements. All sources of direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are subject to BACM
and BACT requirements regardless of PTE. There is no PTE threshold
below which BACT requirements do not apply. The 70 tons per year PTE
threshold cited by Alaska only has relevance in determining whether a
new stationary source proposed to be constructed in a nonattainment
area meets the definition of a major stationary source pursuant to the
nonattainment new source review provisions.\140\ Thus, as part of
selecting and adopting BACM for existing sources in Fairbanks, Alaska
would need to select the best available measure that is technologically
and economically feasible, which in this case is a requirement to use
ULSD fuel. Nonetheless, Alaska relied on the approach to classify the
Zehnder Facility as a ``non-major'' source and required GVEA to submit
a Title I permit application no later than June 9, 2020, limiting the
potential to emit of the Zehnder Facility to less than 70 tons per
year. Once the Zehnder Facility's SO<INF>2</INF> limit goes into
effect, Alaska will not consider the facility, including all emissions
units, to be a major stationary source for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
subject to BACT limits. Instead, the Zehnder Facility will be subject
to the BACM measures contained in Alaska regulations 18 AAC 50.078(b),
that stipulate that after September 1, 2022, only fuel oil containing
no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur (i.e., diesel #1), may be
sold or purchased for use in fuel oil-fired equipment. We again note
our disagreement with this approach, regardless of BACM or BACT
distinction, the best available control measure should be adopted. For
a detailed summary and evaluation of Alaska's BACT submission, see EPA
Technical Support Document.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. (November
19, 2019). Golden Valley Electric Association North Pole Power Plant
and Zehnder Facility BACT Appendix. State Air Quality Control Plan,
Appendix, Part 4, III.D.7.7-3636 (PDF page 1979).
\140\ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1).
\141\ Hedgpeth, Z. (August 24, 2022). Review of Best Available
Control Technology analyses submitted for the Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA) Zehnder and North Pole Power Plants as part of
the Fairbanks PM<INF>2.5</INF> Nonattainment SIP. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Laboratory Services and Applied
Science Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. North Pole Power Plant
The North Pole Power Plant is an electric generating facility that
combusts distillate fuel in combustion turbines to provide power to the
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) grid. The power plant
contains two fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas combustion turbines, two
fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas combustion turbines, one fuel oil-
fired emergency generator, and two propane-fired boilers. The State's
BACT determination for the North Pole Power Plant evaluated potential
controls to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from its simple cycle gas turbines, combined cycle gas
turbines, large
[[Page 1476]]
diesel-fired engines, and propane-fired boilers.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Alaska evaluated potential NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
each emission unit, but because Alaska determined and EPA proposed
to approve in this action that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are not
significant for PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks
nonattainment area, ADEC does not plan to require implementation of
BACT for NO<INF>X</INF>. Thus, EPA is not discussing ADEC's BACT
analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> here.
Table 10--North Pole Power Plant BACT Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Pole Power Plant, Golden Valley Electric Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's BACT determination, by source
Pollutant category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired simple cycle gas turbine (EUs 1 and 2)--each unit rated
672 MMBtu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> Combust only low ash fuel;
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 1 & 2 shall
not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
averaging period; and
<bullet> Initial compliance with the proposed
PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
conducting a performance test to obtain an
emission rate.
SO2*..................... <bullet> By October 1, 2020, BACT for EUs 1
and 2 is to begin taking delivery of fuel
oil with a sulfur content no greater than
1,000 ppmw (S1000) immediately after the Air
Quality Stage Alert 1 and 2 are announced
and remain taking deliveries of exclusively
S1000 for as long as the air episode exists.
<bullet> On or before June 9, 2022, GVEA
shall submit a Title I permit application to
DEC that includes a BACT requirement to
limit the sulfur content of fuel combusted
in EUs 1 and 2 to no greater than 15 ppmw
(ULSD) from October 1 through March 31 to be
effective no later than October 1, 2023.
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed fuel
sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
results for sulfur content; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine (EUs 5 and 6)--each unit rated
455 MMBtu per hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 and 6
shall be limited by complying with the
combined annual NOX limit listed in
Operating Permit AQ0110TVP03 Conditions 13
and 12, respectively;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EUs 5 & 6 shall
not exceed 0.012 lb/MMBtu over a 3-hour
averaging period;
<bullet> Initial compliance with the proposed
PM2.5 emission limit will be demonstrated by
conducting a performance test to obtain an
emission rate; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
at all times of operation by following the
manufacturer's operating and maintenance
procedures.
SO2...................... <bullet> Except during startup, SO2 emissions
from EUs 5 and 6 shall be controlled by
limiting the fuel combusted in the turbines
to light straight run turbine fuel (50 ppm
sulfur in fuel);
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation; and
<bullet> Compliance with the proposed fuel
sulfur content limit will be demonstrated
with fuel shipment receipts and/or fuel test
results for sulfur content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large diesel-fired engine (EU 7)--unit rated 400 kW/619 horsepower
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.................... <bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be
controlled by operating with positive
crankcase ventilation;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall be
controlled by limiting operation to no more
than 52 hours per 12 month rolling period;
<bullet> PM2.5 emissions from EU 7 shall not
exceed 0.32 g/hp-hr over a 3-hour averaging
period; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
SO2...................... <bullet> SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be
controlled by combusting fuel that does not
exceed 0.05 weight percent sulfur at all
time the unit is in operation;
<bullet> SO2 emissions from EU 7 shall be
controlled by limiting operation to no more
than 52 hours per 12-month rolling period;
<bullet> Compliance with the SO2 emission
limit while firing diesel fuel will be
demonstrated by fuel shipment receipts and/
or fuel test results for sulfur content; and
<bullet> Maintain good combustion practices
by following the manufacturer's operating
and maintenance procedures at all times of
operation.
------------------------------------------------------------
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on January 10, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.